Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
No, when I speak of scientific "truths" or "scientific truths" it's in exactly the same vein that the bulk of scientists (Hawkins, Weinberg) and science communicators (Bill Nye, Tyson) do. You are the eccentric one in this matter and here I think it's being carried over to your "design" and "purpose" issues.
Again, it's a simple thing. Per example...
(v1) The "scientific truth" is that Titan and Tritan do not have the diversity of lifeforms that the third planet from the sun does.
(v2) The scientific "truth" is that there are four chambers to the human heart, not six or eight.
(v3) The scientific "truth" is that E=IR, not I=ER.
Yet you have a problem with it. Scientific "truth" in this regard. Apparently.
And so it goes with "belief" as well. Apparently.
These mostly seem like Facts. Compared to "Scientific Truths"?
What would you call einstiens relativity?
Or Science's antiquated age of the Universe?
Check out this Ted Talk off NPR this morning, it may shake some of your "Scientific Truths"?
http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2014-07-03
It's titled: "Peering into Space"
Namaste
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Once our focus opens up we can still think (JL)
Whew.
So far as there appearing to be a "we" or little man observing - this is an illusion and has been worked over endlessly in the Cartesian Theater discussions. Just little bit of quiet self-observation discloses that there is no such little man, there is only observing. (JL)
So is "we" different from WE?
The former [narrow focusing] is what WE do. (JL)
What a tangled web we weave...
When we practice Zen.
|
|
MikeL
Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
HFCS:
I would write to you something about employing a little bit of loving-kindness, empathy, or compassion in your posts, but I suspect you would think those things irrelevant, stupid, and useless.
Substantively, in almost every one of your posts, you point to someone else's writing or post or video but almost invariably without detailed comments. To me you provide evaluations of other's ideas and writing here, but without any detailed or careful arguments. With you it's either "Yay" for one of your few favored ideologues, and "Nay" for everyone else's.
What are your detailed arguments? Post them up. I'd like to see just what you THINK beyond evaluative declarations. Got a theory? Show it off. Got a detailed argument? Lay it out here for us to evaluate. Tied two theories together to create something new? Please inform us. Do you have a personal, relevant experience that we might be able to relate to personally? Share your humanity with us.
You seem to be an angry soul ever lashing out. Your humor is denigrating and nasty. I don't see you having a kindred spirit here in this thread or elsewhere on this site. Only Jan--perhaps a saintly exemplar of conciliatory kindness here--has expressed any goodwill toward you, and you've responded with nothing in suit. Sadly, all feedback only seems only to encourage you doubling-down in ire and spite.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
Oh I dunno Mike, HFCS hardly has a corner on denigrating humor around here. Everyone puts up with Largo's haughty "we can easily see" banter, so with that as a baseline, all's fair, IMO.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Not to mention his lapdog's incessant drivel.
If there were ever a tendentious post, this one by MikeL was it. "We can easily see why." ;)
Just look at the namecalling and vulgarity over the last 500 posts or so. Note its one-sided nature. Where's MikeL's post-modernist critique of that, lol!
Fruitcake unknowingly is an intellectual, academic and spiritual racist ......
Sorta sets/sustains the tone, I'd say.
Truth is, neither MikeL nor Largo has any talent for science; or "feel" for it; that's just the "god-honest" truth of the matter; both are totally out of their depth, and they don't like being called on it so they resort to their crazyass contortions / rhetoric to get by or to escape.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Again, it's a simple thing. Per example...
(v1) The "scientific truth" is that Titan and Triton do not have the diversity of lifeforms that the third planet from the sun does.
of course, we do not know what "lifeforms" exist on those moons. I would suspect that none do, but would you be surprised if "life" were found there? It is an empirical matter, such as the observation in the next "truth"
(v2) The scientific "truth" is that there are four chambers to the human heart, not six or eight.
but certainly not necessary for all "hearts" since there are effectively circulatory systems with no chambers, one, two and three chambers. We observe that the human heart has 4 chambers. It isn't even necessarily a "scientific truth" as no science is required to make the observation.
(v3) The scientific "truth" is that E=IR, not I=ER.
the formulation of Ohm's law is another observation, and it is interesting to consider what it means on the microscopic level where current isn't continuous, as we know that charge is quantized. In fact, at some level we have things called "semiconductors" for which the above relationship does not hold. So there are regimes in which we say that "Ohm's Law" is a scientific "truth" except where it is not?
Scientific truths, as you put it, are provisional, but what does that mean? Usually it means that they aren't true in some domain.
Newton's laws are true in most domains, but not at very small sizes, and at very large velocities, or in regions of high mass... those sizes, velocities and masses start to become important as we are able to measure more accurately and with precision.
It is often taught that Newtonian mechanics is wrong and supplanted by relativity, but that wouldn't quite explain what is going on, instead, the limit of small velocities provides an estimate of how large the effect is at our "normal" velocity. In many cases that is sufficient to neglect the effect, but in other cases the effect cannot be neglected.
Where is the scientific truth?
In Maxwellian electrodynamics there is no "luminiferous aether" through which light must propagate. Yet rather complex background fields which couple to light in varying degrees of strength. First there is the Higgs field, there is dark matter and dark energy. How do these effect something like the speed of light? A lot, a little, negligible, significant? Does this imply something about a speed that we have stated for over 100 years is the universal speed limit? Is that true anymore? was it ever true? what does it mean to be true? The permittivity and permeability of "free space" might be something a bit more complex than we thought 10 years ago, our definitions of "free space" have undergone some significant changes. What is truth?
I've argued with scientists before (and supposing you are a scientist, I'll argue with you) that appropriating some words are just not worth while, "truth" is one of them. Unless you want to invite the sort of comparison to religion and philosophy that you seem to abhor, are perhaps it is just to be antagonistic.
And the language used to describe science is by necessity difficult, simply because most of this science happens beyond the realm of the experiences that formed our language. When that common language is appropriated to describe something scientifically rigorous there will be confusion. Scientists complain about it, but what is the alternative?
as for machines, etc... they may be generalized to include biological objects and systems, but if, in analogy, the entirety of the "theory" of machines is carried over, one has to be careful that there is the appropriate correspondence between what the theory defines as a machine, and the biological analog.
some machines like engines convert combustable fuels into work are governed by various thermodynamic descriptions, like the Otto cycle, the Carnot cycle, etc., that allow us to calculate properties of those machines without having to work through the microscopic details. They describe machines. Are there similar thermodynamic relationships that describe photosynthesis? or the functioning of the mitochondria? These are "machines" too, but how far can you push the analogy? at what point does the analogy fail? and then what do you do?
My point here is that we all find analogies and models to describe various aspects of the physical systems that we are studying (and biology is a physical system), but it is equally important to understand the validity of the model, and also to recognize when an analogy is not useful.
Machines might be a good analogy for biology, but where are the machines in the description of metabolic networks? here is another analogy, which guides a predictive calculation of protein production. It might be a better analogy than that of "machines" because it allows us to predict the behavior of the machines, where we would otherwise have to specify the machine function some way.
How useful has the concept of "molecular machines" been to biology? What predictions have they generated?
I don't know, I'm asking you for specific examples.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
So I agree with the bulk of your post. I'll have to get back to it with the thoughtful response it deserves.
(I just hope the Lapdog and crew can be still enough to not be too distracting.)
.....
EdH,
So here are a number of responses to your post. These mostly concern the issue of "truth" in science or "scientific truth" and not the issue of "design" or "purpose" vis a vis evolution via natural selection at the core of our other recent exchanges.
"of course, we do not know what "lifeforms" exist on those moons."
Let's remember, the basic issue before us concerned the usefulness or appropriateness of using "truth" in the context of science. Note a couple of things: (a) I posted "diversity of lifeforms," which is different from "lifeforms" which you reposted and then discussed; (b) admittedly I could've used a better example to illustrate truth or truths in science than diversity of life on Titan given its liquid phases, climate and many unknowns. Your response in this section is interesting. It is not incorrect or objectionable in itself, it asks of me a question (yes I'd be surprised, very excited for sure, if life were found there) yet it doesn't address the specific issue. In the moment of typing the post, I threw down the planets Titan and Triton off the top of my head referencing diversity of life. I could have just as easily picked some other example of "scientific truth." I'll take more time now and do that here in order to try to clarify my position on the issue. A simple "scientific truth" from astronomy (a science) is that… Titan has lakes of ethane and methane. In contrast, a simple falsity or falsehood easily rebuked by astronomy (a science) or astronomic expertise could be the claim that Triton revolves ten times a second as it orbits Saturn or that it has the density of gold or platinum. Now sure, this is silly, but it is also false showing that terms like true and truth have their place in the purview of science.
" certainly not necessary for all "hearts"
Of course not for all hearts. That wasn't the statement. I said "four chambers to the human heart..." Again, the aims were to (a) illustrate a truth, a scientific truth (a truth in science); and (b) show that the idea also the expression of "scientific" "truth" has its place in discourse, debate and thinking. Again, a contrast: Were Pat Robertson to claim let's say on his cable tv show next week that the human heart has six chambers to pump blood through the body then this so-called "truth-claim" would be false not true, a falsehood and not the truth. We know this from anatomy (a science of medicine and biology). Now your point about hearts in general (a) being circulatory systems and (b) showing a variety of "designs" or shapes across the Animal Kingdom (e.g., in number of chambers) is of course correct (not incorrect) but again, with all due respect, besides the point. The point? Let's say it again: the point being that there are scientific truths and it's useful to speak of them in these terms in this way.
"We observe that the human heart has 4 chambers. It isn't even necessarily a "scientific truth" as no science is required to make the observation."
We have agreement here as written - particularly as you qualified the statement with "necessarily." However, there's often more to science than the scientific method (involving hypothesis, experiment and re-experiment) I hope you would agree. Anatomy is largely empirical (observing, discovering and recording; eg, four chambers to the human heart; the occipital region, of the brain, the destination of the optic nerves as they leave the eyes) and widely considered a science of medicine and biology.
As you are well aware "science" can take on different meanings depending on context. It's amazing how often people are confused by both the word and the discipline given how many times their meanings and features are discussed and detailed in literature, video, forums, etc.. We have, as you know, science as a community of scientists, science as a body of knowledge, science as a tool (the scientific method). Plenty have had the discussion before: What do we mean by "science"?
"the formulation of Ohm's law is another observation"
Okay. Which (1) is not inappropriately but appropriately subsumed under the purview of science; and (2) expresses (under the Ohm's Law name) a real-world relationship between current and electromotive force as a function of a material's electrical resistance. Again (I=E/R, true; I=EE/R, false). I=E/R is a scientific truth; to put it differently in other words, it is a truth (not a falsehood) in the body of scientific knowledge.
"In fact, at some level we have things called "semiconductors" for which the above relationship does not hold."
Now that is thought-provoking. Did you perhaps mean "superconductor"? Anyhow, now that I think about it, whether super- or semi-, if you can cite a source (paper, whatever) for that, I'd be interested in seeing it; and I'd be interested in seeing where it states Ohm's Law doesn't govern the relationship between current, voltage and resistance. Esp as you noted, resistance (measured in ohms) is "formulated" in terms of voltage and current. Of course diodes and transistors at base are semiconductors and I've never heard of them not obeying Ohm's Law. When a current is applied to a transistor's gate, it typically changes the resistance between collector and emitter and thus the current flowing between them - but the transistor's operation is always consistent with Ohm's Law as far as I was taught and as far as I know. Same with a diode. A diode presents with low resistance under one polarity, a high resistance under the opposite polarity. Please disabuse me of this, of any falsehood on my part, if you can as I do not like harboring false beliefs in science, lol!. Only truths.
"Scientific truths, as you put it, are provisional, but what does that mean? Usually it means that they aren't true in some domain."
"But what does that mean?" Beyond what you and I said, I don't know. I included it in my post only because in the past, in exchanges with others, it seemed you emphasized time and again the point that "truths" and/or "laws" or "regularities" are "provisional." So if that's not problematic, then let's move on.
Again, I'd just like to emphasize that the basic issues of this exchange, as far as I'm concerned, have to deal with the appropriateness of such phrases and terms as (a) truths in science or (b) scientific truth – however one prefers to say it - in discussions or debates about science; and in addition per our other posts, about the appropriateness of such terms as "design" and "purpose" in discussions or debates or thinking about evolution by natural selection.
"Newton's laws are true in most domains, but not at very small sizes, and at very large velocities, or in regions of high mass... those sizes, velocities and masses start to become important as we are able to measure more accurately and with precision… It is often taught that Newtonian mechanics is wrong…"
Couldn't agree more. I'm glad you brought this up. Since quite often another person who posts here, whom I don't think has a good grasp of science, likes to take potshots at newtonian mechanics and potshots at those who accept it as a model calling them gomers or homers or rubes or silly rabbits gone wild or whatever. Anyways I totally get your point here and share in its value as a model. Engineering uses the newtonian model constantly in its efforts to great success as you know.
In regard to Maxwellian electrodynamics, etc., you asked "Where is the truth?" and "What is truth?" Keeping attention on the main issue, I'll respond to this section of your post in this way: There are simple truths (scientific truths) and even not-so-simple truths (scientific truths) that don't get no where near these gray, nebulous areas of state-of-the-art physics or cosmology or speculative abstract philosophy. But regarding simple natural truths, in other words, simple scientific truths, they are often the focus. The focus of others and the focus of my own attention/ interest (e.g., how they've accreted over time to beget a narrative for how nature works both in real time and over the long haul of history). They can be, have been, and are, assembled into great bodies of knowledge as you know and they are employed in applied science areas, industries, etc.. and appropriately called scientific "truths." Anyways that's my position and/or attitude on the matter.
One more example. Let's take fire flies and the light they emit (in their communication schemes). It's not because in the abdomens there is a portal in spacetime to God Apollo in heaven (as the ancient Romans might have mused/believed) and you're seeing bits of lantern light held by angels. Anyone reporting this as truth would be reporting a false truth-claim. Nor is the light caused by tiny collectors that throughout the day capture sunlight and then release it in small amounts as needed at night. Another false truth-claim. Nor is it captured lightning. Nor is the light caused by a chemical reaction between sodium chloride and hydrogen, say. Again, another false truth-claim were someone to advance it. The truth as revealed by science (thus a scientific truth) concerns bioluminescence. The "true" so-called "mechanisms of action" regarding fireflies aka lightning bugs and other bioluminescent organisms are mostly or entirely all worked out top to bottom and can be researched anytime. A truth of chemistry. A truth of biochemistry. A truth of science. Discovered "truths" deserving to be appreciated, lauded, imo, many if not most as achievement of science. Simple truths they are, btw, certainly not deep, fundamental truths underlying everything. But this should be able to go without saying, I'd hope. Again, I see nothing misguided or wrong regarding this phraseology or wording regarding "truth" or "truths" in/of science.
About the language being difficult, the "machinery" of life and maybe why all this matters, or why it could matter, I'll try to elaborate on later.
.....
"I've argued with scientists before… that appropriating some words are just not worth while, "truth" is one of them."
So one could imagine somebody saying the same about "theory". It too is often problematic and probably just not worthwhile in some instances. Proverbial example of late: "Evolution is just a theory."
"Unless you want to invite the sort of comparison to religion and philosophy that you seem to abhor, are perhaps it is just to be antagonistic."
What is it I "abhor"? The comparison? Really this entire construction is confusing. The way you framed this entire sentence, really. In several ways. Regarding "abhor(ance)". Regarding "just to be" antagonistic? It's plain to millions that for the last century or two or more, science and religion have been in quarrels (e.g., re how the world works) and they have been two heavyweight players in these so-called culture wars around the globe. Time on my part is short right now, so I just decided I won't go into it but one has to be living under the proverbial rock not to have some comprehension of this so I'm sure you do. Suffice it here to say that because of my lifelong interests in nature and natural truths, also science, I've also had lifelong interests in the relations and dealings between science and religion and for that matter philos and history as well. Insofar as I've taken sides and am antagonistic it's not "just to be" antagonistic; the interests and goals are way bigger than that. I won't go into it here, as I said, time is short and I've posted enough. For more sense of it though, if you'd like to lean into it, involve yourself (in contrast: avoid the subjects or eschew them), then you could check out the recent works of the likes of Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Pinker, Sean Carroll and really a fast-growing host of others. Their public thoughts reflect my own almost point for point. The issues are real and substantive, there are battles going on and battles to be won, there are real-world consequences to them; and the people engaged in them and their associated activities are not doing so "just to be" antagonistic.
I gotta go, so I'll just finish with this one:
"How useful has the concept of "molecular machines" been to biology? What predictions have they generated?"
Two questions, two answers. (1) Very useful. For a sense of it, study the latest modern biology, molecular biology and biochemistry textbooks. (btw, the last two subjects, though they overlap, are distinct.) I find the illustrated textbooks especially helpful. In addition to the "popular" reads, of course. (2) This bears repeating: "What predictions have they generated?" In 35 yrs of science, I don't think I have encountered anyone in science who emphasizes "prediction" in science, as part of the science process, as much as you do. Don't get me wrong, prediction certainly has its place in the process and its emphasis is certainly your prerogative. But to answer the question: What predictions? ANS None. None, I'll say, relatively speaking, relative to other cases or circumstances encountered in the science endeavor. But in comparison, what comprehension or understanding does the "concept" of "molecular machine" provide? It's boundless. Beyond words; at least those of a climbing forum, lol. What's more, the "concept" in my view, and in the view of the vast vast majority of life scientists and others, is most useful simply because it validly and accurately reflects the actual reality out there -- that being the actual molecular machines or machinery with which our bodies, at all levels of being and explanation, are rife and that drive our lives and behaviors.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
crew can be still enough to not be too distracting.
There's no crew distracting you.
You distract your own self.
You have no power except your dry mundane academics which you think is your all in all.
YOU are a prisoner of your own mind.
You do not know thyself at all.
You only think you know thyself.
This is the whole crux of the mind.
You terrorize your own self daily and project all that nonsense bubbling up in your mind onto the world outside of you.
You are not the mind.
Find yourself or you'll end up like the guy in the movie "The Angriest man in Brooklyn" .....
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^DK said he believed in luck, and not intuition.
Luck, is living life hoping your truth falls into place
Faith, is holding your truth hoping life will fall into place
He also used the 2+2=4 analogy to describe intuition. Where "fast thinking" or we "unconsciously" answer the question. Compared to 7968+874=? where we have to stop and "slow think" Well, thats fine and dandy, but it seems like a person with a lifetime of deciphered truths would have a high pecentage of intuitivity. i'd bet a cheeseburger Ed has good intuition. The key is to be honest about it. Otherwise you might as well believe in luck?
BTW, DK said he didn't TRUST his intuition.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
^^^ I recall reading this many years ago, but can't say I found it helpful, just interesting.
Compared to 7968+874=? where we have to stop and "slow think" (BB)
For some idiot savants that's quick think . . . it's all relative.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
How about, How to Solve It?
Or How to Solve Problems, by Wicklegren?
(formal problems)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Machines might be a good analogy for biology, but where are the machines in the description of metabolic networks?
Thanks for the post Ed! It always excites my electrons when you give a concise rebuttal and then to proceed by thinking outside the box!
anyway, you inspired me to go read a bunch on metabolic networks, Fascinating!
There's research going on showing plants make decisions. They show vids of roots figuring out problems. Their predicting the plant has a brain just between where the plant stops and the root begins. This may shed some light on how they are conscious of other plants and animals?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Thanks Bruce!
i did emphasize one must be honest with oneself.
Just in Jest;
i can't help but thinking about "women's intuition". They don't seem to be concerned with the facts, and they are always right!
And i jus heard the south end of Antarctica is growing, and theres more ice then "normal" for this time of year. And we 're lining up for a long cooling trend. Have you heard this? Maybe Sumner was right?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Having had my hearing fairly well 'blowed up' in a five-inch gunmount in Vietnam I've been privy to aspects of some of the significant and fairly high-level 'unconscious processing' or 'sub-processing' that goes on in the mind/brain.
It happens often enough and takes the form of what my mind gets 'handed' as being what someone has said in a conversation. Most of the time my 'speech processor' gets it right, but every now and then I get 'handed' something as 'gospel' that I know for sure they didn't say because it is either so outlandishly constructed or ridiculously out-of-context. During those moments I have to consciously [and instantly] step in to do manual speech processing and contextualization; first to figure out what sounds I may have heard, second what words those sounds might have actually been, and third to try and fit those words into the cogent conversational context.
It can be fairly hilarious at times, but it does - if only momentarily - open a fairly direct pathway to that speech processing 'subsystem'. What strikes me most about those glimpses is just how sophisticated and encompassing that 'subsystem' is and how close it operates just-under-the-hood from my conscious mind. Knowing it's back there behind a gossamer veil cranking away, yet completely inaccessible to me via a one-way connection, is at times an odd realization / sensation / awareness.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Thanks for the inside view, healyje. Old people losing their hearing have similar problems. As with the blind spot in the retina, SOME part of your brain is so used to making sense of what you hear that it will fill in with a guess when it isn't sure. In your case the 'speech processing' may work fine on the noisy signal from the ear but memory gives a wrong match.
The brain constantly compares its models of the world with sensory input. As a biological system the brain is noisy. Usually the errors are small and we don't notice them being corrected. There are fascinating studies of the vestibulo-ocular reflex adjusting to eyeglasses which change the relation between head movement and the slip of our image of the world across the retina.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
I mentioned the claustrum earlier on this thread and was ignored save for HFCS who derided me for using the word membrane which was a direct quote from the Wiki article I read, in addition to the one you reference.
My question then and is again now, how can two whatever- you- call- them in either hemisphere be THE seat of consciousness? Does it mean if one of them were destroyed, you'd only be half conscious and would this half consciousness reflect the hemisphere it was in?
Alternatively, if the hemispheres are specialized to a certain degree, is it probable that the whatever- you- call- them claustrums are perfectly synchronized with each other? Or perhaps there is yet some other singular part of the brain that coordinates both of them?
Or perhaps this is the explanation for at least two of the little men voices in there?
|
|
MikeL
Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
Bruce:
I'll apply Kahneman's same approach to his own work on decision making. His idea and your examples of decision making is a subset of cognition. Notice that he does not call his domain of study cognition. You can read through cognitive science and cognitive psychology find other conversations about what is and what is not cognition. I'd suggest entertaining notions of things you have no idea at all about: like digestion, like emotions or moods, like any of the five senses that are constantly operating which you lose track of completely most of your conscious and unconscious life. Just because you aren't aware of something does not mean it does not exist or is operational.
I read lots of Kahneman and Tversky while working on my Ph.D. at Illinois in strategic management, and much of their work (and many others mining the same vein) in decision theory was born out of and was honed in economics and accounting.
I like K&T's works a lot. They are important--but primarily for a narrow set of issues that seem to call for cold, methodical, ratiocination mainly in social settings where risk is an issue. There are many more issues that a person deals with than those.
Again, K&T's work deal with a small rather focused set of issues in cognition. An interest in their work toward application indicates what kind of world you see yourself occupying. Some of us think and experience many other worlds beyond those.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 7, 2014 - 10:13am PT
|
It's amazing the reactions people have when the party line is not toed. MH2, you sound like you've crqwled back into the bottle. Per the panoply of subpersonalities or "I's" we all have motating inside of us, don't give me credit on inventing that. I've provided links to anyone who wants to get clear on that material but not surprisingly, MH2 couldn't be bothered and instead rans at me for what does not make perfect and instantaneous sense to him. As though this were simple material
I think based on people's reactions here is that a Herculean struggle and massive resistance instantly jumps up when anything in reality cannot be indisputatedly reversed engineered to an obvious physical "cause"or influence or associated source. Look how Bruce got all wiggy when sentience could not be definitively pegged to this group of neurons doing this or that which "produces" sentience. All of a sudden, Bruce is talking about sentience existing above and beyond biology, then lampooning his own idea. The curious bit is that there was no mention of my friends who were trying to approach the idea of writing code for sentience but discovered there was no usable data about objective brain functioning that even began to address what was required to write said code. Kindly not that this is not me infusing some nebulous idea into an otherwise totally coherent thread, much as Homer Fruitcake would like to think, but rather this is the lay of the land.
I don't question that studying objective functioning that is clearly rooted into discrete, observable biological processes is not the way to go for neuroscientists, but Daniel Kahneman's work per mind would in my opinion be much more comprehensible if functional sentience were introduced into the mix.
For example, his first order of mind clearly involves conditioned responses which become almost instantaneous and automatic after a certain amount of repetition. The first time we climb a wide crack our brains are racing. After 200 of them, we can climb one while mind wandering about Hawaii.
His second order of mind has many aspects of what I have been calling discursive thinking, with the intentionality and "effecting" he mentions, as well as the ability to develop and follow a train of thought, woking toward a solution or answer not given by the immediacy of first order automatic "thinking."
The problem here is that without introducing the functional aspects of sentience (awareness, focus, and attention) into the mix, the glaring questions of who or what is efforting and intentionally selecting thought direction, for example, are left unanswered, and without some sense of executive function and the psychological, meta order stuff that does this, the overall picture remains vague, especially so to the AI person looking to program same into a machine.
Gotta go work out . . .
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!