Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 07:50pm PT
|
On a different topic,
MH2: What is the state of functional brain imaging? I know that we are on the cusp of a revolution when it comes to imaging the brain while it thinks.
Some of you struggle with the "Mind Body Problem." That the brain is physical, but the Mind is not.
This is called Dualism. Descartes wrote about this. It seems to be the main theme of this thread, but John and Mike aren't saying anything new. We've been pondering this for several hundred years, at the least.
Is mind independent of the physical brain? Some here would make you think so, but really, what if Mind is a physical process of the Brain, and absolute proof was provided? We, as far as I know, have absolutely zero evidence of a non physical explanation of mind. Perhaps this is why Largo hates measurement. Mind, from my POV, is one of the things that the Brain does, and for the life of me, I don't understand why this threatens them in the least. It wouldn't alter there experiential ventures in the least. The mind is a complicated thing.
I suppose that Largo is a Dualist, but I can't be sure:
Dualism is closely associated with the thought of René Descartes
adventures.
(1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical—and therefore, non-spatial—substance. Descartes clearly identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished this from the brain as the seat of intelligence.[6] Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind–body problem in the form in which it exists today.[7] Dualism is contrasted with various kinds of monism. Substance dualism is contrasted with all forms of materialism, but property dualism may be considered a form of emergent materialism or non-reductive physicalism in some sense.
There are many schools of thought on this. You have Materialism. Then you have Epiphenomenalism. Dualism. Property Dualism. Monism. Neutral Monism. Structuralism.
This is a good page to begin with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
It will give you an idea of some of the schools of thought.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 08:06pm PT
|
I see this as a problem. It’s a problem because it makes assumptions about subjective reporting, and it says what is acceptable and what is not before the fact (MikeL)
I have a class of new students, twenty in all. I have not seen them yet. I sit in my office and the first three students come in one by one. All three are red-haired. Therefore, I conclude that all students in my class are red-haired. Acceptable reasoning?
However, under the banner of probability some conclusions might be made. For instance, suppose nineteen students came through my office, all having red hair. Is it then probable that number twenty does as well? You tell me.
Of course, philosophers and some mathematicians have twisted and contorted induction creating a whole spectrum of definitions.
Mathematical induction is, on the other hand, quite satisfactory and accepted universally.
What might be wrong is that it relies upon reasoning. It’s like there is no other way of knowing anything important
Gut feeling? Religious epiphany? Glimpse of the profundity of no-thing? Liberating one's "I" in the art of dreaming? Astral planes?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 08:27pm PT
|
jgill " have a class of new students, twenty in all. I have not seen them yet. I sit in my office and the first three students come in one by one. All three are red-haired. Therefore, I conclude that all students in my class are red-haired. Acceptable reasoning?
However, under the banner of probability some conclusions might be made. For instance, suppose nineteen students came through my office, all having red hair. Is it then probable that number twenty does as well? You tell me."
of course you could expand the calculation, and Bayes probably even helps... if one reasons that the frequency of red-haired-ism is of some biological origin, we know it to be inheritable, we could calculate it's likelihood. But being inheritable, we also know that the geographic distribution of it might not be random (and indeed it is not).
As a matter of pure mathematical induction one has to state their assumptions regarding red-haired-ism and it showing up in your office... you've been implicit in your questions above, and your question regarding acceptable reasoning depends on those explicit assumptions.
From what we know about biology, the answer is no...
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 08:31pm PT
|
Your answer leaves me . . . . . speechless!
In an admiring way.
;>0
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 08:58pm PT
|
When the gross materialists constantly resort to wiki you can easily see they are completely clueless,
just as wiki on this subject matter is completely clueless.
Thus they continually prove they are cluelessly mental speculating and then giving their post dated check later, as;
In the future "we" will know ..... like those "we" is the authority.
And then they'll finish with "NO ONE KNOWS" as if the "we" are the ultimate authority.
Classic scientism in action .......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 09:00pm PT
|
Your comment leaves me . . . . . speechless!
In an uneasy way.
;>0
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 10:08pm PT
|
MH2: What is the state of functional brain imaging?
I don't know any more about it than you do. As I've said previously, functional magnetic resonance imaging does not go down to the microsecond and micron scales at which neurons and synapses operate, as far as I know.
I would take more interest in studies on the genetically modified animals whose neurons fluoresce when active and whose activity can be recorded optically. This technique holds promise for looking at how groups of several hundred neurons interact.
I would like to be able to watch how and where a specific memory is stored. For example, birds that are mimics learn to reproduce sounds they hear. We know a good deal about the brain centers and pathways involved in bird vocalizations. We could expose a bird to a new sound and we might be able to watch where the memory is laid down and see it activated when the bird reproduces the sound.
There is already a good understanding of how sensory systems work at the neuronal level, for example how an owl's hearing works to locate sounds and how hearing and vision cooperate to agree on where objects are located in the world around the owl.
You can be assured that effort is going into high-resolution recording of brain activity, but it must be a difficult technical challenge. The fMRI may not be the answer, but it does tell you something and you can do it on humans.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2016 - 10:14pm PT
|
My family kept a few slime molds. We used petri dishes with a filter paper wetted with some solution or other.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 07:46am PT
|
Base: . ..but John and Mike aren't saying anything new. We've been pondering this for several hundred years, at the least.
I’m not saying anything other than looking for yourself. Leave the concepts behind. Use your own faculties of observation.
You’re right. These prescriptions have been around for millennia.
Jgill: Gut feeling? Religious epiphany? Glimpse of the profundity of no-thing? Liberating one's "I" in the art of dreaming? Astral planes?
I admire your way to take what I wrote and mock and twist them. There’s a lot of that going on here. It drives me away.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 08:33am PT
|
The gross materialists are like pre-puberty children trying understand sex from wiki.
They have no actual real experience and thus ultimately remain clueless.
All they have is stuff they read stuffed into their minds but no actual real experience themselves.
In the same way the gross materialists understanding of consciousness itself.
One must study their own self under guidance from the original.
Instead the gross materialists mental speculate they are fully independent and spend all their time looking outside of their own selves.
Just as the monk said in Rowell's book; "Many people come, looking, looking" .......
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 10:41am PT
|
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Dr.Wallace , a giant in his field.
Everyone should learn the significance of mitochondrial functioning in health and disease and
what you can do to lower the percentages of detrimental heteroplasmy in your own mitochondria by making enlightened choices as regards the environments you put yourself in.
----------------------------------------------------
Btw it's good to see more and more mainstream physicians coming around to the information and advice evidenced in this little article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201606/are-your-kids-mal-illuminated
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 11:13am PT
|
I admire your way to take what I wrote and mock and twist them. There’s a lot of that going on here. It drives me away (MikeL)
If it seems that way, I apologize. It's just that I don't see how one can approach mind and draw conclusions if one stipulates that logical conclusions should not be drawn. Internal experiences like the ones you and JL have described are certainly interesting and informative, but I merely point out that simple inductive reasoning may not lead to universal truths (and I realize you have a problem with "truths").
You have said that we should be scientists, but I don't see how if we disregard the acceptable tools scientists employ. I can't imagine a scientist eschewing reasoning.
Your idea of talking about experiences is fine. I just wonder where the conversation goes from there.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 11:30am PT
|
By inductive reason you cannot reach the truth perfectly.
Because Truth is beyond the material creation and you have to use the material senses and mind to understand.
So not possible by inductive.
One must use deductive reasoning method.
The mind because it is subtle material, simply lacks spiritual vision and insight because it limits itself only to the primitive idea
that the material universe (as the likes of HFCS types and their ignorant brainwashed YouTube minions all say , it is all that is or was or ever will be.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
|
I would take more interest in studies on the genetically modified animals whose neurons fluoresce when active and whose activity can be recorded optically. This technique holds promise for looking at how groups of several hundred neurons interact.
MH2, I thought that I had posted about this some time ago. I saw an experiment with genetically engineered mice walking around with a cap full of tiny fiber optic threads. The mice were engineered to be receptive to light on the neuronal level.
Anyway, they were able to change the fear response of the mouse by triggering photo receptive cells in its brain. The field is considered to be a real breakthrough. It is called optogenetics. Using light, behavior can be controlled at a neuronal level, again.
There is a good explanation of it on wiki (sorry, still my favorite way of looking up concepts new to me):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics
Here is a page with a paper and video showing it in action:
http://www.jove.com/video/51483/in-vivo-optogenetic-stimulation-of-the-rodent-central-nervous-system
Humans are learning more and more about the brain. Face it.
John's flurry of ad hominems aside, my money is on materialism instead of his shoddy dualism.
I liked Ed's list of events. John can't prove any of these things. Apparently you guys can do it. So show us.
1) backward causation
2) physical and non-physical things cannot interact
3) non-physical stuff can't interact with anything
4) we only know about the world through reason and perception
5) minds do not exist without bodies
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 08:18pm PT
|
The tone of this conversation has been an angry one. The Dualists (those who believe mind and brain are separate) are angry with the scientists. The science-minded try, the meditators try, but neither side will listen. That is why this thread has gone nowhere for years. It is just back and forth sniping.
This isn't anything new. Religions blame science for killing God all of the time. Scientists are simply curious people. There probably isn't a known topic in nature that isn't being studied by someone these days, and the results are the results. There is no agenda. Getting angry over it is like getting angry at time. As time has passed, this human curiosity has led us to a greater understanding of Nature. Nothing more. Of course it isn't finished. New discoveries come every day, and sometimes they threaten prior scientific theories that have become nigh dogma. I remember Plate Tectonics being like that. Some of the old farts wouldn't accept it. Truth even threatens some scientists. The truth is the truth, though. Nothing more, and it should always win over falsehood. The quest for truth is important, I believe. So do most people. At the least, humans are fundamentally curious. Science is one way to satisfy many curiosities, and I've found my field to be rewarding, but I do have to spend too much time in front of an array of monitors. So my long walks. I took one this spring. 30 days. Ran out of food for the last three. It was great.
How that would threaten a person who meditates every day is strange to me. Do any of you wonder how they justify this anger? Is it that we may find that mind is simply one of the things that the brain does? How would that affect meditation? Largo has been on a mission to shoot that one down, saying that it isn't possible, but he shows no curiosity of the topic of the brain and the research whatsoever. He attacks science as if it were a well coordinated cabal. It isn't. Discoveries come in spurts, usually disconnected by people and distance. There is no gang.
Geez. I'm a geologist, and I had to bring up optogenetics. Something I saw in a documentary.
I would dislike a worship of science as much as anyone. What we don't know must be vast. Some sciences are in almost constant flux, like astronomy, because it in many ways depends on our newest and most powerful instruments. Others are nigh stalled, with unsurmountable technical difficulties or the lack of a great idea. Are they angry that the Kepler Satellite discovered that planets are common? Before that data, it was speculation. Now it is fact. Getting emotional about it is the easiest way to fool yourself, and I detect emotion from Largo when it comes to science. He did begin this thread with an attack on "Scientism." Scientism was the first word typed in this thread:
//Scientism ~ the belief that the methods of measuring, or the categories and things described through measuring, form the only real and legitimate elements in any philosophical or other inquiry, and that science alone describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective, with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience
Just like water travels downhill, humans will discover more and more about the brain. A fair map of the brain and its function already exists, and it is a rich field of study, with the possibility of understanding or curing illness. Blaming neuroscience is like blaming the sun for shining. It is simply the curiosity of humans. Largo pretty much ignores it.
Science has even found that we humans are damaging the planet. Some ways are obvious to anyone, like the extinction of a species, or the pollution of a river, but CO2 is invisible. The greenhouse effect was first postulated by Joseph Fourier in the 1800's. That one has a lot of people pissed off. People with lots of money to muddy the water.
I'm not saying that the world is better because of science. None of you read my post on morals and military spending. The U.S. spends HALF of its discretionary budget on "defense." Why? We have no real technological enemies, and we do have Trident Nuclear Missile Submarines hiding in the oceans, ready to retaliate against any nuclear attack. Yet we spend so much of our resources on it.
The reason is that there is now a monstrous defense industry, employing millions, and that industry wants desperately to be fed. So they use every possible method to influence politicians, since it is almost wholly funded by public revenue. "Defense" is the use of technology to kill people. I think that it is fundamentally immoral.
Technology has another flip side. We are more plugged in than ever to each other, but somehow it seems that we are more lonely. People used to get to know each other face to face, but now it is often in this form, or social media. We control that part of ourselves that we want the rest to see. How does that REALLY make us closer? I'm a bit disappointed by social media. It is addictive to many, but I believe that it is best to take a break from the screen and keyboard now and then. Go for a long walk. My son's generation has mastered it, though.
An idea can now spread rapidly. We saw that the Arab Spring was in part caused by the revelation of corruption revealed in the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks. As it turned out, many of the elected parties weren't exactly our choice: Islamists who don't like us. They couldn't control it. So was it a good thing or a bad thing? I'm glad that I don't have to make that judgement. It is what it is, and evidently that is what those people wanted.
So why are the psychological experiencers angry? Why do they constantly dismiss science? Is it because science threatens what they do? I honestly can't imagine how.
If we someday totally understand the brain, and we find that mind is merely a function, among many others, of what the brain does, will it kill off their precious beliefs? Like evolution and the evidence for an old Earth dismissed the biblical account in Genesis? I doubt it. People have already studied meditators and found that it can change the brain. It is effective. Isn't that evidence enough?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 08:26pm PT
|
This isn't anything new.
i learn something new here everyday, Thank You. Glad you already know everything!
Actually, you know zilch about Jesus!
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2016 - 08:58pm PT
|
Base said "instead of his shoddy dualism."
In all your reading about dualism did it ever mention buddhism? from a buddhist POV to have a non-dualistic experience is to experience the moment as if you were in a world before concepts and words.
The shift in POV (experience) is so strong that it is shocking. It takes retreats for the shift to happen IMO; retreats that push your limits (similar to wall climbs).
So based on what you wrote I don't think you touched on the dualism/non dualism some of us are referring to. First of all it is not a philosophy or a belief ; it is an experience like rock climbing. To experience it just sit down, be still and observe your breath and then watch the restless mind wander about; always coming back to your breath after you wake up from each wandering. The wandering mind is not good or bad it just wanders; just watch it like you would watch a fawn. Then you will get a feel for it. Eventually the mind will let go of the thinking and the pov shifts to just being present. Mind not attached to thinking.
I, me and My typically doesn't like to do this grueling exercise that is why the group retreats are necessary. The group energy helps you basically sit for 30 minute sessions with 10 minutes of walking between sessions in four 2.5 hour blocks each day. It is all done in silence with daily or every other day meetings with the teacher.
Do this for 3 to 30 days and you will have a much clearer experience of dualism than reading about it. There are many zen centers through out the US offering these retreats every month. They basically are all the same sit down and watch.
If you want a slightly kinder gentler approach there is vipassana, many centers through out US.
Cheers!
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 11:45am PT
|
PSP, I was careful to say, several times, that science should not scare people who meditate.
That said, two of you (MikeL and Largo), snipe at science all of the time, like it is taking something from them.
Science is simply an artifact of our curiosity. I assume that you got into meditation out of curiosity yourself.
I don't say that your experiences are false. How could I?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!