Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:07am PT
|
HFCS: There is a world of difference in experience between one who's worked the subject 20 plus years and a once-a-year-for-a-few-hours amateur.
Hmmmm, . . . I think you mean there is a world of difference in knowledge.
When it comes to experience, no one is more of an expert in theirs than they are.
Science exists within experience, not the other way around.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:11am PT
|
"Science exists within experience, not the other way around..." -MikeL
Hey I thought we'd agreed to stop sharing since you decided experience or expertise in the sciences (eg neuroscience, molecular biology, biochem) don't amount to much if anything.
But you keep coming back with your crazy non sequiturs. Again and again.
When you can ack expertise (otherwise credentials) in science matter (eg in these mind topics) then perhaps we can start again.
Let me see if I can find that ridiculous quote of yours a couple months back... (may take awhile, I'm busy, but I'll find it.)
.....
Of course 40 plus years experience climbing in the ditch, say by a WBraun, is critical, crucial incalculable in thinking and decision-making in regards to all the pertinent dynamics of the system... to problem solving... to getting things right.
So is 40-plus years of free solo. This level of experience expertise is essential to opining correctly, rightly, skillfully on the subject.
But unlike climbing in the ditch or soloing, pursuits in science are altogether different. No experience required. No expertise required. Isn't that right? lol/sarc
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:13am PT
|
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:18am PT
|
I did make some slight changes to the wording of my post above to be more accurate.
HFCS.. Consciousness has been my main scientific question since I was probably 12. Earlier in some ways. To me it is by far the most basic mystery and one that science has not shed any fundamental light on.
By fundamental I mean really explaining the experience of existing.
I don't use much fancy jargon. But if you want to discuss the pretty basic concept of evolution having built much of our behavioral habits I can. I agree and find that interesting.. but not really touching on a nearly fundamental question of whether we have some ability to make some decisions.
One mistake I think folks are making is not having a good definition of "free will". Perhaps confusing a lack of complete freedom with a lack of any freedom of will.
Another error some seem to be making is a classic scientific one that even Einstein was prone to beleiving.. That randomness does not exist. That universal "law" means exact predictable outcomes.
There do seem to be structures within the nervous system that look small enough to be subject to some amount randomness.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
HFCS.. Consciousness has been my main scientific question since I was probably 12.
Really? Sorry, I call bs.
Same baseless claims as your ISIS statements (not having anything to do with theism or theology) many months ago.
"a nearly fundamental question of whether we have some ability to make some decisions." -climbski2
Obviously we have ability (agency) to make decisions, silly. That we have so-called "liberterian" free will (that is not obedient to any underlying physics and chem) is an entirely different manner - and there is no scientific basis whatsoever for it.
There is some major league play around these parts occasionally. If you intend to play at that level, you need to raise your game. (Esp as a student of science, esp bio as I remember, you've had biochem, if memory serves. So it should behoove you to speak more factually, get your facts straight, I would think.)
.....
One mistake I think folks are making is not having a good definition of "free will". -climbski2
We can agree on this. Perhaps a good place to stop.
"Another error some seem to be making is a classic scientific one that even Einstein was prone to beleiving.. That randomness does not exist. That universal "law" means exact predictable outcomes... There do seem to be structures within the nervous system that look small enough to be subject to some amount randomness." -climbski2
This statement here telegraphs your naivete in the subject, the overall "free will" subject." Sorry.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:31am PT
|
HFCS. If you and I are going to have a conversation.. which I would like to have.. please trust me that I am being honest with you as I know how to be.
I don't even pretend to have much in the way of answers when it comes to this subject.. it really is the greatest fundamental mystery that I know of. But I am aware of the weaknesses in many common lines of inquiry and especially the weaknesses in those purporting some philosophical position as "scientific fact".
I have a pretty solid Scientific foundation. Science and religion have always been my biggest interests. I have a degree in Biochemistry.
Quantum mechanical principles as regarding the molecular structure and function of biochemistry is a huge area of research in biochemistry right now. Biochemists are fascinated by the possible implications of the knowledge to be gained.
To equate free will with randomness in some functions is an error I am not making. But for there to be "free will" the possibility of randomness does seem like a necessity. Without any apparent randomness in the nervous system any "free will" would seem likely to be an illusion. Not perfect assumptions since if there is a "ghost in the machine" The machine need not have any randomness. This is pretty basic stuff that has been considered since before I was born.
Like I said I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the debates out there.
That is the problem with this subject and why I rarely get into it anymore. We are at such a basic level of even questioning that progress towards answers seems very very far down the road at this time.
I keep hoping to see some new great insight in this thread.. but if it has happened I have missed it.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 08:54am PT
|
Cintune:
Why must there be only two choices ("agree" or "disagree")?
If a child were to ask you if the stick-figure she drew of her mother was her mother, would you say you agreed or disagreed?
Too much premature closure, false choices, dogma.
If science (to include neuroscience) shows anyone anything these days, it would appear to be that almost anything lies within the realm of possibility imaginatively.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:11am PT
|
My limited understanding is that quantum mechanical effects become significant only with very high energy collisions, where the outcome can be this or that. They do not appreciably effect the outcome of the kind of electro-chemical processes in our nervous system - giving such processes a very high level of predictability at the level of individual neurons.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:12am PT
|
Obviously we have ability (agency) to make decisions,
It's not obvious at all. It feels obvious, but I'm not sure of it. It may be an illusion. My opinion is that we do. This is what I mean Such a basic question which we do not have a solid answer or even consensus for.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:14am PT
|
The behavior of an avalanche is entirely predictable, but it's tough to do that in practice. So many damn snowflakes. The shear size of a system can mask causality and thus predictability. This is particularly true of the system involves many layers of hierarchy - like our neural system.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:15am PT
|
My limited understanding is that quantum mechanical effects become significant only with very high energy collisions, where the outcome can be this or that. They do not appreciably effect the outcome of the kind of electro-chemical processes in our nervous system - giving such processes a very high level of predictability at the level of individual neurons.
I don't think that is true Tvash. Otherwise my understanding is we could make computer circuitry much smaller.
I suspect our nevous system is as efficient as it can be and still function as it does. The limit of the size of the nervous "circuitry" I would think is due in part to quantum issues.
Not an expert at all in this though.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:18am PT
|
One mistake I think folks are making is not having a good definition of "free will".
Please provide a "good definition."
Cmon.. we just found out in the last decade or so that we can't even observe over half the actual universe right around us. Castenada was right about that.
interesting statement, what do you think Castaneda was right about regarding cosmology? and how does the modern cosmology validate Castaneda's "magical world's" hypothesis?
If science (to include neuroscience) shows anyone anything these days, it would appear to be that almost anything lies within the realm of possibility imaginatively.
I think it is a mistake to assert that because we don't yet have a physical explanation of something (e.g. consciousness) that anything is possible. First of all, science takes as a basic premise that physical affects have physical causes. That would eliminate a large realm of imaginative possibilities.
Another error some seem to be making is a classic scientific one that even Einstein was prone to beleiving.. That randomness does not exist. That universal "law" means exact predictable outcomes.
Einstein's criticism of quantum mechanics is much deeper, and rests on sounder grounds than the idea that universal laws must make exact predictions. The original criticism is the EPR paradox, which was developed into a more complete set of theorems by John Bell.
Note also that quantum electrodynamics is the most precise physical theory we have... and is based on making predictions of the probabilities of outcomes. We believe that quantum electrodynamics is a "physical law" at the same time we know that it is wrong in a particular domain. But we have no problem with its "randomness."
"Randomness" exists, but the particular nature of quantum "randomness" is not at work in the brain, which operates at a very high temperature, meaning the entanglement of quantum states necessary for the "spookiness" to happen is destroyed long before it can happen, by the interaction of those states with the environment.
This requirement of isolation of the quantum states provides a paradox for those who would try to apply it as an explanation of "free will" (or any other attribute), to wit, the quantum states have to be isolated, but as a part of the brain, they have to be connected... so some mechanism that lets you have both conditions have to be described.
Let me say that I haven't seen anything, even from "experts," who make a convincing case for it (or actually any case, most of it is speculation).
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:20am PT
|
That is true, climb2ski
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:21am PT
|
re: decision-making ability
"It's not obvious at all. It feels obvious, but I'm not sure of it." -climbski2
Now your questioning whether we have (whether mechanistic or not) decision making ability (ability to decide) as agents?
Oh boy.
Curious, climbski2, what you make of the David Eagleman TED 2015 piece (he's a neuroscientist) posted previous page.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_eagleman_can_we_create_new_senses_for_humans#t-73288
Any disagreements?
I keep hoping to see some new great insight in this thread.. but if it has happened I have missed it. -climbski2
How about simply posts in this thread pointing to "new great insight" - eg the Eagleman TED talk. I thought his talk was steeped in exciting new directions all of it btw requisite on hard-won expertise, knowledge.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:25am PT
|
This requirement of isolation of the quantum states provides a paradox for those who would try to apply it as an explanation of "free will" (or any other attribute), to wit, the quantum states have to be isolated, but as a part of the brain, they have to be connected... so some mechanism that lets you have both conditions have to be described.
Let me say that I haven't seen anything, even from "experts," who make a convincing case for it (or actually any case, most of it is speculation).
So well said ..Ed!
Gads it has been decades since I read Castenada but one of the things I remember is that He was asking his teacher what he thought of modern astronomy. The Teacher indian guy said something about astronomers missing a huge part (majority) of the actual universe that was unobservable and not anything like our part of the universe..and for him it was draining or dangerous to try in his spiritual way of observing..
Something like that..
Perhaps pure bullshit and coincidence..but When I first started hearing of dark matter/energy I immediately thought of Castenada.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:26am PT
|
The behavior of ICs is predictable, even if they are small enough to be subject to quantum effects, as long as they are designed to take those effects into account.
Does our neural system also perform in a similarly predictable manner?
Gooood question.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:32am PT
|
So well said ..Ed! -climbski2
LOL.
So go back and re-read the first couple lines of your first post this morning (on this thread). lol
No, let me do it...
"Scientific principles do support the possibility of free will or at least imperfect predeterminism." -climbski2
:)
.....
Not an expert at all in this though... -climbski2
Yet you made a claim in regard to freedom of volition. (aka "free will") clearly a mind-brain mechanics (circuitry) subject... a claim you claim science supports... which it does not.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:36am PT
|
And then read this HFCS
Let me say that I haven't seen anything, even from "experts," who make a convincing case for it (or actually any case, most of it is speculation).
Yep speculation..because such a mechanism seems perhaps plausible although unlikely maybe.
I certainly never claimed to be doing anything more than speculating.. like millions have for millenia. When it comes to the experience of existing speculation is almost all I have ever seen. It is clearly possible to change your experience mechanically and chemically. It is also possible to rule out some speculation.
But what that experience fundamentally "is" still seems like mostly speculation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:40am PT
|
climbski2 has a better brain than the ridged HFCS brain .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
"And then read this HFCS..." -climbski2
Is there confusion here? That is Ed's statement (which you quoted) not yours.
I certainly never claimed to be doing anything more than speculating... -climbski2
Then perhaps re-write this...
"Scientific principles do support the possibility of free will or at least imperfect predeterminism." -climbski2
.....
Well, success, Climbski2! you got WB in your camp.
Here's a dollar. ;)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!