Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
GBrown
Trad climber
Los Angeles, California
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:57am PT
|
Ha! John, hi!!! I would never suspect you of contributing to silliness, philosophic or non-. How are you? The planet is engulfed in "interesting times" -- in the sense of the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times" -- where unlike the usual fare of onerous survival with a hoe against the elements, the Mongol hoards descend like locusts and disturb the monotony -- and friends are like islands of sanity!
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 12:11am PT
|
Gary Brown!?
Used to drive from Cleveland to the Gunks?
Can silliness oppose a static force?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 12:19am PT
|
MH2:
It was Gary Molzan and Pete Ramins who drove out from Cleveland. It would have been not a whole lot further had they driven to Yosemite instead.
Edit:
When you mention a short stay at Vassar Bros. something clicks up there, but I don't pull up anything more. I don't think either Gary or Pete ever fell.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 12:25am PT
|
Thanks.
It helps to know when your memory has a glitch.
I think the Cleveland Browns may be the intermediary.
edit:
Did one of those 2 spend a short time in Vassar Bros Hospital in Poughkeepsie?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
I'm not sure that that is a correct analysis, Riley, though I'd have to work on it a bit more...
let's talk about the situation now, without considering the past or the future. As I've posted above (though now lost in the wonderful bit-sphere) the universe works wonderfully as a physical system we can describe based on our observations, theories, etc, with no need for "supernatural" i.e. unphysical, phenomena.
However our minds think up all sorts of crazy stuff, stuff that is not physical. As long as it stays that way, as thoughts, we're good to go with the separation of the physical universe and the unphysical universe... that is, perhaps we could contemplate a more complex place where the mind bridges the two.
The question I've always wondered about is why this is not sufficient for those who believe in those places, that is, why do they need the empirical validation that the "other side of the bridge" is anything more than what we think. But they do...
The problem with the "reality" of that place is that it depends on the mind. The mind is the product of an evolutionary process, which is physical in all respects, and extended through time at a scale as to be unrecognized by mind. There is a time when there was no mind, and that time will come again with the extinction of our species (and like species). The evolution of mind is but one set of adaptations that do not negatively effect (on a statistical level) the existence of our species.
So whether or not that place exists which our "mind" bridges to, it is a place that depends on mind to exist.
Now one could say that the entirety of existence is actually constructed to appear as if it is scientifically and philosophically self consistent, but is different than what we perceive it to be. That our current understanding might prohibit that sort of construction is based on the construction, and so misleads us from understanding "the truth." Then we have nothing but our "belief" to guide us. But even that is subject to manipulation in the construction.
If the scientific viewpoint is nihilistic, this "constructionist" viewpoint could be viewed as simply cruel... if not that, than it has a tinge of immoralism.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 02:45pm PT
|
Ed pretty well sums it up.
However our minds think up all sorts of crazy stuff, stuff that is not physical. As long as it stays that way, as thoughts, we're good to go with the separation of the physical universe and the unphysical universe... that is, perhaps we could contemplate a more complex place where the mind bridges the two.
The question I've always wondered about is why this is not sufficient for those who believe in those places, that is, why do they need the empirical validation that the "other side of the bridge" is anything more than what we think. But they do...
The chemical processes going on in the brain are quite real. But are they accurate? Entirely apart from this discussion, each of us does real experiments each day to make sure our brains are accurately interpreting our sensory signals. When in doubt we reach out and touch to get a confirming signal.
We can't do that with some brain outputs. Under question are the brain outputs that are created by other brain outputs. Brain activity not associated with the sensory organs.
We live in fear that our brains are not working. So on ST we look for some way to confirm the unconfirmable, using an organ we don't basically trust to begin with.
I mean really. How supportable is that proposition?
Many pages back I offered an answer to this problem. We are a pack animal and we back stop each other. We say:
"Tell me. Do you think I am crazy to do "...... whatever?
In order to avoid accepting we are a pack animal, we dream up other brain efforts in hopes they can confirm the unconfirmable, using a brain we fear is gone haywire.
Sorry. This whole thread is haywire.
Several people have presented this same objection and it has been ignored.
Maybe this resistance to looking at the obvious is the needed data.
Proving we really do have some malfunction.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 03:08pm PT
|
Why or really how would evolutionary processes develop sensory apparatus for the purpose of self deception?
Where is the "I" between two thoughts?
We find ourselves alive in this strange existence confronted with love and hate, beauty and horror, sorrow and happiness, and always near to us the anxiety of anticipation and the dread of our own inevitable annihilation.
As well, we find ourselves compelled by curiosity as to what we are, how we got here and what our lives mean, if anything.
We are overwhelmed by the sublime nature of the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” and so demand, through a host of anthropomorphic deities, a reconciliation to our existential dilemma.
The very structure of our minds both forms and reflects our understanding and curiosity with regard to the natural world.
Reason is a product of the construction of our minds; our minds like our senses are the products of natural forces and an evolution that favors us as the survivors of a long struggle for viability. How is it that evolution would favor sensory perception that deceives us? Survival itself dictates the accuracy of our senses! Can’t we say the same for reason?
Reason, not unlike our sensory perception, is a natural mechanism that favors our success as inhabitants of this world. Why would we abandon it except as a path to reconcile ourselves to what we think we simply cannot abide?
And more to the point, why would a god give us a “reason” that so favors our success and yet so often stands vehemently against the faith many say he demands?
Nobody can, and nobody wants to, argue against a god that can be anything; certainly all possibilities are possible. What god might be or when and how god might function beyond being is a fascinating question but perhaps that fascination may elicit too easily the abandonment of reason for the pleasure, fascination and reconciliation allowed by faith.
Unfortunately the sleep of reason too often produces monsters.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 03:42pm PT
|
Five inch Siberian salamanders can remain frozen solid at temps down to -35c for years and then regain consciousness and walk away when thawed. Where is their consciousness stored while frozen solid and how does it know the meat has been thawed?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 03:57pm PT
|
Mr. Smith tells them...
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 04:07pm PT
|
All possibilities are possible, but some possibilities are extremely low probability while others are extremely high probability.
The believers act as if high and low probability did not exist.
"There are angels" are spoken of as if "there are angels" is of the same probability as "there are no angels". "Thoughts and feelings are nonphysical phenomenons" are seen as having the same probability as "thoughts and feelings are of a physical nature". The first formulation is seen as just as clear and of the same "weight" as the second. Language is seducing us. If we every time a new hypothesis were expressed had to take probability into consideration the discussion would be clearer, at least every time we are talking about a very low probability hypothesis. The discussion should be about the probability of and the ways to test the hypothesis. And testing is never spoken of because the belivers are only searching for confirmation and anything that confirms the belief is good enough and anything that falsifies the belief is ignored.
When we can use our heads on hypothesis that can be tested empirically, why use our heads on very very low probability hypothesis that cannot be tested, only believed or not believed?
healyje: You make a lot of sense. I guess that is why Largo seldom answers your questions. It seems like he prefers to answer the more speculative posts that are at his own level of abstraction.
Neither has he given a 10 sec experience example yet.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 11, 2011 - 04:25pm PT
|
However our minds think up all sorts of crazy stuff, stuff that is not physical. As long as it stays that way, as thoughts, we're good to go with the separation of the physical universe and the unphysical universe.
Here is the heart and soul of the physicalist belief system, clearly stated by Ed.
Basically, we have "reality," which is based on matter or sense data. Then we have the "crazy stuff" which is non-matter but harmless enough since it/they are "only" mental apparitions, lacking the heft and authenticity of physical matter-of-fact shite.
The "hard question" introduced from the whole qualia gig is that the "real" shite is only known through direct 1st person experience, a process that to us humans is more "real" and authentic than the sense data/physical shite that we hold as the High Lama or Golden Fleece of reality. This first person experiencing is not a physical "thing" in the normal sense of the word, it is rather a subjective process by which we come to know ourselves, the world and the world of "crazy stuff," all qual that is processed alike by "mind."
Of course giving an inch to the simple experiential fact that 1st person subjective experience is NOT, in and of itself, a physical thing, is a non-starter to a physicalist, hence we see all the scrambling around that qualia is all good and fine but "it" (the lives they actually experience) is after all "produced" by an evolved meat brain and that qualia, or 1st person experience is simply "what the evolved meat brain does." Then you brace yourself for all the AI, digital modeling and tri-processing concepts that "explain" consciousness at a mechanical function that had we the facts, we could reengineer back to atomic level processes from which your conscious life directly emerges. I referred to this as the "broadcast" model of consciousness, whereby the evolved meat brain broadcasts both the 1st person, subjective flow we all identify as out real lives, and also the "watcher" or self-referential agency which is just a snazzy digital mirroring device. If you doubt this model, just pour some whisky into the works, or bang the meat brain with a hammer and notice the quality of the broadcast changes immediatly. Ergo the "mind" is in some way an emergent quality of matter. That's the story.
The "hard problem" with this story is that the broadcast model builds on purely physical observations and occurrences that we see all around us and everyday, where one physical thing leads to another physical thing. We don't see a physical thing producing a non-physical thing, though we see physical things creating effects like gravity and so forth, but nowhere do we see physical things "producing" someone remotely like qualia. This doesn't mean we have to consider our lives and 1st person experience as "special," but the fact remains that mechanistic models can describe processing and info crunching capacities, and can even postulate ideas about cellular underpinnings to "mind," but these 3rd person objectifications are not qualia, and to this we can can only fail to see the "hard problem" if we fail to experience the 1st person subjective bubble we live in and always will, and so much physical stuff "caused" by preceding physical processes.
In other words, a strictly mechanical causal description will always overlook or attempt to explain away (mater IS mind) the 1st person experiential subjective process you experience as you read this, as itself being a "thing" or a mechanical broadcast.
Fact is, by the physicalists definition, qualia, or the lives we actually experience and live are so much "crazy stuff" while the mechanical shenanigans some believe entirely create said craziness are held to be "real."
Funny stuff . . .
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 05:05pm PT
|
Largo: ....but nowhere do we see physical things "producing" someone remotely like qualia
If you bothered to read the link from pages back you'd see that fMRI studies can detect your current qualia by monitoring physical processes - i.e. qualia aren't 'things', but rather processes. If qualia were as spooky as you posit, there would be no way to detect / infer them from the output of an fMRI.
And so where is the salamander's consciousness stored while frozen...? Maybe, just maybe, consciousness only 'exists' as active neural processes - 'emergent' from your perspective; simply what that neural processing 'is' and designed to 'produce' to me and others (i.e. the salamander for one). And, if consciousness only exists simultaneously and concurrent to neural processing, then the distinction of what qualia and 1st person subjective experience 'is' hardly seems worth the electrons to quibble over.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 05:13pm PT
|
Largo.
You say
"In other words, a strictly mechanical causal description will always overlook or attempt to explain away (mater IS mind) the 1st person experiential subjective process you experience as you read this, as itself being a "thing" or a mechanical broadcast."
I think you are now trying to expaining away the high probability physical explanation of the 1st person experiental process you experience as you read this. Why?
I am not talking simple cause and effect. It may end up with other models at some level, maybe complexity models or models including waves will be part of the explanation, but simple serial causation along one chain of cause and effect it will surely not be. There is no reason to hold a simple stereotypical view of the physical world. The weather is a good example.
And now please exemplify by showing us the 10 sec.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 05:37pm PT
|
How is it that modern science can't even figure a simple thing like "mind".
Ya all have one don't ya?
Or maybe modern science doesn't have one .......
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 05:43pm PT
|
WBraun: Or maybe modern science doesn't have one .......
....... sure it does, science just doesn't have the upgrade that keeps it working after its meat stops.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 10:32pm PT
|
hey, Largo's back even though he was "done" with this thread...
he wrote:
"The 'hard question' introduced from the whole qualia gig is that the 'real' shite is only known through direct 1st person experience..."
which is not correct, if it is a 'hard question,' it is because we all agree that there is something to it, that is distinctly a consensus view.
While we do have first person experiences, we are totally convinced that other individuals have them too, and we get together and talk about it, and share those experiences and see what is common. I could not prove that Largo is conscious, has a mind or even first person experiences. The only way I know that he does is that he looks human, and he communicates those experiences to me in a way that I understand.
My conclusion is that he has consciousness, he has a mind, he has a sense of what a "first person experience" is... my conclusion is most likely correct.
Now this comparison is an interesting thing... not all experience is shared, and not all of what we experience actually is true... if I'm drinking at a bar, and I go to drive my friends home, they may have a different opinion about my capability to do that then I do... "hey, I'm fine, nothing to it" and perhaps I'd make the bad judgement to do it... but my experience at the moment, first person and all, tells me that it's no problem...
In science, while Isaac Newton had a whole lot of ideas on a range of intellectual, religious, spiritual, technological topics, I don't really know what his experiences were, with the exception of what he wrote down regarding science. Because of the description of the experiments he performed, the quantitative description, I can reproduce what he did exactly, or certainly I can quantify just how exactly... I even can know how well he could have done. We can agree across centuries on this...
...not so his religious ideas, which are rooted in the culture he knew and grew up in... while I can read what he wrote, I cannot determine with any measure how close I come to understanding that writing, I can read a lot of other period pieces, sort of try to get an overall idea, but my cultural experiences, my "first person" stuff, get in the way of really getting what he's got to say. Certainly not like reproducing his experiments...
My point in all this is we don't just have "first person experience," we have a consensus experience. We all understand that our "first person experience" can dominate our views, but we also do not take that to such an extreme as to say everyone else is a zombie... because they don't have my particular first person experience...
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 10:40pm PT
|
I thought I was dead
but it seems I am not.
My dad’s final word
gave birth to new thought!
I feel I’m alive,
reborn in a way
Perhaps I may strive
to frolic and play!
The riddle’s new test:
Sly soul or mere meat?
No . . . where did I rest?
And where is delete?
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011 - 10:58pm PT
|
f*#k them ind,
im studying my feet.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!