Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 10:07am PT
|
Mind appears to be ungraspable, unresolvable, and indescribable.
yes, at this time it appears to be quite a conundrum. but this, too, shall pass.
Philosophies of mind serve a very important role in sharpening the questions regarding mind, for a review take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
in that article every bit of the discussion appearing in the above 11200+ posts appear in a (mercifully) compact description.
Largo's opening post to this thread asks an interesting question for which there is no answer:
can science (as we know it) explain consciousness?
My answer is that it cannot, but because what we understand as "consciousness" is something quite different than what is happening. It is quite clear that given Largo's framing of the question there is no science that could explain that phenomenon. While Largo will protest (and probably in his highly jocular manner) he cannot, himself, give a description of the phenomenon at any level of detail, and has no idea where it comes from, where it goes, or how it happens.
What we recall as our experience is a highly interpreted representation of various aspects resulting from the complex reaction of an organism. Not only is the physical description complex, but we add to that many layers of cultural interpretation.
When you look at what healyje posted above, the simulations use the "information" in the genetic material to generate (synthetically) the operations of a single cell. The results of each of the operations can be checked against the actual protein production in the cell and in the cell response. Not only that, but information encoded in the genetic material which may be cryptic from the stand point of studying the cells in vivo can be observed in silica, in other words, the techniques for computing these cell functions ab initio from the genetic material is predictive.
While it is reductive, building up organisms from these very basic elements is something biologists have been studying for a very long time, and they have many interesting insights, as well as many difficult questions to answer.
There is no indication that they will meet with an irresolvable question, nor is there any philosophical impediment to their course of study.
In this sense, life is a 4.1 billion year old chemical reaction, and we're included. That may not seem very inspiring compared to a Shakespearian sonnet, but it is truly breathtaking to me.
Many scientists looking at this see interesting questions in many places. To me, the "hard problem" is to understand the role of non-equilibrium physical systems. Certainly this leads us down the path that answers the question of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is clearly implied by our physical explanation.
What these non-equilibrium systems share with the topic of "mind" is the existence of "order" at different phenomenal scales. Robert Laughlin writes (and talks) about this, but no general theory exists to apply to the diverse set of physical phenomena one would think to apply such a general theory to... this is the "holistic" approach advocated by many, but it is a physical theory not requiring any fundamental change to what we understand about "equilibrium" systems today.
As is clear, I don't see any reason not to pursue these physical lines of inquiry, they are very productive and are highly applicable.
The basic issue raised by reframing the OP as a question regarding "consciousness" (or you can call it "mind") as a question about our perception of "consciousness" is the idea of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
What we experience is all about our perception, and our perceptions are not simply native wiring of our brains, but also our cultural setting. The piece on Philosophy of Mind linked above shows the breadth of interpretations.
Dualisms are a dominant expression of Our experience of mind/consciousness. Whether or not the boundaries of this dualism are "real," they are of Our experience. It is a social act to reinterpret those experiences as something else, to this end, there is no nothing, nothing is a part of another dualism requiring something. I don't think this is merely word play.
In the end it really comes down to the issue that we can ask the question of the thread title. If you pull that thread it is equally interesting. There will be a tremendous amount of passion for the possible answers. And there will be a tremendous base of scientific understanding to guide the answers. As the science increases, the number of possible answers decrease.
Scientists, by and large, accept that they do not know where the path will take them and are open to that experience of exploration, of the adventure.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 10:12am PT
|
The “What Is Mind?” thread ends up to be not really about whether brain is mind or consciousness can be explained by neural nets, computer metaphors, computer simulations, complexity theories, etc. Those are all inventive, speculative, technical riffs. The “What Is ’Mind’?” thread is really about each person looking at what everyone seems to think he or she has (a mind), and as a result, coming to understand his or her life. (This is what meditation introduces one to.) There are an infinite number of interpretations of what one is for each and every being.
What a bunch of psycho-babble! I don't think that most of us were drawn to this thread so that we could be preached to by Dr. Phil. There are promising paths to solving the conundrum of what is mind and unpromising ones. It's not all relative.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 10:45am PT
|
The “What Is ’Mind’?” thread is really about each person looking at what everyone seems to think he or she has (a mind), and as a result, coming to understand his or her life. (This is what meditation introduces one to.) There are an infinite number of interpretations of what one is for each and every being.
and yet, eeyonkee, I bet you dollars to donuts this precisely reflects many conversations to great internal approval in certain (non-science / anti-science) business circles at liberal arts colleges and also various literary circles everywhere. In this one respect this thread's been useful as a regular reminder if not eye-opener.
I am of the view it is simply what happens when one is raised NOT grounded in science.
....
Those diagrams above with their terminology express the various myriad biochemical reactions in living things. I don't see them as an argument in support of the claim that most biological "fundamentals" are not known or well understood.
What makes it all mentally overwhelming and incredibly stunning is that somehow all this works together to produce life - that somehow this gazillion component stew evolved over billions of years to produce what we see - all this stunning bio synergy going on everywhere.
What a bunch of psycho-babble!
Or else, What a bunch of nonscience-grounded literary babble (or nonscience business-rooted babble). No matter, it's all very non-scientific if not anti-scientific and quite flat / flaccid. So glad I'm not of that mindset. And so glad I have enough life experience - both in and out of science - to see through the "babble" for just what it is.
So stunning it all is - the stew, the mix, the synergy, etc. - I've often thought over the course of my life since being a teen why isn't EVERYONE studying (else obsessed with) it all - what's wrong with them?!! But that's just my passion for these subjects (just as you've said it is yours) expressing itself.
Science lives matter. :)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 11:09am PT
|
In this sense, life is a 4.1 billion year old chemical reaction, and we're included. That may not seem very inspiring compared to a Shakespearian sonnet, but it is truly breathtaking to me.
Understandably nor very inspiring for some compared to Abrahamic biblical stories** esp when these have been internalized as truth over one's entire childhood and often longer. That the Creator God loves you... that you'll live forever and ever... That the Creator God smites your enemies if not sooner than later... He loves your tribe best... and He'll see to it your enemies burn in Hell forever and ever as surely as your parents and grands live on in Heaven.
Makes for a powerful elixir and directive.
The feeling one can get from such an appealing narrative some others - outsiders or fellow travelers - characterize as "consoling" and even claim because the feeling's so good - the consolation so great and useful - the narrative needs to be maintained nothing short of the truth.
** yes, they evolved too over thousands of years... yes for max appeal... if not for max frenzy in war time.
We are coming of age.
Growing pains.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 11:30am PT
|
I don't think that most of us were drawn to this thread so that we could be preached to by Dr. Phil. - eeyonkee
Ha! I am a big fan of Dr. Phil!!
He is a life strategist. What's more an instructor or teacher of life strategies.
(I too am a life strategist.)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 11:54am PT
|
Dr. Phil is all well and good, but this thread is about what mind is, not how we can best lead our lives. MikeL and others on this thread don't seem to get that.
MikeL, the earth being 5ish billion years old and life emerging sometime before 3 billion years ago are not conjecture. These numbers are based on thousands of congruent but separate pieces of evidence. The fact that we share 97% of our genome with chimpanzees is a fact. I like to build my own models (since you seem to be so focused on thinking for yourself) on the available evidence.
I read all of the Carlos Casteneda books on Don Juan when I was in my late teens and early twenties. That's around the time that's I also read many books such as The Tao of Physics and the Dancing Wuli Masters. Those books made an impression on me then. Not so much now.
Edit: I have the same passion, HFCS. As far as the question about the fundamental principles in biology that we seem to be arguing with Ward Trotter and healjye about, I need to think about this some more. It does seem to me that you have two choices; either all fundamental principles existed at the time that life first emerged, or they have evolved to be what they are. Of course, it partly is a semantics problem -- but it seems deeper than that. An interesting aside is that the physicist, Lee Smolin, in the Life of the Cosmos, suggests that the fundamental constants and laws in our universe must have undergone some sort of evolution to be what they are. Can't help but make that connection.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 12:54pm PT
|
DNA is NOT the living being.
Genome is NOT the living being.
The living being is not ever material, nor has it ever been material, nor will it ever be material.
Thus you've made the fundamental error from the beginning and everything after that is incorrect.
Just as you plug in the wrong numbers into you equation your end result will always remain wrong.
This is the defect of the gross materialists all along.
And is why they remain ultimately clueless ......
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 01:25pm PT
|
It's all over the news...
I've got the gross materialist clueless blues...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 01:49pm PT
|
Yes, and when we've achieved the ability to create life and sentient machines and all the answers to all the questions we might have regarding mind and the universe have been answered... then what?
Will we find in nature's revelations the means to a right life or will we spiral down into the free for all reality of complete subjectivity? Where will we find meaning? Where will wisdom be found? Virtue? Do we simply turn to evolution as a guide for the treatment of others?
It's simply not enough to say there is no meaning.
Science is good at means, but the ends, those things, that knowledge, that makes life worth living beyond simply celebrating/passing your genetic code, better turn to those disparaged liberal arts for that. Because no matter what science reveals, we are still stuck with the grave and constant states of humanity and finding reconciliation to those states is necessary to eudaemonia.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:11pm PT
|
You lose import when you exaggerate so.
....
zbrown, reduce your image size please.
....
I've got the gross materialist clueless blues...
No worries, man. We will have powerful life strategies
in the future for dealing with these.... gross mechanistic, materialist blues.
I am a (bio)organic robot. Woot!
Truly, if I can adapt to our mechanistic nature, anyone can.
Look at Ed and Eeyonkee and Moose, they all have.
Isn't Moose out there somewhere living it up even as I read and post?
.....
Who in the heck says this?
It's simply not enough to say there is no meaning.
Just because there is not meaning on one level doesn't mean there
are not meanings on other levels.
Change levels, man.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:18pm PT
|
Just because there is not meaning on one level doesn't mean there
is not on other levels.
Then what is your version of meaning and where does it come from?
Yeah, that's a tough one.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:25pm PT
|
Then what is your version of meaning and where does it come from?
In large part from the creative process and the problem solving process and challenging myself in these areas.
Do you not get some meaning when you climb? or when you did climb, did
you not derive meaning in some form from it? One, this kind of activity is an adventure (that is worthwhile) and two, it exercises creativity, problem solving and challenges our soul, our spirit (that is worthwhile). And where climbing isn't the particular go-to (action or activity) in the moment, are there not other venues to be had to experience these or similar?
You asked, that in my view. One view in the moment at least.
If it's worthwhile, I get meaning from it.
I suppose if life were forever, I could get bored. Eventually it would become zero-sum and I would get bored. At least given present human nature and our current make-up, this seems so. Maybe in the future genetics engineering will change our physiology, our neurology, so there could be a way (eg, memory refresh, motivation chip renewal/ swap out?) if we want to not get bored after doing a route or a mountain 50 times. But since life right now is obviously not forever, I see it as rather precious, my experience banks are not red-lined, life doesn't feel zero sum (knock on rock) and life's still rather worthwhile, rather meaningful. Imv.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:34pm PT
|
Science is good at means, but the ends, those things, that knowledge, that makes life worth living beyond simply celebrating/passing your genetic code, better turn to those disparaged liberal arts for that. Because no matter what science reveals, we are still stuck with the grave and constant states of humanity and finding reconciliation to those states is necessary to eudaemonia.
Fair enough. What would you use in science's stead? I mean, once you open up this kind of thing to the subjective world that you seem to love so much, what constitutes the correct view? Presumably, each of our subjective views is just a little bit unique.
The scientific viewpoint has no problem with this issue, by the way. We have evolved to where most of us abide by certain rules of conduct because we are a social species. In a social species, there will be a hierarchy of norms that individuals are expected to follow. The particular rules that are hard to abide by, of course, are the ones that require us to sacrifice our individual pleasures in some way for the group. Which brings up the whole notion of cheaters. Cheaters can achieve, at least in the short term, some benefit by cheating. The possibility and actuality of cheaters is the foundation of our sense of morality, IMO.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:39pm PT
|
For the record, I don't disparage liberal arts. I engage them everyday and I love them. What I "disparage" are certain liberal arts communities (eg, some college circles, academic apparently) and their members whose pastime if not profession is to compare themselves to science and, as deemed necessary to their interests, to "denigrate" science and its achievements. Big difference. People shouldn't confuse them. Yet they do.
Liberal arts are one thing. Liberal arts academic communities are something else. Often very something else.
For the record, "turn to liberal arts" for meaning. Yes indeed. Great life strategy! (Just think clearly and just avoid those groups, those communities, those people, that have somehow drew a line between science and liberal arts and then tribed up (academically or for whatever reason) AGAINST science. This makes no sense.)
Science (the actual activity, the art) and liberal arts (the actual activity, not the academic sour grapes communities) together - like apple pie and ice cream - for your eudaimonia (your well-being). That is the ticket.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:56pm PT
|
Once again I have no idea what you're even talking about, bmt.
What I know however is how you can spoil a moment.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 03:59pm PT
|
better turn to those disparaged liberal arts
I turn to nature. I do not disparage liberal arts. The liberal arts often express a meaning I found in nature but did not know as such until someone else eloquently put it so.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:02pm PT
|
The possibility and actuality of cheaters is the foundation of our sense of morality, IMO.
In regards to game theory, in addition to cheating (cheaters) I'd add competition, predator and prey relations, kin selection, goal seeking, winning and losing (winners and losers), etc.... as factors in the development and manifestation of morality (sense of morality).
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:06pm PT
|
bmt, if you can't distinguish between science and iron-age-era belief systems and criticism of the latter (for their retrogressive ideas, attitudes and views) in the interest of betterment.......
that is YOUR problem.
Hey, why not hit the mountains for another week? Starting right now. Just a thought.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!