Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ward: it is highly likely that at least one of those interpretations could have hit pay dirt.
I hear you.
I'm saying that all of them are true and not true in that any interpretation seems to be incomplete, not final, and inaccurate. I understand you to say that some are more true than others, that some interpretations have more substance or support than others. I would say that so-called substance and support are themselves more interpretations.
I should not be against any of them, or for any of them.
This has become a core experience for what I appear to be.
Be well.
P.S. Like the art!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ward: This sounds like another dog could be peeing on the edge of where you perceive your territory to be, MikeL?
Oh, please do. More fun that way, don’t you think?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"Concevons qu’on ait dressé un million de singes à frapper au hasard sur les touches d’une machine à écrire et que, sous la surveillance de contremaîtres illettrés, ces singes dactylographes travaillent avec ardeur dix heures par jour avec un million de machines à écrire de types variés. Les contremaîtres illettrés rassembleraient les feuilles noircies et les relieraient en volumes. Et au bout d’un an, ces volumes se trouveraient renfermer la copie exacte des livres de toute nature et de toutes langues conservés dans les plus riches bibliothèques du monde. Telle est la probabilité pour qu’il se produise pendant un instant très courte dans un espace de quelque étendue, un écart notable de ce que la mécanique statistique considère comme le phénomène le plus probable. Supposer que cet écart ainsi produit subsistera pendant quelques secondes revient à admettre que, pendant plusieurs années, notre armée de singes dactylographes, travaillant toujours dans les mêmes conditions, fournira chaque jour la copie exacte de tous les imprimés, livres et journaux, qui paraîtront la semaine suivante sur toute la surface du globe. Il est plus simple de dire que ces écarts improbables sont purement impossibles."
LA MÉCANIQUE STATIQUE ET L’IRRÉVERSIBILITÉ
Par M. ÉMILE BOREL*.
Apparently the monkeys have their own ideas.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6339/745
A dedicated network for social interaction processing in the primate brain
J. Sliwa, W. A. Freiwald
Abstract
Primate cognition requires interaction processing. Interactions can reveal otherwise hidden properties of intentional agents, such as thoughts and feelings, and of inanimate objects, such as mass and material. Where and how interaction analyses are implemented in the brain is unknown. Using whole-brain functional magnetic resonance imaging in macaque monkeys, we discovered a network centered in the medial and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex that is exclusively engaged in social interaction analysis. Exclusivity of specialization was found for no other function anywhere in the brain. Two additional networks, a parieto-premotor and a temporal one, exhibited both social and physical interaction preference, which, in the temporal lobe, mapped onto a fine-grain pattern of object, body, and face selectivity. Extent and location of a dedicated system for social interaction analysis suggest that this function is an evolutionary forerunner of human mind-reading capabilities.
...
However, the joint characteristic of the ESIN [exclusively social interaction network]—social cognition focus and general deactivation during visual stimulation—bear resemblance to the human theory of mind (ToM) and the human default mode network (DMN) (17, 18). Curiously, ToM and DMN intersect in the human brain at regions of quite plausible homology to ESIN areas of the macaque brain. Thus, the macaque ESIN shares functional and anatomical characteristics of human ToM and ESIN (fig. S4).
...
The MNS [mirror neuron system] is thought to add depth to the processing of agent-object interactions by uncovering motor intentions behind observed object-directed actions and to do so through a process of simulation (15). Our results of broad MNS involvement across physical and social interactions can be parsimoniously interpreted by extension; the MNS would uncover through causal model simulations the hidden properties of physical objects and intentional agents and automatically reveal the wide set of affordances [action possibilities (20)] they offer for online engagement. The MNS would, according to this scenario, not just function in motor intention processing but play a major role in supporting general core cognitive functions of intuitive physics and psychology.
Émile Borel is a very interesting person, not only an important mathematician who contributed to physics and statistics, but also socially active, for example, a member of the French Resistance during the second world war.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Bet you use Borel sets in physics. They crop up in functional integration, a topic I'm thinking about at present. Without the physics or probability theory motivations.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Just yesterday in class we (me and two students) did the Heine-Borel Theorem in an introductory Topology class. Fun stuff!
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
On the other hand, I kind of feel bad for macaque monkeys brain-damaged in the name of science.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
not sure they were brain damaged, but the question of what constitutes ethical methods is certainly important.
from the supplemental material in Science:
Materials and Methods
Subjects and surgery
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of The Rockefeller University (protocol number 12585-H and 15849-H) and Weill-Cornell Medical College (protocol number 2010-0029) and followed US National Institutes of Health guidelines. Four adult male monkeys (Macaca mulatta, 3-5 years-old, 5.5-7.5 kg, M1 - M4) were used in the study. Before fMRI scanning, standard surgical methods, anesthetic and postoperative treatment protocols (22) were followed to implant an MR-compatible headpost secured with MR-compatible ceramic screws and acrylic cement.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
On the humane treatment of animals studied by scientists, and the social interaction of primates, my thesis advisor worked with squirrel monkeys when he did single-unit recordings of neurons in the vestibular system. He took great care to be sure they did not feel physical pain, as when humans undergo surgery.
However, another of his students told me that when he went to the colony to get the monkey for the next run, it was apparent that the other monkeys knew that the one he took would not be coming back.
That we could have caused psychological suffering among intelligent animals is a troubling thought. Personally, I feel a little less troubled since my studies were done on pigeons.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2017 - 09:06am PT
|
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-mechanisms/
Since many of the posts in this thread angle hard toward determinism, mechanisms, and reduction to fundamental physical causes (variously explained), some might take an interest in the link above. The Standford entries are usually first rate, and always comprehensive per a generic take on a given subject.
Of special interest to this thread is the following excerpt:
"Fundamental laws and fundamental causal relations are not mechanisms. If a law or causal relation is fundamental, then (by definition) there is no mechanism for it."
Perhaps the same can be said for fundamental properties or forces. If you believe that sentience is such a force or phenomenon, then you believe in the futility of looking at the brain for an explanation of anything above and beyond the mechanical production of content: Feelings, thoughts, sensations, memories.
If you believe otherwise, you will seek a mechanism to "explain" sentience as causally arising from the brain, whereas brain "creates" consciousness.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Academic philosophy's record is to somehow make a mess of the language. So it goes with "mechanism" as well.
If you don't want to contribute to the mess, I'd suggest: (1) "mechanistics" or else "mechanistic mechanics" for either (a) the study of mechanisms or (b) the action, processing, structure or functioning of a mechanism, or mechanisms; (2) "mechanism" for the actual mechanism itself (w "mechanisms" for the noun plural).
This could lead to clearer communications if not clearer thinking. (At least that's been my experience - as a mechanist.)
No worries though, it should eventually sort out.
...
onomastics: (a) the study of the origins and forms of words esp as used in a specialized field; (b) the system underlying the formation and use of words esp for words in a specialized field
orismology: the art and science of defining technical terms
Academic philosophy's report card...
Art of Orismology: Grade D-.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: "fundamental causal relations"
What is a "fundamental causal relation"? Example?
It seems to me, whether it is fundamental or not, if you have causation as part of a relation(ship) then voila! you have a mechanism.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2017 - 01:10pm PT
|
Sez Fruity: It seems to me, whether it is fundamental or not, if you have causation as part of a relation(ship) then voila! you have a mechanism.
JL: Read the article you jughead. Accusing the Stanford Philosophical Review of obfuscating the fine points is a pitiful bit of guff. Once again you have prejudged something by way of your own beliefs and understanding. That fact that said understanding might be broadened by others seem curiously lost on you.
Wus up with that? Didn't we tell you to lay off the bong water...
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
If you believe that sentience is such a force or phenomenon, then you believe in the futility of looking . . .
Once again, belief or faith is at the basis of your arguments. And you wonder why some might think your approach is religious (sans gods).
But carry on.
;>)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I’m continually reminded of that passage from the Gnostic Gospel of
St. Thomas: “ The kingdom of God is set upon the earth but men do not see it.”
It’s so simple: the bulb is not the light. Consciousness is not the brain. The degree to which consciousness is a mechanistic quality or not is simply unknown. To assume it must be a mechanistic something is, just that, an assumption. To assume you can’t productively explore and understand the mind through the mind is another assumption.
But please:
What is more unusual, more mysterious, more confounding in the world than a human consciousness that allows for epistemological realizations, revelations and awareness? We know of nothing similar to it in the universe at this moment.
The idea that we are but insignificant dust specks living on an insignificant speck in a vast universe on a finite planet belies the significant reality of our rare and remarkable gift and therefore its importance.
In that gift is the strange ability to realize the satisfaction of knowing in the most profound way. When science dismisses this gift as but the random act of indifferent and insignificant evolutionary processes, it simultaneously arbitrates the value of that consciousness. Of course the brain is a product of evolution, but how does that negate the sublime evolutionary achievement consciousness is? How does that dismiss its importance?
What is the universe without “knowing?”
The awe you feel in looking up at the clear cloudless night sky with the universe above is exactly the awe you should feel in looking back into your own mind, a mind that can realize and contain that infinite above you. Amazing and mysterious.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
We know of nothing similar to it[human consciousness] in the universe at this moment.
Glad you qualified that statement. You can always say of a different consciousness that it is not similar enough to the human variety.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2017 - 03:48pm PT
|
One asks: Why would John posit a proposition about consciousness as a "belief," as opposed to the most logical and consistent conclusion given the evidence and the arguments?
I believe this harks back to the default position of staunch materialists: Unless we can causally associate a phenomenon to a mechanism, it must be magic, ero "religious." Even though religious is normally associated with doctrine, beliefs, faith, etc. Another option seems entirely lost on such thinking.
Putting aside "mind" for a moment (if you can), what is the mechanism that begets the weak and strong attraction? Or electromagnetism?
And consciousness comes in all kinds of flavors, MH2. Not so with awareness. It remains the same phenomenon across the board. And note how you cannot effectively use figurative language to depict awareness as it is not "like" anything else in the universe. Unless you're a behavioralist.
As mentioned before, it is helpful in this investigation to get clear on the difference between mechanical registration (like what a computer does with inputs, processing, and outputs), and the difference with your own consciousness. Put differently, what is the difference between syntactic and semantic? When strong AI geeks claim we will someday have "sentient machines," they intuitively know there is a difference.
What is it to you?
And DMT, try reading that article. You might be grateful for the effort made to be lucid and comprehensive. One of the common misconceptions about scholastic philosophy is that they are trying to do math or physics with out numbers or a system. Or they should be, in which case they should "shit up and start calculating." Do you seem an obsession here?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
One asks: Why would John posit a proposition about consciousness as a "belief," as opposed to the most logical and consistent conclusion given the evidence and the arguments?
Perhaps the same can be said for fundamental properties or forces. If you believe that sentience is such a force or phenomenon,. . .
Please state your evidence and arguments for this logical and consistent conclusion. Thanx.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2017 - 04:13pm PT
|
Please state your evidence and arguments for this logical and consistent conclusion. Thanx.
What criteria would have to be met to qualify, for you, as evidence?
And, "Whatever you got" is not an answer.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
HFCS: Academic philosophy's record is to somehow make a mess of the language.
It’s questionable whether people have unambivalent conceptions or values which can be accurately expressed. Ideas, beliefs, self-image, experiences, reality, and perceptions are problematical in themselves and in people’s abilities to express them. Wittgenstein said that what people say, what they think, their attitudes and behaviors, don’t match very well. There is obvious dishonesty, self-deception, taboos, and misunderstanding—certainly here on ST.
Language may only generate a version of the world that is, in part, only temporary or transient.
There is no one-to-one relationship between language use and the phenomena being referred to. Language and talking are like jazz—completely improvisational. People seem to make it up as they go along.
Ricoeur and other post structuralists emphasized that language is metaphorical, figurative, context-dependent, and incapable of mirroring complex situations in discourse analysis. Attention needs to be paid to variations in what is said. People often have to stalk, or talk around, a topic in order to express their views.
Selective interpretation presents a favored meaning among a multiplicity of meanings in all things. One sees this in research studies when relying upon individuals' reports. The researchers seem to believe that others express the core of of what they are communicating. Unfortunately, those same individuals can also describe events in different ways, and truthfully.
Language is used for many functions, with a variety of consequences. Language is both constructive and constructed. Some say that the constructive and flexible ways in which any language is used should be a central subject in any study.
Reflexivity appears to be the ability to break away from a frame of reference and look at what that frame of reference is not capable of saying. That seems to most occur when one mode of thought is confronted by another.
The point is not to look at the finger but at what the finger is pointing at. With language, one is advised not to look at the words all too closely, but instead at the object of a conversation.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"jughead" "bong water" - c'mon, I thought we were past that.
My first post wasn't directed to Largo any way besides. Its sole purpose was to express my lack of enthusiasm for the academic philosophical term "mechanism" that's all - the basic idea being its use is going to prove as confusing and ambiguous and frustrating as "determinism".
Those "isms"!
Second post I thought was a legitimate question.
What, it appears Largo is distinguishing between "sentience" and "feeling" now? Interesting. In my world, they're synonyms, one's latinate the other anglican that's all.
FWIW, let the record show, I'm as much a mechanist as an evolutionist.
Cheers and ciao!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!