Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
climber
|
|
I've never heard a neuroscientist say that memory is stored in a brain the same way it is in a computer.
All the details may not have been worked out, but we do know a lot about how synapses are modified by activity and it is too early to rule out that as a basis for memory.
Although digital computers aren't built like brains, they can used to simulate some features of brains. The Cat is Out of the Bag group also uses a Blue Gene, with 147,456 CPUs and 144 TB of main memory. They run simulations of 1.6 billion neurons and 8.87 trillion synapses. That is on the scale of an entire cat cerebral cortex. The simulation is slower than real time by a factor of about 100 to 1, but they expect to get faster and it doesn't seem impossible to get up to human brain scale.
Still, the simulations probably miss out on details that evolution has built into real brains that aid them in taking sensory input and doing useful stuff with it. The simulations definitely lack the learning time that most newborns need to organize the confusing world into a picture that makes sense.
However, it is a troubling thought that these simulations, if they capture the right aspects of nervous system activity and connectivity, could experience a moment of cat-like consciousness. Animal activists may come down on the research. Good thing the group didn't suggest they had simulated a dog brain.
A more reasonable expectation is that such models could be used to explore the question of how robust memory based on synaptic modification is.
The cat is out of the bag: cortical simulations with 10^9 neurons, 10^13 synapses
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan, Steven K. Esser, Horst D. Simon, Dharmendra S. Modha
Proceedings of the Conference on High Performance Computing Networking, Storage and Analysis
ACM New York, NY 2009
|
|
Oxymoron
Big Wall climber
total Disarray
|
|
Perhaps, relax....just BE.
Maybe find your Muse.
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
mental process in the climbing environment (both stone and neural network, to different degrees) increases in proximity to the event horizon of climber's death attractor
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Largo says: "The main problem many of you physicalists face is in trying to homogenize reality into measureable bits, and from within these narrow parameters you can declare this "right' and that "wrong" and provide vigorous "science" to prove it so."
Not so, the tree outside my window I experience as a whole while looking at it, yes even the leaves. But I have no problem with anyone seeing the parts of the tree, not even a problem with someone looking at parts of the tree under a microscope.
Interesting that Largo's boyfriend "is working off the subjective, off feeling so what he is testing Largo on is merely subjective data that has just as much chance of being false as it does of being true".
So Largo doesn't need to consult an anatomy textbook, a medical handbook, books he must be seeing as bit-books. He just consults his boyfriend.
That is funny, strange, even a bit scary and I hope Largo never gets a boyfriend like Jim Jones, the former.
And who is seeing memory as a scar in the brain, man as a machine or women as computers?
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
(I'm swamped. Crunch time is beginning. Mea culpa for not responding.)
Pa: Thanks.
Marlow: "Dance" refers to (i) the gravitational influence of one on the other and (ii) the dance of meaning as meaning changes with research discoveries (meaning that meaning does not mean the same thing later).
No, I was not playing games, but I hope I'm never too serious either. :-)
Ed: If you get Newton's results when you replicate his experimental designs, what have you verified? Have you verified the existence of a concept? Have you verified his experimental design? Have you verified his reality?
Ed, I also get the sense that you think I am anti-scientific. I'm not. What I've said (and what I think Largo, Jan, and Werner have said so ably) is that science has its place--just not the whole place, please. There are other means of "knowing" that are equally valid--but different. Why is that so difficult to entertain . . . because another means can't be proven scientifically? (Did the idea of incommensurability mean anything to you, or do you think that's bullsh*t?) Do you accept any notion of pluralism--different points of view that assume different criteria for truth? Or, to your mind, only science can present truth?
I'm not against you or any other scientific proponent. I just want a broader and more balanced, integrated, human view. I believe you are more than what science says you are, and I believe that your everyday behaviors betray you. You act unscientifically all the time. Is there something else that matters to you?
I don't think that a Zen master could show you anything, Ed. No one can show you anything but yourself. That's an implication of the totality of subjectivity. If measurements, theories, and a scientific approach do it for you, then that's your paradigm and mindset, and they are good. (I mean that.) In the end, none of us accepts anything without "just getting it" (the Greeks' noesis). Teaching students shows that every day. When they get it, they get it; when they don't, there is no amount of evidence or argument that will make them get it. Knowledge only and finally comes from direct apprehension.
Marlow and Largo: "Boyfiends?" I'll call you on that. If Locke and Rousseau got along with one another in a gentlemanly fashion, we can too.
To those who continue to argue "anything is possible," (working models of human subjectivity), sure. But that's pure speculation without any *evidence* (the probability of it, Marlow?) to justify a working, testable hypothesis. I believe science is still "one step at a time."
Last, returning to Marlow again . . .
. . . about that tree that you see outside your window.
Do you "see" (and can your microscope and measurements show) that the red leaf waving in the wind, about to drop, implies the trunk which moves the nutrients and moisture up and down to the leaf, implies the ground of humus (decayed life) all around the tree, implies the air all around the tree, implies changing weather patterns around our planet, implies pollutants put out by our civilization, implies all mankind who have come before our time, implies a place in space/time in an expanding universe in this dimension among infinite dimensions?
Is that what you "see" or "observe" when you look out your window at that tree that you know is there? If you see that then you don't see a tree. You see a spaceless and timeless eternity that is connected to everything that has ever been and ever will be. You see me and everyone else here on this thread, changing, temporary, breathing, inter-acting, inter-being, flowing around each other--dancing. You see through your the labels, categories, concepts, evaluations, time, space, and even your raw sensory perceptions to the emptiness of everything in the universe--a glimpse of oneness.
Woo woo.
Be well, all.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
MikeL
You say:
Do you "see" (and can your microscope and measurements show) that the red leaf waving in the wind, about to drop, implies the trunk which moves the nutrients and moisture up and down to the leaf, implies the ground of humus (decayed life) all around the tree, implies the air all around the tree, implies changing weather patterns around our planet, implies pollutants put out by our civilization, implies all mankind who have come before our time, implies a place in space/time in an expanding universe in this dimension among infinite dimensions?"
Answer:
What science has given you as ground/pre-understanding so that you are able to speak these words:
 the trunk which moves the nutrients and moisture up and down to the leaf
the ground of humus (decayed life) all around the tree (I add - a source of nutrients)
the air all around the tree (I add O2 - CO2),
changing weather patterns around our planet,
pollutants put out by our civilization,
a place in space/time in an expanding universe
You say:
"Is that what you "see" or "observe" when you look out your window at that tree that you know is there? If you see that then you don't see a tree. You see a spaceless and timeless eternity that is connected to everything that has ever been and ever will be. You see me and everyone else here on this thread, changing, temporary, breathing, inter-acting, inter-being, flowing around each other--dancing. You see through your the labels, categories, concepts, evaluations, time, space, and even your raw sensory perceptions to the emptiness of everything in the universe--a glimpse of oneness."
Answer:
What science has given you as ground/pre-understanding so that you are able to speak these words:
the concepts of space and time, the ideas behind spacelessness and timelessness
I can also empty my mind and just see the "beauty" of something flowing, dancing.
If you MikeL have the idea, as it is quite clear to me that you have, that your own subjective experiences (delusions among them) are being just as much facts/approximations to what is true as facts found through well grounded scientific discoveries as the earth circling around the sun or evolution, then your claim to appreciate science is just a smart gesture without any deeper meaning. One day you feel for creative design, then you see creative design as fact, the next day you feel for evolution as fact and so on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL and others... it seems that you have interpreted what I have been saying as making some statement about "truth" or "Truth" or some such notion... I have stated many times on numerous posts that my view of science is that it provides a provisional understanding of physical phenomena.
I do not think that "truth/Truth" has anything to do with it... you all may be seeking truth/Truth, I'm seeking understanding, however limited that understanding might be.
There is a difference.
As for the Zen master, I would be happy to discuss, in depth, with them anything... there is value there as there is value here in discussing these issues with you all. However, whether or not I have actually understood what the Zen master might have been teaching is left to the judgement of the Zen master. I suppose that if I don't like what he has to say about my learning, I can go and find another master that would be more agreeable, the judgement is based on the opinion of the master, I have no way to measure whether what I have understood is "correct" or not besides consulting the collective opinion of practitioners of zen...
...last time I looked, there were many different ways that zen practice has been implemented, all of them equally valid on the face of it, with no real way of distinguishing between them. What do you take away from each of them in terms of understanding? (remember, I don't care about truth/Truth).
Zen is particularly interesting because I think some of its philosophical conclusions could be cast in the same manner as scientific conclusions, but science often gets a bad philosophical wrap of being nihilistic, where as zen does not... I guess it's all in how you phrase it, but essentially we conclude from science the existential nihilistic view "that life is without objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value." What would zen say about that? and more interestingly, why?
Science reaches that conclusion by a process of elimination, that is, there is nothing necessary in the explanation of physical phenomena that requires "objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value."
We will no doubt disagree immediately about this last statement, even the mild mannered Jan got upset with me on an other thread about a year ago by making such a statement.
The statement is the result of many many tests of various hypotheses which have over time eliminated the need for something unphysical in our understanding of the physical universe. Basically that is what you learn from Newton, and others, that a set of hypotheses generated from a general theory of a phenomena, can be tested in an objective manner and independently confirmed by others. All those tests, observations and measurements, provide constraints on theory as to what provides understanding (meaning a truly predictive ability) and what is incorrect.
The authority rests with the empirical knowledge, not with the opinion of an expert.
In this discussion on "mind" we have a lot of opinions on what path might yield understanding of this (important to us) question. There are many different types of understanding that is sought and no one way of studying "mind" will help the plethora of seekers. The philosophical issues are ancient and I have no faith that repeating the same old stuff makes any difference at all on our understanding. Is there anything to add to the eastern, western, northern or southern philosophies on "mind?" I think not.
Science is a relatively new way of looking at this issue. Perhaps it does not seem to respect these ancient ways of thinking about "mind" but so what, it will succeed or fail on its own methodology. What is heartening about science is that you know when you've got it wrong. What Largo, and others, have raised as objections do not demonstrate that this approach of science is wrong in the sense of science... they can't point to a set of hypothesis of a "theory of mind" has made and shown inconsistency with observation. They can't do that because no such theory exists, yet...
...on the other hand,a whole new set of issues regarding those ancient philosophies of mind arise from the scientific investigations. In some ways, the scientific outlook has challenged our understanding. I don't see that as a bad thing.
|
|
wack-N-dangle
Gym climber
the ground up
|
|
What do you take away from each of them in terms of understanding?
I admire Ed's persistence. Also, I think his arguments have been anything but circular. What recently struck me as odd was JL's, suggestion that he underwrite a year of practice for Ed. If I remember it is JL who practiced, and has proposed a concept of mind based on those traditions.
First, I don't practice, and don't want to offend anyone or speak for anyone who does. It seems to me that aim of the practice is not necessarily a goal. You don't get a badge, work for accolades, and the benefit is first individual. Also, maybe after learning to take care of yourself, you can take care of others.
It doesn't result in an implicit authority in its practioners, or at least shouldn't. It seems like a way to live a good life, be relatively free of reactive emotions, and allow youself to make right actions, maybe at best, to become an example (like many others have been). The name calling, and "vigorous debate" here seemed like something different, especially coming from someone who practiced, and is perhaps a proponent of the practice.
Finally, I once heard the schools described as a tree. I won't really be able to repeat the analogy. Also, I think the act of the description was actually a lesson. The understanging of the analogy itself wasn't necessarily the lesson.
From the roots, the schools (paths?) narrow to the trunk, eventually branching out to the leaves. Ed, I would guess if you asked a master his opinion about your concept of mind, he might ask something like "Why ask my opinion?. If you follow a way, and ask yourself, you will have the same answer."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I wouldn't ask him about my concepts... I'd engage him in a conversation... perhaps we'd both learn something
|
|
wack-N-dangle
Gym climber
the ground up
|
|
There is a difference. [science and zen opinion]
As for the Zen master, I would be happy to discuss, in depth, with them anything... there is value there as there is value here in discussing these issues with you all. However, whether or not I have actually understood what the Zen master might have been teaching is left to the judgement of the Zen master. I suppose that if I don't like what he has to say about my learning, I can go and find another master that would be more agreeable, the judgement is based on the opinion of the master, I have no way to measure whether what I have understood is "correct" or not besides consulting the collective opinion of practitioners of zen...
The previous story about the tree was told in reference to martial arts styles. I believe that without an understanding of the tree, in practice, all may be lost. It is inherent to the many styles.
Also, I believe that there would be no fundamental difference in the opinions between masters in your example above. Furthermore, I think Werner has been saying that you do have a way to measure whether what you have understood is correct, besides consulting the practitoners of zen. Another way might be to test it internally, you may find the same answer.
If I remember, there is a story about 2 monks, one from India and one from China. They are told to travel to each others country and bring back each others teachings. They meet in the middle. After talking, they laugh, turn around and go home. They realized their teachings were the same. It seems impossible, but when viewed as an allegory, maybe it isn't.
There are proponents of the goodness in human nature, the power of our minds, and some really do live it.
edit: but of course, we're all human
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
in nature,
the sphere is the perfect shape,
for it beholds the greatest volume
while employing the least surface area.
knowledge and inquiry adhere to this concept of spacial efficiency.
just like the mind is tending toward spherical.
it seems to me that much of the inquiry within this thread
is wrought with edges.
edges are a waste of surface area
for they contain such little volume in relation.
inquiry upon inquiry,
wonder after wonder
like storms of thought,
will slowly wear away the periphery
baggage of your search,
and in the end
you'll attain the center,
which is dense nucleus
and empty void at the same time.
good journeys to ahll.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
If you MikeL have the idea, as it is quite clear to me that you have, that your own subjective experiences (delusions among them) are being just as much facts/approximations to what is true as facts found through well grounded scientific discoveries as the earth circling around the sun or evolution, then your claim to appreciate science is just a smart gesture without any deeper meaning. One day you feel for creative design, then you see creative design as fact, the next day you feel for evolution as fact and so on.
I have two objections to this statement as I'm sure I am included in this critique as well.
First of all, no one in the past few pages of discussion has mentioned creative design or anything else particularly theistic as their authority (Buddhism, including Zen is not theistic) and I think it is disingenuous to insinuate that anyone who is not a scientist is instead into creative/intelligent design theories or alternates scientific theory with creative design from day to day.
Those of us who think science is not sufficient to give meaning to human life are not trying to avoid science, we just think it is one of many ways of knowing. If you want to deal with material reality, obviously it is the most powerful tool. But humans experience more than material reality because of their complex consciousness. Even if that consciousness is physically based, humans still have emotions and aesthetics which can not be measured or predicted by science.
Describing a sunset with a beautiful piece of poetry or music is not the same as discussing the physics of it. Not will any non scientists agree that discussing particles and waves is the only, or best way to describe a sunset.
If you maintain that science is the only way, or a superior way of describing a sunset for anybody but yourself or a particular project in the material world, then you are the one who has entered into dogma, or filed the edges according to Norwegian, not the humanists.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Science reaches that conclusion by a process of elimination, that is, there is nothing necessary in the explanation of physical phenomena that requires "objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value."
We will no doubt disagree immediately about this last statement, even the mild mannered Jan got upset with me on an other thread about a year ago by making such a statement.
Nothing in the physical universe requiring objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value is quite different it seems to me, than saying that science has proved that there is no meaning, purpose, or value in the universe. We simply don't know. Certainly if Ed or anyone else says that the material universe is sufficiently interesting to them to not require any further meaning or speculations on meaning, I can understand that position.
If I got upset with him (I can't remember the details now), I'm sure it was because he was trying to universalize his understanding to how things really are or should be for everyone.
Many of us have learned a lot of science and philosophy from these threads, but probably more importantly, we have learned how to better dialog with each other. Ed was always good at explaining science to non scientists but I've noticed as time has gone by, he's gotten even better. I know I have learned to alter my vocabulary and be more precise in what I say as a result of trying to communicate with so many scientists. Apples and oranges over and over, but we've made a lot of progress.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jan -- "... but we've made a lot of progress."
What progress?
We're all still in jail .........
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Werner-
I didn't say we've made progress in finding answers, only in learning to talk about our differences.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Jan
You say:
“Those of us who think science is not sufficient to give meaning to human life are not trying to avoid science, we just think it is one of many ways of knowing. If you want to deal with material reality, obviously it is the most powerful tool. But humans experience more than material reality because of their complex consciousness. Even if that consciousness is physically based, humans still have emotions and aesthetics which can not be measured or predicted by science.”
Answer:
I agree. That is also the way I see it. Science is not enough to give meaning to human life. Though when it comes to the last of your sentences, I think science can to a certain extent predict human feelings by discovering and confirming patterns of behavior, thoughts and feelings.
You say:
Describing a sunset with a beautiful piece of poetry or music is not the same as discussing the physics of it. Not will any non scientists agree that discussing particles and waves is the only, or best way to describe a sunset.
Answer: Again I agree. I will add: Even what you see through a microscope or in a molecule can have a large beauty of it’s own. Feelings are not excluded from the scientific community, but conclusions are based on facts not on feelings.
You say:
If you maintain that science is the only way, or a superior way of describing a sunset for anybody but yourself or a particular project in the material world, then you are the one who has entered into dogma, or filed the edges according to Norwegian, not the humanists.
Answer:
Once more I agree. But if you insist that the sun is the face of a man and hold that for a fact about the substance of the sun I will protest and if you then hold me for having entered into dogma I will see entering into dogma as your problem, not mine.
Among the things I wrote as an answer to MikeL is: “One day you feel for creative design, then you see creative design as fact, the next day you feel for evolution as fact and so on.” You Jan say it is an insinuation and I agree that you have to read it that way. So I am sorry for the formulation. I reformulate to say what I meant to say: “If you hold on to the view that what you subjectively feel is a fact is just as much a fact as what science has shown to be a fact about nature, then such a view has the implication that you one day may feel for creative design seeing creative design as fact, the next day you may feel for evolution as fact and so on.” And I am not necessarily talking about MikeL the man but about any man whose mind is working from such a perspective.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Marlowe, thanks for the clarification. It is always a struggle to find neutral vocabulary when discussing these questions. When we do, it seems that we are not as far apart as it might first seem, especially if we keep talking.
One interest of mine is trying to understand how science might do a better job of explaining its philosophy and methodology to non science types. We all take science in school but the focus seems so much on facts, that humanities people who only take a few science courses never really catch what science is truly about. I think our society as a whole suffers from this.
It is an issue that seems particularly relevant in the social sciences also, which always straddle the science/humanities border. Unfortunately many in Anthropology seem to have given up on dialog so that cultural and biological Anthropology have separated themselves in many universities into separate departments which I personally feel is a big mistake and loss to both. It seems however, indicative of the general fragmentation of life and knowledge in these times.
Our discussion here is trying to go in the opposite direction for the most part without ignoring what seem like basic differences.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Jan,
I appreciate that you told me about my insinuation. I was blind to it. Thanks!
Yes, science has got a problem with connecting what is written in books to what you touch, see and feel. Illustrations may help, but children should from an early age be given the opportunity to meet the natural world, be given the opportunity to study nature as it is, learn to be curious about nature, wonder about the natural world. Cities and PCs are part of the "problem" to achieve this, but may also be part of the "solution".
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2011 - 12:50pm PT
|
Rick Tumlinson:
We are in this place for a reason. We exist For Something. It is not Coincidence or random chance that has produced beings capable of such a wide range of feelings and actions. To think so is humorous to me. A grey bearded old man, no, a bunch of wild parties in togas, no, and no and no. We exist so the Universe can know of itself. It is Us - we are It. Without us and other sentient beings this universe is simply matter and energy. Without us there is no meaning. We are God. You are God - except for that guy over there, I don't know what he is.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2011 - 05:59pm PT
|
“If you hold on to the view that what you subjectively feel is a fact is just as much a fact as what science has shown to be a fact about nature, then such a view has the implication that you one day may feel for creative design seeing creative design as fact, the next day you may feel for evolution as fact and so on."
The trouble here is, first, the above implies that emotional (feeling tones) and subjectivity are the same, when in fact thinking is every bit as subjective as feeling insofar as it passes through the individual lens of a given subject (you or me). It can never happen any other way for us humans.
The business of "facts" in the above actually refers to the business of measurements, and that they are rooted in material and are accurate. This qualifies the measurement as a fact. For instance, El Capitan is 3,046 feet hight from the toe of the Nose o the top of the last bolt ladder. This is an accurate measurement relative to agreed upon set points, so the measurement is deemed a fact.
In the subjective realm, "facts" most often refer to a moving target, a process, so measuring for fixed qualities is not only problematic but also in many cases not appropriate or even possible. Once you venture into the heart of the subjective, the realities are far too complex and multifaceted for measuring and standard quantifying to be much help, and attempts to chop experience into measurable increments usually involves dummying down the gold into pyrite. What's more, people can get sketchy when standard quantifying no longer applies, unable as they are of accepting that every tool has it's limits.
The subject about what is "real" depends entirely on definitions, there being no "ultimate reality" that precludes either the objective or subjective. There are many paradoxes involved here that are more than just daft word games, tautologies, or corkscrew riddles. For instance, materialists will often say that dreams are not "real." Real, of course, means that said dream never did and never will unfold in corporeal (material) reality, so "it" is only "in our heads." Not even a fundamental physicalist will say that dreams do not exist as subjective experiences, so they are "real" in the sense that they occur, but they are merely subjective, ergo less "real" than matter. Then you have the hierarchy argument that says the matter that "produced" the dreams is the "real" thing (matter), suggesting that what "produces" effects or physical reactions or experience is more real on the real hierarchy, then we are really turned around when a subjective thing such as fear or erotic energy can make us sweat bullets and draw wood. Here, by definition, the subjective becomes more real than the matter that it plays upon.
What this points out is that for us humans, the subjective and objective, the physical and experiential are inextricable intertwined. Exploration into each realm requires dexterity and fluidity of mind whereby one mode of inquiry can never be expected to provide all the movement. The subjective/experiential is far too nuanced and timeless to be wrangled on anything but the most superficial levels by way of quantifying, and the objective requires a degree of numerical accuracy that the subjective is simply not fashioned to provide.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!