Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
To be fair, when from time to time, I read neuroscience research papers, I never encounter words like consciousness or mind.
Folks have built, for example, functional artificial limbs. Maybe they'll develop drugs that prolong the onset of, or prevent dementia.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Forget about physics for a bit and think about biology. You pretty much dismiss biology altogether in your worldview from what I can tell. Biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Evolution is a theory that is absolutely testable and has passed every time it's been tested so far. You can talk about mystical energy waves all you want, but biology leaves an historical record of the arrow of time in our human universe. Consciousness evolved to what it is, and human mind is a particular kind of consciousness. Human mind wasn't present first. Duh!
Umm no. Not close enough to my worldview to even guess how to reply. It's all alive ... as in animism or tao-chia. Perhaps check out Robert Lanza's 'Biocentrism'
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Biology is too darn messy.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
if you were to take up Jstan's challenge to look at what you just posted in terms other than linear causal, what might you find?
perhaps you could define what you mean by "linear" and "causal" I'm not sure I have assumed either
Also, some might find this conversation interesting per neurons, neural nets, etc:
It would seem you are assuming that all those neurons just sit there doing nothing. What do you think they do, Largo?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
from Largo:
One great new twist, in my opinion, recently introjected here by Jstan, was … “ask questions in new ways (is key).”
I would add, “look at first assumptions in new ways.”
nobody, no other conscious agent, can read your thoughts, feel you feelings, know your sensations themselves.
Looking at that assumption a bit differently:
Shakespeare, Balzac, and Tolstoy could not know anyone else's thoughts, feelings, or sensations.
|
|
stay norwegian. good boy
climber
|
|
the subject matter at hand is fascinating;
a complex system of muscles, nerves and wee fireworks;
i thought i'd take mine for a test drive and
see what's she is made of;
in the spirit of inquiry, eh?
so i'm stoked to report that i am the first person
to read the mind thread from o.p. to me
in under 24 hours.
here's a picture of me at post 19,000, and only 16 hours in.
i new it was in the bag. but i did not let my gard down,
cause it aint over yet.
john i was gonna wear my psychedelic paisley shirt
because you inspired me unto this quest
and you guys looked kick-asse in that
iconic photo, but
instead i went with the plain mustard.
and in the spirit of our dear, departed bridwell,
i did not train for this visionary challenge.
total time elasped: 19 hours 6 minutes.
beat that.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 8, 2018 - 12:42pm PT
|
nobody, no other conscious agent, can read your thoughts, feel you feelings, know your sensations themselves.
Looking at that assumption a bit differently:
Shakespeare, Balzac, and Tolstoy could not know anyone else's thoughts, feelings, or sensations.
The key word here MH2, is "themselves." We assume a uniformity of human consciousness and what we are conscious of, based on our shared vocabulary and shared experience - so far as we can tell. We assume, as Balzac assumed when painting his characters in, say, his short stories/ novellas such as Sarrasine, Colonel Chabert and Vandetta, that sadness, joy, anger and so on is recognizably the same, person to person; but in no wise would Balzac think that his experience WAS someone else's, in all their nuances and associations and so forth, based on similarities we all share.
To do so is to consider the content of awareness not as fluid subjective phenomenon but much as one would consider an external object with normative and clearly defined qualities we can specifically quantify as "that." We can do so, but only in relative terms, and our map of our internal content, which we use to communicate and "know" one another, is at best only approximations of what is actually going on in another person, the content of which we cannot directly observe.
We are at the mercy of body language and what the other says, onto which we project our own experiences. The fact that we cannot know, exactly, what someone else is thinking or feeling or imagining gives rise to the old saw, "In the end we are alone with ourselves." We cannot crawl inside another person's subjctive bubble and experience their world from a shared, 1st person perspective, nor can we directly observe their inner world from a 3rd person vantage. We can only see the physical signs, which tell us much but not all. Some but not all can be shared with others, and much is lost on us as well, giving rise to the other old saw: "We are strangers to ourselves."
Incidentally, this issue is basically the old philosophical vexer called "The problem of other minds."
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
We are at the mercy of body language and what the other says, onto which we project our own experiences. The fact that we cannot know, exactly, what someone else is thinking or feeling or imagining gives rise to the old saw, "In the end we are alone with ourselves." We cannot crawl inside another person's subjctive bubble and experience their world from a shared, 1st person perspective, nor can we directly observe their inner world from a 3rd person vantage. We can only see the physical signs, which tell us much but not all. Some but not all can be shared with others, and much is lost on us as well, giving rise to the other old saw: "We are strangers to ourselves."
Yes, but perhaps we could and should walk a mile in another's shoes. Just to get an idea of what they may be going through. Sympathy vs. Empathy.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 8, 2018 - 02:06pm PT
|
Pretty much, Wayno. Basically, the idea is that we might be watching the same ball game or climbing the same rock or we might have dated the same girl but our experiences will not be identical. The very same phenomenon will not cause the same experience in two subjects because they are not the same. They also change hour to hour. Depending on mood, fatigue, etc. the same call from my daughter will be experienced one way in the morning and another way at noon, even though she might say the same things. The experiential data is mutable and individual because the host is as well.
What's more, physical observation and assessing someone on the basis of what they say is also a slippery slope if we want to know the score in remotely fixed or "objective" terms. How may times has a person committed suicide or done jackass things never betrayed before in their words or actions? And few people act in ways that actually suggest their shifting inner state. We act and talk according to an idealized or socialized version of how we want to come off, by way of personality projection.
Another even loopier example was brought home to me with a girl I was with in college. I was never quite sure what she thought or felt or meant, and it took me the longest time to realize that neither did she. What I got was a kind of free floating version of the girl, where the presentation had little bearing to her inner reality, which under stress would burst out like gangbusters. At all other times she felt strangely unreal.
Slippery slope indeed...
I said: if you were to take up Jstan's challenge to look at what you just posted in terms other than linear causal, what might you find?
Ed replied: Perhaps you could define what you mean by "linear" and "causal" I'm not sure I have assumed either.
Look at linear and causal in terms of mind, as proffered from a Type A physicalists belief system.
Most will posit physical evolution as an explanation for the formation or "creation" of our brains. Evolution in this regards is a linear ("progressing from one stage to another in a series of steps; sequential") forward progression through time and space during which a simple physical object, over eons, evolves into a complex physical object: Our current brain. I trust this is clear.
At some time, the theory goes, the brain achieved consciousness.
When modern neurobioligists seek the likely "cause" for said consciousness, they look no further than the brain.
That, Ed, is the manner in which I am using the words, "linear" and "causal."
I could muck this up with fancy talk about how the in the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input (non-linear), specifically in terms of brain function, but if you asked most people what they feel "causes" consciousness, most would say "the brain." And when your dancing neurons stir, I would bet that you would have it that in a linear-causal way, consciousness would be one of the outputs of said neurons.
Again, we can muck up this simple understanding with the complexities of non-linear systems, but physical, linear sequences are the bedrock of anyone believing If A (brain), Then B (consciousness).
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
When you say evolution is linear or sequential I would say in hindsight that is obvious, but in real time as it is happening, the jury is still out. Thus we have different theories like punctuated equilibrium. Interesting subjects. Of course someone is going to tell me I have it all wrong.
When someone talks of causal chains, I often think to myself, show your work. It is easy to observe a series of events and assume there is a causal chain. It takes a lot of work with as many variables as can be identified to actually show how one thing caused another. Some things happen in spite of some other thing happening. It is necessary to show how one effects the other.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
in no wise would Balzac think that his experience WAS someone else's
If what you claim is true, he could not know that his experience was not someone else's. If someone's experience was exactly the same as another person, then they would essentially be that other person. Not a good use of a unique individual.
All I am saying is that we can know quite a lot about the thoughts and feelings of others, if they choose to express them. More than we need to know, really.
To say that we will never get a more direct look at thought, feeling, and memory is an unfounded assumption.
To say that nobody can read your thoughts and feelings is wrong even with no more direct means than we already have.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
so i'm stoked to report that i am the first person
to read the mind thread from o.p. to me
in under 24 hours.
You could've saved a whole lot of time by just reading my posts.
A whole lot healthier as well.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 8, 2018 - 05:19pm PT
|
All I am saying is that we can know quite a lot about the thoughts and feelings of others, if they choose to express them. More than we need to know, really.
To say that we will never get a more direct look at thought, feeling, and memory is an unfounded assumption.
To say that nobody can read your thoughts and feelings is wrong even with no more direct means than we already have.
-
MH2, I've repeatedly told you to lay off the bong water. Once you down a quart of two you drift so far off the subject you're basically talking to yourself, not the point in question.
I originally repeated a simple, incontrovertible truth. No one can directly observe, from a 3rd person vantage, another person's 1st person experience. That is, no one can jump inside another person's 1st person subjective bubble and directly experience what they are experiencing. This is by no known definition a claim or an assumption - sober people can easily see why.
And if you are "right" about being able to read another person's actual, subjective thought stream, you should start wearing a turban and open a shop as a mind reader. I ran into one not long ago in Vegas, by the name of Zolton, but verily, he was a machine.
This, I believe, is the woo we often speak of. You think otherwise, just ask Ward. He'll set the world straight while he's at it.
Mercy...
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
but physical, linear sequences are the bedrock of anyone believing If A (brain), Then B (consciousness)
You may be correct, but I have trouble believing this as fact. So no one out there in science land is toying with non-linear processes in this regard?
I envy you your certainties, your levels of confidence, in this thread.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...as proffered from a Type A physicalists belief system.
I don't have any idea what this is.
As for linear behavior, I don't believe that anyone who's wondered about the brain, consciousness, mind and all that has concluded that it is at all linear. The whole point of scientific "emergence" is that simple agents working in a network can come up with very complicated behavior that is not predictable ab initio from the behavior of the agents. That is, not linear.
When one "linearizes" a system, such as the Google kids did in the article I posted upthread recently, it is usually around some special operating point. The neural networks they are studying find an optimum solution, they linearized its behavior around the solution state and infer the behavior of the elements of the network. I think they are still studying whether or not this provides them the insight that they are seeking. It is an open question.
As for causal, I don't use the word the same way you do, but certainly the idea that the brain has something to do with mind is not a very long stretch. What is a stretch is trying to figure out how it does it, which necessarily requires defining the mind, which does lead to some quantification.
The quantification alone does not describe the mind, contrary to your tired old statements, but rather the relationships among the quantities, and the predictions you can make from these relationships. Science is not just a collection of facts, that is a major misconception that you seem to have, for instance, the speed-of-light constancy is not some arbitrary limit, but the consequence of very profound physical attributes of the universe.
The complexity of "mind" behavior is intertwined with the complexity of the biology of humans (and other animals, and of all life) made even more complex by the history of how the current collection of living things came to be at this time.
One can be skeptical, but I am more skeptical of the easy explanation you are proffering.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Science is not just a collection of facts, that is a major misconception that you seem to have
Understatement of the thread, IMO! Humanists talk of "geeks with pocket protectors", "number crunchers", "data collectors", and other descriptors, while apparently not having a clue that science/ mathematics is far more than just measuring and collecting numerical results to see if a theory may be valid.
Where do you think the theory came from in the first place? Maybe it just popped out of a bubble of empty awareness, leaving investigators in awe? Like art seems to? And how about the extremely sophisticated equipment and experiment design that is required to gather all that data and make sense of it? These are intellectual challenges that stagger the imagination.
The language and techniques of science/mathematics are seemingly too alien and incomprehensible (well, too difficult, let's face it) for some literati, and so they are unaware of the poetry and general aesthetics of those subjects. Hence, they may conclude, there are no such qualities.
Non-linear causality of an infinite composition of fixed-point continued fraction forms. Do you really know what non-linear means? Or what is involved in creating a linear approximation of a non-linear process to make it a bit easier to manipulate?
I could muck this up with fancy talk about how the in the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input (non-linear). . .
Without any doubt, a true statement. Well done!
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
jgill's latest looks like a primitive creature of the sea. It seems he has gone from portrayals of the collective unconscious back down the evolutionary chain. Perhaps we will end up at physics or the mathematical structure of the universe after all.
As for literature vs science, there are other ways of understanding the human mind too. In my own field we see both universals and particulars of perception as colored by culture. American public school propaganda aside, not all people everywhere "are just alike". Human beings are endlessly creative in their adaptations to their various environments. One can see this equally as poetry or science
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Humanists talk of "geeks with pocket protectors", "number crunchers", "data collectors", and other descriptors, while apparently not having a clue that science/ mathematics is far more than just measuring...
Fair enough. But one would hope folks do not confuse "humanist" in the humanism sense and "humanist" in the humanities sense. Big difference!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities
Another classic example illustrating the problematica with "trad" language involving these subjects.
What to do?
Just hang in there. Within a few years new terminology of art will emerge - it will develop - to deal with these languaging frustrations.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
The language and techniques of science/mathematics are seemingly too alien and incomprehensible (well, too difficult, let's face it) for some literati, and so they are unaware of the poetry and general aesthetics of those subjects. Hence, they may conclude, there are no such qualities.
This works in both directions doesn't it?
As in:
The language and techniques of art, literature even religion are seemingly too alien and
incomprehensible (well, too difficult, let's face it) for some scientists, and so they are unaware of the poetry and general aesthetics of those subjects. Hence they may conclude there is not much beyond entertainment value and irrelevance in them.
Assumptions and gross generalizations perhaps.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Largo,
There is nothing fanciful, here:
All I am saying is that we can know quite a lot about the thoughts and feelings of others, if they choose to express them. More than we need to know, really.
To say that we will never get a more direct look at thought, feeling, and memory is an unfounded assumption.
To say that nobody can read your thoughts and feelings is wrong even with no more direct means than we already have.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!