What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 14121 - 14140 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Jun 22, 2017 - 05:15pm PT

Healyje:

Sorry, I’ve been on the road for the last day.

I’m not responsible for Largo. He’s a big boy. Talk to him about your complaint.

When you talk about “magic,” I don’t think you have much of an idea what you’re talking about other than a connotation, which is pejorative. Anthropologists and depth psychologists have a much clearer notion of what magic is. They relate it to a more tribal sense of consciousness: being as an appendage of the tribe; pars pro toto, totum pro parte; where everything is connected to everything else; where all of nature is alive and numinous, where a symbol (think very old artifact) is more real than what we moderns think is real, etc. There autonomy and ego are barely beginning to emerge in Man.

Ed,

Thanks for chiming in on the subject. I agree, the theory of evolution is hardly a trivial theory. It’s an excellent theory, IMO. My assessment, incomplete as it is, is that the theory just about amounts to an axiom these days. I’m not here to argue with the theory, but I would have folks give some consideration to other things that affect the changes in Man . . . like culture (which is complex) as well as learning. It is perhaps no coincidence that culture has developed across the earth in different times, and those developments are difficult to connect in space time. That is, culture (for example) seems to have emerged wherever man has been. Ditto for animals. If random mutations are to be held as the bases for evolution, then this would appear to constitute a great statistical anomaly. Hence, there would appear to be other factors at work that explain the “evolution” of Man and more advanced life forms.

Furthermore, it would seem to be very difficult to set up a research project to prove evolution in all the places or situations where it has been argued that it has had an impact. I see that you’ve not been a complete adherent to MB1’s argument about falsification in scientific studies, but it is often held dear in other fields of study. To wit, how would one attempt to set up a study that “proves” evolution? That is, what alternative theory will be used compare evolution to in the study. Last, how in the heck is one going to find the data in all the places or areas where it needs to be found in order to provide the evidence that evolution is what happens across the board in life.

Again, I’m not against the theory. I’m saying that there are surely other factors at work that explain the development of life (especially advanced life forms), and I’m saying that it will be a very difficult theory to prove academically.

Last, I find myself wondering just what problem or challenge that consciousness solves in life. If random mutation allows for the selection of the characteristics that lead to (successful reproduction) in advanced life, then it would seem that consciousness would hardly be random. It would seem to me, at least, that it becomes imperative and necessary. But of course, I’m speculating.

yanqui: Simon's prediction that within 10 years most theories in psychology would take the form of computer programs or of qualitative statements about computer programs.

Sadly he was wrong. Smart guy (Nobel in economics for “satisficing—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing); who thought that it was better to look into cognitive science than continue on with economics. After about 35 years of research in the field of cognitive science, we ended up with not so very much that we could hang our hats on. Many theories, but not so much clarity about how things operated. Grounded or embodied cognition, on the other hand, seems to be making real headway, but it has torpedoed the computer metaphor of cognition.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 22, 2017 - 06:37pm PT

MH2
I will probably pay the $32.

if you haven't already I can send you the pdf

go to edhartouni.net

and send me an email

thanks yanqui for being susceptible to my "academic trolling"...

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 22, 2017 - 08:57pm PT

If random mutations are to be held as the bases for evolution, then this would appear to constitute a great statistical anomaly.

I think this characterization is an error, that is, the role of random mutation and a proper accounting of the statistics.

In Fisher's 1930 book The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection he writes in the forward:
"Natural Selection is not Evolution. Yet, ever since the two words have been in common use, the theory of Natural Selection has been employed as a convenient abbreviation for the theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection, put forward by Darwin and Wallace. This has had the unfortunate consequence that the theory of Natural Selection itself has scarcely ever, if ever, received separate consideration."

of course, Fisher goes on to do so brilliantly. But it is a grim slog, the reading, however enlightening.

Although initially subject to the full force of random survival, beneficial mutations have a finite probability, simply related to the benefit which they confer, of establishing themselves as permanent in the heredity of the species. They can, therefore, have occurred but a small number of times before this event is rendered practically certain. The mutation rates during their period of trial must therefore be generally minute, and it must frequently happen that nearly the whole of the individual genes that ultimately pervade the species will have been derived by descent from a single such mutant.

the statistical analysis of the mutation matters. And if you are to claim that this is a "statistical anomaly" that is a quantitative statement; given without a calculation, it is impossible to judge its veracity.

I do not believe that biologist, and certainly biologists involved in studying evolution, take for granted Evolution, and treat it as an axiom. On the other hand, other explanations that would challenge Evolution have to do so on the vast domain of biology where Evolution is tested, and is shown consistent with what is known.

It would therefore be very natural to attempt to understand humans in the context of evolution, without resorting to deus ex machina.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 22, 2017 - 09:12pm PT

I do not believe that biologists, and certainly biologists involved in studying evolution, take for granted Evolution, and treat it as an axiom.

Of course they do. It's 2017, not 1917. Sheesh!

Evolution is a fact, not just a theory.

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Jun 22, 2017 - 09:15pm PT

Ed: . . . without resorting to deus ex machina.

No, no, no . . . I mean "yes," I didn’t mean to imply that.

I was aware of the claim that the mutations needed to occur more times than once before an event is “practically certain.”

Perhaps I should have said that the notion of a axiom would be held by those other than biologists studying evolution.

Thx.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 22, 2017 - 09:17pm PT

HFCS
There must be a YouTube by some charismatic spokesperson for science that stated that... maybe you can link to it...
...or are you just making that stuff up?

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 22, 2017 - 09:22pm PT

Well, Grandma taught me: Choose your battles carefully. But this one's worth it...

The claim results not only from my own 20 plus years of study in the subject but (2) from Carl Sagan, pretty much word for word, from Cosmos, Episode 2 if memory serves.

You know Fisher apparently, have you gotten around to Selfish Gene or Blind Watchmaker yet?

For reference, lest nobody forget this was/is the questionable claim...

I do not believe that biologists, and certainly biologists involved in studying evolution, take for granted Evolution, and treat it as an axiom.

Perhaps reword it?

Or is the "I do not believe" a qualifier?

Perhaps you yourself do not believe it. Maybe this is so.

But consider the claim...

Biologists, and certainly biologists involved in studying evolution, take for granted Evolution, and treat it as an axiom.

This claim would be TRUE.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 22, 2017 - 09:34pm PT

I'm in the mountains now and am on a metered connection. But I bet you nickels to navy beans you could find a Cosmos Ep 2 Carl Sagan piece on youtube if you're game articulating just what I posted.

Ha! Give it a shot and let me know!

PS

..or are you just making that stuff up?

After all these years, why would you think I just make sh#t up? Have you ever caught me in such a case? If so, present it. I don't like the word "pride" but "I do pride myself on" being valid and accurate. I wish you could appreciate this - esp in these trumpian times.

You know, while we're at it, I do sometimes reflect back on the moment we had this little dustup with jgill re fundamentalist Islam. Perhaps if you have any time in your day you might listen to a couple Harris episodes. You know he's no schlupp. He's rather big time now. Just consider his latest guests.... Sarah Haider and Graham Wood.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-end-of-the-world-according-to-isis

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/leaving-islam

I mean, if you care enough... either (a) about the subjects perse (eg, religion's role in culture) or (b) your posts to me back when concerning bigot and bigotry.

The remarks / statements from these experts reflect mine... precisely.

yanqui

climber

Balcarce, Argentina

Jun 23, 2017 - 04:50am PT

Dreyfus doesn't sound too bright.

First let me say I'd never heard of this Dreyfus guy until I started participating in this thread. It's a long time since I've tried to think about such an open ended question as "What is Mind?" but it's kind of fun (if exhausting). Then Largo comes on with all this "strong AI" and consciousness stuff and some of what he says seems to make some sense, but half the time I can't understand what he's talking about, so I looked around on the google scribe for thinkers outside the scientific viewpoint who might have something clear and interesting to say about this. Dreyfus, albiet dated, was one of the one few I could find.

Reading Dreyfus also helped me understand a little bit better the idea of "smart" (or intelligence). I think he's right, to some extent, that it's "contextual" and "interpretative". Let me explain (elaborating on the example from Brey). Suppose I go in a room and there's a hammer on the table. Am I smart because when I walk into the room I can point to the hammer and say "There's a hammer on the table"? If I did that out of context people might think it's time to take out the straight jacket. If I come in the room and there's a dangerous intruder, then maybe I should see the hammer as a potential weapon. If I come in the room when I need to hang a picture, then I should see the hammer as a tool. If I'm cleaning up the house I might see the hammer as a mess to put away. And if I walk in the room to talk to my daughter, I might not see the hammer at all.

Whether or not I'm "smart" has a lot to do with how I can interpret the world in the context of my needs. That kind of explains why scientists tend to identify "intelligence" with analytical skills. Because that's what their job entails.

Anyways, this Rand report by Dreyfus is really a piece of work. Sure it's scathing, but it's also lucid, well written, well documented, and hits the nail on the head page after page. Could this report be confused for a piece of constructive criticism? Hardly. The title is "AI and Alchemy". This is not constructive criticism, it's a declaration of war.

Was that the right thing to do (morally or ethically)? I think that's a meaningful question, but I don't want to think about it (I'm getting bored with Dreyfus).

Was it a smart thing to do? Well, you read the interview. Perhaps there's a little repression (is that the word?) going on in his life story so he can see himself as the victor in the war he declared, but I basically saw a satisfied man, with an interesting story to tell.

I guess I'm saying, I'm not sure I agree with you.

It's not because I want to have the last word on this, it's just that I'm getting tired talking about Dreyfus, so how about talking about something else next time?

Cheers MH2

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Jun 23, 2017 - 07:16am PT

HFCS: why would you think I just make sh#t up? Have you ever caught me in such a case?

You run fast and free with language. You are not careful or circumspect. I’ve observed many hasty generalizations.

If you were much much younger, it would be a sign of passion and endearing. At your age, it's rigid prejudice.

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 23, 2017 - 08:12am PT

Apologies, yanqui. I am embarrassed.

The detail that caught my attention was about not anticipating that scientists and other academics might recognize their mistakes.

Another glib observation of mine:

Recognizing one's own mistakes is second only to recognizing other people's mistakes when it comes to being successful in the investigative side of an academic career.

WBraun

climber

Jun 23, 2017 - 08:16am PT

We are forced to make mistakes even though we don't want to because we are ultimately incomplete in relation to the complete whole.

This why material science is ultimately defective in our understandings of the whole and can never lead to the absolute truth and only remains as relative truths.

There's NO escape .......

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jun 23, 2017 - 08:25am PT

You run fast and free with language. You are not careful or circumspect. I’ve observed many hasty generalizations.

Hasty generalizations? You mean like...

"Well there are many angry and ignorant people in the world. They seem to be breeding in record numbers."

"Hell is other people."

lol

WBraun

climber

Jun 23, 2017 - 09:11am PT

HFCS -- "After all these years, why would you think I just make sh#t up?"

You do and have done and most of the time unknowingly.

You think you're perfect in your own mind unknowingly .....

yanqui

climber

Balcarce, Argentina

Jun 23, 2017 - 09:30am PT

No apology needed, MH2. So tell me, did you have a chance to look over that article about using algebraic topology to describe neural patterns? As I recall they said something about empirically testable consequences. Do you know anything about that?

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 23, 2017 - 01:20pm PT

I'm working on it.

Thanks to Ed.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Jun 23, 2017 - 01:32pm PT

...it's "contextual"...

A somewhat tired generality is the comment that's gone around in the business for quite some time:

It would take the best supercomputer we have ten thousand years to contextualize a scene to the same level a five year old does in a tenth of a second glance.

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 23, 2017 - 02:14pm PT

did you have a chance to look over that article about using algebraic topology to describe neural patterns?

I've looked at the paper on which the simulations were based. It uses the word topology but the real interest may be here:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncom.2017.00048/full

I'll see what I can learn but I may not be able to offer much.

edit:

Be aware that Henry Markram is a charlatan according to Largo.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Jun 23, 2017 - 04:00pm PT

Markram isn't a charlatan per se, he's more like Kurzweil or Venter: over-the-top researchers who have a good feel for sales and politics and tend to over-hype projects.

The difference is guys like Ventor deliver and deliver in a big over-the-top way.