What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 08:56am PT
The "theory" definition has been given ad nauseam so it's well known and defined.

But "fact", is inconceivable to our present imperfect material senses ......
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:59am PT
How does the definition of the word species clarify the issues of whether or not animals are like humans in terms of “mind?” What am I missing?




You are missing the statement I chose to reply to:


We lack a solid definition of what it means to be human. It’s not a science issue, it’s a humanities issue.


If you had said, “what it means to have a human mind.” then my reply would have been different.


My opinion is that the most reliable definition of human, as compared to non-human, is a genetic one. There is no real doubt as to which is which.

I see mind, social interaction, and other behvaviors as broader questions, where human and non-human may overlap
jogill

climber
Colorado
Oct 4, 2016 - 11:52am PT
Googled Dr. Carroll. Very impressive. If this guy were to say that "empty awareness" explains something in quantum mechanics I would entertain the notion. A relief to know he doesn't work at the Noetic Institute.

Bring on more, HFCS.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Oct 4, 2016 - 11:53am PT
Ed: what is the distinction between "theory" and "fact"?

Excellent.

MH2: If you had said, “what it means to have a human mind.” then my reply would have been different. My opinion is that the most reliable definition of human, as compared to non-human, is a genetic one. There is no real doubt as to which is which.

Thanks. (My error for not putting in the word “human” in front of “mind.”)

Genetics is one dimension, isn’t it?
jogill

climber
Colorado
Oct 4, 2016 - 12:08pm PT
Theorem and fact, a little hazy indeed.

Fact is a stretch itself.




(Sitting here at the dining room table watching the Beulah Hill Fire about thirty miles away. The entire town may be evacuated. Very windy. The backyard for me, and my horizontal ladder - trying to regain lost strength.)
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Oct 4, 2016 - 04:45pm PT
A good response, Mike.

In return:


You guys sure pick on Largo.






http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xla3ga_heartbeat-series-1-episode-1-changing-places_shortfilms
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 05:04pm PT
Good to see, jogill.

If you guys would pick up The Big Picture by Carroll we could all discuss the validity and usefulness of his "poetic naturalism".

Just a thought.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_naturalism


What's esp cool on this count is how Carroll discusses... what is so absent in trad Abraham religion... how to evaluate evidence using a Bayesian mindset, to take in evidence and then most importantly to update beliefs..
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Oct 4, 2016 - 06:13pm PT
Peter Woit's take on Carroll's book (from Woit's 'Not Even Wrong' blog):

The Big Picture
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 06:32pm PT
I'm heading there now but let me guess... a harsh criticism?

EDIT...
(1)"I didn’t bother to do more than skim a lot of the chapters, since the theme seemed both so familiar and so unobjectionable."

(2) "One reason I can’t focus on this is that I just don’t see any evidence that science needs this sort of defense against religion, it seems to me to be doing extremely well without it."

Not in regards to "what matters." Science doesn't cover this topic. Iow, it doesn't cover goals, interests, values.

(3) "I just don’t see what some other people see as a need for books arguing the case for science."

Hmm.

(4) " He wants to promote what he calls “poetic naturalism“, which as far as I can tell is a term of his own invention..."

Yes, and... So? All words have been made up... inventions... so?

(5) So I just accidentally deleted (5). Let me see if I can restate it. Damn computer.

(5b) "Beyond the “science instead of religion” idea though, “poetic naturalism” seems to me to simultaneously lack any real content, while claiming to address the deepest human questions of meaning and morality."

This is simply incorrect. Perhaps if he had actually studied the book to get inside Carroll's head instead of simply reading it or by his own admission skimming it, he'd see it differently.

Of course "poetic naturalism" by some measures would lack content. Carroll's point was to cite it and define it as an approach as part of a larger framework. (2) It is the book, not poetic naturalism, that aims to speak "to the deepest human questions of meaning and morality."

Now as far as I'm concerned this critic's misunderstanding on these latter points indicates to me he indeed skimmed the work, really didn't get its fundamentals, and maybe is more interested in blogging and critiquing.

(Maybe more after dinner. Maybe not, regarding this guy.)

Someone blogging from Columbia you'd think might go a little deeper and resist the temptation to skim a book by a Caltech physicist who is no schlupp.

...

Just finished the rest of his one-page critique. Gee, I wonder if we could all go back 30 years, if he'd say the same thing looking forward about Carl Sagan's Cosmos? This critic needs to be reminded we aren't just scientists, we're also human. Many of us got into science in the first place not only because we were passionately interested in how the world works and how life works but also because we were equally passionately interested in meaning, value and purpose in our lives and the human condition in general.

What continually amazes me is how many atheists and scientists insist on seeing science and its implications only from the narrow pov of "what is" and no wider or further. Beyond "what is" is "what matters" and "what works" for both the personal and the social; and though science doesn't directly answer these latter categories, it can certainly serve as a starting point or basis for their investigation and development.

Yes, indeed, imo, there are a lot of narrow-minded scientists out there for whom it is probably best just to stick to (their) science. They just don't seem to get that wider world of thought - science-informed thought - re value, meaning and purpose, of Sagan and Carroll and others.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Oct 4, 2016 - 07:00pm PT
I believe this is his basic point:

Given that, the best advice to people who come to physicists looking for the meaning of life seems to me to politely tell them that they’re looking in the wrong place and asking the wrong person.

While I deeply value and respect my many friends and colleagues among physicists and mathematicians, I can’t imagine why anyone would think they have any unusual insight into the great questions of meaning and morality. I’m afraid that to some extent the opposite is true.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 07:17pm PT
And for me, the bottom line is, he skimmed the book, he didn't read it, let alone study it.


What they (many not all) have is insight from idea systems such as evolutionary theory, entropy, ecology, etc; from many and various knowledge bases as revealed by science... and then what they have are these as tools to serve as a platform for thinking anew (eg, apart from theology, that's hugggge). About meaning, value and purpose. About philosophy. About belief.

That is what it is about. Growing thousands to millions immersed in this intersection of science and meaning, value and purpose and last but not least belief perceive this; it is a shame more are not and more don't.

(So this has been a challenge: New computer here. No mouse. Having to input via unfamiliar touchpad. I think I'm learning.)

(God I hate accidentally deleting an entire paragraph or two though. I forgot just how much.)

I can’t imagine why anyone would think they have any unusual insight into the great questions of meaning and morality.

Speaks volumes, actually, about this person and his thinking.

Curious, could he/would he state the same were he to substitute (a) God Jehovah or (b) human origins for "meaning and morality" in above quote of his? Really what's the difference as both (a) and (b) link to "meaning and morality". So pretty superficial there, too, ime.

Peter Woit... maybe get out of the lab once in awhile? maybe work on expanding/strengthening your imagination, too?
WBraun

climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 08:16pm PT
HFCS -- "Yes, indeed, imo, there are a lot of narrow-minded scientists ..."

You are definitely one of them for sure .....
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 4, 2016 - 08:43pm PT
And for me, the bottom line is, he skimmed the book, he didn't read it, let alone study it.

you studied it?

I didn't read the book, but I searched about on the web to find what Sean Carroll uses crossing symmetry for, it is generally not a very central part of quantum field theory (e.g. Weinberg's text The Quantum Theory of Fields, I) has three very brief references. The use of the idea of crossing symmetry came from considerations of dispersion theory as applied to scattering of elementary particles, and probably was most familiar to theorists of the 1960s. Many techniques developed then are applicable to other problems, though the "central" theoretical ideas of those times are deprecated.

In the strictest sense, the idea of the cross symmetry dates back to the development of quantum electrodynamics, certainly Feynman talked about it, especially in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, but I'm sure if I looked closely I'd find it in Schwinger's work too, actually the hints are in Weinberg.

To the extent that quantum field theory is the tool by which we apply what we understand to predict the outcome of experiment and observation, crossing symmetries are "real," or what you might term "true," to the extent that those theories provide a means of very accurate predictions which can be tested.

For instance, the gyromagnetic moments of the electron and the muon are predictable and measurable to very high accuracy.

electron, measured: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76)
electron, calculated: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 175 86

muon, measured: g/2 = 1.001 165 920 8 (6)
muon, calculated: g/2 =1.001 165 847 181

the differences between measurement and calculation are very interesting, and in many ways demonstrate the the physics that Carroll is talking about not being very important to us is important to us... for instance, the electron, and the muon, are "point particles" which would imply that they have infinite self energy... yet we know they have finite masses, we are so far ignorant of the mechanism which effectively makes its mass finite.

That mechanism is obviously important for our current universe... and it likely depends on those particles that are otherwise not evident.

So while I haven't read the book, I'm not so sure why the crossing symmetry turns out to be so important. It isn't a symmetry in the usual sense of physics.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:01pm PT
"I'm not so sure why the crossing symmetry turns out to be so important."

...

Interesting. As above quote implies, I think Carroll utilized it as part of his claim that... all relevant particles and forces underlying life have been identified in accordance with field theory.

Yes it was not major component of either his argument or his book.

I only mentioned it because I've never heard of the concept, wanted clarity, and was interested in the overarching conversation of that particular chapter.

...

Yes I think it is fair to say that I have studied his book more than read it. If that helps to clarify anything.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:06pm PT
Interesting. As above quote implies, I think Carroll utilized it as part of his claim that... all relevant particles and forces underline life have been identified in accordance with field Theory.

I'd say that is a premature claim stated that way... and ultimately unsatisfying to someone who wants to pursue the ideas "deeper." But it is true that given the collection of atoms, understanding the constituents as nuclei and electrons, and being able to calculate using QED probably provides as fundamental a basis as needed to explain life.

But there is no need to resort to "crossing symmetry" to make that argument.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:09pm PT
So I was wondering perhaps the same thing and was looking for further conversation. Thanks.

Particularly as he was using "crossing symmetry" as means to this claim.

...

In his defense, Carroll does state that this property "helps" to make the case... so that is open to some interpretation I suppose.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:33pm PT
A review by Woit of a book by Tegmark:

Our Mathematical Universe

The idea that a quadratic equation represents a universe seems a stretch.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:36pm PT
Touche.


"A final chapter argues for the importance of the "scientific lifestyle," meaning scientific rationality as a basis for our decisions about important questions affecting the future of our species."

...

Tegmark was guest on Harris podcast...

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=WVW8NDZlHbU
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:41pm PT
Peter Woit... maybe get out of the lab once in awhile? maybe work on expanding/strengthening your imagination, too?

Woit's not a lab animal but rather a theoretical one. I follow his blog and he's clearly a standard model stalwart and critic of string theory and multiverse conjectures.
i-b-goB

Social climber
Wise Acres
Oct 4, 2016 - 09:42pm PT
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta