Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 09:12am PT
|
**The cause is in the laws and limitations of all actions in the universe.
**
how is that a cause?
we don't now all the "laws and limitations of all actions," so it seem premature to make the presumption, and not only that, there is a huge body of science for which causation is problematic, take quantum mechanics for instance.
How is it not a cause? What is allowed is allowed, what isn't simply can't be. The universe is determined in its character by the Inviolate, infrangible factors of its make up. It strikes me (no pun) that cause is a function of these factors. Any active force must succumb to these factors. If there is action then there is guided consequence resulting in effect. Kick the rock: " I refute it thus."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 10:07am PT
|
Just posted, an example of a refreshingly understandable, refreshingly clear and coherent, conversation between a particle physicist (Los Alamos National Lab, Sante Fe Institute) and a cosmologist (physics prof at Caltech)...
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2018/07/16/episode-5-geoffrey-west-on-networks-scaling-and-the-pace-of-life/
Grade A+
Geoffrey West is also a fine example of a scientist/investigator bridging the separation between physical science (one categorical frame) and life science (another categorical frame) and, moreover, I'd like to add, using/deploying a variety of concepts, insights and tools of analytical systems engineering (another categorical frame) to do it.
"If you scale up an animal to twice its height, keeping everything else proportionate, its volume and weight become eight times as much. Such a scaling relation was used by J.B.S. Haldane in his famous essay, “On Being the Right Size,” to help explain certain features of living organisms. But scaling relations go much deeper than that, and they are often much more subtle than the volume going as the cube of the length."
Scale: The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies, Geoffrey West
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 11:03am PT
|
Ed wrote,
It is a way of thinking about things...
...but it is not necessary to think about things in that way.
The same situation can be described without ascribing "causes," there is no scientific principle or law which requires such a thing.
After some renewed reflection...
(1) I suppose one can say the same from an engineering perspective as well.
(2) Engineering (eg, systems engineering) is often considered in two branches (two categories!): analytical eng and design/dvt eng.
(3) "Cause" or "causation" might not be a necessary entry in any engineering vernacular, at least not formally, corresponding to some engineering principle that requires such a thing, and yet, engineering in general, and as well, as both analytic engineering and design/dvt engineering, frequently conceive and work in such terms.
(4) Engineering is finding ever wider application. Today, a lot of bio-engineering incl bio-engineering analysis, is underway, kind of taking a cue, perhaps, from the growing deployment of bio-chem and bio-physics.
(5) Analytical bio-engineering easily extends to ecology, for example and its systems and subsystems (e.g, a cheetah preying on a gazelle).
(6) Engineering, as versatile as it is, esp in the form of systems engineering, is easily employed in describing or explaining (analyzing) many if not most aspects of the historical collision between Earth and the killer asteroid 64M years ago that wiped out the dinosaur.
(7) Analytical engineering easily extends to chemical reactions as systems, whether they are set up under lab conditions or take place naturally in any natural setting minus any intention or purpose.
(8) Taking acct of points (5) and (6) and (7) note how easily and usefully we, under the guidance and standard practices of analyses by way of systems engineering as a field or category, can and do assign "cause" or "causation" to events or interactions in such instances as (a) a gazelle falling off a river bank and breaking its leg (effect: injury; cause: falling); (b) a killer asteroid impacting the earth 65M years ago (effect: extinction of the dinosaurs; cause: asteroid impact, climate change); (c) a Cl atom collides with a methane molecule to produce a methane radical and HCl molecule (effect: methane radical, cause: collision).
So we could say (yes, even though we don't have to) that this is a view, a valid and accurate one, from a systems engineering perspective, whose business is often, or even mostly, analyzing, else describing/explaining, the causation or set of causes relating to, or accompanying, or having to do with, the operation or function of a thing, indeed perhaps any thing.
So hear, hear to systems engineering! :)
in particular, to analytical systems engineering, which no doubt can help bring light, if given a chance, to these confusing areas and posts relating to "cause" or "causation" and perhaps even ultimately, fate willing, to mindbrain operations and to what we people mean by intelligence, decision-making, and free will, for eg, when we use these words.
PS:
I checked, there are no entries for predation or deceit in chemistry vernacular (expressing a chemistry principle or law); so too, I checked, there are no entries for proton or Zn or phospholipid membrane in ecology (expressing an ecology principle or law). And yet these examples, either in actual item or word, have their job to do in this overall systemic process we call life.
It's a good point, imo: that "cause" or "causation" is not an entry in a physics vernacular expressing a physics principle or law. Noteworthy.
Of course, from another pov, the "cause" of the dinosaur extinction was not the asteroid. Instead the "cause" of the extinction was the earth itself - or the dinosaurs themselves - for getting in the asteroid's way.
"It is a way of thinking about things... ...but it is not necessary to think about things in that way."
So happy day, I think we are all in agreement here. (mic drop)
re: 1 "way of talking" 2 "ways of talking" change with category 3 freedoms of the will 4 constraints of the will
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 17, 2018 - 01:23pm PT
|
The issue isn't between content and awareness, that is a trivial and obvious distinction almost not worth discussing.
This, of course, is not derived from observing phenomenal consciousness itself but rather from mentalizing physical models. Ergo we get fantastic claims such as - awareness and machine awareness might be the same "thing."
The drawback for many on this thread is a disregard to those who have spent a lot of quality years observing their own consciousness, which is what the mind question is all about.
Another first assumption is that physics is the favored nation mode of trying to "explain" mind, even though physics has never been asked to investigate a subjective phenomenon, and that the mode of inquiry precludes subjective "contamination." To say nothing of the fact that we cannot directly observe phenomenal consciousness.
The first assumption is that mind is itself a physical phenomenon, or is so closely linked to a physical object that the differences are inconsequential. Problem is, as mentioned many times, you're left with Identity Theory - of that we may be sure. And no amount of "new data" can change that.
The problem with Healje's tiered take on mind is that the functions the mentioned are hopelessly muddled and conflated with conscious processes, as though awareness was a physical step process that depends on context to exist.
Note the aversion to take up the subject of objectless awareness. Even a little dab of insight into this phenomenon would sort out the most glaring errors in healje's hodgpodge.
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 01:39pm PT
|
The first assumption is that mind is itself a physical phenomenon...
Are there any examples of physical brain activity we can tweak that *doesn't* mess with the mind?
A stroke sure does. Drugs. Electrical stimulation.
It's this that makes me think mind is what the brain does.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 02:19pm PT
|
It's this that makes me think mind is what the brain does I've probably had half a dozen posts saying much the same thing, nafod. I've never gotten a decent response from Largo or the other science skeptics on why you can knock out a particular part of the brain and not only get dysfunctional mind, but dysfunctional mind precisely with the same dysfunction depending on what part of the brain was knocked out. I mean, c'mon, the simplest, most obvious solution is that brain is the source of mind.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 02:40pm PT
|
Are there any examples of mind outside of human mind?
I would be surprised if most of us would agree that chimpanzees or dolphins have mind. It really does depend on how you define the term. Certainly, chimpanzees, dolphins, and lots of other animals display intelligence. But where does intelligence cross over to mind? I would say that intelligence includes the ability to recognize other agents and to be able to anticipate the probable actions of those agents. But, it seems to me that you can do this without mind. The subconscious could handle this just fine.
Mind seems almost superfluous to me. My current hypothesis is that it is something that arose because of sexual selection in humans.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 03:27pm PT
|
Intelligence comes from the soul the real seat of consciousness itself.
Not from the mind nor the brain .......
Just as intelligence comes from the driver of the automobile.
Not from the engine nor the computer.
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 03:30pm PT
|
I think our ability to introspect (hey, I have a mind! Hey, I am thinking about having a mind! Hey, I am thinking about thinking about having a mind! Hey, ...) in a recursive loop is a part of it.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 04:25pm PT
|
Mind almost seems superfluous to me. My current hypothesis is that it is something that arose because of sexual selection in humans.
Meaning I assume, that both women and men prefer smarter mates who have a better chance of hunting success and protecting the helpless? And then there's the even smarter mate who can convince people they have a special connection to the gods in return for the other hunters keeping them supplied with meat?
There are many stories in anthropology of shamans being the richest and most successful of the tribe in terms of material goods and women. So maybe spiritual abilities has a place in evolution after all?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 04:43pm PT
|
Meaning I assume, that both women and men prefer smarter mates who have a better chance of hunting success and protecting the helpless? And then there's the even smarter mate who can convince people they have a special connection to the gods in return for the other hunters keeping them supplied with meat. Actually, that's too concrete a meaning from where I am coming from. I actually don't know why it (mind) should have occurred. Why couldn't both men and women in your scenario not have mind at all but, rather, high intelligence? Why not just use your intelligence to make the decision and be done with it? What is the importance of the conscious part of the whole package? Of the two, primary categories of selection, I'm just deciding to go with sexual rather than "natural". It's just a hunch, really.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 06:52pm PT
|
It's just a hunch, really.
Like I've said a hundred time over the gross materialists are just plain guessers and mental speculators.
Not very intelligent.
The intelligent class doesn't waste their time going around in circles like the stubborn mental speculators who only get lost in the jungle and get eaten by it .......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 07:51pm PT
|
So everyone should just fall in line, Werner ?
Where's the life in that ?
Most of you gross materialists are not even alive.
Just dead meat zombies walking in a dream state .....
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 07:57pm PT
|
Just dead meat zombies walking in a dream state
It feels so real to me. Gimme a break!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 07:59pm PT
|
Of course,
Dreams always seem so real ...... until you wake up ...as in (Largo's awareness)
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2018 - 09:26pm PT
|
JL: "The drawback for many on this thread is a disregard to those who have spent a lot of quality years observing their own consciousness"
You've tried to get threadites to "do the work", but I guess your arguments haven't been persuasive enough. It hasn't helped that your descriptions of no-thingness include embarrassingly naive forays into quantum physics and confused ramblings about form and emptiness.
The moon really is there even when we divert our attention.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!