Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
this view overcomes duality, but in the wrong way - by trying to posit this (mechanical functioning) as existing as stand-alone things independent of that (mind).
How could the mechanical functioning of the mind be independent of the mind?
It seems that you are confusing knowledge about how the brain works with the actual real-time workings of the brain.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
How does science "get done properly?"
Although Kuhn had an interesting view of it, it is hardly authoritative, and his program can be misconstrued as a defining the process of doing science. I think it is better read as an interpretation of how science gets done by humans, and firmly roots scientific progress in the messiness of human activity.
In a different vein, one could consider the results (or lack of results) in the area of Cold Fusion. I was in my third year as a graduate student at the U of U and it was a remarkable thing to see this unfold. It destroyed the careers and personal lives of Pons and Fleischmann, cost the university president his job and led the typically frugal Utah State Legislature to spend close to 5 million dollars on a "Cold Fusion Insitute": money that almost entirely went to patent lawyers. Less than three weeks after the original announcement, MIT, a university that had been particularly critical of Pons and Fleischmann's claims, applied for patents of their own based on work of one of their researchers who began sending "results" to journals shortly after Pons and Fleischmann's announcement.
So where is "Cold Fusion" today? According to Wiki: "Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion sessions at their semiannual meetings, clarifying that this does not imply a softening of skepticism. Since 2007, the American Chemical Society (ACS) meetings also include "invited symposium(s)" on cold fusion. An ACS program chair said that without a proper forum the matter would never be discussed and, "with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities."
The Wiki article about this struck me as especially well done and gives an interesting analysis of how "the" scientific process sometimes gets done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
So any way you shake it, seeking a physical "explanation" for mind, by a method that excludes any trace of mind in the investigation, is not only logically incoherent... As an aside, I've always thought that any publications about Mind need to have people whose minds you are studying as co-authors.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed,
Your last post was, imo, unusual for you. It was downright poetic, and although you might not encourage that in some of the rest of us when we’re talking technically, I thought it was wonderful.
I’m interested in the topic of responsibility (pro or con) in talking about ideas. The idea that one could or should “think responsibly” is intriguing to me. I’m not sure what it means. Are some ideas not to be thought or expressed or published?
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
Whatever you’re thinking about is literally like planning a future event. Even to live in the "now" you are planning, since there is a time delay between when you sense something and when the signal hits the noggin (and longer until it hits the awareness). To do anything in the true moment, you are having to act against a simulation of the present in your brain, not the actual present.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2018 - 09:18am PT
|
To do anything in the true moment, you are having to act against a simulation of the present in your brain, not the actual present.
Good point. That's why the internal adventures all strive to settle into "doing" nothing. Any doing model will likely be derived from mechanical processing, probably a computer, which was engineered. It follows, if you are slave to that model, that mind will be viewed as an output, evaluated by what it does or will do.
Stop the doing and the doing model evaporates.
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
The effect of blinders is to cutoff the view, but what do blinders do if there is no view to be blinded from?
I know this one! And that’s just so rare for me. They help one focus with laser like precision on the things that really matter.
We give our ADHD child Ritalin to help her do that, because, well, reality has led her to do this human thinking thing all wrong.
Meanwhile, I spend a lot of my time thinking about this bright shiny question of what the definition of is is.
Best all!
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
JL: "That's why the internal adventures all strive to settle into "doing" nothing."
Not all internal adventures. Just the ones that have this as a goal. Please try to avoid exaggerations. They detract from your otherwise somewhat reasonable arguments. Thanks.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2018 - 11:52am PT
|
How could the mechanical functioning of the mind be independent of the mind?
-
By looking at consciousness as a causal problem. In this light, the brain doesn't need consciousness to function, but consciousness needs to brain to function. When consciousness is "asleep," according to this belief, the brain is acting independently of mind. In fact, mind is absent altogether. This is the "output" model, a folk understanding of consciousness.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Thank you, Grandma Largo. I like the way you paint.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Jogill
So many distinctions in that painting. Largo is closer to a two point binary rap (claiming to be analog)....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Mindscape Podcast,
Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist
Episode Zero...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://youtu.be/Q3MrWRQpmOQ
re thoughtleaders, etc
Will podcasters someday outnumber priests?
ref: training our attention
...
Speaking of our attention, training it and what not: Does the fact that most of us know the name Kim Kardashian but have never heard of Jan Oort say anything about us?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
HFCS: Is the Pope Catholic? Thanks for that!
Edit: Seems to me that it is a combination of the ease of being a blogger along with the drop-off in formal religious participation, with maybe some exceptions (e.g., Islam).
Being an empiricist, I see this as two intersecting graph plots -- formal religious participation trends downward through time at the same time that, because of the ever-lower entry fee, blogging will outstrip priests, even without the declining religious participation by orders of magnitude.
MikeL said a bit up-thread.
eeyonkee: Why would evolutionary change be limited to within-species but still, otherwise work the way it does?
You’re married to the theory, and it limits what you can see. In this sentence you entertain the thought that so-called “evolutionary change” is not what you thought it is, but that it works. You could be more open to another idea if you were to let go (or not hold on so tightly) to a theory that another has shot more than a few holes through. To see more openly, you could simply put the theory on the side as you know it and revisit what it is that you’re trying to see or explain. If you think you’re trying to explain the theory with amendments and more data, then I suggest that you are trying to *prove* the theory, which is not how science gets done properly. If you could hold aside your devotion to the theory, then you might be able to truly investigate another possible explanation. Or, even further afield philosophically, you could revisit what it is that you think you think you need to explain. (That would clear the playing field for a fresh start.) Kuhn, in his book regarding the nature of scientific revolutions, suggests that almost no one stops what they are doing to look again at what they think they are explaining.
Mike, I would just like to "reduce" this paragraph a bit. Let's start with...
You’re married to the theory, and it limits what you can see. In this sentence you entertain the thought that so-called “evolutionary change” is not what you thought it is, but that it works.
I mean, my first, second, and third natural responses are...Say What? I'm not saying that at all! I'm saying that we have a theory (evolution) that includes all of the participating entities of life that we know of (including you and me and snails and moss) and is a testable and so-far, seemingly-valid model for how the world works. The way that evolution works accounts for species. There is no need for a "guiding hand", and, as a matter of fact, the very notion of a guiding hand introduces what I would call a "wild card", anything-goes variable. I mean, the guiding hand is outside of the system since it can (as I understand it) capriciously inject its will.
The reason I am "married to" evolution is that, so far, it's the only theory that has met all of its challenges. I don't give a rat's ass about any individual's subjective experiences, including my own, except as data points in a bigger collection with respect to relevancy for how the world works in general. In general means that it works for everybody else too and conforms with all of the science that we have learned.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
the guiding hand is outside of the system.
No, it isn't.
You just made it up with a wave of your hand playing mini god .....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2018 - 05:07pm PT
|
seemingly-valid model for how the world works.
-
Does evolution "explain" anything? Or does it describe (among other things), in fine detail, a process of how biological entities changed over time. Does it make claims to knowing why they changed exactly like they did, or supply a determined cause why anything evolved or emerged whatsoever?
Does Natural selection explain why survival should be favored over extinction, or does it describe the plain fact that it does.
It seems like most all "explanations," when you go deep enough into them, end by saying, "Because it does."
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Does evolution "explain" anything? Evolution explains everything biological.
Does it make claims to knowing why they changed exactly like they did, or supply a determined cause why anything evolved or emerged whatsoever? Yes, the seemingly capricious (changing for sure) environment that organisms evolve in is the ultimate driver. Replace God and awareness and universal consciousness with Mother Nature's capriciousness is the scientific model. The difference between the apparent capriciousness of Mother Nature and, say, the capriciousness of God, is that Mother Nature is IN the system and can, therefore, be understood, while God is outside of the system and therefore represents just pure capriciousness to the system.
Does Natural selection explain why survival should be favored over extinction, or does it describe the plain fact that it does.
Once you accept how evolution works – how it is contingent on how Mother Nature unfolds from a historical standpoint History comprises the world stage and all of its players as it played out in a world of rules and consequences over a period of time. Mother Nature represents the actual implementation. Mother Nature has a natural time component. The Mother Nature of say, 1 million years BC is not the same as the Mother Nature of today (although the evolutionary rules are the same).
It seems like most all "explanations," when you go deep enough into them, end by saying, "Because it does." I hope that I have convinced you otherwise.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Replace God and awareness and universal consciousness with Mother Nature's capriciousness is the scientific model.
Mother nature is FEMALE and serves God.
God is male.
Female (Prakriti) cannot produce life without God (Purusha) (male).
Your whole model is defective from the very start ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2018 - 07:28pm PT
|
Yes, the seemingly capricious (changing for sure) environment that organisms evolve in is the ultimate driver.
--
That in no wise suffices as an "explanation," Especially a "determined" explanation. Do you understand the difference between a description and an explanation?
Your "seemingly capricious" suggests that it only seems capricious, but in fact it is not - unless I misunderstand.
You mention "a world of rules and consequences." Explain how the rules are there and why the consequences (effects) are what they are instead of something else.
Rules, or natural "laws" are not explanations, rather descriptions of what happens. Effects don't happen because of laws, which are not external objects or forces that yield any causal effect.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!