Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
Well, it's true that QM is not just applicable to subatomic particles. QM effects have been observed in nano particles and thin films. For nanoparticles, the effects become observable, coincidentally or not, when the particle is too small to absorb photons as heat via the photoelectric effect, which occurs at about 50-100 angstroms. Instead of producing a standing thermal wave in the crystal, the crystal is said to go into a higher quantum state, whatever that means, and can then emit a photon characteristic of the crystal size - the so-called quantum box. I'm not sure anyone can explain that very well, but it seems to be well proven in solid state /semiconductor physics. It's not my field at all (arguing is, lol) but I would guess the effects just become smaller and smaller as things get bigger, until they can no longer be measured.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Or conversely, what, if anything, inhibits quantum effects as you go in the opposite direction, building from the quantum to the macro, where linear cause and effect apparently come into play.
If you had been following this thread you would know. Or you might have known but forgot.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MH2: Why the Capitalization of mind?
Look at the title of the thread.
Don Paul: That's the "Tao of Physics" idea.
Oh, I don’t know. The notion that there are not two things but only one thing seems certainly consonant with some understanding of not only physics but of anyone's experience who looks at what appears in consciousness (i.e., the mind). Every attempt to bracket this or that from that or this is a reduction of one sort or another. Spiritual masters have been trying to point to that recognition through various rituals, myths, and instruction. The analysis of any “thing” at all means to break the “thing” down into components and stipulate linkages causally or what linkages connect to other components. It’s an attempt to conquer reality by division. That seems to make sense to reason, but it’s invariably artificial and artifactual. One cannot analytically take any “thing” out of its context and still be taking about reality. Every effort is muddling. One cannot “order the mess.” What we end-up with analytically are perspectives and partialities, none of which tell us what reality is.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Yanqui,
I’m a little surprised that you and HFCS have not made note another interpretation challenging the assumptions offered by the authors of the article about IQ.
“Another possibility is that IQ tests haven't adapted to accurately quantify an estimate of modern people's intelligence–favouring forms of formally taught reasoning that may be less emphasised in contemporary education and young people's lifestyles. ’Intelligence researchers make a distinction between fluid and crystallised intelligence,' one of the study's authors, research economist Ole Rogeberg explained to The Times. ’Crystallised intelligence is stuff you have been taught and trained in, and fluid intelligence is your ability to see new patterns and use logic to solve novel problems.’ The implication here is that it's not us that is at fault: it's IQ tests.”
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Look at the title of the thread.
An appeal to authority?
The thread began with dubious grammar in the title. Does that mean we are locked in to that poor fund of English usage?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
What is crocodile mind?
What is crow mind?
What is dog mind?
What is human mind?
What is never mind?
What are the similarities and differences? That's the important avenue to follow to discover relevant stuff about mind, IMO. I've always assumed that the "mind" referred to by the OP meant human mind. The distinction does have to be made, since these other "minds" can't easily be dismissed.
These other minds can be, however, linked with our minds along a tree-like structure of ancestry and cousinship.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2018 - 06:31pm PT
|
What is crocodile mind?
What is crow mind?
What is dog mind?
What is human mind?
What is never mind?
What are the similarities and differences? That's the important avenue to follow to discover relevant stuff about mind, IMO.
--
Prolly gonna tell you more about brain (3rd person physical mechanisms) than mind (1st person consciousness).
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Prolly gonna tell you more about brain (3rd person physical mechanisms) than mind (1st person consciousness).
A hasty conclusion. Recall Thomas Nagel: "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"
We can learn a lot from animals. More than we can from most humans. Animals must be understood through their behaviour, observable by a third(or second) person, whereas humans can make up all kinds of stories about 1st person consciousness.
There could be a great divide between human and animal mind. It can't be ruled out. Just because we have evolved from primate ancestors doesn't mean we experience the world like them. It is possible that evolution has created in humans something very strange and new. Perhaps even, like Jan has said, an ability to tune in to a larger consciousness, possibly non-physical in some sense, or meta-physical.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Yanqui,
I’m a little surprised that you and HFCS have not made note another interpretation challenging the assumptions offered by the authors of the article about IQ.
MikeL: Why do you think I posted the article? My phrase "cognitive ability" (not a phrase I would want to define, or even employ, for the most part, at least in an evaluative "more or "less" type of sense) was extrapolated from the stuff HFCS posted. My whole point was if IQ tests gave any kind of accurate measurement of an inherent "cognitive ability", why would test scores be dropping 7 points per generation in the same families?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Hi, Yanqui,
I didn’t read that the test was given to the same individuals (“families”). I understood that the tests were given to the same demographic stratifications. (Did I miss something in my reading?)
Well, we could speculate a number of different interpretations of why IQ tests are irrelevant or specious. You may know that the test has been criticized as ethnocentric. Furthermore, the claims made imply that what’s worth knowing or learning does not change even over a short period of time years later. But, you know, the world changes, and that means that issues and their perceived priorities might also change. We all expect that what is taught in education should change with development in knowledge and the times. In conjunction, we might hear that what constitutes “cognitive ability” itself shifts with changes in the world. As a past educator, I heard plenty about what we should have been teaching: was it supposed to be knowledge (stuff), learning skills (whatever that was supposed to be), values (e.g., what the humanities talk about), or so-called critical thinking skills (imo, mainly questioning assumptions), etc.
Sidebar: Why is intelligence so highly valued these days (e.g., “brain power”)? What is intelligence, and why has it been put on a pedestal? As members of contemporary (modern) society, we seem to have thrown out almost everything else that was once considered relevant and important to what it means to be human. Values, instinct, feelings, mythological understanding, etc. are all now deeply subordinate to what I call “being smart.” I don’t see that we’re all that much “smarter” than we were; that is to say I don’t see much evidence of it. We still seem to have widespread dissatisfaction and unhappiness all over the world. Sure, we can point to this or that technology or theory as evidence of a more advanced way of being in the world, but I think that comes from a grand assumption made by moderns about what’s good and what’s not. The over-riding emphasis on “intelligent” does not seem to be very intelligent to me.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
The authors studied a large source of data from military records (where IQ tests were given). They could trace test score variation over generations from the same families and show that Flynn reversal was the same in families as in the general population.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Some nuances of language and mind are lost on the way or added, for better or worst...
Being "fåmælt", a man of few words, isn't enough of an explanation today. A man of few words will be interpreted as being either shy, arrogant or ignorant. A man talking much will today often be interpreted as being more intelligent, and verbal fluency is seen as normality. At Grue Finnskog it was said about a man who talked much that he was a "fæl pratmakar" (a man who talked too much), which was a bad thing. In Åsnes, 30 km away, it was said about a man who talked much that he was "hard tel å prate" (a good talker), which was a good thing... Same man - different setting...
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Round peg, square hole.
But I remember from my long-ago toy wooden workbench that the hammer could render the adage irrelevant.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Prolly gonna tell you more about brain (3rd person physical mechanisms) than mind (1st person consciousness).
You ever watch a dog face his owner when he knows he's been bad? Ever see a dog jump up and down and bark happily when her owner returns home after a day at work? That's not meat -- that's experiential. That's what I'm talking about when I posit dog mind. The meat and its mind are, of course intricately related. I mean, Chopper isn't just dog, she is a unique dog, which means she has a particular brain that over her lifetime had a particular history unlike any other dog. Her unique way of responding to the world was her following her mind, IMO.
Works in humans the same way.
Don't even get me started about crows. I'm pretty sure that there are crows out there who could solve certain "lock" problems faster that me, maybe much faster.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Don't even get me started about crows. I'm pretty sure that there are crows out there who could solve certain "lock" problems faster that me, maybe much faster.
No doubt. We have a crow in the backyard currently woking on a continuation of "finnegans wake" based on Dante's "Paradiso." Looks to be an amazing book. He's a slow typist though, hunting and pecking and all that. Animals are obviously smart as or smarter than humans or maybe not.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Actually, the crow line was for laughs. The dog feeling alternately shame and joy is the more relevant tie-in with mind. Figuring out locks is pure intelligence which may or may not need the "feeling" of mind. To me, mind is more on the evolutionary tree of feelings like love and joy and shame rather than one purely devoted to intelligence. Intelligence is all about making the optimum choice. It seems to me that it may or may not be accompanied by feelings. After all, we can program intelligence. Human minds experience a certain joy when figuring things out. I know I do. I think that this is a convergence of intelligence and feeling that may or may not have happened. It happened to have happened (evolved) in our human lineage.
Maybe that was one of the main drivers of human-like consciousness; feeling joy in figuring things out could plausibly help in getting things figured out and enhancing the survival chances of the individual and group. And, to tie this all back to meat, the interpreter, as defined by Michael Gazzaniga, is one of the big, extra, physical things in humans that we bring to the table over and above our closest cousins.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Very funny, Paul.
EDIT: Thanks, Yanqui.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I've related before my whole brevity thing. How about this.
Brain is required for mind
Brain, not mind evolves
Evolving brains create evolving subjective experiences in mind
Minds belong to individuals
Every brain and mind is different
These simple declarations are consistent with everything I know about the subject and provide a framework for further understanding, IMO.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2018 - 05:46pm PT
|
I would point out that those commenting on the relationship between human and animal "mind" are following a behavioralist model (how does this or that animal respond to a stimulus, ie, an output). That is, what is observable from a 3rd person perspective.
Conversely, Nagel's question, "What is it like to BE a bat" refers to the bat's own experience.
Re one of Fruity's earlier links, a lucid speaker on most all of these questions is Colin McGinn, psychologist/philosopher (mysterianism, etc.). This is a great link to get a feel for the guy and a studied albeit rapid-fire look at the core issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twrQk-eF2r4
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I would point out that those commenting on the relationship between human and animal "mind" are following a behavioralist model (how does this or that animal respond to a stimulus, ie, an output). That is, what is observable from a 3rd person perspective.
Well EXCUUUUUUSE ME! My third person perspective is my bread and butter -- actually, it's more of a second person perspective as I think about it (since Chopper was my dog).
Also, a particularly boring and bland response.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!