Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Your one and only argument is based on the philosophical belief that physical mechanisms and processes can entirely explain, in causal terms, the existence of all reality...
Well, that's a whopper of an distorting extrapolation all of your own making and totally par for the course of your contributions to this 16k thread.
Largo, again and really, get a f*#king leash on your pretentiousness and arrogance, it's tiring and starting to get pretty petty and childish.
Look, Tallis' stilted, humanist rehash of the whole qualia-bone-is-connected-to-the-quantum-bone spiel and the necessity of a panpsychic solution isn't particularly insightful even if it appeals to all the folks who absolutely can't stand the idea that awareness and consciousness might actually be a brain phenomena and only a brain phenomena with absolutely no magic or new fundamentals required.
P.S. Tallis is a clinical geriatric medicine specialist with research has focused in three areas: epilepsy in old age, neurological rehabilitation and stroke. So yeah, a clinical neuroscientist focused on disease and old age, but he's hardly had a research career focused in cognitive neuroscience. And no doubt a long career in geriatric neurology watching lots of people lose their minds and humanity could tend to get one waxing poetic and philosophical after a while and start questioning everything.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 1, 2017 - 06:38pm PT
|
Not takers on that one, Healje. You don't understand a word of it, nor the logic that went into it. Humanism and panpsychism are such general terms you basically say nothing when spitting them out the side of your mouth. I knew going in you would never take a serious look at what was said - and that's the starting point for all of this: You have to look at the phenomenon this way and that, and then you start looking at basic assumptions to see if they square with your observations and experiences and measurements and all the rest.
The fantastically daffy thing is to imply that I, Tallis, or whoever, needs to "get a clue," as though we - like most others - didn't start off believing that the brain told the whole story, and that all other takes on consciousness were woo, beliefs, or untenable arguments.
I can't speak for Tullis, but as a neuroscientist first and foremost, he almost certainly began with the brain - and started asking hard questions from there. We can be entirely sure that a reknown neurobiologist is up on all the prevailing theories, understands both neurobiology and the arguments about consciousness, and has reasoned through his arguments very carefully and with a hell of a lot of acumen. The point is, Tallis is going to understand his neurobiology better than most anyone on this list, so "getting a clue" has nothing to do with the science involved. Your arguments are of the philosophical kind. Tullis is not suffering from mechanitus. You believe he is mistaken, but you don't understand him well enough to specifically tell us what he is mistaken about, and why.
That's not to say you have to agree with Tellis - I certainly don't on every point - only that questioning his scientific understanding is not itself compelling evidence to dismiss his findings. You have to do what you won't or cannot do: Actually look at the arguments and get clear on them - THEN you counter, with specifics.
Since I'm certain you don't grasp what he is saying, or more importantly, you don't get the logic and reasoning behind it, let's try and break down what the man is getting at. It is NOT easy material, or humanistic fluff.
And btw, humanism normally refers to a POV that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, "and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." If you had a dollop of humanism, as described, you'd use your critical thinking and dig in.
I'll present a review of a Tallis fragment when I get time. Soon. It's rich material.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The fantastically daffy thing is to imply that I, Tallis, or whoever, needs to "get a clue," as though we...
As ever words in others' mouths - get a grip, get a leash. That's pertaining to you and no one else. Not Tallis, not Chalmers et al - you and you alone and especially with anything that has the words 'computer' or 'processing' in them where you are entirely out of your league. And really, it's not your ideas (tiring though they are restated again and again ala Werner the hammer), but rather your pretentiousness and arrogance.
...but as a neuroscientist first and foremost...
Again, first and foremost he's a geriatric clinician. And please, spare me another lap around the quale as we've dug a pretty deep rut in that one already.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Tullis writes: "Physical science begins when we escape from our subjective, first-person experiences into objective measurement..."
but we should really ask why is the subjective/objective duality relevant.
Operationally, we understand that our particular perceptions can be affected by the peculiarities of our bodies, and certainly they are affected by our histories. These are generally considered manifestly "subjective."
But when we get together to talk about various topics, even those qualitative things like taste and color, we can certainly come to an agreement about commonalities.
Even if I am tri-chromatic, and I'm talking to someone who has a higher sense of chromaticity, I can understand their explanation of their experience even without being able to have the experience itself.
Knowing how we sense color, I could devise some artifice to allow me to have that same experience.
Tullis, and others, are making a very stark boundary where there isn't anything remotely resembling such.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
What I do know is the that JL is a master of backhanded remarks and about as condescending as they come.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Tullis is not suffering from mechanitus. You believe he is mistaken, but you don't understand him well enough to specifically tell us what he is mistaken about, and why. ... That's not to say you have to agree with Tellis ... I'll present a review of a Tallis fragment . . .
A neuroscientist with multiple personality disorder. Appeals to the metaphysical minds, no doubt.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Boob doo fuss always said: "What I do know is the that JL is a master of backhanded remarks and about as condescending as they come."
Boob is such a jealous insecure little runt.
Largo is a good man and boob is insane ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Largo said:
What it seems to break down to is a woeful ignorance to our own sentient process. Only a person who had no understanding of their own process would ever claim that awareness itself is emotional content.
JL,
What understanding do you have of your own sentient process?
What can you tell us about it?
And, since you requested the same from healyje, could you please make your reply logically coherent?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Dingus: You have made no sense with this one, but just demonstrated your insufficient understanding of matter and energy.
He’s talking over your head, Dingus . . . literally.
Healyje: So yeah, a clinical neuroscientist focused on disease and old age, but he's hardly had a research career focused in cognitive neuroscience.
. . . and your published research studies?
Ed: but we should really ask why is the subjective/objective duality relevant.
That’s it, Ed: question your own consciousness.
Bob: What I do know is the that JL is a master of backhanded remarks and about as condescending as they come.
It might take one to know one.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
. . . and your published research studies?
Absolutely none whatsoever, but I have a pretty good grasp on the arguments and understand the mechanistic side of things from both biology and computer perspectives.
No research required to comment on Tallis' credentials when so touted in a discussion such as this - and in this case Largo is heavily larding the pot so to speak with regard to Tallis' credentials on the topic.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
MikeL wrote: Bob: What I do know is the that JL is a master of backhanded remarks and about as condescending as they come.
It might take one to know one.
No Mike, I always come facing you. Also I'm not part of the fan boy club like you.
"Boob is such a jealous insecure little runt.
Largo is a good man and boob is insane ......"
Didn't take long for JL little attack chihuahua to chime in.
//
Werner, head of the fan boy club speaks.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
there would be no science without the scientist.
there would be no art without the artist.
how does one escape the subjective?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
science and art are both social behaviors...
once we express our subjective experience it ceases to be "first person"
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Does it cease to be first person or does it become more than first person?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
is that a productive line of questioning?
the point is that while we have an "interior" life that is ours and ours alone, what we define as "subjective," sharing it makes it "objective" if only because we share using commonly developed themes of communication intended to make our "subjective" accessible to others. We "objectify" our personal experiences.
To the extent that we cannot do that, the experiences remain "subjective." For instance, what ever goes on in our perception of, say, the color "red," we may not be able to explain why we personally perceive it as we do, though we may agree in large parts with others. Engaging in that discussion with my color blind friend would reveal that there are parts of each of our "subjective" experience that is not shared.
Even this process "objectifies" the discussion, we can explore the boundaries of those differences.
But the fact that we all agree that we have these "subjective" experiences goes a long way to "objectifying" them, if for no other reason that we take them out and compare them with each other, including the experience you have which are deeply meditative. The methods used to get you in those states are taught (and are objective) and the description of your experiences are used by your teacher to assess your progress (objective measures).
So it is not at all clear how "subjective" and "objective" can be used as a criteria for establishing the impossibility of understanding anything, as Tullis does, and as Largo has been doing all along.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
is that a productive line of questioning?
I don't know, you seem to have made a fairly cogent response. The recent back and forth about Tullis inspired my question and your reply makes sense to me.
including the experience you have which are deeply meditative. The methods used to get you in those states are taught (and are objective) and the description of your experiences are used by your teacher to assess your progress (objective measures).
I'm not sure I fit into that generalization. Even though I have had experiences which are deeply meditative, I was not educated by any method that requires a teacher other than my own inner guidance. I know Largo has his Zen experiences and that may better fit your example. So my teacher in this case is my inner guidance and that remains subjective or does it? Is my inner guidance just me? Is there someone in my head talking to me? Am I insane?
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Right? That is why I hesitate to give advice. Even when it is asked for.
My mind plays tricks on me. But if it is my mind how can it play tricks on me? Are me and my mind separate things? Why would I ask my mind anything anyway if it is just me to begin with? Does Ed have internal dialog when he is trying to solve a problem? Does it distract him to the point of not being conscious that he is the driver of a vehicle?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
The funny thing about this thread is that JL really wasn't asking a question (What is Mind?), he already thought he had the answer...all of them.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
At this point pretty much like discussing climate change with the Chief.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
The funny thing about this thread is that JL really wasn't asking a question (What is Mind?), he already thought he had the answer.
I have had that thought also. At some point I would have called it mental masturbation but there are too many others involved. Exhibitionist? No, that would make us voyeurs. I don't try and qualify it anymore, it is what it is. I like the fact that there are a lot of divergent views here and I can cherry-pick what works for me even without contributing much. What a bargain. All I have to do is wait for the "zingers" and then duck.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!