Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 01:00pm PT
|
Siri falls somewhere along the autism spectrum, never picking up on social cues and voice nuances. Unable to mirror back inflection in the correct manner, she simply does not have the capacity. Siri remains a special needs robot, never securing the impromptu spot on the speech and debate team.
This sounds to me like jealousy.
Or better yet, envy.
Lol
Very troubling.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 02:50pm PT
|
Neurons are the basic functional units in the brain; they transmit information through the body using electrical signals called action potentials. ... Intracellular single-unit recordings occur within the neuron and measure the voltage change (with respect to time) across the membrane during action potentials.
About a year ago I posted a description of neuronal function that went into much greater detail than the above.
What such a statement indicates about neurons is that they are involved in more than merely a sort of measuring-- it is an actual measuring-- and is fundamentally involved in the de novo production of consciousness, including the multifactorial physiological processes that underlie it. Therefore "measuring" in the understanding of any category of brain functioning is intrinsic and fundamental; not an optional executive function, reserved strictly for thinkers to mull over and discuss, and confined to a purely operational status.
This releases a very important contrasting point: why would it be logically reproachable and artificially invalid for anyone to measure and quantify an external object, in order to understand it -- but valid, natural, and organic for a neuron residing in your brain to do so?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 02:53pm PT
|
MikeL,
you have underwhelmed me:
But the exact nature of the stuff happening feeling-wise is undetermined by this observation.
Not my words but an idea I hold.
Are these 2 statements exactly the same:
The Hard Problem = understanding the redness of red
The Hard Problem = consciousness?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 03:03pm PT
|
Ward Trotter
could it be Largo does not understand much science? I suspect how good a poem is can be measured also.
Some things do not past the toilet test of time. Greenbrerg
|
|
Lollie
Social climber
I'm Lolli.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 03:19pm PT
|
Interesting. That explains a lot.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 05:50pm PT
|
You have a very unclear and incomplete understanding of what consciousness really is.
Guilty as charged.
edit: I think. I could be wrong.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 05:56pm PT
|
if you take measurements away, at best, what is left for you?
Sunny afternoons, days at the beach, quite a lot, as a matter of fact.
You over-emphasize quantity and measurement in science. They are aids to understanding but there are other factors at work.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 07:40pm PT
|
The checkout woman at Fresh Street Market asked, "Was your weekend good?
She caught me off guard. I could not at first make out the question.
Then the, "A-Hah," moment came and I replied that I was retired and the only day I knew was Garbage Day.
Apologies if I repeat myself.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 08:37pm PT
|
Depends on what you call "evidence," John
John, with regard to the two conjectures: (1) Consciousness can arise in a binary fashion and (2) Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe like electromagnetism, I would say that there is a way forward for investigating (1), but I fail to see a way forward for investigating (2).
Obviously, without a common definition of consciousness both paths of inquiry are speculative, but AI research may shed light on both the definition of consciousness and whether (1) is correct or false. But if physical science is ruled out for (2) what is left is a belief promoted by an experience while in an altered state of mind. Either that or reams of philosophical arguments. I don't believe either to be convincing.
Perhaps I am wrong and you can point a way forward for (2) and state your proposal briefly and clearly. That would be instructive.
Edit: Or ask Zoltar
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 11:01pm PT
|
Dingus: Why express your own opinion when you can jack the words of others?
Because, in the end, it can’t be done. It only looks like it can be done. A close inspection indicates almost everything about it is actually different.
Similarity and intuition look like that. Generalizations, vagueness, categories, using groups, or family resemblances (see Rorsch at http://matt.colorado.edu/teaching/categories/rm75.pdf); are all partially specified, and greviously so, IMO. You can't say what things are, and you can't say what they aren't. Indeterminacy is what you're left with. It's what we're all left with.
Any form of stereotype is a sin, in my book. But that's what consensus reality is.
Everything is in fact (just looks closely) unique, infinite, and inexpressible / indescribable. The closer you look at anything, the more you see--and that appears to go on forever like a fractal. It’s a kind of kaleidoscope . . . sort of.
(BTW, I think you tend to look for fights. Has anyone ever said that to you? There's an air of perversion about you. I'm not against it, but . . . whatdayathink?)
RE: your last post, I don’t get what the words italicized mean. I don’t know what they’re referencing. Care to explain beyond the 15 words?
“Underwhelming,” I don’t mind.
All statements hold truth from what I see. I think it must be so: nothing falls outside of THIS. I think you have to have a very high tolerance for ambiguity to feel good in it. You need to be One with the Force.
My paltry performance doesn’t matter one whit. Really. Consider me stupid or irrelevant.
Be well.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2017 - 11:13pm PT
|
Sycorax: King Lear is a play about "nothing."
I’m aghast. It is not about nothing. Nothing is a term and concept used in the play. It (“nothing”) signals Lear is arrogant and stupid and an old man who . . . like many climbers here . . . want to be remembered for the responsibilities and accolades they held. Lear feels entitled. In some way, he’s due certain favors.
But Lear is a man of great responsibility, and he must ensure that it gets passed on in favor of the organization. Cordelia simply tells it like it is for her, and she does love Lear. She probably could be a big more savvy, but that would spoil Shakespeare’s tale. Succession is one part of the play. The rest is about madness and how it kills hearts, minds, and souls.
Thanks for the verse. A great play, IMO.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 07:08am PT
|
MikeKL,
(BTW, I think you tend to look for fights. Has anyone ever said that to you? There's an air of perversion about you. I'm not against it, but . . . whatdayathink?)
Yes, think of your projection upon my utterances as my character disorder. I am fine with that. Honestly if you and I were having this talk around a campfire I doubt whether there would be any fighting. The [Semi] conciseness of my sentences leaves a lot of room for the reader to add his wild thoughts as I give little lip service to placating the reader for challenging some of their utterances.
RE: your last post, I don’t get what the words italicized mean. I don’t know what they’re referencing. Care to explain beyond the 15 words?
I actually appreciate your fastidiousness for the paper trail. I will try to comply as you have requested. This particular sentence post was done that way specifically as a test as to how you might reply to my admittance of copying without reference.
I must agree with you that I to like to see the posters' own words as much as possible but authority has a form of existence for what it is and is part of the process of understanding how others think.
the 15 words?
But the exact nature of the stuff happening feeling-wise is undetermined by this observation.
This statement was intended to suggest I think that the experiencing and then reporting of feeling in this or any observation by such introspection cannot give much of a report as to the processes and background processes of what is actually going in the observer's mind. Hence, do the problems of consciousness arise because of such illusions and then we put words onto those processes. But as you suggest this interpretation is that observer's reality.
And one might ask, " Do I have the "same" problem [ not exactly a Herriclidian interpretation here for the word "same"] with the redness of red as Chalmers proposes he has with how the mind makes for him the redness of red?
“Underwhelming,” I have heard versions of a lot of that of your particular post's material [thanks for taking the time to do it]. You have read my idea on another thread of how I suggested to Donini that all action is in the present [you call this immediacy] [I think this was an idea I got from Robert Pirsig ]. You or jGill made the comment that the then current content of that thread was a lot like what is going on in the thread, What is Mind.
My quandry: Is a response warranted? Certainly not overwhelmingly needed. Hence I used the word underwhelmed.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2017 - 09:02am PT
|
if you take measurements away, at best, what is left for you?
Sunny afternoons, days at the beach, quite a lot, as a matter of fact.
You over-emphasize quantity and measurement in science. They are aids to understanding but there are other factors at work.
Interesting take. And I chuckle to myself when I hear people ramble on about my lack of knowledge about the scientific method.
For the record:
Some years ago - more than I'd like to remember (circa 1988 I think) - I got approached to write the first of many iterations (books) about climbing anchors. The moment I accepted the challenge, it was full emersion into the scientific method, not as a concept, but as an applied methodology the results of which could quickly get people killed if I didn't get the general concepts right.
Thanks to a lot of help from climbing friends and mentors (like Chuck Wilts at CALTEC) who were crusher scientists, and later friends working with drop tower rigs at rope and gear companies, and others who helped out with math and engineering models that guided the testing, plus statisticians to work up the data prior to fashioning rules of thumb, we worked out a process that followed the classical scientific method:
make observations, essential to isolate out what we were looking at and what the various arrays were; working up questions per the patterns and factors generally encountered; formulate causes as to why X or Y happens or might happen, then in turn working up some hypothesis; basically speculate on predictions per the testing, design tests that closely replicated the fall factors involved (I insisted that we do drop tests since slow-pull testing so popular back then didn't simulate actual falls, which were never slow); test the sh#t out of the whole shebang; gather data from tests; work up the data and formulate new theories; repeat the process over and over, refining, altering, expanding and endlessly revising the hypothesis.
One of the most creative parts of the process was to devise the tests, and then when our hypothesis per this or that rigging strategy, say, didn't pan out as expected, devise new rigging methods and test those.
So yes, there were other things beyond the measurements, but the physical testing was where the rubber met the road, and the measurements either confirmed or shot down our hypothesis, or else the numbers were not definitive and we had to approach the problem from another angle.
Anyhow, the point is, that process went on and on for over twenty years, and I had the chance to work creatively with every phase of the work. So while the scientific method varies in terms of application, from one field to another, I feel confident that I grasp the general elements at play to the extent that I have made recommendations that people bet their life on being accurate and viable.
So kindly lay off this silly line that I neither understand or value the scientific method. There is no better method, or any other method, really, to get the low down on external, physical reality.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 09:04am PT
|
There are posts to this thread which sound like opinions which MikeL has copied from himself.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 09:49am PT
|
Largo,
you say, "Lay off" because you know the scientific method. I accused you of not knowing much science, meaning the doing of science. I did not accuse you of not having used or knowing the scientific method. There is a difference. The doing of science is somewhat different than the doing of engineering. In engineering we try to get our design to work in the big system and in doing science there is a need to isolate your tests from the rest of the embedded systems but some overlap can exist between the fields as we do need some "isolated "tests in engineering.
I have been trained as engineer and on 2 occasions hired by INSTAR U of CO, Boulder to help the scientists with the mechanics, troubleshooting and instrumentation of some projects. Knowing the scientific method as used in engineering in no way implies for me or makes me or likely any engineer de facto good at doing a particular scientist's way he does his science. Engineering often seems far easier than doing real & new science -- maybe my training? I was a physics major at one time but than doesn't mean ....
Ward Trotter expressed how he as scientist in nerve cell research had used measurements as in fact he was measuring the very same potentials that brain cells measure. Whether you think so or not that measurements will ever be a part of ground up consciousness research is likely your hangup.
There seems to be experts in every field except consciousness/mind [research]? Well for your info there are some people doing the likes of such research -- Antonio Damasio for one ... and they measure some things.
BTW, this defensive post of yours was very clear without much rambling. It was easy reading and good.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 10:06am PT
|
There are posts to this thread which sound like opinions which MikeL has copied from himself.
LOL .... funny
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2017 - 10:46am PT
|
Dingus, "doing science" is what I did and still do (starting in grad school) with neurofeedback. I used the engineering model simply to make a point. But your point is well taken.
And this; Ward Trotter expressed how he as scientist in nerve cell research had used measurements as in fact he was measuring the very same potentials that brain cells measure. Whether you think so or not that measurements will ever be a part of ground up consciousness research is likely your hangup.
--
The "my hangup" jab needs a little more intellectual rigor to gain traction as a viable pitch for Type A physicalism, though I don't fault you for trying. From any 3rd person perspective, no matter how acute and focused, it's ground up or magic.
Per Demasio, he's basically stratified experience into a triad: Protoself, Core Consciousness (basically emergent philosophy), and Extended Consciousness. He had the good sense to avoid trying to write off qualia (the content of experience), but IMO he's made what I'm becoming more and more convinced is that fatal error in not only Demasio, but also in Chalmers and others who conflate awareness with content. This is an intricate study to pick apart and it took me years to start getting a hint at what was at play, and perhaps I can present a few ideas fairly soon to try and make it all clear.
Tickling apart awareness from content is a task that perhaps is only made clear though introspection, though not introspection in the way people normally imagine it - basically looking INSIDE in the same way we would look OUTSIDE, at external physical reality. That is, looking outside, we tend to isolate out a discrete pine cone or dog or force or process (content) and start discursively evaluating till arriving at a conclusion for which we can be right or wrong and affirm that we "know" one way or another.
More on this latter. It's a fricking rabbit hole. Suffice it to say that Demasio and others have worked up one of many possible models to catagorize the emergence of conetent, the the cognitive process by which we engage that content, but sentience and content are not the same. The trick is to understand this well enough to make it clear WHY that is so, and to my knowledge, no one has done that.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 11:15am PT
|
sycorax,
thanks for taking the time to comment. I have noticed this: Judges in court for speeding just before my speeding case.
Could you please quote a line or two from Shakespeare applicable to my criticism of Largo's long windedness and the simple fact of my poor composition? A Shakespearean insight would likely make my lack of good composition skills so much more understandable!
Can you get this? I have a very old keyboard that has some key that do not always respond and do you think I will change it or its output for every occasion?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2017 - 11:35am PT
|
Largo,
Dingus, "doing science" is what I did and still do (starting in grad school) with neurofeedback.
I hear that some nano machines are in the making: nano sensors, nano transmitters/receivers and even a form of nano robots. Send them into the brain with syringes of short term numbing agents. Or is this just too much type A physicalism?
But as I have said, "knowing the signal does not tell us the algorithm".
I will be glad to hear what you report of what you find as the next insight.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!