Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 11:03am PT
|
What do you believe, biologically speaking, is not getting attention in the mind discussion, and what, specifically, do you believe is lost on philosophers?
I think kingtut was referring to the emotional nature of thinking and reasoning. If anyone was listening to the Kavenaugh hearing today, one of his victims was explaining how the trauma was recorded by her hippocampus.
Jogill makes an interesting point below, that rather than living "in the moment" our advanced brains can remember the past and imagine/model the future, although I agree with JL it only goes so far to explain consciousness. Kant/Locke would be better at explaining how computers work, than brains. Also agree it is very important that we 'relive' experiences when we remember them. Such as, if you go somewhere, you remember the path you took to get there. Your brain records it it one dimension, so to speak, rather than imagining a 2D map.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 11:20am PT
|
From John's link:
Neurons that were wired together in our earliest experiences fire together at later times, contextualizing our new experiences, giving them meaning. And by replaying emotional reactions to similar earlier experiences, it makes then "subjective experiences," giving us the feeling of "what it's like to be me" and solving the "hard problem" of consciousness.
Is there anything more from a philosophical perspective that need be said?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2018 - 11:32am PT
|
Neurons that were wired together in our earliest experiences fire together at later times, contextualizing our new experiences, giving them meaning. And by replaying emotional reactions to similar earlier experiences, it makes then "subjective experiences," giving us the feeling of "what it's like to be me" and solving the "hard problem" of consciousness.
--
One huge conflation in the above that makes all the difference. Guess what that is.
Also, "by replaying emotional reactions to similar earlier experiences, it makes then "subjective experiences," goes no distance in answering the hard problem, because "makes then" is not scientific, and it doesn't explain how neurons wired together and firing this or that way BECOME subjective experiences. If you say that said neurons ARE subjective experience, you're back to the boneyard of Identity Theory.
What the quote above does is DESCRIBE a theory, it doesn't scientifically explain anything.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 11:53am PT
|
What the quote above does is DESCRIBE a theory, it doesn't scientifically explain anything.
Yes
And it also continually drives you down more and more into material bondage.
The living itself has no real interest in materialism as the living entity itself is NOT and NEVER material, to begin with.
The gross material scientists always remain in very poor fund knowledge ultimately due to the illusionary material energies and thus masquerading themselves as authoritative.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 11:55am PT
|
"What the quote above does is DESCRIBE a theory, it doesn't scientifically explain anything."
A typical philosophical "result" ?
The curse of conflation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 12:04pm PT
|
Your mathematical background will ultimately not lead you to understand your actual self.
It has actually become a hindrance unbeknownst to you ......
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 01:35pm PT
|
Speaking of the "hard problem", Atiyah claims to have solved the Riemann hypothesis. People want to give him the benefit of the doubt, because, after all, he's Atiyah. But it seems, at 89 years, he just might not be thinking so clearly as he used to.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2018 - 01:40pm PT
|
Neurons that were wired together in our earliest experiences fire together at later times, contextualizing our new experiences, giving them meaning.
-
John, put on your logician's hat and describe what strictly objective investigation or evaluation of neuronal patterns physically betrays subjective experience, context, meaning, etc.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 02:10pm PT
|
"Is there anything more from a philosophical perspective that need be said?"
I take it you feel more should be said. OK, just curious.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 03:31pm PT
|
Don't the non-science types here remind you of partisan politicians - refusing to consider any context other than their own? refusing to answer point blank questions they can't answer or else weaken their claims? refusing to consider any frame of reference other than the one that supports their agenda or ideology? Oh the parallelism!
On the other hand, maybe they can't consider any context other than their own. I mean if they haven't had a couple years of physics, a couple years of chemistry and biology, a couple years of engineering and higher math, how could they? You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
So if this is the case, you wonder (a) where they get this continuing "confidence" day after day to keep discussing these scientifically intensive topics in the absence of the requisite background; (b) if they were so interested in these topics then why do they not go study them directly instead of engaging in deeply unscientific posts (if not rants) here.
It sure seems to me their posts reveal next to zero experience in a physics lab, a chemistry lab, a higher level biology lab, an engineering lab. It's a curious fact because I draw on all this experience in these discussions - that amounts to decades worth - and couldn't imagine doing so without it. Because... you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
I still recall MikeL's post from several years ago suggesting neuroscience or posting credentials in neuroscience was like super arrogant and/or super irrelevant to the conversation, lol. I wish I could find it. I tried once. For awhile. Pretty baseless claim, of course. Now in hindsight, though, I totally get it, the Why behind it.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 04:13pm PT
|
Thank you, yanqui, for the Descartes excerpt and for the Riemann Hypothesis news.
Anyone who has bothered to watch ants for a few minutes will discount the Universe-as-clockwork comparison. Mark Twain and Richard Feynman are among those who have watched ants and drawn conclusions.
Our clocks get old and run down and become unreliable. Will the Universe do the same?
What is the theoretical limit for accurate measurement of time? Is that a meaningful question? Current atomic clocks are said to gain or lose less than a second in a billion years. Is it a counting problem? What machinery do we have that counts optical frequencies with that kind of reliability and would it run for two hundred years let alone a billion?
In physics there was the saying, "Time is what you measure with a clock."
With predictability becoming a matter of probabilities at small time and distance scales, how do individual protons manage to last so long? Are they big enough to average out quantum fluctuations?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 27, 2018 - 04:33pm PT
|
Don't the non-science types here remind you of partisan politicians - refusing to consider any context other than their own? refusing to answer point blank questions they can't answer or else weaken their claims? refusing to consider any frame of reference other than the one that supports their agenda or ideology? Oh the parallelism!
-
Fruitcake, I'd laugh in your face but if you ever met me in person you'd know differently, that the non-science moniker you toss around is a moot point.
I'm certainly not claiming to be a professional scientist, but when we started writing those anchor books, I had to get it right or folks could die so I studied the scientific method pretty carefully before we started testing: Make an Observation. Fashion a hypothesis. Crank the tests. a Hypothesis. Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion. I used engineering models (thanks to Rich Goldstone and statistical analysis thanks to Callie Rennison.
From my freshman year in college, I started working with brain mapping instruments and spent literally thousands of hours on them till about 10 years ago, when my friends who had access to MRI's etc left UCLA and I didn't want to invest in another qEEG, which are way more expensive than a standard EEG rig. You wanna talk electrical activity in the brainpan, lets go. Amplitude, frequency, phase, coherence, spiking, in the prefrontal cortex, across the SRM strip, globally - your choice. So your guff about being anti-science is a total misdirect.
Of all the people I know who've been involved in brain mapping, not a single one of them thought that when we were looking at blood flow, amplitude in a given bandwidth, or any number of other physical markers, that we were looking at phenomenal consciousness itself, rather it's physical footprint, that is, the electrochemical activity we associate WITH consciousness.
It was during these adventures that I learned the critical factor in changing brain activity (that we were measuring) was awareness, attention and focus, and to start recognizing these as real and discrete functions above and beyond the content (feelings, thoughts, sensations, etc.) we associated with the electrochemical signature.
My contention is that these functions have largely been left out of the brain conversation, though neurofeedback clinicians working with ADHD and bipolar clients, for example, will tell you otherwise. It is my contention that conflating what we are aware of with awareness itself is one of the biggest sticking points in all of this.
That much said, what point blank question would you like me to try and answer? Fire away. the notion that I have some pet perspective to defend is crazy talk. Whatever position I have arrived at was drawn because it made the most sense and given the evidence and logical continuity, stood the highest probability of being a little more accurate than other takes from other angles. But again, I at your disposal for any and all questions and will answer as clearly and simply as possible.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 04:40pm PT
|
You wanna talk electrical activity in the brainpan, lets go. Amplitude, frequency, phase, coherence, spiking, in the prefrontal cortex, across the SRM strip, globally - your choice. So your guff about being anti-science is a total misdirect.
Alright, you're on. No googling. I'm awaiting your move. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow? Not after Christmas?
P.S. I'd appreciate actual neuroscience, none of this eeg bs.
...
That much said, what point blank question would you like me to try and answer?
For the tenth time over almost as many years: What's the source of the visual perception we get when in a pitch black room at night we stimulate the corner rods of our retina (e.g., from wiggling a finger in the corner of our eye)?
Your point blank answer?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 04:49pm PT
|
Perhaps you need a kickstart...
No googling. (1) How many cranial nerves in the human nervous system. (2) Name them.
In Neuroscience 101, you have to know these. Assuming you're after an A grade of course.
Or at least name as many as you can. For partial credit.
Really this is no different than asking a Leap climber, say, to name 10 routes there. Easy peasy, right?
Last question. No googling required. What's the highest level chemistry? the highest level biology? the highest level math class you've had? In high school or college? Please be specific.
These are not inconsequential questions. Years long experience in these subjects trains the mind in those items you mentioned above (I'm sure you'd agree) that are integral to scientific thinking and the scientific process.
That in addition of course to all the useful knowledge that is picked up along the way - which is absolutely essential, it turns out, to the deep intuitive thinking in these subject areas on which lab discoveries often turn (like elucidation of DNA structure, development of CRISPR, etc).
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 05:00pm PT
|
Whatever position I have arrived at was drawn because it made the most sense and given the evidence and logical continuity, stood the highest probability of being a little more accurate than other takes from other angles.
Well said. I expect that we all believe that about why we believe whatever it is that we believe, whether it’s what you believe, or what I believe, or whether it’s the exact opposite - like a belief that comes from some other angle (like some other person’s angle).
The one bias we all seem to have is believing that “I don’t have a bias about not having implicit (human) biases” - that I’m colorblind, that I’m just exhaustively rational, that the positions that I arrive at are just a product of my objective way of seeing things, rather than my objectively human way of seeing things - that my angle on understanding things is better than other people’s angle - that my position was drawn not from a humanly subjective interpretation of the information that I’ve been exposed to, but from an objective analysis of probabilities and logic and evidence.
We seem to imagine that we can separate our “angle” - our beliefs - from our selves. I’m not all that convinced that we really can. And it seems like one of the commonalities between us all is that we believe our angle is the right angle for not just ourselves to have, but for other people to have too.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 05:04pm PT
|
Fruitloops -- "What's the source of the visual perception ...."
100% guaranteed you HFCS do NOT have the actual answer to this.
You only have a partial and very incomplete brainwashed so-called answer .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 05:16pm PT
|
All right, I have to go for a few hours. Unfortunately. But maybe there will be something here? of substantive content? when I return?
No googling human cranial nerves now, that's the deal. (Cranial nerves, number, order and function are part of neuroscience basics. Right? )
Food for thought: If a Leap climber can name only one or two routes at the Leap, what's that say?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 07:29pm PT
|
what point blank question would you like me to try and answer?
What 1st person subjective experience could not be evoked by electrical stimulation of the brain?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 07:44pm PT
|
First person experience
UH, death?
UH, redux
Including the Nucleus Ruber - a baker's dozen
On old Olympus towering ...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 07:56pm PT
|
star dust evolves into living and thinking beings.
Such horsesh!t!
Never ever happened.
The gross materialists don't have the slightest clue what life actually is.
The modern scientists are even in deeper darkness of what life itself is.
Thus these fools mislead everyone down the path of material bondage ....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!