What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5574 - 5593 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jun 12, 2015 - 07:44am PT
Jgill: Exercise your imagination and give us something that hasn't been recycled a hundred times. You're smart.

Smart = imaginative?

“Do not recycle” = do not stand on the shoulders of Giants?
WBraun

climber
Jun 12, 2015 - 08:16am PT
Pinker just another fool mental speculator making guesses with no clue what so ever masquerading as science and knowledge.

Just another spin doctor who is a prisoner of his own out of control mind.

Pinker = more scientism

The fool believes Consciousness IS the activity of the brain.

The fool claims the the "soul camp" thinks the soul is in the brain.

The fool doesn't know that the soul resides within the heart and not in the brain what so ever.

Soul = atma
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jun 12, 2015 - 08:28am PT
DMT: A perfect example of word-games.

It’s all word games.


Ed said: No physicist actually believes that the electron has no-extent, we don't know what causes it to have extent. You can describe it better as "not yet a thing" which is different than "no thing" which is a good provisional description, but doesn't correctly describe the situation. If we take String Theory as a model then the electrons have finite extent. . . . We might not know what the hell we are talking about now, but that doesn't have any relevance to whether or not we will in the future.

So, you do the research and you admit that the discipline doesn’t know, but everyone’s beliefs make them think that they really do know, but you all can’t say “what you know” or how you know it.

This seems to be a problem for everyone. There are data, theories, concepts, narratives, and plethora research studies about everything from all sides. In the end, however, everything appears inconclusive . . . but by golly WE BELIEVE! None of us are as rational, logical, systematic, or as frank and honest as we would want to claim. This happens so consistently and pervasively that one might imagine that the strength and pervasiveness of our beliefs are impossible to see it within ourselves. Why? Our perceptions are the result of our beliefs. To see honestly, one needs to let-go of beliefs.

jstan

climber
Jun 12, 2015 - 09:37am PT
Which Pinker link is being discussed here? He describes how he arrives at his ideas. Excellent and far too unusual.

As usual the word "believe" is being used in more than one sense

Believe- to think something is a useful model of reality entirely in the absence of confirming data

Believe- to think something is a useful model of reality

To get around this confusion just say you think something, and why.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Jun 12, 2015 - 10:50am PT
Pinker, again, equates complexity with AI: that the mental operation of a walking four year old has a remarkable complexity that is difficult to program into an even extremely complex machine.

One is left to wonder: is brain complexity and the complex operation of mind in any way a manifestation of evolutionary need? Pinker notes that structures such as music and dreams and such seem to have no relationship to evolutionary processes. How then are they such profound elements in our lives?

The mantra of this thread has been the evolutionary notions of chance and survival and the idea that the human mind is simply a product of that crucible, but the truth seems to be that much of what is mind stands apart from those very practical necessities.

Mysterious, don't you think?

MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Jun 12, 2015 - 12:08pm PT
The mantra of this thread has been the evolutionary notions of chance and survival and the idea that the human mind is simply a product of that crucible, but the truth seems to be that much of what is mind stands apart from those very practical necessities.

Mysterious, don't you think?


Yes. I think chance can account for part of the mystery. Also, evolution does not go back and start over. That which may be impractical is not cast out when new species appear.


The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes, is cited as evidence of evolution. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

from Wikipedia
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 12, 2015 - 12:27pm PT
The human mind is, from an evolutionary aspect, an incredible fortune of evolution. It is very powerful, and enabled humans to go from a stone chipping hunter gatherer to master of the planet in a blink of evolutionary time.

The interesting thing is that for most of human history, things progressed slowly compared to what happened later. The Neolithic period was very long, and improvements in technology mainly consisted of better spear points. Same with the bronze age.

This is a result of the energy needs of the brain. It takes a lot of calories to keep that sucker running. So meat became a part of the diet; concentrated fat and proteins.

The invention of written language was huge. You could communicate beyond generations, and better technology could be easily spread. Written language was a real game changer.

For most of human history, survival was the aim. Later, when we settled down to an agrarian lifestyle, we had time to think more about abstract things and later to write them down.

We owe a lot to H. Erectus. That is when brain size doubled, and evidence for abstract thought, in the form of tools that spanned generations, started showing up in abundance.

Now humans can do this:


Have any of you seen the ISS fly over in the evening? It flew over twice in the last few weeks, and it is incredibly bright. That sucker is huge.

6000 years before, we were still making these:


H Erectus made these tools prior to H Sapiens appearance. To make this from a large chunk of flint took skill and practice. It was certainly handed down through generations. Age: Greater than 70,000 years.




MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jun 12, 2015 - 02:14pm PT
Moose: Do you believe what you write here?

What would lead you to doubt it? Is it that impossible to believe that one could live without beliefs? (That’s kind of a joke.) My answer is, “yes.”

Jstan: Believe- to think something is a useful model of reality entirely in the absence of confirming data . . . . Believe- to think something is a useful model of reality

Looks like one common thread in your definitions is “model.”

To get around this confusion just say you think something, and why.

What of what you do NOT think? What about feelings, instincts, myths / stories / narratives?

Is reality "what you think?”
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jun 12, 2015 - 02:21pm PT
MH2: I think chance can account for part of the mystery.

Remarkable statement. It got me to considering: How could one ever undertake to prove this theory?

First off, you got “mystery”—which is something that you have no clue about. I mean, it's a mystery, right? Then you account for what you have no clue about (can’t even way what it is other than “mystery”) by you drawing out an explanation that you can't test if situations are contextually or content-wide unique. (Perhaps an assumption on my part, eh?) What is chance, anyway, and how could anyone account for it—much less using it to explain something called, “mystery?”

As I read this, you’re speculating about speculation. Wow.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2015 - 05:05pm PT
Ok Ed, I will try and seriously address your concerns.

Largo

"I am not saying that we cannot objectify sentience, only that you cannot START with objectifying before a long period of observing the phenomenon itself. When I say, "itself," I mean subjectivity/experience itself. Just as it is. It is quite natural for you to want to default out of this observation and start calculating what you believe are the material constituents that "cause" or source consciousness, but again what you are really describing is objective functioning, NOT subjectivity. This process works well with normal things (material objects with no consciousness), because they do not feature more than the sum of their material parts. Consciousness is that extra that all other things do NOT have, so the old methods fall short because they are not even focued on this extra."

You have to explain to me how we can start with observing "subjective/experience" and end up with something that is objective. The problem is, of course, that "subjective/experience" as you've been defining it is an individual thing. Your "subjective/experience" may have nothing at all in common with my "subjective/experience." The extent that they share some commonality has been thoroughly explored probably over the entire existence of humans. So we already start at a place where there has been a long period of observing, essentially all of history.

ED, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL, IN ALL OF MY DESCRIPTIONS I HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO NOT CONFLATE THE CONTENT (PEOPLE, PLACES, THINGS, AND PHENOMENON) OF EXPERIENCE WITH WHAT I HAVE CALLED THE 'TECHNICAL' PROCESS OF BEING SENTIENT. YOU CANNOT, SO FAR AS I KNOW, TRANSPOSE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE ITSELF INTO AN OBJECTIVE THING. BUT WHILE THE CONTENT OF MY EXPERIENCE IS QUITE DIFFERENT THEN YOURS, THE PROCESS OF SENTIENCE, THE TECHNICAL COMPONENTS OF PERCEPTION AVAILABLE TO KEEN EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION (OF OUR SUBJECTIVE FLOW) DISCLOSE COMMONALITIES THAT ARE SELFSAME TO ALL NON-PATHOLOGICAL HUMAN SENTIENCE. I HAVE LISTED THE THREE PILLARS: AWARENESS, FOCUS AND ATTENTION. THAT IS THE STARTING POINT IN MY BOOK, NOT THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF WHAT CONTENT US HUMANS HAVE EXPERIENCED, WHICH AS YOU SAY WILL VARY RADICALLY, PERSON OT PERSON.

If you will please distinguish between "objective functioning" and "subjective functioning"? in some sense, it doesn't matter, I am, by definition, not privy to your "subjective functioning" and no one else is either. How do you use that as a basis of anything?

THIS IS A TRICKY ONE TO GET HOLD OF AND I KNOW OF NO STUDY THAT HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION OR CHALLENGE. THE CHALLENGE, AS I SEE IT, IS TO TRY AND OBJECTIFY COMMON/UNIVERSAL PERCEPTUAL COMPONENTS PARTICULAR TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE. AS MIKE POINTED OUT EARLIER, AND CORRECTLY IN MY OPINION, YOU CANNOT HOPE TO OBJECTIFY THE SUBJECTIVE BY STUDYING THE OBJECTIVE AND TRYING TO INFER WHAT IS HAPPENING EXPERIENTIALLY. THAT'S LIKE HOPING TO KNOW ABOUT ROME BY VISITING LAS VEGAS. NOW HERE IS WHERE IT GETS TRICKY. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO OBJECTIFY THE OBJECTIVE CONTENT OF EXPERIENCE, SUCH AS MEMORY, DATA PROCESSING, HOW WE PERCEIVE COLOR, SHAPES, RECOGNIZE FACES, ETC. WE CAN STUDY BRAIN (OBJECTIVE) FUNCTIONING. HOWEVER THIS OBJECTIVE STUDY WILL NOT BETRAY THE EXPERIENTIAL, TECHNICAL (NOT CONTENT) COMPONENTS OF SELF-AWARENESS OR SENTIENCE, WHICH ARE NOT THEMSELVES COMPUTATIONS. A MACHINE MODEL OF SENTIENCE CAN ONLY POSIT AWARENESS, FOR EXAMPLE, AS (IE - the act or action of computing : calculation; the use or operation of a computer; a system of reckoning; an amount computed). ALL OF THESE DEFINITIONS INVOLVED CONTENT THAT IS BEING COMPUTED. BUT AWARENESS ITSELF NEED NOT BE TIED TO CONTENT, SOMETHING WE CAN NEVER HOPE TO UNDERSTAND NOR YET GRASP BY SIMPLY LOOKING AT NEURO FUNCTIONING (COMPUTATIONS). FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS, SENTIENCE ITSELF, ON ITS OWN TERMS, IN THE EXPERIENTIAL REALM WHERE IT ACTUALLY EXISTS, MUST BE THE STARTING POINT. OTHERWISE WE ARE FOREVER BOUND BY CONTENT, AS AS YOU SAID, THIS VARIES RADICALLY

As far as things being "more than the sum of their material parts" there are many trivial examples in physics, some less than trivial examples exist also, but perhaps I need to understand a bit more how you actually determine that.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNIQUE IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD BECAUSE WITH ALL NON-SENTIENT THINGS, OUR PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS ALL POINT TO PHYSICAL (OBJECTIVE) PHENOMENON WHICH APPARENTLY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE PURELY PHYSICAL/OBJECTIVE. WITH SENTIENCE WE ARE FACED WITH THE STRANGE BUT INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT OF EXPERIENCE, OUR SUBJECTIVE SENSE AND DIRECT PERCEPTION OF BEING ALIVE, PSYCHOLOGICALLY, EXISTENTIALLY, AND IN TIME AND SPACE. THIS SUBJECTIVE COMPONENT IS NOT PART OF THE PACKAGE WITH "THINGS" (INANIMATE, NON-CONSCIOUS OBJECTS). THE EXPERIENTIAL IS "EXTRA," THE MORE-THAN SIMPLY OBJECTIVE.

When I say that consciousness is not a thing, I am not suggesting that consciousness is separte from material things, but as we have seen with that which has no dimensionality, no physical extent, and no mass, even our most trusted things, at bottom, reduce down to no-thing (no material extent). So with subjectivity, we are simply stuck with this dual nature - we have a physical brain (that reduces down to no-thing), and a quixotic subjectivity that itself is not strictly physical - any more than the actual experience of climbing at Josh is a physical entity.

We have not seen that "at bottom" things "reduce down to no-thing (no material extent)."

I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT YOU MEAN "NO MATERIAL EXTENT" TO MEAN.

what is a better characterization of what happens at the bottom is that we don't know how to describe what is going on... we don't have the language. No physicist actually believes that the electron has no-extent, we don't know what causes it to have extent. You can describe it better as "not yet a thing" which is different than "no thing" which is a good provisional description, but doesn't correctly describe the situation. If we take String Theory as a model then the electrons have finite extent.

I AM TAKING MY CUE ON PHYSICS BASICALLY FROM TWO PEOPLE (NOT THE ONES WHO POSTED THAT MATE STUFF I PASTED IN PREVIOUSLY). ONE WORKS AT JPL AND THE OTHER, CALTEC - FOR WHATEVER THAT COUNTS. THEIR TAKE - AND I THINK I HAVE THIS CORRECT, HARKS BACK TO THE QUARK DISCUSSION, AND THE NOTION THAT A QUARK IS A "THING", THAT IS, AN "INANIMATE OBJECT WITH NO CONSCIOUSNESS." THEY SWEAR UP AND DOWN - AND I DON'T KNOW THE MATH OR EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR THIS AT ALL - THAT THERE IS NO SUCH MATERIAL "THING" AS A QUARK THAT HAS ENERGETIC PROPERTIES, RATHER, THERE ARE SIMPLY AND ONLY THE PROPERTIES. NO ONE IS CLAIMING THERE ARE NOT PROPERTIES, ONLY THAT THE NOTION THEY ARE SOURCED BY A MATERIAL "OBJECT" IS TOTALLY MISTAKEN. LIKEWISE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SEAR FOR A "CAUSE" FOR IT HAVING NO PHYSICAL EXTENT IS YET ANOTHER VAIN SEARCH FOR THAT OBJECTIVE THING BELIEVED TO HAVE SOURCED THIS OR THAT, AND THIS, SO FAR AS I KNOW, IS WHAT THEY ARE REFUTING. SO WHEN THEY SAY, "IT ALL REDUCES DOWN TO NO-THING," MY TAKE IS THEY ARE SAYING AT BOTTOM YOU HAVE PHENOMENON WITH NO OBJECT SOURCING SAME. PERHAPS I HAVE THAT SLIGHTLY WRONG. I WILL INQUIRE THIS WEEKEND.

"Now you go on to talk about awareness, focus and attention in machine terms. That is, as objective tasks, and you mistakenly conflate this with human experience. Of course machine "awareness" is entirely different than human awareness because the former enjoys no experiential/subjective quotient to the process, and can be looked at as simply a mechanical, stimulus-response mechanism. For example, a machine is programmed to respond to this kind of input in that way. It is an entirely blind, unknowing and mechanical process that has no dimension (like a subjective dimension) beyond the computation or task element. The only "awareness" the machine shows is that it responds to input by way of its programing.

"Awareness" in the human/sentient context revolves around the actual subjective EXPERIENCE of being aware, in addition to the "tasking," or what I call the technical element of how awareness operates as a component of "mind.""

It is not a mistake to conflate the two. The people who create these "aware" machines are quite aware of the attribute of their own "awareness." And the process by which the machines are built are patterned after the experience of humans becoming aware of the very same things they create the machines to be aware of, including providing to the machines the necessary experience. The experience in this case is objective, not subjective, and the machines perform as well or better than the humans do, and certainly (and most importantly for the experiments) the machines do it on a time scale much shorter than the humans.

AGAIN, ED, IT IS A TOTAL MISTAKE TO CONFLATE SENTIENT AWARENESS WITH MACHINE AWARENESS FOR THE REASONS CLEARLY STATED. WHAT YOU ARE CONFLATING IS THE STIMULUS RESPONSE WHICH IMPLIES AWARENESS, NOT AWARENESS AS IT OPERATES IN A SENTIENT ADULT. ONCE MORE YOU ARE STRENUOUSLY TRYING TO DEFINE AWARENESS AS A TASK.

You can define awareness to require some subjective elements, but it is not necessary, and learning to become aware is something that is taught. Most of what we are aware of "instinctually" clearly falls into a more machine like description.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT EXPERIENCES YOU HAD TO HAVE DEVELOPED THESE BELIEFS. WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT INSTINCTIVE (BRAIN STEM) STIMULUS RESPONSES, WHICH ARE LARGELY UNCONSCIOUS, ARE THE SAME AS MACHINE AWARENESS, WHICH ARE ENTIRELY UNCONSCIOUS - THAT IS, THE MACHINE HAS NO SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE, THE HORROR-SHOW HUMAN VERSION OF SAME BEING A ZOMBIE. PUT DIFFERENTLY, WE CANNOT CONFLATE CONSCIOUS AWARENESS WITH MACHINE/INSTINCTIVE/ZOMBIE AWARENESS BECAUSE THE TELLING DIFFERENCE IS SENTIENCE, WHICH NEITHER THE ZOMBIE NOR THE COMPUTER HAVE. SO IT IS INTERESTING TO HEAR YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE THAT AWARENESS IS LEARNED, WHEN A ZOMBIE AND MOST MACHINES DO NOT LEARN, THEY ONLY RESPOND ACCORDING TO PROGRAMMING.

THE INTERESTING THING WITH HUMAN AWARENESS IS THAT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, SENTIENCE/CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS ARE SELFSAME. BUT ONCE THE LIGHT OF CONSCIOUS AWARENESS IS DIRECTED TOWARD SOME CONTENT, IT BECOMES A TASKING AGENT THAT WE CAN START TO DESCRIBE IN TERMS OF HOW IT APPROPRIATES CONTENT, MUCH AS THE LASSO FUNCTION ON PHOTOSHOP CAN ISOLATE AND ABSTRACT ONE ELEMENT OR ONE TREE, SO TO SPEAK, FROM THE FOREST. IT IS THIS LATER FUNCTIONING THAT WE START TO DEVELOP A LANGUAGE FOR BASED ON DIRECTLY OBSERVING OUR AWARENESS FUNCTIONING IN THE CONSCIOUS, EXPERIENTIAL REALM.

Your conclusion that machines do not include some "experiential quotient" in their awareness is incorrect.

BY EXPERIENTIAL QUOTIENT I AM OF COURSE REFERRING TO THE SUBJECTIVE/ EXPERIENTIAL REALM, AND NOT THE BLIND, MECHANICAL SELF REGISTRY THAT OCCURS IN MACHINES. YOU CANNOT 'PROVE' SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE BECAUSE NORMAL METHODS OF PROOF APPLY ONTO TO THE OBJECTIVE WORLD, WHERE YOU CAN GET HOLD OF THINGS/OBJECTS WITH OUR INSTRUMENTS AND SENSE DATA. MACHINE ONLY REGISTER A MECHANICAL PROCESS - THEY DO NOT EXPERIENCE A SUBJECTIVE REALM.

What's more, and this is where the experiential gets pretty esoteric - we can think of machine awareness only as a task in response to a digital stimulus. In humans, awareness can be encountered "neat." When we "shut up and stop calculating," and simply sit and observe, neither moving to or away from content (people, palces, things, and phenomenon of sentience), there is no "tasking" involved, and in fact we are for the moment letting go of all efforting to DO anything, including responding to internal and external stimulus. This is when "presence" jumps up, something entirely outside the purview of present-day machines.

But that you can describe a "phenomenon" which is readily recognizable to anyone that has undergone the act (in this case of meditation) it ceases to be a "subjective" phenomenon, it is something we can agree upon. It is achieved in a very prescribed manner.


I WOULD WORD THIS DIFFERENTLY. FOR STARTERS, BECOMING CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF AWARENESS IS NOT SOME THING THAT IS ACHIEVED. IN FACT THIS PROCESS ONLY STARTS TO GET TRACTION ONCE WE GIVE UP TRYING TO ACHIEVE OR ATTAIN OR MAKE AN EFFORT (AN ACT) IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. AWARENESS WILL NOT CONFORM ITSELF INTO THE SYMMETRY OF AN OBJECT SO IT CANNOT BE APPROPRIATED THROUGH A DISCURSIVE ACT OR THROUGH EFFORTING. ACTS AND EFFORTING RESULT IN CONTENT. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE STOP EFFORTING OR TRYING TO ACHIEVE, CONSCIOUS AWARENESS NATURALLY EMERGES AND AS YOU REMAIN PRESENT WITH IT, (WHEN WE SHUT UP AND STOP CALCULATING), WE GET CLEARER ON WHAT AWARENESS IS.

It has been known for centuries. It is teachable. In that sense, it is far from "subjective."

AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AWARENESS ITSELF, WHICH IS AN INHERENT QUALITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS, BUT RATHER THE TASK AND THE MODE OF EXPLORING AND THE CONTENT THAT HAS TO BE GIVEN UP. HUMAN AWARENESS CAN NEVER, ITSELF, BE OTHER THAN SUBJECTIVE, OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE AN OBJECT, AND THIS ONE OF THE FIRST FALACIES WE DISCOVER IN THE EXPERIENTIAL ADVENTURES. THE CHALLENGE IS TO TRY AND OBJECTIFY THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF AWARENESS, FOCUS AND ATTENTION STARTING WHEN THESE ARE TOTALLY AMORPHOUS AND NOT TASKING, AND THEN UP THROUGH THE CONSCIOUS PROCESS OF INTENTIONAL TASKING.

AGAIN, MAYBE THIS IS A LITTLE LIKE QM, AND MAYBE IT IS NOT, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT TRYING TO OBJECTIFY OR QUANTIFY, WE DON'T FIND AN OBJECT THAT IS BEING CONSCIOUS, WE ONLY EXPERIENCE A BOUNDLESS FIELD THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GRASP BECAUSE IT WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE SYMMETRY OF A THING OR AN OBJECT. ONCE WE START TO OBSERVE SOME THING, THE TECHNICAL OR OBJECTIVE ASPECTS OF AWARENESS, FOCUS AND ATTENTION ARE SEAMLESSLY ACTUALIZED, AND IN A SENSE WE CAN TEASE THESE FEATURES OUT OF THE SUBJECTIVE REALM IN A THEORETICAL SENSE SO WE CAN WORK WITH THEM, BUT THE PROCESS ITSELF REMAINS SUBJECTIVE. WE ARE ESSENTIALLY MAKING CALCULATIONS ABOUT A PHENOMENON BUT THE CALCULATIONS ARE NOT THE PHENOMENON ITSELF.

As an example, I could say to you that when I mediate, none of these things happen. Your response would be that I'm not doing it correctly. That I should seek the help of a teacher to guide me through the proper technique and help me recognize the state. That isn't a "subjective" process.

YOU ARE MISTAKING THE PREPARATION FOR THE GAME, SO TO SPEAK. MEDITATION CAN TAKE MANY FORMS. BUT MOST FORMS HAVE LEARNED THAT CERTAIN OBJECTIVE FACTS PER THE WAY OUR BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES WORK ARE WORTH HEEDING BECAUSE THEY ENRICH AND HELP STABILIZE OUR EXPERIENCE IN THE GREAT GAME. THINGS LIKE MAINTAING A GOOD BASE, A STRAIGHT SPINE, FLUID BREATING, A SOFT, EYES OPEN FOCUS, EYES CAST AT THE 45 DEGREE RAKE TO THE GROUND, LAYING OFF THE BOOZE AND WEED BEFORE PRACTICE, DOING SO IN A GROUP TO GET THE COLLECTIVE PSYCHE OF THE GROUP (MUCH AS WE DRAW ENERGY FROM OTHERS IN A GYM), AND SO FORTH. THE VALUE OF THE TEACHER IS MOSTLY TO KEEP US REMEMBERING TO "SHUT UP AND STOP CALCULATING." OUR EGOS SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE ARE AFTER WILL NOT SUCCUMB TO OUR BEST EFFORT.

a large part of what we have to do as biological systems is mechanical in the very sense you describe... a set of tasks that respond to stimuli. You cannot stop breathing for an indefinite length of time, that task is not, ultimately, up to your "consciousness" to have to be involved. Many (actually most) of living is going through the mechanical set of tasks.

Now if you are going to hold onto the hope that the experience of this real time "self-presence" can be objectified, trying to find a fascimile in current day computational models seems unlikely since they lack the experiential quotient. So my hunch is that you cannot start with the ojjective and try and work toward the subjective, hoping to magically find out what it is and how it is "created" by working on computations. Instead you need to isolate out and objectify the subjective till the common elements are defined so we at least know what the hell we are talking about. And using computational models sans the experiential quotient seem like an ass-backwards way to go about this.

Once again, the reality of "machine learning" is a counter example to your claim that machines lack an "experience quotient" as you put it. Not only that, but much of human behavior depends on a mechanical means of transmitting the evolutionary "experience quotient," which is not only genetic but epigenetic. DNA is a memory storage device that builds every living thing on the Earth. It is mechanical. And it is susceptible to a computational description. From that point of view it is not a stretch at all, and certainly no magic is involved, to invoke a computation model for human behavior in its entirety.

I WOULD ONLY POINT OUT THAT THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH ONLY MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF BEHAVIOR, THAT IS, OF "DOING" SOMETHING. OF TASKING. THAT, ED, IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE YOUR WHOLE LIFE - WATCHED AND TRIED TO PREDICT WHAT PHYSICAL THINGS WILL DO. THE VALUE OF MEDITATION IS THAT IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST EXPERIENCES THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE OF STEPPING OF OF BEING HUMAN DOERS, AND EXPERIENCING THE HUMAN BEING ASPECT. WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS POSIT CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN EVOLUTIONARY "PRODUCT" OR THING/OBJECT THAT CAN BE REDUCED TO A COMPUTATION THAT CAN REPLICATE HUMAN EXPERIENCE "IN ITS ENTIRETY." THE TRICKY PART OF THIS IS THAT FROM A PURELY MECHANICAL POV THIS MAKES SENSE. THE FAlLACY OF THIS IS ONLY BETRAYED BY DELVING DIRECTLY IN THE SUBJECTIVE REALM. AND WHAT YOU FIND THERE IS NOT A CONTENT OR OBJECT YOU MIGHT BE MISTAKEN ABOUT, RATHER A BORDERLESS FIELD THAT YOU CANNOT GRASP AS AN OBJECT OR THING.

We might not know what the hell we are talking about now, but that doesn't have any relevance to whether or not we will in the future.

I am not at all persuaded by your line of argument. While I do believe that experience is an important part of our existence, I don't see why it cannot be incorporated into our "materialistic" description of life, it is already there.

You will now ask me to describe some experience, when I do, you will claim it cannot represent the "true" experience, and conclude that an "experience" cannot be described, scientifically, in principle, ever. That is not a refutation of the scientific approach, it is simply a criticism that we don't currently know how to provide that description.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF SAYING HERE, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO GIVE UP THE IDEA THAT ALL PHENOMENON IS FIRST AND FOREMOST AN OBJECT OR THING OF WHICH ALL ARE THE PROPER PURVIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION. BUT LET ME CONSIDER THIS LAST POINT A LITTLE MORE. MY FIRST RESPONSE IS THAT WE CAN DESCRIBE ANY EXPERIENCE, USING LITERAL TO METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE, BUT THE DESCRIPTION (THE OBJECTIVE EVALUATION) IS AN OBJECTIVE FACT WHILE THE EXPERIENCE ITSELF IS NOT. BACK TO THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY/EXPERIENCE. BUT THERE IS MORE TO BE SAID HERE.

jl
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Jun 12, 2015 - 05:10pm PT
We have not seen that "at bottom" things "reduce down to no-thing (no material extent)." what is a better characterization of what happens at the bottom is that we don't know how to describe what is going on... we don't have the language. No physicist actually believes that the electron has no-extent . . . (Dr. Ed)

John L, what part of this do you not understand? Has it ever occurred to you that your car pool Prodigies might be taking you for a ride? I've said (roughly) this several times, but you have always seemed so certain that there is "no physical extent."

Edit: Ok, I see the JL response, above. Nevertheless, it's hard to make a comparison with no-thing in meditation if something analogous is not verified in physics.

Smart = imaginative? (ML)

Rain Man = smart? Of course "smart" implies imaginative, but not conversely.

Rather, smart ⊂ imaginative.


“Do not recycle” = do not stand on the shoulders of Giants? (ML)

This brings a chuckle it's such a stretch. So, if one recycles, one stands on the shoulders of Giants.

Are you feeling OK?

;>)
WBraun

climber
Jun 12, 2015 - 05:38pm PT
if something analogous is not verified in physics

That reeks of saying physics is the imitator god and we physics determine reality.

jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Jun 12, 2015 - 05:43pm PT
. . . and we physics determine reality

Can someone decipher this for me?


;>\

OK, after some thought I think I see what the Duck is quacking.

I simply refer to JL's approach of comparing one with the other, assuming that physics believes in "no physical extent" when there is some doubt.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Jun 12, 2015 - 06:51pm PT
First off, you got “mystery”—which is something that you have no clue about. I mean, it's a mystery, right? Then you account for what you have no clue about (can’t even way what it is other than “mystery”) by you drawing out an explanation that you can't test if situations are contextually or content-wide unique. (Perhaps an assumption on my part, eh?) What is chance, anyway, and how could anyone account for it—much less using it to explain something called, “mystery?”



Check your coolant level, Mike. Your brain is overheated.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 12, 2015 - 07:12pm PT
mystery (n,)
early 14c., in a theological sense, "religious truth via divine revelation, hidden spiritual significance, mystical truth," from Anglo-French *misterie, Old French mistere "secret, mystery, hidden meaning" (Modern French mystère), from Latin mysterium "secret rite, secret worship; a secret thing," from Greek mysterion (usually in plural mysteria) "secret rite or doctrine," from mystes "one who has been initiated," from myein "to close, shut" (see mute (adj.)); perhaps referring to the lips (in secrecy) or to the eyes (only initiates were allowed to see the sacred rites).

The Greek word was used in Septuagint for "secret counsel of God," translated in Vulgate as sacramentum. Non-theological use in English, "a hidden or secret thing," is from late 14c. In reference to the ancient rites of Greece, Egypt, etc. it is attested from 1640s.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 12, 2015 - 08:04pm PT
Can't get enough of Becca Stevens lately. Here she is shown blowing their socks off in Europe.


[Click to View YouTube Video]

Not bad for a girl from a small town in N. Carolina
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 12, 2015 - 09:45pm PT
Can't get enough of Marcus Eaton lately. Here he is jamming outright with James Raymond ( David Crosby.'s son)

[Click to View YouTube Video]
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 12, 2015 - 10:10pm PT
^^^ Wrong thread. This here is Genetic Elvolution vs Environmental Evolution

The Gene's Ancestral Will To Survive vs The Environments Aim To Tame
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Jun 12, 2015 - 10:34pm PT
Speaking of evolution, here's a great modern example of it.

Research involving a former brain-eating tribe from Papua New Guinea is helping scientists better understand so-called prion conditions such as Parkinson's disease and dementia.

People of the Fore tribe, studied by scientists from Britain and PNG, have developed genetic resistance to a mad cow-like disease called kuru (a prion condition), which was spread mostly by the now abandoned ritual of eating relatives' brains at funerals.

Experts say the cannibalistic practice led to a major epidemic of kuru prion disease among the Fore people, which at its height in the late 1950s caused the death of up to 2 per cent of the population each year.

In findings published in the scientific journal Nature, the researchers said they had identified the specific prion resistance gene — and found that it also protects against all other forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).

"This is a striking example of Darwinian evolution in humans, the epidemic of prion disease selecting a single genetic change that provided complete protection against an invariably fatal dementia," said John Collinge of the Institute of Neurology's prion unit at University College London, which co-led the work.

Prions are infectious agents that cause often fatal brain diseases such as CJD in humans, scrapie in sheep and BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease) in cattle.

They are also a rare but important cause of dementia, and scientists say it is now recognised that the process involved in these diseases — in which prion proteins change shape and stick together to form polymers that damage the brain — is also what happens in common dementias such as Alzheimer's, and in Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Mr Collinge said his team was now conducting more studies to understand the molecular basis of this effect, hoping to find clues on the seeds of other misshapen proteins that develop in the brain and cause the common forms of dementia.
Worldwide, about 47.5 million people have dementia and there are 7.7 million new cases every year, according to the World Health Organisation.

The total number of cases is projected to reach 75.6 million in 2030 and to almost triple by 2050 to 135.5 million.
Reuters
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/former-brain-eating-papua-tribe-offers-clues-on-prion-conditions/6538100
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 12, 2015 - 10:35pm PT
This isn't the Music thread?
Messages 5574 - 5593 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta