Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
If you could light up my brain, dingus, you might be surprised to discover I have just as many mixed feelings about where all this could be heading as you.
Incl the one you reference.
Might THAT be possible! :)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I wonder how many times, down through the scientific ages, something has been discovered only to be quashed by the discoverer, for fear of what that knowledge can bring?
As do I. As have I.
You know, my work obsessions with (a) our evolutionary mechanistic nature (and how we might adapt to it) and (b) Abrahamic theology/theism as an obstacle to progress... aside... you'd probably be shocked to learn how much I am in agreement with the bulk of your posts, eg sociopolitical.
How do you like them apples? :)
.....
For me, after much consideration, it's like this. Our species is on some kind of singular, exceptional technological trajectory. Given our nature, our variants, etc. there's no escape from it. It's rather like in for a penny, in for a pound. Or, we're damned do damned don't. Insofar as it works, this age and subsequent ones, it was fated; insofar as it doesn't, well that was fated too. I'm reminded of the Capt Algren line from Last Samurai applied to not only individuals but to cultures and species at large across any age or eon: We do what we can (ala can-do power), not unlike any evolved living thing, until our destiny is revealed to us. I decided long ago that would have to do, that would / should be good enough. So here's a toast this morning to pushing forward, giving it (whatever it is) our best and doing what we can. Can-do power!
Time to climb a mountain now to see if I can burn off some holiday excess.
.....
The marriage of biology and computer technology will likely be consummated in hell.
Well, since you went so far, how about I add my two cents...
The marriage of biology and pharmeceutical technology will likely be consummated in hell.
.....
One thing is sure, that marriage will spell the end of homo sapiens.
Keep the faith. Maybe Homo superbus...
Perhaps a better climber too?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
This suggests, rather strongly, that the mind IS the map and the map IS the experience and our maps all look very very similar. Its that similarity that the researchers found so remarkable.
There are problems with this for several reasons. There is a similarity of brain function with most all "normal" people, as evidenced by an EEG, Pet scan, MRI, and so forth. Just as basic medical stuff per blood pressure and temp are much the same across races and so forth. But the closer we look, the greater the divergence between individual brains.
So you can forget about standardizing a map that will predict and define an individual's experience in specific terms. You might be able to map out stuff in terms of operate or stimulus responses like - he is going to run now; but believing neural firing patterns will soon translate to specific and subtle thoughts, where some mad scientist will transpose said firings into English, say, is akin to believing in the tooth fairy, and also believing that the proven holes and gaps in a staunch reductionistic POV are no longer operative.
Even if you believe that "mind" is emergent, what happens on the meta level is not selfsame with what occurs lower down on the causal ladder. This is so with merely physical phenomenon, and the map equals the territory remains the gold fleece for fundy materialists, who posit consciousness as strictly mechanical blowback or output.
Burt no, the map is NOT the experience, but I can understand why people hang onto the fiction of that promise. It makes the universe entirely knowable, at least in theory, and enables a true believer to use words like "woo" and so forth with impunity. And to believe it with all their hearts.
A more nuanced view is of course the case with reality.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
They key is that the same thought (a single word) 'lights up' the same specific areas of the brain in all the subjects. Tightly controlled? Sure. Significant to our religion and science thread? You tell me, I think it is.
This suggests, rather strongly, that the mind IS the map and the map IS the experience and our maps all look very very similar. Its that similarity that the researchers found so remarkable.
As a research tool, any method which showed brain activity on smaller distance scales and/or with better time resolution could help to answer open questions. If there were a small part of the brain which could be identified with the number 7, in your example, and it was the same small part in different people, that could be remarkable. However, if it turned out to be an output to the vocal cords, that would be less remarkable, since English speakers pronounce the word similarly enough to be understood by other English speakers. The similarity may have more to do with the mechanics making sounds and not with where the concept of 7 is stored on the brain's map. Does the same part of the brain 'light up' in people whose first language is different?
We know the brain stores information. We have some understanding of how and where that happens. Most of the evidence from human brain trauma and animal studies says that memory and other brain functions are not located in any one small part of the brain but rather are distributed among several areas communicating with each other.
However, the degree to which brain function is localized and which parts 'light up' when you are thinking or doing something is one of those big open questions which new methodology could help to answer.
Research on how the brain works holds promise for many issues, religion among them, but much more importantly for understanding and possibly reversing mental illness, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, spinal cord injury, etc.
A little thought, though, or a lot of science fiction, tells us that there will be problems. If you could read memories, could you write them, also?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Burt no, the map is NOT the experience
You say this all of the time. You need to explain it. What is "the map"?
Also, saying that future study of the brain is a dead end is pretty presumptuous. When you say things like "never", are you being honest with yourself? By that I mean, do you already have a viewpoint that is not flexible? Even if new information comes in?
That smells of religious determinism. Look at Werner and BB. They have their faith and beliefs and are totally inflexible about anything that threatens that faith. Werner is downright hostile.
Not to harp on science, but it is a way of learning that IS flexible. Stuff gets shot down all of the time.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Stuff gets shot down all of the time.
yea cause it ain't right
have you watched I Am yet?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Stuff gets shot down all of the time.
yea cause it ain't right
I think that is the point, Blue... you can tell if it is "wrong" or if it is "right", and even quantify the "wrongness" and the "rightness" of it...
what you believe is "The Truth" has no such attribute... it's just what you decide to believe in. You can decide what to believe among many, contradictory beliefs, your choice (actually probably more to do with where you were born). And most of those beliefs do not accept variance in the interpretation of their version of "The Truth." 2000+ years of christianity (to choose one example) and not much variation....
100 years ago, physics was very different than what it is today... and we know why, and we know how to apply that understanding of 100 years ago in the appropriate domain. It wasn't "wrong" in that sense. And while I wouldn't define that knowledge as either "The Truth" or "the truth" I'd say that just your typing the characters into your computer and hitting the "Post the Reply" button applies many of those 19th century physics ideas... correct in the domain of the application.
You can have your truth... it will make you feel good, and after all, isn't it all about "me"?
Oh, there is that inconvenient preamble to the US Constitution you might consider:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
you might notice that we "secure the Blessings of Liberty" after "We the People" "form a more perfect Union" and "promote the general Welfare."
It seems that our individual liberties are just a part of what the US is about...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
you can tell if it is "wrong" or if it is "right", and even quantify the "wrongness" and the "rightness" of it...
Ultimately YOU alone can't nor can any other conditioned soul.
But you don't see how that is even possible.
We materially conditioned souls only ever have a limited relative view of the real truth.
That is the root of Largo's no-thing ......
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
BB and Werner,
How do you guys know that you know? Doesn't that ever bother you?
It is an honest question. Very simple.
What would you do if you discovered that you WERE wrong? How would you deal with that?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I'm always wrong but the "Truth" is always right.
People who mix spirit with matter like you just say as many opinions, as many ways.
You're bothered that you don't know the truth and project that the "Truth" is just like YOU.
It's not just like you .....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Largo: Even if you believe that "mind" is emergent...
Can you, in under three sentences, proffer up a single [gross] alternative as to how it is we might have come to possess minds / consciousness if not by emergence?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
healeyje, you've been missing from this conversation for quite awhile. We decided some time ago that the two main positions were that either consciousness is an emergent property of the universe or it has been there all the time and when evolved beings reach a certain stage, they are able to perceive and manifest it.
As for definitions, I tend to agree with jgill that the soul is part of our personality and what Werner is calling soul is more properly called spirit which equals consciousness. I think this also fits in with yogic theory about the soul being connected to the energy body and the astral world and spirit to pure consciousness or what the Buddhists call nothingness or the dharmakaya.
This would mean in evolutionary terms that all beings with consciousness/sentience have a spirit (more in terms of what fructose is advocating spirit is)and that only those with higher intelligence have a soul or personality.How far down the chain this would go is hard to know. Cats and dogs for sure and probably pet rats too, and of course a lot of wild animals.
I keep mixing paradigms in what some perceive as an inconsistent way for several reasons. My academic discipline is anthropology which has always had one foot in the sciences and one in the humanities. I also teach courses in the humanities department including one on comparative religion. I try to anticipate the kinds of questions my students are likely to ask and I try to think of questions to provoke them to think in new and deeper ways.
I've already made up my mind that I am going to show the video of Kanzi the talking bonobo to my next religion class and ask them what they think about some of the new scientifically inspired philosophical questions about what it means to be human, and how that fits with traditional religious views on the specialness of humans.
In biological anthropology we use a different vocabulary which does not include baggage laden words like soul though I think spirit is ok as in human spirit, bonobo spirit etc and whether this emanates purely from intelligence or perhaps from a few extra genes for attachment and affection. I can see the next time I teach this course I will include material on evolutionary psychology. Book suggestions (fructose?) are welcome.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
healeyje, you've been missing from this conversation for quite awhile. We decided some time ago that the two main positions were that either consciousness is an emergent property of the universe or it has been there all the time and when evolved beings reach a certain stage, they are able to perceive and manifest it.
Wow, I have been gone for awhile as most positions were clear, except Largo's who seems incapable or unwilling to state a simple opinion.
If those are two options you "decided" then I'm a bit stunned you got folks like Ed, JGill, Base, HFCS or others to agree to either of those positions. Did Largo actually and unequivocally endorse one of those positions? That would qualify as an epic break-through accomplishment in the conversation if so.
Emergent from biological systems and an 'emergent property of the universe' are vastly different things. There is no way I'd personally support or endorse either of your suppositions.
Guess I'll move along if that's really the consensus here given I don't find either compelling or even particularly interesting to be honest. Pretty much just more religious voodoo and mumbo-jumbo in more sophisticated language from where I sit.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Time to climb a mountain now to see if I can burn off some holiday excess
Hope you took pictures.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Emergent from biological systems and an 'emergent property of the universe' are vastly different things.
We've discussed this too. Some people confine themselves to this planet and its evolution of life, others have considered other possibilities. Some have agreed that anything that happened after the big bang was an emergent process if you carry it forward or backward enough. We wouldn't have emergent consciousness on this planet unless this planet had emerged from the solar system, galactic dust etc.Speculating about before the big bang probably does fall under religion though Stephen Hawkings has tried to co-op this by saying it all could have happened without a God.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
It has nothing whatsoever to do with our local planetary system.
Again, the emergence of consciousness / mind from biological systems is entirely and wholly different from emergence from the universe at large.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
healeyje, Are you saying life on earth has nothing to do with our planet or our sun? It's hard to understand what you are saying. Even if the amino acids were seeded from elsewhere, they still required a habitat and energy source?
Also as I understand it, all energy in the current universe came from the big bang as best we can tell.
So if this understanding is so completely wrong, then maybe you better explain it to us.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Pretty simple, no shortage of suns and habitable planets out there.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Thanks Cintune! That's the most interesting article I've read in a long time. The one after it was fascinating too - "Is Physics Unnatural?" I would love to hear Ed's comments on that one.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!