What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 15061 - 15080 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

WBraun

climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 08:29am PT

if you want to learn more you will need to live with doubt.

Doubt is already there ... ad-nauseum to the mind.

What is needed greater is purifying the mind beyond doubt.

Then one can see everything clearly ......

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Aug 29, 2017 - 08:40am PT

MikeL makes an implicit equivalence, "speculations / theories," which is incorrect, at least in my opinion based on my experience as a scientist.

Speculation tends to be rather limited and often has a logical "jump" that is identifiable. So the pursuit of the speculation involves understanding that "jump."

Theory is the logical edifice by which prediction on the outcome of experiment or the explanation of observation is made. Generally theories do not have the same sorts of "jumps" that speculations have, though there may be inconsistencies revealed by experimental tests. These inconsistencies generally inform the theory.

Inconsistencies of the arguments leading to a speculation generally kill the speculation.

Differentiating these two things is important, and MikeL likes to lump them together to make his point that the social nature of the construction of speculation and theory invalidate them as a basis of knowledge. Not only that, but that empirical validation is also based on a social construction and has no greater validity.

So in the end, it's all just something we think up, and the elaboration of a formal scientific activity is nothing more than an elaboration of our cultural predilections.

MikeL's demand for "hard data" is disingenuous because he will criticize most offerings of data as incomplete, unreliable and biased.

This cycle of argument has repeated often in this thread.

The predominate explanation of the physical universe is based on what has become known as "western science." Whether or not this has negative cultural implication, the reason this is so is because of the success in developing useful technologies. We are communicating here on one example technology.

It is an open question whether or not this science can develop a meaningful guide to our lives, it is not necessarily the aim of science to do this.

But it is the aim of science to understand the world, and we are in this world and thus are subjects of the broad scientific agenda.

WBraun

climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 08:47am PT

It is an open question whether or not this science can develop a meaningful guide to our lives, it is not necessarily the aim of science to do this.

it is not necessarily the aim of science to do this.

But it does on a subtle daily basis point the living entity in this day and age into that direction.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 09:09am PT

But it does on a subtle daily basis point the living entity in this day and age into that direction.

Science does not point anywhere but to the exploration of the natural world. If it points anywhere else then that is the living entity who does so, not science.

WBraun

climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 09:23am PT

If it points anywhere else then that is the living entity who does so, not science.

You clarified what I really meant Ward, good job ......

Dingus McGee

Social climber

Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace

Aug 29, 2017 - 09:57am PT

MikeL,

The biggest complaint about Damasio’s work—academically that is—is that it’s based upon aberrations / outliers. Damasio studies the results of unusual accidents, not normalcy.

So is your biggest complaint just complaining? You have not established or put forth any evidence to suggest the results of his work & speculation are wrong because he used brains with some defective parts. Of course I see you clarified the category of your complaint by saying academically and not other researchers in the know. I also can understand the biggest complaint could be something quite small -- you are off the hook?

Wayno

Big Wall climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 29, 2017 - 11:20am PT

Speaking of error-riddled writing. You and Wayno loom at the top of the class in that regard.

Lol. What else do you expect from an under-educated blue-collar slob like me?

I'll go sit in the corner now and stick a pencil in my eye.

Wayno

Big Wall climber

Seattle, WA

Aug 29, 2017 - 12:27pm PT

That's very funny, DMT but I had her pictured more like in this video:

[Click to View YouTube Video]

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 12:29pm PT

The predominate explanation of the physical universe is based on what has become known as "western science."

Or else... "The Scientific Story".

It is an open question whether or not this science can develop a meaningful guide to our lives...

On the individual level, for umpteen millions already, and also for all kinds of assorted, various groups already, science has been a meaningful guide to their lives.

...

The Future of Intelligence, a Conversation w Max Tegmark
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-future-of-intelligence

WBraun

climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 01:20pm PT

There is no future of intelligence.

Intelligence is and has always been there in total complete form and whole from the very beginning.

All one has to do is dovetail their own limited consciousness to that whole .....

Marlow

Sport climber

OSLO

Aug 29, 2017 - 01:25pm PT

yes, you could do that.

...and then shut down your limited consciousness...

^^^^

WBraun

climber

Aug 29, 2017 - 01:53pm PT

Nothing gets shut down by dovetail.

The base consciousness (the individual living individual entity) just get broader .......

Marlow

Sport climber

OSLO

Aug 29, 2017 - 01:57pm PT

...oh... it's not impossible to shut down one's limited consciousness on ST for a while...

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Aug 29, 2017 - 09:22pm PT

Would you think that the study of anything should be based upon outliers, problems, errors, or mistakes?

At times this approach can be very productive.

yanqui

climber

Balcarce, Argentina

Aug 30, 2017 - 05:13am PT

[Click to View YouTube Video]

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Aug 30, 2017 - 07:09am PT

Whew! That video is a device to explode the brains of science-minded folk. Fortunately, I was able to escape after, "only an anecdotal wet-dream of Isaac Newton," which sounded a bit off-key to me. The occasionally dismissive tone of voice of the narrator is an accurate parody of an otherwise wonderful friend of mine who has made his own study of optics (inside his own head), and he tells me that because light travels in straight lines, if the Moon was as big as the scientists say then it should cover the whole night sky.

yanqui

climber

Balcarce, Argentina

Aug 30, 2017 - 07:20am PT

It's satire MH2 (I suppose that's what you meant). JP nails it so well that he gets dozens of real flat-Earthers, who are apparently quite serious, posting in the comments. Anyways, my favorite part is how he deals with the "Illogical Argument Deception" near the end of the video. It's the perfect illustration of how logic can never win once someone has made up their mind.

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Aug 30, 2017 - 08:23am PT

Duck: I post them anyway because even those posts I make are in actually directed at myself also.

Yes. Ditto.

Ed: Differentiating these two things [speculation and theory] is important, and MikeL likes to lump them together to make his point that the social nature of the construction of speculation and theory invalidate them as a basis of knowledge. Not only that, but that empirical validation is also based on a social construction and has no greater validity.

I would not say this. I would not say that there is such a thing as “invalidity.” I would say that recognizing the basis of claims to knowledge leaves room for doubt. I see trouble with notions of “validity.” “Validity” seems to be an either-or thing—which is the trouble I see. Instead, I see “and.” I don’t think you understand this point of view.

As for me being disingenuous, you take liberties in assuming what my state of mind is. There’s nothing I can say to it, other than to advise you to be careful about the assumptions that you make when you write.

If you have found that I’m making illogical, inconsistent claims, please call me on that. I honestly don’t understand just how a call for some hard data in Anderson’s article is disingenuous when I could also claim that any data are invariably incomplete, unreliable, and biased. It would seem that in your world, things must be either this or that, with nothing in-between. I would argue that one should be always be tenuous, exploratory, and open-minded. It seems to me that one can (and must?) be just that way in a world where nothing is certain.

Some data is always better than no data, Ed.

What I will always complain about is when people want to say what a thing is without recognizing how it could be something else. I will argue with what looks like dogma to me. With regards to many who post here dogmatically, your posts are more circumspect than most by far.

Dingus: . . . I see you clarified the category of your complaint by saying *academically* and not other researchers in the know.

And who would those other researchers “in the know” be if they are not legitimate academically? “Academically” means understanding and following what constitutes a careful scientific approach. That means understanding that there is no iron-clad process that delivers “Truth.” I don’t see that you get that idea.

I have referred to Damasio’s work in my own written research studies, and positively.

As I’m trying to express to Ed above, “and” can be used insightfully by broadening one’s view . . . any view, even a scientific / academic view or a religious view. To recognize the limitations of the findings of research, of how data are collected, of how they are interpreted, of how they compare to other research studies, of what their strong points are and what their weak points are, is what (for me) makes reading and doing research interesting and relevant. Why is it that things must be this-or-that? If you were to read my research, I’d be the first to show you its problems, gaps, and errors.

That I made a complaint about the weakness of Damasio’s approach seems more important than the content of the complaint to you. This is not how I’ve operated in research circles. If a researcher’s ego is so fragile that one cannot enjoin with others to understand their complaints and concerns, they should find another profession or calling. The entire process invariably diminishes one’s little grasping ego for higher and greater understanding of “What This Is” IMO.