Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 06:47pm PT
|
The mind is emergent from the brain and there is causality, but certainly not a 'linear causality'.
But you're right, evolution is a process, but you can tell it's the process responsible for consciousness by looking and the 'artifacts' of that process over time: progressively more complicated behaviors including instinctual, unconscious and conscious. That progression by itself tells you that minds evolved with brains.
The fact we don't know how exactly how brains produce consciousness is more an indicator of how complex a problem space we're talking about. Oh, that it was a simple matter of reductively following a linear breadcrumb trail from mind to brain - but it isn't when you're talking about 100 trillion active neural connections, real-time neuroepigenetics, and distributed hierarchies of neural oscillations. In fact, while recent advances in 'brain mapping' from research into comas and vegetative states have contributed to identifying brain areas involved in awareness (consciousness), we're still a long way from understanding how it happens or works.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 06:53pm PT
|
The mind is emergent from the soul the person itself.
The brain is NOT the source of consciousness,
The soul is .....
That's why I said; "You, gross materialists, don't even understand the first thing period."
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 06:55pm PT
|
you're talking about 100 trillion active neural connections, real-time neuroepigenetics, and distributed hierarchies of neural oscillations
???
I thought i was talking about a synaptic connection either promoting or inhibiting the firing of the neuron it connects to, and the strength of the connection being modifiable by synchronous activation of other inputs to the same neuron.
The implications can be left for the student to work out.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 06:56pm PT
|
Yanqui: Why does "causality" have to be an essential part of every scientific description? . . . .I think you [Mike] may have misunderstood . . . .
I don’t think so. You pointed to an extraordinary explanation in an instance where cause and effect were *not* referenced center stage. For the most part in science as I’ve been a part of the community, it has and it does. Are you saying causality is not central to what typical scientific research is oriented to and does?
Ed: As for MikeL, I think his impressions of science and how science is done lead him to erroneous assumptions. The "hard sciences" are full of associations and correlations, they are often the first things we "see" when trying to understand what is going on …
Of course.
I don’t think physics is all that different scientifically than any other academic discipline. Associations and correlations are where folks start, granted. But if that’s all you’ve got to show, I don’t think you’ll be publishing much in academe in most any field of study. Go back to your Jul 9, 2018 - 08:02pm PT post and see how many times the word “cause” or an causal injunction is implied. How many times are folks in those abstracts making suggestions as to what should be done to effect changes on this or that issue?
I’d say in most every instance, causality is presented linearly.
healyje: The mind is emergent from the brain and there is causality, but certainly not a 'linear causality'.
Then what would you call it?
MB1: . . . the two camps are literally incommensurable paradigms.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 07:10pm PT
|
I think the example is a set-up. Peasants aren't all stuck in a horse perspective.
I think that you're missing the point.
The example isn't between "all" scientists and "all" peasants; the example is between a particular scientist and a particular, intelligent, interested peasant. Such peasants are exactly the people that science tries to convince.
After all, we non-materialist "peasants" are EXACTLY the ones that you, Ed, and others seem to devote a good deal of effort to convincing of the adequacy of your steam engine.
Your "not me" line would have a lot more credence if you ended with that and quit the thread. I'm not suggesting that you should quit the thread; I'm suggesting that you, like the scientist in the example, seem pretty interested in convincing the "peasants" on this thread.
So, I'll keep asking, "Where's the horse?"
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 07:29pm PT
|
Jim: An unexamined life is equally worth living.
Ha-ha.
How would one know what is worthwhile about one’s life unexamined? Are you suggesting that there is a “bliss of ignorance?”
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 07:43pm PT
|
You lost a point as soon as you assumed people are either good peasants or scientists.
Whaaaattt?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 08:07pm PT
|
I actually think that MH2 put his finger on it, just after my last post upthread, regarding "cause," and it also squares with HFCS.
Experimental physics is all about setting up conditions in the lab to investigate phenomena. Just as MH2 looks at the light coming through his fingers and observes something "strange" which he can now explain. He is definitely causing the phenomenon.
The difference between experiments and observations is precisely that we perform experiments with intention. Experimentation is a human process, and it is not only natural to talk about it as "causing" something, it is the intention.
However, conflating this with nature being about "causes" and "effects" is wrong. You could wonder how the universe is "caused" but no one is proposing that the universe is constructed as an experiment that was intentionally executed in some manner.
So while scientists plan out experiments, perhaps characterized by don Largo's "linear causality," that is not how they view reality.
This is not a "classical" vs. "quantum" physics thing, "causes" are not fundamentally a part of the physical description of the universe.
Now HFCS provides examples of technologies, which are created intentionally, I think it is natural to describe "causes" and "effects," all of them have to do with human civilization. Technologies are created to be useful to humans.
This has nothing to do with a description of the physical universe. It is a description of how humans interact with the physical universe.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 08:10pm PT
|
Ah, I see, Jim. Okey-dokey then.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 08:37pm PT
|
So, I'll keep asking, "Where's the horse?"
There is no horse.
If we see an "aha" in the peasant's eye, then we have got somewhere.
If not, we may have wasted our time.
I disagree that we who have an interest and background in science are trying to convince you that we are right. We don't have time to waste on that considering the time and effort it takes to get funding from the agencies that offer it.
We may question statements you make about the impossibility of ever understanding mind and consciousness. That does not mean we need to explain our own views well enough that you will not ask us where the horse is.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 08:39pm PT
|
I actually think that MH2 put his finger on it,
Thumb and finger.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 08:44pm PT
|
Causes the wind to blow from San Francisco toward the valley?
what is the question you are asking? is it really about causes? do you think "someone" intentionally sets up the conditions that result in the wind?
now you might be able to do something like that on a small scale, intentionally.
MH2, you can have your brackets back...
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 09:01pm PT
|
A Feynman comment:
"The next reason you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how nature works, you won't understand why nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can't explain why nature works in this peculiar way."
I no longer see the light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, I no longer see the tunnel. Far too much obfuscation. Far too many ill-defined words.
It does seem obvious consciousness is categorically different from physical phenomena. A trite remark, I know. To the best of my knowledge the mathematics of consciousness thus far fails to describe, much less to predict. I suppose that could change.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 09:19pm PT
|
a fluid will flow in a pressure gradient from the high pressure to the low pressure
if the fluid is confined to a small region on the surface of a moving sphere, the fluid flow direction will be subject to the Coriolis "force"
surface temperature gradients differentially head atmospheric elements the ideal gas law describes the behavior of the gas, relating its pressure and volume to its temperature
where is the cause?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 09:33pm PT
|
John: Sean's Big picture videos seem very instructive. Natural laws are patterns that tell what natural event will follow another event, with no recourse to cause and effect. Cause and effect emerge from the peculiar questions humans ask. And he bears down strongly on how ill served we are by the use of poorly defined words and associations.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2018 - 09:43pm PT
|
It does seem obvious consciousness is categorically different from physical phenomena.
in what way?
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2018 - 12:16am PT
|
Are you saying causality is not central to what typical scientific research is oriented to and does
"Central" I don't know. I'm saying it's not essential. You might try the video that jstan referenced. It's an interesting and clear consideration of this sort of question from the point of view of someone who understands contemporary physics (and historical roots} better than I do. Right now I'm in the process of watching the vid with my morning coffee, so I don't know the punchline (if there is one). So far, it seems, at least with respect to contemporary physics, the speaker thinks the answer to your question is "yes".
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2018 - 06:57am PT
|
It does seem obvious consciousness is categorically different from physical phenomena.
In what way?
Because consciousness originates from the the living entity itself (soul) which is anti material.
If modern science actually does the experiments on it they will see perfectly.
Instead modern science NEVER does the experiment at all.
Instead they mental speculate and then form a guessing theory and then use material consciousness to understand non-material consciousness.
Modern science studying consciousness is like studying how to climb by never going climbing itself ......
One MUST DO the experiment on ONESELF there IS no other way .......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2018 - 07:14am PT
|
and I say it is possible to believe in both germs and nagas. Separate and sometimes overlapping magestariums.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!