Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2017 - 07:41am PT
|
Jgill: Miss Gibson disagreed and I received a B- grade for my efforts. Many years later the kind of thing I wrote might have been similar in genre, but assuredly not in quality, to the vignettes I read in the New Yorker.
It is a well-known story that a young undergraduate wrote a term paper for business class at Yale. He got a below average grade for his effort. The idea later blossomed into Federal Express 6 years later by the same person, Fredrick W. Smith.
We’re just teachers. It takes good students to make good teachers. When it all comes together well between students and teachers, something magical is happening. There is a resonance that arises between the teacher and student, and it's difficult to say exactly what is happening. It's sort of like "charisma": we don't really know what that is, either. Hell, maybe it's just love.
Thanks and thanks, Jstan.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2017 - 01:31pm PT
|
To understand ourselves, our minds, it’s not entirely instructive to look back at a past evolutionary process of which curiosity was, no doubt, a motivating force in periods when what is actually our humanity is decidedly lacking and what it is to be human is not readily apparent. Better to examine what humanity has achieved in the face of an acute understanding of its own mortality and the accomplishments of what is best in human action and not only the realization but the larger understanding of our potential.
The mind is not the flesh that produced it. If you believe that artificial intelligence will result in mind you have already declared mind as an entity outside the realm of its production that might manifest itself in metal and wire as well as flesh.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2017 - 06:39pm PT
|
The mind is not the flesh that produced it. If you believe that artificial intelligence will result in mind you have already declared mind as an entity outside the realm of its production that might manifest itself in metal and wire as well as flesh.
I often wonder who Paul is addressing.
Flesh
noun
1. the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human.
"she grabbed Anna's arm, her fingers sinking into the flesh"
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2017 - 08:32pm PT
|
"metal and wire" (AI) may indeed produce mind. No one knows.
Veil of Spirits
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 08:03am PT
|
An explanation for near death experiences in people who are revived?
In three patients, the EEG showed brain activity stopping up to 10 minutes before the person's heart stopped beating. But in a fourth, the EEG picked up so-called delta wave bursts up to 10 minutes after the person's heart stopped. In living people, neuroscientists consider slow-wave sleep to be a key process in consolidating memories.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/our-brains-may-live-up-to-10-minutes-after-death/
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 11, 2017 - 02:51pm PT
|
MH2 said (in relation to Chalmers Hard problem): "He hasn't shown anything?"
What would he have to "show" to satisfy your request?
I put it at 1,000 to 1 that MH2 does not honestly answer the question, sans equivocation, asking yet another question, or making a comment on the question or the person (me) who asked it.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 02:54pm PT
|
Interesting to speculate, Jan.
Death of the organism, as in the loss of function of vital systems like circulation or breathing, is not the same as death of the cells of the organism. Cells could go on functioning using oxygen available temporarily, or on ATP produced by anerobic glycolysis, until the glucose is gone.
The link you provide seems to raise questions about memory.
After seeing the suggestion that the claustrum and brain-spanning neurons may be what underlies the binding in our conscious experience of the the great range of sensations, into what we perceive as a unified whole, I was struck by the question: does this binding happen before or after memories are made? Are memories created as individual senses are stimulated, like touch, vision, hearing, smell, etc.? Are images and sounds stored separately? Is it when memories are retrieved that hearing and vision are put together?
Or are memories laid down after the so-called binding, and retrieved as such, a unified whole?
It could be that both processes occur.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 02:55pm PT
|
What would he have to "show" to satisfy your request?
That there is a phenomenon we can observe and agree upon that cannot be explained by biology and physics, even in principle.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 04:06pm PT
|
Can it be proven that consciousness cannot be explained by science? Philosophical arguments don't do it IMHO.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 11, 2017 - 04:33pm PT
|
Said MH2: That there is a phenomenon we can observe and agree upon that cannot be explained by biology and physics, even in principle.
--
To be logically viable, a request (for "a phenomenon") must offer the possibility of an answer. Otherwise the question is nonsense.
So what is MH2 actually asking for in practical terms?
Only this: That experience, that is, subjective, 1st person life, present itself as an observable phenomenon. As we all know, all observable phenomenon are 3rd person external objects or forces.
It logically follows that that MH2 is demanding that 1st person experience itself somehow transmute itself into a 3rd person object or force he can measure and evaluate quantitatively. Or that experience IS an observable phenomenon. Exactly.
Since we all know for certain that subjective experience itself is not observable by 3rd person means - I cannot directly access MH2s thoughts, feelings, memories, and sensations - MH2 has asked a non-sense question. But he already knows that.
But what, we may wonder, is his thinking behind asking such a question that he knows cannot be answered by the criteria he demands?
This is where the logic gets tricky. But it is there if you can stay with all the nuances.
First, by demanding that the only viable evidence for subjectivity be an observable external phenomenon (there is no such thing as an observable INTERNAL force, and a person of MH2s ilk will question the very meaning of "internal"), MH2 has entirely ruled out subjectivity as an emergent function, since in this case, the emergence of consciousness from the brain is not, itself, observable as something OTHER than the neurons. You can only observe what's commonly called neuro correlates.
This only leaves MH2 one option: That 1st and 3rd person phenomenon are selfsame.
As I've pointed out before, this belief is called various things, depending on the shade, but they all broadly fall under Mind-Body Identity Theory - that is, the belief that the mind is nothing more than the physical body (the brain).
Mind-brain identity theorists like to say that mental states are nothing more than brain states. The most extreme example of this is to simply deny the existence of mind, subjectivity, experience, etc. There is only a brain. We only believe that there is more.
Most identity theorists are materialists who argue for a form of eliminative materialism or reductionism. Ultimately, they regard physics as the foundational science. They believe that molecules are reducible to atoms, biological cells are reducible to molecules, the brain is reducible to its neurons, and the mind is reducible to the brain.
Since emergence cannot be a part of this belief system, it follows that brain states and mental states are totally identical, that one equals the other - perfectly and in whole. That there is NOTHING in consciousness that is not entirely a biological function iITSELF.
It logically follows from this belief that the brain does not produce something beyond the brain that IS conscious, because that violates the identity theory, whereby all phenomenon is perfectly IDENTICAL to the brain.
Figuratively speaking, a violin does not produce a phenomenon called music that is in any form different from, or more than, the violin itself. Here, the violin IS the music. Exactly. That, by definition, IS identity theory - that brain states and mental states are perfectly selfsame. NO difference.
That only leaves one logical option: The brain itself IS conscious. It is not an emergent function, but rather is an inherent quality OF the brain.
Amazingly enough, what MH2 is left with is specific-instance panpsychism.
General panpsychism is the view that consciousness ("mind") is a universal and primordial feature of all things. For MH2, consciousness is a primordial feature of one thing: the brain.
Ironically, this is exactly what Chalmers has concluded as well.
Go figure ...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 06:38pm PT
|
Largo: Otherwise the question is nonsense.
We have to be careful how we’re talking here. Please consider the proposition that the questions seem to be more durable than the answers.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 06:43pm PT
|
MH2: Are memories created as individual senses are stimulated, like touch, vision, hearing, smell, etc.? Are images and sounds stored separately? Is it when memories are retrieved that hearing and vision are put together?
You seem to suggest that memories are something purely tangible. I say they are created in-the-moment.
“Maybe the meaning of your life is what your life means to you now. It’s hard to understand that time doesn’t exist because we have such a clear experience of past, present and future, but we don’t really experience past and future, only present. Past and future are just ideas in the present. This means that there is only now, but what is now? We can’t say what now is because there is no not-now. It’s always now. There is only now.”
― Jed McKenna
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 06:51pm PT
|
Since consciousness is NOT material but works thru the material world and the modern scientist are stuck in the dead end hole, dead end alley,
consciousness will continue to evade their ultimate research and understanding.
They will continue their fixed up mechanistic consciousness of bondage to the material only plane.
They will ultimately remain clueless but will continue to present their masqueraded material theories as facts of what consciousness is.
Modern material scientists brains are way too limited and shackled .......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 07:29pm PT
|
No, Largo.
I do not propose a mind/brain identity theory, whatever that is. I propose that our best path to understanding the mind is to study the brain.
The brain could produce your idea of and experience of the mind without being "identical" to it.
edit:
And there could be activity in your brain not perceived by your mind, if we are talking about experiences you aware of, which is my understanding of what mind refers to.
As I understand it you believe, perhaps along with Chalmers and perhaps not, that there is a part of the mind that is in some way independent of the brain.
Neither you nor Chalmers has given me any reason to believe that.
edit:
Einstein's General Theory of Gravity is not identical to gravity. However, it greatly advanced our understanding of gravity and the world we live in.
When you talk about brain activity not being identical to first person subjective experience, it doesn't mean anything as far as coming to a better understanding of our emotions, feelings, and other aspects of consciousness through a study of the brain.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 07:48pm PT
|
This is where the logic gets tricky. But it is there if you can stay with all the nuances
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2017 - 08:07pm PT
|
You seem to suggest that memories are something purely tangible.
Mike,
Let's reserve the word 'tangible' for objects we feel through the sense of touch.
Can you re-state your question about memories in another way?
Are you saying that memory is not persistent when you call it, "created in the moment?"
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 11, 2017 - 08:32pm PT
|
I propose that our best path to understanding the mind is to study the brain.
-----
I believe that as well, because "mind," to my revised understanding, is best described as the brain function that produces the content of awareness (thoughts, feelings, sensations and memories.)
The sticking point here is that content in no way implies that we are aware of same, and trying to insinuate awareness as produced by objective functioning renders nothing at all that makes sense. As Plank said long ago, content postulates consciousness to begin with. Otherwise we only have dancing neurons.
Other difficulties include the fact that strictly objective investigations of the brain will never disclose consciousness per se, but only sentactic engines, to use the argot (processing machines). If you can tell us how this is mistaken, you have answered Chalmers Hard Problem.
What's more, the belief that we can study only 3rd person phenomenon and entirely understand 1st person phenomenon is not a credible theory. You end up with all kinds of wonky speculations derived from computer and informational theory that, looked at closely, are simply descriptors of processing. That is, they are describing an engineered machine, not sentience.
Aside from nailing down neuro correlates to consciousness, I'd be interested in knowing what, specifically, you believe brain studies will divulge about consciousness and experience, above and beyond the content of which we are aware.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2017 - 07:53am PT
|
Andy:
Sure thing. We can restrict the use of the word “tangible” in that way.
I’ll point to two things. (i) Memory seems remarkably unreliable, so much so that many people are fairly confident that it’s constructed on-the-fly. (ii) As McKenna (and many others) suggest, there appears to be nothing other than “now.” There is no past or future. If that's somewhat accurate, to what are memories referring to?
I have a thought, and it comes, and then it goes. I don’t know what a thought is, and I don’t know where it really comes from, and I don’t know where it goes when it seems to be no longer present. I think memories are just another set of thoughts, and thoughts . . . well, we can’t pin them down. We don’t know what they are.
People can take a photograph, they can make a record or review one, and when the photograph or record is in consciousness, then it is the present.
I’m not trying to be clever or obstinate. I am just reporting as well as I can what I see. All I can see is now. Furthermore, I’ve been repeatedly shown that my memories change, and they don’t agree with other people’s reported memories except in the most general and vague ways. As you know, there is plenty of research studies that support the notion that what people report what supposedly happened here, there, then, etc. are notoriously inaccurate—so much so that it seems to challenge the very concept of “accuracy.”
Even if we called Edward R. Murrow back from the grave and he were to instruct us on how to properly report “facts,” we’d still have problems about “facts” because facts are theory-laden and they are being reported from one view / perspective alone. (If you want to make facts the result of consensus, then I think we’ve lost the general understanding of what facts are.)
Did you ever read “Stranger in a Strange Land?” Do you remember (I think it was Anne), the “Fair Witness” who could properly report her senses of events? Unless one is in a dream and knows it, I don’t think that could really ever happen (even trained scientists). We appear to be highly influenced by our thoughts and our evaluations of those thoughts which preclude us from being able to report what amounts to “being” (in-the-moment). (IMO, anyway.)
The list of human biases has been well-researched by psychology and (get this) accounting (of all things). Briefly they are:
Cognitive biases: systematic errors in decision making that arise from how people process information.
Prior hypothesis bias: decisions are made based on prior beliefs even when evidence proves those beliefs are wrong.
Escalating commitment: decision makers, having committed significant resources to a project, commit even more resources to it, despite receiving feedback that the project is failing them. You can consider beliefs “projects.”
Reasoning analogy: the use of simple analogies to make sense out of complex problems.
Representativeness: the tendency to generalize from a small sample or a single vivid anecdote. This violates the statistical law of large numbers.
Illusion of control: the tendency to overestimate one’s ability to control events. The more responsibility one has, the more one believes he or she has control.
Availability error: predispositions that estimate the probability of an outcome based on how easy it is to imagine it.
. . . And then there are the frameworks, values, belief systems, and norms of behavior that come from institutionalizations (education, training, formalized development) and socializations (social cultures, big and small) that guide and lead us to see what we believe.
It would be a wonder if anyone could really see and think for themselves.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2017 - 08:26am PT
|
It would be a wonder if anyone could really see and think for themselves.
This is the most useless statement always made on a forum in all different threads in general.
Each person making their arguments "thinks and sees" their own argument is the one and the other ones can't think for themselves.
There's no standard.
The standard given in modern times is material science as complete authority.
Thus it proves that authority is ultimately absolute.
But modern science is full of defects,
Free from defects is the correct path.
And the conditioned living entity search for freedom of defects is the real science ...............
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2017 - 09:38am PT
|
Speaking of useless statements.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!