What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 3421 - 3440 of total 4639 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jul 29, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
Ed: you can always choose not to be discursive...

You have me there.


I don't know who I'm arguing with here (it might be Largo . . . I am confused), but the most interesting thing about Damasio's research (even though it be based upon abnormalities alone) is that what is perceived by the mind triggers physically a mind to perceive things physically. Mind over matter. When someone tells a person a gripping story (like climbing Ahab or what not), the person hearing the story will begin to tense their muscles and FEEL an experience. This is the basis for the growth of the idea of "embodied cognition." It is something that all of us experience. What makes such experiences identical to the supposed actual experience is simply a lot more triggers cognitively.

The oft-heard joke here on this thread about "phantasms of the mind being real," is real . . . "apparently" (get it?).

Ed: Largo doesn't want to recognize "information" because it is a physical thing, it can be manipulated physically, but the result of those operations, while physical, may not be interpreted as a description of a physical thing...

Er, again, I don't know who I'm arguing with, but everything is "information" be it physical or mental or emotional or visual or squiggly little lines I see in my wood floor, even if I know of no interpretation of them. All "things" are flat out projections, constructions, displays that are seen as a light on a sheet. This is the same model as the allegory of the cave. There is an immense energy source (let's just call it light), and that light is shown through what might be naively called a personality. That personality is in large part due to karma.

What you see is what you are.
WBraun

climber
Jul 29, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
These scientists here want to grasp everything with their senses.

When they can't grasp with their material senses it doesn't exist to them and they shut down.

Thus they reach their limitation of their own material bodies which they really are not although modern science so foolishly believes "I am this material body" .....
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jul 29, 2014 - 05:24pm PT
Ed prescribed,

Light-regulated activation of PI3K in the synaptic region, but not in other parts of the cell, switched taste-attractive behavior to taste avoidance,

Is the worms body using Light to "flip switches"? Seems like a lot of work is getting done in this realm just by flipping the magnetic poles, is that true?
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 29, 2014 - 06:11pm PT
That personality is in large part due to karma. What you see is what you are (MikeL)

Or what you were . . .


;>)
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Jul 29, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
Like it, jgill...
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 29, 2014 - 07:03pm PT
re: automata

Not that anyone asked but insofar as our "automated biology" seems too incredible to accept, it's because our mind-brains were simply not evolved - and thus not "wired" - to naturally comprehend it.

We have far over-shot, thanks to cultural evo, our forest and savanna evolutionary accoutrements, yet we must employ them, work with them, put up with them.

.....

tvash, you need to review the two basic definitions of "deterministic," they are distinct. Please don't fall for the old Laplace version of it having to do with prediction.

Case in point: Tomorrow's weather on Venus (where there are no minds or science or modeling to do any prediction) is still "determined" by yesterday's antecedent causes. Now extrapolate to earth or any other system or its components, simple to complex, quantum or or not, chaotic or not.

You can be a (causal) determinist (effects "determined" or defined by causes) - accepting all the planets and their components as "deterministic" for example - without being a predictionist.

The public's terribly confused on this point.

.....

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree regarding hunger as a feeling, also Damasio's position on it. I totally get Damasio, and don't think he'd agree that the sensation or perception of hunger (let alone pain!!) is not a feeling (or instance of sentience).

Then again, all this just shows how everybody including those on this site are all over the map concerning language usage vis a vis these "deeper" post-savanna subjects.

.....

For you etymology junkies, a review...
determined < L de-, from + terminus, boundary or limit

Thus, from here, many definitions and usages. (1) Causes determined effects. (2) Inputs determine outputs. (3) Microsoft engineers determined the problem solution. (4) Great minds determined the outcome last year. (5) What happens this coming El Nino will determine this year's crop. (Very different contexts, indeed.)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 29, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
I have yet to see proof of the non-physical.

DMT


What you mean is: I need physical proof of the non-physical to believe it is "real" (real = physical). When you are mired in one end of the game, being it no-thing or discursive, reality is a one-note chorus, and you'll never convince th choir otherwise.

As mentioned a thousand times, much of the slippery material on this thread was the product of sustained observation of the subjective realm NOT focusing on content, but awareness itself. Without some little taste of that dirct empirical experience, you have softward developers making wonky statements about the "errors of our ways," believing, I suppose, that we are speculating or trying to reason our way to the information. Fact is, the basic material runs basically the same in ever experiential tradition, and none of it is based on beliefs, but strictly empirical data. As I've been saying for a while, most of this basic material (no-thing, space between cognition, raw awareness, open focus, detachment, and so on) is rudimentary, the 4th class of mind training. The fact that this material is not only unknown but doubted here, or is believed to be someone's person conviction or belief, is a testiment to the darkness of Plato's cave, so to speak.

While the bulk of those trying to get hold of subjective experience by speculating upwards from biology are pretty wide of the mark, or oftentimes are not dealing with the experiential at all, but rather an objectification, at least they are ATTEMPTING to grapple with the experiential the only way they know how, or by the only means they trust.

What might be an interesting investigation is what Ed was mentioning per the hermonculous and the 3rd person POV, internal dialogue, and "who" is talking and who is listening. Why I think this has promise is that to get any foothold at all with this material you must check in with your direct experience, and can't just try and "think it through."

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 29, 2014 - 07:53pm PT
My liver's metabolism is entirely "deterministic" - its metabolic products entirely "determined" by its reactants. So it goes with my kidneys and eyeballs and optic nerve, intestines and its digestion, and, you guessed it, my brain.

But perhaps BASE104 might disagree?

"I think it is a construct (?? in other words, made up??) to say that we do not have free will."

With all due respect, till a context is defined, it's a meaningless negation / statement.

Case in point: Even I, HCFS, have said many times I believe in "free will" in the sense of a will "being free" (a) of demonic possession - a very serious concern of thousands in early medieval times;(b) of coercion (a gun to the head). But again these examples are NOT what the modern neuroscientist or evolutionary psychologist has in mind when he's either calling the brain "deterministic" in physiology or is rejecting the claim that volition (i.e., will) is free.

"The notion that every second of our lives is captive to a deterministic physics is just wrong."

Maybe BASE sides with Descarte or somebody else? believing the pineal gland's output, for instance, is "determined" by something more than metabolic physical determinants (a miracle? dark matter or dark energy? dark emergence? a betazoid's influence?).

Sure would like to see some evidence though. Would be worth a Nobel, for sure.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jul 29, 2014 - 08:36pm PT
Living the Artistic Life

. . . means not paying so very much attention to what appears to be, rather paying attention to the things that you make up in your life. What is that?

It's how you make things, not so much what you make. What you are creates the display in the Lila. What makes an impact is how you do things, not what you do. It's the style that matters.

Let go, fall into your role with all that you are, and viola! There you are: physically attentive, cognitively engaged, and emotionally available--in the here and now.

You move, through life, creating and sensing simultaneously and interactively. (What's the difference?)

Living and art . . . one in the same.

What is your art?
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 29, 2014 - 08:38pm PT
Living and art . . . one in the same.

You sure got that right.

But I suspect yours and mine could not be more different.

"There but for the grace of Fate go I."

Let go, fall into your role with all that you are... You move, through life, creating and sensing simultaneously and interactively.

Ah, like a worm.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 29, 2014 - 08:52pm PT
From Graziano: "Subjective experience, in the (awareness) theory, is something like a myth that the brain tells itself. The brain insists that it has subjective experience because, when it accesses its inner data, it finds that information.

What Graziano is really proposing here is what Chalmers got at with his thought experiment per zombies. Except Graziano is insisting that we ARE zombies, and that subjective experience is itself an illusion, merely some "thing" that the brain "attributes" to itself.

The man (a "novelist and composer") also insists that we will someday be able to download our essential natures onto a computer and that as the obeserver or host of the digital you, you will be hard pressed to know the difference between the digitized version and the human body version of yoru experience.

So on closer inspection what we have here is another Sci-fi dood riffing on consciousness. But he apparently neer actually looked at mind itself, but rater only objective processing.

Howeverever his "B arrow" converstation is worth exploring, while his zombie "attention schema," which having some insight, is just more mind machine speculation.

JL
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Jul 29, 2014 - 08:59pm PT
I think, therefore I am...(easy on the seasoning...)

Credit: Gordon Ramsey
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Jul 29, 2014 - 10:04pm PT
OK,

I appologise for visualizing the end sum of Determinism.

Cornly, choosing the fashion of how you like to eat chicken eggs and thinking that is that, gives great disservice to scientific pursuit of knowledge.

You know that there is no last answer yet to anything and hiding behind what is accepted presently is smug with no respect for what comes next.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Jul 29, 2014 - 10:07pm PT
eeyonkee just painted a decent picture of what might be going on re: chaos and determinism.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 29, 2014 - 10:30pm PT
I appologise for visualizing the end sum of Determinism.

Hey, garbage in garbage out.

Again, it's what Tyson says... one's reaction in response to the so-called "demotions" of science is very much going to be a function of the attitudes, expectations and such he or she brings to them.

Is it an age where every one more or less is being pressured to adapt, reevaluate, step up or step down, change? Yes.

.....

More insight into "What is mind?" -



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqFWr6h4qc

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-and-the-misuses-of-ecstasy

.....

Chaos (or chaotic process) in no way means it is free of antecedent causes. And as many have pointed out (incl Sam Harris in his lecture on free will) chaotic events, processes or components, marked by unpredictability, wouldn't be under a will's control (or soul's control) anyhow. So there's no escape from causally determined process there.
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Jul 29, 2014 - 10:40pm PT
My first reaction is to say "f*#k you" but that would fall into determinism's sense of nonsense.

(get it?...)

Instead I hope you find what I posted as being more about showing the concept of Grace. Not too many people who argue against it, but there are the stalwarts who think that they have nothing better to do than eat the person they find disagreeable.

Cannibals determine what's for dinner. just because there is will (determinism) doesn't mean there are other things to digest with their mouth or their mind.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jul 29, 2014 - 10:46pm PT
My first reaction is to say "f*#k you"

Whoa, there. Remember this is the science today. Don't know you, don't know if you're trolling, confused, in trouble or have a problem or not, but if you do it's with the science (edit: or nature itself) then.

We've already seen the problem, denial and such the many publics around the world (American to S Arabian) have seen with evolution last century. I suspect it won't be any different regarding deterministic processes, automated biology and the "illusion" of "free will" this century.

I hope you're not suggesting science is no good, that's it's gone too far, or that those who've had it not talk about it but just go sit in a corner? But if you are, then we're just not going to agree.

Good luck and bye bye.

.....


"The tension between the humanities and the sciences is old, and it's ongoing. So you have the "two cultures" clash that has been ameliorated in some areas, and people on the sciences side and the humanities side have all been trained to say the right things now, but the tension is still there. I'm in a somewhat interesting position to evaluate the arguments on both sides. People in the sciences are frustrated, and they think the people in the humanities are sort of thick skulled, and recalcitrant. People in the humanities think that the sciences are cocksure, and hubristic and intent on colonizing everything. They are afraid that what the sciences really want is to take over the whole shebang. They want their science building and they want the humanities building as well."

"The humanities people are concerned with a feeling of evaporation what science really does is it explains away magic. The humanities, and art, especially, can be viewed as the last bastion of magic, this unexplainable thing, this truly mysterious thing."

http://edge.org/conversation/the-way-we-live-our-lives-in-stories

"Part of the reason humanities people haven't wanted science involved in this effort to understand art is this feeling that it would be explained, and if it's explained, it would be explained away."


Also let's reaffirm the claim, also the reality - in case it's lost on some particularly those of the humanities - that there is so much more to "art" than literary arts or paintings and their appreciation and/or analysis. Engineering design is chock-full of "art." Rock climbing and other sports are chock-full of it too esp in terms of skill, talent, performance, expression. So there.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Jul 29, 2014 - 10:57pm PT
I come in after a walk and a beer and an appetizer late back to the apartment where my cat gives me the "what for," and I start talking to her about how wine'y she is.

It seems the more I give my attention to her, the more she responds intelligently.

Who's doing what?

When you find that question difficult to solve or parse, then you begin see the impossibility of the whole "grasping" thing. It's a process that is doomed to failure. Can't quite capture anything,
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Jul 29, 2014 - 11:04pm PT
science fiction today = Walmart trinket tomorrow

But JL may be right. We may not have time to figure out how to port someone else's sex life into our consciousness (not that there would be a market for that) - after all, the robots will come for us soon enough.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Jul 29, 2014 - 11:21pm PT
Art hurts.
Messages 3421 - 3440 of total 4639 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews