What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1801 - 1820 of total 4200 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 03:09pm PT
btw, here's one more fine eg of it, a real doozy...

But the illusion that there is some solid stuff underlying materialism is probably not a hard truth that will find much play on this thread, seeming that it's a kind of sacred cow to many, even if physicists themselves tout it as the purist woo.

Read carefully, this should convince anyone who's on their game in science that that this "poser" has spent years (1) badmouthing science or the state of it and/or (2) badmouthing the "science types" on this thread due to his own gross misunderstandings and shortcomings.

And doesn't this sound a wee-bit familiar, as well? See the climate thread. Watch Fox News. Visit an evangelical Christian community.

.....

Again how convoluted and farcical a statement.

To be clear... that the "solid stuff underlying materialism" has an illusory quality to it - readily fooling the senses - no duh! - is in large part precisely what makes these subjects so interesting, what makes them so hard to grasp in places, what makes them so revolutionary, what causes so many "low information" simpletons (can you think of anyone here, lol!) to stumble, not get it, only to become deniers.

Yet in his own mind he apparently thinks we materialists ignore this.

not a... truth that will find much play on this thread...

Wow!!! It's only thee #1 thing, along with the fully mechanistic causality behind it, that's addicted so many of us to the subject! With our entire lives no less!

Alright, enough post dissection of a naive (but quite literary and verbose) science denier.
Life is short, after all. ;)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - May 17, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
Fruitcake, I've never read a person try so hard to say nothing. I've repeatedly said virtually all the science stuff I come across is forwared to me by friends I go riding with. I don't pass it on to enlighten rubes like you. If you're satisfied with your understanding of sentience, great. Tell us what it is, minus any mamber jamber about processing. Fact is, you still conflate consciousness with electrticity and chemestry, and keep trotting out howlers like: sentience is what the brain DOES.

As far as the science that I pass on, are you actually saying that it is wrong, that quarks DO have discernable mass and volume? That was the thrust of the last post - meaning that material is not what we think it is, not the bits of "matter" that are like bowling balls, at all. The problem is when you go off on a rant like you do, especially with the tantrums about Abrahamistic religion, no one knows what you are saying - again, the Gomer Pyle of this thread.

No one is saying that mind has no relationship to stuff. But if you're going to keep flogging a purely mechanistic view of consciousness, then you have to show the mechanism by which your sacred "matter" becomes conscious. As we have seen repeatedly, what neueoscience is studying is in fact the computational and phase aspects of the brain. As such, the basic truth here remains lost to you: Brains are not conscious. People are.

What is you understanding of this truth?

What is lost on you entirely is that what you are calling brain science does not concern sentience, which is not a 1st person objective phenomenon unless you commit "the myth of conflation," calling your uncle your aunt.

I spelled out the basics of sentience as they exist within sentience - raw awareness, focus and attention. Rather than tell us once again that these labels don't square with your electrochemical understanding (who but Gomer would expect them to), why not spell out your understanding of sentience - NOT fobbing it off to "neuroscientists," rahter just tell us in your own words what you consider to be the main issues - again, NOT the processing side of things, but with sentience itself, not WHAT we are conscious of, but the the rudiments of consciousness itself, as a first person, subject reality.

My sense of this is you are entirely clueless about this but are too vain and sill to admit it, and instead just keep deflecting it back to some other source. But now's the time to come clean your own self and explain you own understanding. If you can do so and avoid needless forays into computatinal or objective functioning, and then rant about how it is required, I will buy you a burrito.

JL


PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
May 17, 2014 - 05:09pm PT
Fruity; Such an impassioned speech to keep the straw man standing up!
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
May 17, 2014 - 05:24pm PT
conflate consciousness with electrticity and chemestry (JL)


Does kind of make you wonder about John's knowledge of science . . . use spell-check big guy!

On the human scale the "hardness" of material objects is no illusion. You keep wandering back to quantum flapdoodle, conflating the macro with the micro.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - May 17, 2014 - 05:42pm PT
John, so far as conflating the macro with with the micro - if you are going to be a true reductionist, then you can't say we can only reduce things to a certain level, then stop because our argument falls apart at this point. Reductionism says ALL phenomenon are owing to the activity of fundamental stuff. In that sense I am "conflating" stuff with stuff. So explain to the world why a reductionistic model of reality must stop reducting once it reaches a certain level of composition, and more importantly, why, and by dint of what mechanism does reductionism stop being viable at that stage, and not another.

Part of the overall mind conversation boils down to this:

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes. David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained"

The hard problem was famously addressed nearly a century ago by T.Huxley: “How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp”.

In short, we do not see how to explain a state of consciousness in terms of its neurological basis. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It all boils down to the explanatory gap between the neural basis of a phenomenal quality and the phenomenal quality itself – an issue totally different than the neurobiological investigation of the brain’s computational capacities.

This following paper, for those who really want to dig into the issues, does a good job of breaking down the basics of the discussion.

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/harder.htm
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
Talk about climbing, talk about NIAD, but don't talk about science you know nothing about.

Esp in the style of some wannabe prairie preacher - since after the novelty wears off, it's pretty obnoxious.

...and, btw, to counterpoint you, I've never read anyone, incl go-b or blu, lay down so many words, full of bloviant, signifying nothing.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
May 17, 2014 - 05:51pm PT
if you are going to be a true reductionist, then you can't say we can only reduce things to a certain level (JL)

I never claimed to be a true reductionist. Once again you are moving out to the tip of the normal curve, assuming your protagonist resides there.

Get on the middle path between extremes. Thereupon lies wisdom.


;>)
snakefoot

climber
cali
May 17, 2014 - 05:57pm PT
wax on...wax off
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 06:00pm PT
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes. David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem"

Yeah, and how many more thousands of times must we hear this over again?

We get it, we do. Like Werner, go-b and blu, like every other Christian by the tens of millions, you believe a ghost drives the machine. Enough already.

The epitome of the absurd here is only you going on and on and on about the hard problem of consciousness (yes it is truly hard - that's all we agree on) when you can't even be forthright about your most basic science stances. Here, remember this one...

Do chimps and humans have a common ancestor?

Nobody but those in the clown car take you seriously anymore. Not in matters of science or phily of science anyhow.

The hard problem was famously addressed nearly a century ago by T.Huxley: “How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp”.

Yet he believed us "automata" notwithstanding. Go figure. ;)
WBraun

climber
May 17, 2014 - 06:29pm PT
you believe a ghost drives the machine

You're a nutcase Fruit.

You see any ghosts driving around on the freeway?

NOPE, yet you project that others are saying such nonsense.

You've lost it and have become the ranting maniac called "FruitCake"

Holy fuking Cow!!!!

The living entity drives the machine you ranting maniacal fool .....
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - May 17, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
Fruitcake, I gave you every opportunity to step off the Gomer Pyle pulpet and instead of simply knocking me or others (your facile dismissal of Huxley was in keeping with Private Pyle scholarship), explain, in simple terms, YOUR understanding of sentience - without deflecting to other sources or electromagnetic/engineering text books.

My sense of it is you are a total poser in this regards, and have no understanding whatsoever. And I WILL buy you a taco if I'm wrong.

Again, what is your understanding of the maxim: Brains are NOT sentient; peopel are.

What's more, since you are so hard-driving on both evolution and reductionism - your staunch mechanistic view of man as machine implies certain things, but free will is not one of them. Even your cabana boy Harris said as much, though his thesis didn't wash with professional schollars. But nevertheless, how is sentience an evolutionary advantage if it has no effect on human autonomy?

And John, I am curious what you mean when you say you are not a hard core reductionist. Reductionism is:

. . . a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.[1] This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanation, theories, and meanings.

Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, the phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it.

Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena, but it does imply the ability to understand those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed. This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.



So in what case do you think something is MORE than a sum of it's parts? And where does bottom up reductionism break down for you, in what areas, and why? I am curious. Most of the time reductionists are basically say that "fundamental processes" if not caused out right, then they directly influenced the emergence or production of a given person, place, thing or phenomenon. Not in some knucklehead billard ball way, as Fruitecake Pyle likes to point out, but in a way that we could reverse engineer ANY damn thing back to those fundamental processes (even if the "matter" in these processes have no mass or volume) if we only had the right data.

Reductionism is generally presented pretty much as all-or-nothing belief system, so I'm be interested in hearing how reductionism lite works, and where it varies with the staunch article.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 07:57pm PT
though his thesis didn't wash with professional schollars

Certainly not those at Liberty University in Lynchberg. ;)

.....

Man, you don't make it easy. We're trying hard as hell over here to distinguish you from blu and wb. But with all your cut n paste, zero content, obnoxious smartaleckiness, just how are we supposed to do that?

PS Bloviate about Harris. Never mind about accuracy per usual. Bloviate about Huxley. Never mind here either. About getting the facts straight. Who next, lol!!

So tell me, all this stretching and twisting of language and half-truths, did you learn this specialty of yours mostly from that Claremont school of theology (from which, if memory serves, you were excommunicated, let go)?

.....

So in what case do you think something is MORE than a sum of it's parts?

btw, this has already been explained to you at this site multiple times. What's the problem here, really? Even a sixth grader could understand it, first time through; sure he could, I'd even bet a burito on it. So challenge yourself: Distinguish between arithmetic sum (of parts) and synergistic sum (of parts).

Start here: synergy. Arguably the basis of all engineering and teamwork endeavors. Certainly the basis of all living things.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 08:34pm PT
Oh, here, telegraphing your naivete even more...
in a way that we could reverse engineer ANY damn thing back to those fundamental processes

No engineer or scientist worth his weight says anything of the kind. Ever more endless caricature.

There are distinctions (conceptual, real) between causality, prediction and reduction. You have to work this out to the point of being clear on this count before you can even begin to think about playing w the big boys in the majors in science.

I swear, regarding the endless caricaturing, you ought to caricature yourself and your views in these many and various subjects before the social media, who really knows? they might eat it up, it could go viral and you could go big. Just a thought.

re: reductionism lite

This could be Intelligent Design. Which causes me to ask again: Aren't you an Intelligent Design advocate? If you are I think you should own up, Fluffer.
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
May 17, 2014 - 08:39pm PT
Fruity you have been exposed as nothing but a heckler.
WBraun

climber
May 17, 2014 - 08:55pm PT
"... even begin to think about playing w the big boys in the majors ..."

Oh wow !!!!!

Puffed up by tiny success in material advancement, puffed up with academic education, puffed up with dry mundane speculation,
puffed up sense of vanity, puffed up with his material position, puffed up by material acquisitions and on and on.

You're not a ripe, juicy and healthy natural Fruit but spoiled rotten GMO Fruit .......
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
May 17, 2014 - 09:07pm PT
But not puffed up by being a veritable god among climbers; and that's what really counts, isn't it?

But HFCS really should take to heart The Slow One's core teaching: style is substance, and substance is style.
WBraun

climber
May 17, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
Fruitcake says -- "Aren't you an Intelligent Design advocate?"

I am for sure,

When I get into a helicopter I make sure the guys who designed it were intelligent enough to build it correctly that it operates correctly and safely.

We also need an intelligent pilot to operate it.

Cintune and THE Fruit want an idiot to build and design everything for us?
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 09:20pm PT
Oh yeah, Cintune, how so?

As my first love is design (engineering) and the marriage - or synergy - between substance and style, style and substance, I'd like to hear more.

I sure hope you don't think I'm going to invest any more of my time in the form of substance when it would only be answered by Fluffer with caricature, zero content or diversion.

Or am I completely missing the point here?

Remember, at base, I'm an innovator not a teacher. It's not my job to teach a narcissitic wiseacre like the few we have here. If they were really interested they would take the course work. Or if they were self-starter material, they could read a book. In earnest. Perhaps in lieu of posting here. ;)

style is substance, and substance is style

Is that like, "There is no reality, there is only perception of reality." (a Dr Phil fave)
WBraun

climber
May 17, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
Or am I completely missing the point here?

You never even found it yet .......
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
May 17, 2014 - 09:42pm PT
Hey no worries here, Lapdog.

Really it's only comedy, mere entertainment, all the way around. :)

Well, gotta hit the road now. Later...
Messages 1801 - 1820 of total 4200 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews