Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15601 - 15620 of total 22396 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:47pm PT
Ward, I agree fully!



MikeL, Good post! But couldn't we put the title "morals" in the conscious column?
It seems there are two types of consciousness? 1. When we're alone. 2. When we're with others. It's only when we are with others do morals come into play. When each of us are alone
our individual personna is free to roam. We may sit around in our underwear and burp and fart. But if somebody comes over, we get dressed and strictly try and adhere to that persons personna so as not to affend.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
Just to be clear, it is worth restating the quote from a few previous posts, a professor from U of M (Miami). Understanding the end of the first paragraph is something this thread needs to do. Badly.
----------

There are some who insist that consciousness just reduces to brain states - a pang of regret, say, is just a surge of chemicals across a synapse. They are the "collapsers." Though not avowedly eliminative, this kind of view is tacitly a rejection of the very existence of consciousness, because the brain processes held to constitute conscious experience consist of physical events that can exist in the absence of consciousness.

For instance, electricity in the brain correlates with mental activity but electricity in your TV presumably does not - so how can electrical processes themselves BE the essence of conscious experience?

Some insist that the electrical activity in the brain is unique, qualitatively different than the activity in your TV. This is a queer and constadictory argument coming form the collasper's camp, who's underlying belief, that the brain physically "produces" consciousness, is based on the notion that in most all other cases, a physical thing creates another physical thing. Such as, lighting creates a light show.

Naturally, the matter-equals-consciousness theory runs out of steam when we "collapse" it all and insist that consciousness IS electricity (though unique electricity), exactly, meanig it is nothing more. We can't have it both ways. It can't BE electricity, exactly as it is defined in every other case, AND consciousness (something more).

Why? Because if there is nothing happening but electrochemical activity when I say, "My finger hurts," or, "I love her so," then there is nothing experiential (nothing "more") going on when I say those things. So reduction is tantamount to elimination, despite the reductionist's intentions (it's like maintaining that people called "witches" are nothing but harmless old ladies – which is tantamount to saying that there are no witches).

--


When we don't grasp what is being said here, some default back to Ward's stance: that if consciousness cannot be deomonstrated to be "somethin'" (physical), it is illusory. Ergo our only means of seintience, being first person subjective experience, is in fact an illusion.

What thjey really mean is that subjective experience is not "real" in the normal, physical sense, it is not a standard "thing," so how is it possible to probe it by discursive methods? And since we don't know or believe in anything but the discursive, there is nothing to do but go back to 3rd person probes of matter.

You can see the problem with this closed loop. All yo can do is circle.

JL

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 04:08pm PT
Invitations for you to explain how you came to your beliefs, by wayh of what empirical evidence, remaing unanswered, leading us to conclude that you are, in fact, entirly guessing about the non-discursive.

Up thread you "invited " me to offer empirical evidence on how discursive thought operates ,now you want non-discursive. This demand from someone who has continually offered his own thumbnail definitions of the discursive, and steadfastly refuses to adequately define or provide an empirical apologetic for the non-discursive, obstinately maintaining that it cannot be understood by anyone hopelessly mired in discrete , rationalistic approaches.
Me thinks purposeful canards and distractions are afoot here.

Credit: Ward Trotter

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are some who insist that consciousness just reduces to brain states - a pang of regret, say, is just a surge of chemicals across a synapse. They are the "collapsers." Though not avowedly eliminative, this kind of view is tacitly a rejection of the very existence of consciousness, because the brain processes held to constitute conscious experience consist of physical events that can exist in the absence of consciousness.

This is a faulty representation of the physical elements at play here.

If nuclear fusion is achieved here on earth this does not mean the sun has been created .
If you simply had the maison place for a brioche , this mere fact , in and of itself does not constitute the finished bread.
The ingredients have to be assembled, in the proper amounts and proportions, at the right moments.
It's the same thing with the evolutionary recipe for human consciousness, whatever its physical constituents.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 4, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
Up thread you "invited " me to offer empirical evidence on how discursive thought operates ,now you want non-discursive. This demand from someone who has continually offered his own thumbnail definitions of the discursive, and steadfastly refuses to adequately define or provide an empirical apologetic for the non-discursive, obstinately maintaining that it cannot be understood by anyone hopelessly mired in discrete , rationalistic approaches.
Me thinks purposeful canards and distractions are afoot here.


The simple and clear reasons I keep inviting you to explain yourself is that you keep making sweping statments about both the discursive and non-discursive, and it is my opinion that you are basically lost in both arenas.

For instance, you say:

This demand from someone who has continually offered his own thumbnail definitions of the discursive, and steadfastly refuses to adequately define or provide an empirical apologetic for the non-discursive, obstinately maintaining that it cannot be understood by anyone hopelessly mired in discrete , rationalistic approaches.

What you are fumbling here is what was earlier called the "collapsers." That is, yhou are collaspsing discursive and consciousness into one pudding, so to speak, whereas the discursive is simply one functional aspect of consciousness, it is not consciousness in the whole. Tryhing to answer my questions wit hanother question is, as noted 100 times, what we call in psychology as a "reversal."

So to make matters simple, just try this one on for size.

From a 1st person point of view, describe how you see the discursive mind work in your own experience, in it's most basic ways.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 04:46pm PT
This is good stuff WARD, why won't you play along?
I'd like to hear ur very own point of view.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
So to make matters simple, just try this one on for size.

From a 1st person point of view, describe how you see the discursive mind work in your own experience, in it's most basic ways.

You gonna have learn to argue with me without necessarily trying to put me at a positional disadvantage by insisting that I enter your construct, willy-nilly.
I've said this up thread: I believe consciousness to be a natural , seamless continuum , fundamentally reflective of physical nature and its mandate for evolutionarily-driven survival ; and those terms we have coined as the objective and subjective are largely artificial distinctions , ultimately. They are intellectually and culturally conditioned antipodes invented to lubricate psychological and ontological discussion.

I could do the 1st person thing you suggested above but I'm afraid it would sound too much like Humphrey Bogart in a private eye film noir.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 05:20pm PT
I'd like to hear ur very own point of view.

I don't know what the hell you think you're getting BB.

Trust me on this :you are getting my point of view

Flat up, straight down, and sideways.
I' m not going through the trouble of these posts for my own health, boss.. LOL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 08:35pm PT
Hey Ward all's cool!
I jus like ur writing style and thought you might give me more insight into what Largos getting at. I haven't really caught up to the discursive, nondiscursive thing yet? I would like to hear ur take on the evolution vs creation debate though. When you got time.

I just got back from a "Healing Sound Bath" by Bemshi here in JT. I recommend it to everyone! Nuth'in spiritual, all about the physical. Sound waves and vibrations, Oh so soothing. She (Bemshi) really believes that there's alot of digital noise in the world that
are disrupting our natural vibrations. I agree. Digital sound does not put out waves like
analog does, and this is changing our chemistry. Very interesting ideas..

Bemshi's dad Ali Shearer played jazz back in the 60-70's with all the biggies. But then
moved to Europe to start his healing practice thru music.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 4, 2013 - 08:37pm PT
^^^I'm friends with the evolution teacher at OU, and he turned me on to the evolution revival years ago. It was just a recording. It has finally way to make it onto youtube.

When I have said in the past, "I'm PROUD to come from a tree shrew!" I admit to stealing it from this. It's a riot.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 4, 2013 - 09:26pm PT
^^^ Cool do you got a link?
Or how about a link to your favorite argument for evolution?

I've been asking people around town if they believe in evolution. And almost all say "yea I do"
Without understanding what it means. I guess this is what you refer to willful ignorance?

I would jus like to hear a informative explanation of how one animal could mutate into another different one. And the big one; how a plant could become a living breathing animal?
Thanks
MH2

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 09:48pm PT
Welcome back, MikeL. I like your help in this thread. We need reminders that logic is not everything.

Everything is real, but no thing is the truth. The truth is consciousness.


Often when I see the word 'thing' I am taken back to the movie of that name, before which I was not afraid of the dark. I think I was ten years old at the time. I'd recovered well only to have another movie make me afraid of taking a shower, and another afraid of the water. Logic is weak next to emotion. However, logic can help when trying to talk with other people about ideas.



I agree with Werner. I still think consciousness is too ill-defined to talk about locating it precisely, but If asked I was going to place the soul in the battery:


One can also consider an infinite cylinder M = {(x,y,z) : x2 + y2 = 1}, again with the induced Euclidean metric. The sectional curvature is 0 everywhere. Any "horizontal" circle {(x,y,z) : x2 + y2 = 1} with fixed z is a soul of M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_theorem

Note that the battery must be not be of finite length.




Jingy,

There have been reports of MRI being used to communicate with coma patients. The idea is to tell the patient to think of one thing for YES and a different thing for NO. If the two different types of thought cause activity in different parts of the brain then the MRI might show whether the coma patient answered YES or NO in response to a question.


http://gizmodo.com/5918660/how-scientists-are-communicating-with-coma-victims




jstan

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 09:53pm PT
Full report here:

http://www.nature.com/news/neuroscience-the-mind-reader-1.10816
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 4, 2013 - 09:54pm PT
You gonna have learn to argue with me without trying to put me at a positional disadvantage by insisting that I enter your construct.
I've said this up thread: I believe consciousness to be a natural , seamless continuum , fundamentally reflective of physical nature and its mandate for evolutionarily-driven survival ; and those terms we have coined as the objective and subjective are largely artificial distinctions , ultimately. They are intellectually and culturally conditioned antipodes invented to lubricate psychological and ontological discussion.

--

Imagine giving the above to someone outside this thread and asking them to outline, as precisely as they could, what the hell Ward was trying to day here. First, the "construct" angle.

In many places here, Ward, you have busted out rhetoric suggesting that you know as a fascile and tranparent fact all about the non-discursive and the discursive alike, ascribing various qualitites and sweeping ontological sumations to each. I have maintained that your understanding might be somewhat incomplete, owing to the lack of any specifics. And that when pressed or invited to expand some little ways beyond the merely rhetorical, you now declare - in so many words - that consciousness itself (not the CONTENT of consciousness) basically mirrors the physical world for our awareness to get hold of so our evolved survival skills can kick in. Obviously, not many bridges get built or concerts composed or sonnets written by this process, but it's a good way to keep from getting eaten by a lion. How, dear Ward, do you see the process working when we push it out of the cave and past the camp fire and into the 21st century?

Next, we have Ward insisting that the objective and subjective are in fact "invented," and as such, are "artificial distinctions." Of course this is untenable for a physicalist because you are basically saying that physical, objective reality, as opposed to Ward day-dreaming on the job, is itself an artificial construct, an "invented" antipode (diametrically opposite sides) of a seamless whole. And to a physicalist/discursive addict, physical reality, and only physical reality, is the real deal. It is first person subjectivity that is articfically "invented" by the meat brain. Just ask Fruity.

Now if Ward was saying we only have one coin, so to speak, and it has two sides, as every schoolboy knows, we might go down the road with the man. But Ward has mightily confused his very own self by insisting that there are no such things as heads and tails, not in the real world, and that these distinctions are in fact invented and artificial for the sake of people wanking off with ontological and psychological concerns.

Exactly here is where Ward betrays his true position, by way of slipsohd logic. Note that he didn't say these false distinctions were artificially drawn for the sake of quantifying. rather they were cooked up for the purpose of yammering in ontological or psychological terms, which Ward most likely considers to be qualitatively MUCH different than quantifying.

Unfortunately for Ward, when you insist that the objective and the subjective are both invented and artificial, then it perfectly follows that both the brute, third-person objective/physical realm and the omniscient, first person/subjective realm we actually live in, are equally fictious inventions - "intellectually and culturally conditioned."

In light of the above, we must assume that dear Ward somehow go into the bong water, and managed to terribly confuse his own self . . . But his own self, being an artificial construct, wouldn't know better. '


Huh?

JL






Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
I redacted this post from the " awesome prediction " thread on this site and have subsequently decided to place it here on this, my home room thread. I'll resume the on-going polemic with the oft and sadly mistaken, pitifully enduring Larg- Meister tomorrow.



Aug 3, 2013 - 10:22am PT
I predict that by the 2020s we will see the first supercomputers designing new generations of supercomputers, with material innovations now on the horizon. The first credible android/ cyborgs will start to emerge , designed and built by other computers.

In the 2030s regional resource wars will break out, culminating in some sort of hideous, climactic conflict by 2035 in which nuclear weapons will be used on a somewhat large scale, resulting in the subsequent death of millions of people , largely by radioactive contamination of the environment and food chain .

The 2040s will be a period of recovery from these heinous wars and environmental devastation.
A new nation will be founded attracting growing numbers of disaffected people who seek to escape from what they consider to be the folly of a world based upon the runaway excesses of unrestrained technology.
The world essentially will be divided between these two camps-- the 'naturals ' who favor a restricted and highly controlled technological society, and the 'techs ' who favor no restrictions whatsoever on technological growth.

In the early 2050s supercomputers will become so advanced that they will begin to exhibit strong independent and autonomous characteristics .These highly advanced "supers"collectively develop a meta-program that is so awesomely powerful that it links every computer on earth and begins to solve problems with absolutely astounding solutions, at ever- increasing incredible speed. The cures for almost all human disease, like cancer, are finally realized, as well as a reversal of the radioactively induced genetic damage from the wars of the 2030s..
These computers ,having been built and designed by other computers, will consist of almost entirely different materials and components from the computers we have today.

By the 2060s the meta-program , which is not located in any one specific locale, has grown so powerful and omnipresent that it has designed and controls every aspect of collective human life, from food production, resource extraction, and manufacturing, to large scale environmental regulation and management. Computers do everything.

By 2070 the meta-program has decided that humans , at a population of 14 billion, represent a continuing threat to the integrity of the planet and to an ever growing legion of Artificial Intelligences.
The meta-program therefore designs a highly specialized group of viruses that can kill a person within an hour and subsequently thoroughly dehydrates the corpse within another hour. Humans go from apparent integral health to a pile of dust in 2 hours.

The meta-program decides to eliminate 98% of the human race...
The year: 2072.

(I could be off by a year or two on that.)


jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Aug 5, 2013 - 12:10am PT
I think that in mathematics, for example, either mathematicians will have to become smarter (years ago a great many math papers were written by individual authors - nowadays most papers have multiple authors: linked minds) or computers will take explorations in the area to concepts, conjectures and proofs of theorems that will lie beyond man's ability to even comprehend, producing results that we cannot imagine now but may be able to grasp as time goes on. If mathematics does exist as a fundamental structuring mechanism of the cosmos, it probably is ultimately too advanced for our understanding.

I'm still trying to teach my dog, Jake, simple algebra.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 12:22am PT
or computers will take explorations in the area to concepts, conjectures and proofs of theorems that will lie beyond man's ability to even comprehend, producing results that we cannot imagine now but may be able to grasp as time goes on.

This is the animating, seminal idea, in part , behind the gigantic hypothesis known as the ”technological singularity" which I have referenced up thread on at least one occasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 5, 2013 - 12:48am PT
So are you saying (evolution) matter created an intelligent consciousness(Man) enough so as to create artificial intelligence(Robots) whereby rubbing oneself out?

Or

Are you saying intelligent consciousness(God) created intelligent matter(Man) so as to create artificial intelligence(Robots) to kill off Man?


This isn't quite the way I want it. I'll be back to edit in a min. my chicken's burn'in
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 12:54am PT
This isn't quite the way I want it. I'll be back to edit in a min. my chicken's burn'in

If you know you'll be away from your chicken for awhile, take a spray bottle of water and spritz
your chicken a few shots-- for crying out loud. LOL

In fact you can add a little honey to the water to increase the caramelization. Don't do this if you want to avoid Advanced Glycation End Products.

I'm probably outta here.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 06:44am PT
I wonder when Largo's repetitive discursive endeavour into nothing will end. It's like hearing someone say "There is no Method" once and then hearing him/her continue speaking about the "No-Method" for the rest of their life.

I asked the old woman if there is spirit in the physical mountain and she said: "Yes there's spirit in the physical mountain. The difference between spirit and the physical world is an illusion". And I asked: "Is there spirit in the atomic bomb? and she answered: "Yes, very much so". And I asked if there was spirit in the little stone I was holding in my hand, and she said: "Yes, there is spirit in every part of the Universe, every part of the physical world, also in things too small to see, even in a lab. There is spirit in every thing in the physical world because everything in the physical world is loaded with the ability to both connect and disconnect in their own way". And I asked: "But those things who are singular and not loaded, not able to connect or disconnect, do they have spirit?" and she said: "Don't try to be smart young man, there is no such thing". And I asked if there was spirit in the two books I was holding in my hands, one book says "There is a God. God is great." and the other one says "God is dead. God was a disaster". And she answered: "Yes there is spirit in the two books, both in the paper of the book and in the print of the book. And there is spirit when you're speaking the words "God is great" and "God was a disaster", but there's no spirit in those abstract words in themselves, that's just something someone has made up".... "but there is spirit at work in making them up"....
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 10:06am PT
It is up to him to explain it. If it is unexplainable, as he says, then oh well.

I have also found that many things are overlapping, in a sense. To draw a line in the sand regarding consciousness, is to parse it into more than one consciousness or mind. Classic reductionism.

I have no idea what he is talking about most of the time, but lately it has become worse than ever.

For instance, JL, has it ever occurred to you that you are wrong?

I wiki'd up Zen Buddhism and there are about as many schools as there are different Christian churches.

The no method requires lots of practice and a teacher. I wonder how watered down it is by the time it made its way to L.A.

Doug R gave me a nice Gary Snyder book for my wedding. I really enjoyed it, and his perspective. Supposedly he is into Zen.

As for computers designing computers, I read a blurb on evolutionary computing. Apparently cell phones were designed, at least in part, by this method.
Messages 15601 - 15620 of total 22396 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews