Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 09:33am PT
|
MikeL, no doubt, but you don't know how you make the decisions... not yet at least... perhaps Amazon.com does, with regards to purchasing.
The idea of a "model" is to have something that captures many of the features of what it is you are trying to understand, but doesn't do it at a "fundamental" level. The model's use is then to explore the features of the particular subject under investigation.
I'd have to read many more of the references to get an idea where their inspirations came from, in terms of human behavior. I just found the article last night (recently published) and haven't given it a very careful reading. However, I think it is apropos of the discussion here.
As far as research, it rarely follows a linear path, and almost never along the lines originally guessed. I'd speculate that the same was true for the research reported in the paper. The paper's purpose isn't to convey all of work done, it is to explain the reported work, and choices are made as to what the important features of the total research were to arrive at the paper's conclusion.
This is an aesthetic, for sure, and it makes truly understanding a paper (by working it out in detail) difficult simply because the authors make choices, and sometimes overlook an important, but obvious to them, point.
I've just been asked to explain the details of a paper I wrote, along with colleagues, in 1994, to help resolve the analysis issues of a current experiment. That's a totally random, out of the blue question. I'm pleased our result has relevance, but investigating the questions will be digging stuff out of the attic that has been untouched in the intervening years.
Life is interesting.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 04:42pm PT
|
Algorithm. Receive two numbers, take the first and multiply it by the second is an example of an algorithm. So is -- Build a survival machine that grows a brain that includes a neural network processing agent, a long-term memory storage mechanism, and an ever-expanding library of saved algorithms; where the neural network processing agent can recursively use the information stored in long-term memory and the algorithm library to make informed decisions for the survival machine.
The take-home is that the word algorithm can include intermediate products which do not necessarily look like algorithms. All of the intermediate products were in fact built from algorithms. Maybe once you have a good neural network processor, you already have the beginnings of intelligence.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 04:54pm PT
|
healyje wrote: There is a universal / fundamental consciousness - yes or no?
MikeL wrote: Can you describe a little more this thing that you are asking about? (Hey, it's your question.)
I suspect these are terms (i.e., universal; fundamental; consciousness) you’ve gotten from someone, and now you purport to want a simple answer as to its existence. Is it an honest question?
Seriously? I mean what, after 23k+ posts, which part of the question didn't you understand?
Largo wrote: This from Denyse O'Leary: Quite apart from the fact that naturalist interpretations of consciousness are proposed with little or no evidence, a moment’s thought shows that none of them can be right. We don’t know how consciousness comes to exist at all, so Occam’s razor trims the elaboration that it somehow evolved from mud via natural selection in order to deceive us. And whatever consciousness is, it is not physical, like matter or energy, but immaterial, like information. As Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics (2017) asks, what does the information on a full CD weigh, compared with an empty one?
Wait, so now you've thrown in with and are cherry-picking creationists? Seems sketch to me and I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure they're not in-sync with or particularly approving of your overall views on no-thingness and oneness. Personally, I think you'd be better off sticking with philosophers and your CalTech friends...
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 06:29pm PT
|
^ that's interesting idea, that consciousness is like information, some kind of pattern that's independent of the medium. Aside from the CD example, imagine a real after-death experience. Which is, the neurons in your brain are all connected the same as before, but the current has stopped flowing. At that time you lost consciousness and died, never to be conscious again.
Although it seems there could be something to this idea, it's also incomplete. The data on a CD is not conscious. Or the more complex data in your DNA. It's got something to do with the fact that the circuitry is live wired to your sense organs with constant feedback, and is constantly updating itself and has a self image. Still a mystery for sure. But not independent of the brain.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 07:20pm PT
|
Quite apart from the fact that naturalist interpretations of consciousness are proposed with little or no evidence, a moment’s thought shows that none of them can be right. We don’t know how consciousness comes to exist at all, so Occam’s razor trims the elaboration that it somehow evolved from mud via natural selection in order to deceive us. And whatever consciousness is, it is not physical, like matter or energy, but immaterial, like information.
Information is physical, not immaterial.
We did not have any "evidence" that we could understand anything, yet we understand a lot.
We did not have any idea of what energy source powered the Sun prior to 1919. One could you the same argument, in 1918, to claim that the Sun was powered by some divine agency.
It turns out we figured it out... and understand the physics of the Sun... and the stars
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 07:50pm PT
|
Information is physical, not immaterial.
No ... it's both.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2019 - 09:33pm PT
|
Quite apart from the fact that naturalist interpretations of consciousness are proposed with little or no evidence...
Generally one just starts with the fact dead people aren't conscious and work backwards from there as to why consciousness would have a [strong] association with and dependency on physical living organisms (queue Werner...). That doesn't answer the question but certainly sets the stage for an investigation into their coupling. Of course that's all unnecessary if you're inclined to answer my repeatedly asked question in the affirmative.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 08:45am PT
|
healyje: Seriously? I mean what, after 23k+ posts, which part of the question didn't you understand?
There has been much water under the bridge after 23K posts, and all of it might well fill a punter’s encyclopedia devoted to “What is Mind?” You pick out one item / question, which I think has been infrequently discussed here. I don't think I've ever written about universal consciousness here.
You and I appear to be of different minds in many ways. It should not be untoward to ask you what you specifically mean by the term “universal consciousness” or “fundamental consciousness” (aka, awareness?). I think you’re dodging my question.
Give me some clarity, and I’ll give you my full attention. I’ll try to pick a set of masters / authors who have had something to say about your specific idea of what you see as “universal / fundamental consciousness.” (Not that I have any answers for such ethereal concepts.)
. . . one just starts with the fact dead people aren't conscious . . . .
This answers everything for you, doesn’t it? You've glommed-on to something you think is irrefutable, and like the little boy who is given a hammer, you find that everything needs pounding.
What IS your question, and why are you asking it?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 10:14am PT
|
What IS your question, and why are you asking it?
It was, "Is there a universal fundamental consciousness?"
I expect he would be satisfied with your opinion without any need for supporting evidence.
It is a question Largo and others have brought up. Is consciousness a development of biological evolution, or did it exist before the universe, as physics describes its evolution, allowed biological life to appear?
We have been told, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form," or recently, "this is an unconscious defense against emptiness or void, which upon close inspection is NOT empty, but is always geysering out forms."
Does consciousness geyser out of emptiness? Is the story of consciousness ultimately indecipherable, or could we come to understand it through study of the brain?
Is that enough to go on?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 10:33am PT
|
Great summation of the issue Mh2.
But why does it have to have an answer? Why can't we say we simply don't know?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 10:38am PT
|
MikeL wrote: What IS your question, and why are you asking it?
Well, chalk up one for obfuscation and another for evasion...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 11:30am PT
|
But why does it have to have an answer? Why can't we say we simply don't know?
you can choose to not seek an answer, that's your choice, you can always say "I simply don't know" in response.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 11:53am PT
|
It was, "Is there a universal fundamental consciousness?"
Perhaps a better question(s) or at least those a bit more to the point: is consciousness an inevitable outcome/product of the universe's construction? What are the limits of consciousness and related intelligence? Can consciousness ever be ascribed to non living material? Can we say that consciousness is a fundamental outcome of the physical laws with which the universe operates?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 12:06pm PT
|
^^^what is consciousness? what is intelligence?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 01:28pm PT
|
Leave your body and you'll quickly see ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 01:47pm PT
|
Conscioness is spread all over the material body.
It is the result of the living entity within.
Leave the material body and it ceases to function.
If organs and heart fail the living entity will have to leave.
Be careful of the consciousnesses one develops in this life so you don't devolve into lower material bodies.
The human material body is very rare to achieve.
One can go higher from ther or devolve..
The material evolution is not complete without the science of the soul and it's transmigration capabilities according to its developed consciousness ......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 02:58pm PT
|
^^^what is consciousness? what is intelligence?
Imho: consciousness is that perceiving and knowing aspect of the individual existing beyond the world as merely a collection of facts and, instead, as a seat of both reason and intuition that makes judgments. It is an element that recognizes both itself and the impossibility of communicating that recognition directly, yet recognizes consciousness at its own level in other beings immediately. Consciousness is the relationship of being known and knowing, between subject and object. Our certainty of it is a product of our personal experience of “realization” in every aspect of our lives. That eastern realization that I and the other are one is a manifestation of that idea: that consciousness is transcendent, if nothing more but because it is shared and we recognize through imagination the consciousness in others. And here imagination and subjective experience begin to have epistemological validity insofar as they are the sole source of evidence and communication regarding the subject.
I don’t think the problem is so much consciousness as that aspect of consciousness we describe as knowing which is a function of the individual aware self. It’s one thing to compute and another to realize, realization being the distinguishing function of any consciousness mind.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 03:36pm PT
|
Here, these are the tells for the entire thread...
(1) "And whatever consciousness is, it is not physical, like matter or energy, but immaterial, like information."
(2) "Information is physical, not immaterial."
Here's topo map terrain beta for Individual-1: Less ST posting, more science immersion. (It's not too late.)
...
healje, when the crikeys get to be too much, you might find this clear, concise snipet ala personal anecdote... that touches upon the bs that plagues us... reassuring ...
https://youtu.be/ivXEL21UrMc?t=1020
It runs for five or six minutes.
ref: pyschoanalytical bs, postmodernist bs, "the original bullshitters" and "apeing the nonsense"
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 03:55pm PT
|
Here's topo map terrain beta Individual-1: Less ST posting, more science immersion. (It's not too late.)
No, much much less ST posting and much more careful reading and an extensive humanities education or at least a survey course (though it's likely too late).
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2019 - 04:02pm PT
|
If your post is directed to me, Paul, I spent ten years in the humanities. As I've explained here before, this need was why I left a neurosciences program. I've had several years*** in academic philosophy, in history, in religions, in languages including ancient Greek and Latin. You?
Know who your adversaries are. I am no adversary of the humanities. You gotta get that into that hard head of yours.
***More actually.
The biggest regrets - I've said this here before as well: Wasting what probably amounts to five years in bs portions of philosophy, various theologies and theisms, postmodern nonsense. Before deciding, Alright, Basta!
In my late 20s and early 30s, I spent three summers (edit: full summers on Eurail) traveling Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Hitting just about every art and science museum in all of Europe (edit: full days, notebook in hand) minus the scandinavian countries and East Europe. You?
I've read John Brockman's Third Culture. You? If not, maybe you should read at least a synopsis of it. Your old-school is showing. How old are you anyway? While you're at it, research John Brockman. Would you say he's lacking edu in the humanities or presents with anti-humanist tendencies?
https://www.edge.org/about-edgeorg
If I had to guess, I'd guess you put little diligence into the meat and patatoes of some of these science and philos of science links to try to figure out what they're banging on about. On the one hand, it seems you agree that science and the humanities go hand n hand, that they need to; and yet on the other, don't seem very interested in considering their possible integration in exciting new ways going forward or else interested in challenging any of humanities, shall we say, weaker sides.
...
Apparently the item about information not being physical wasn't of much import to you.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!