Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2016 - 09:02pm PT
|
Jan's calls for inclusiveness of competing metaphysical ideas are not up to the task of being reasonable substitutes for the default hypothesis, in my opinion.
As I understand you, the default hypothesis here is evolution which I have never been against. Part of evolutionary theory is the superior survivability of populations with greater variability of genes and behavior. Geographic isolation and behavioral specialization can be an advantage for a long time, but in the end, they are not an advantage for survival, witness the neanderthal.
One can apply the same principles it seems to me, to the social and cultural life of modern human beings. One can not predict what future stresses or even catastrophes we will be subjected to nor which of many coexisting metaphysical ideas will prove the most valuable for survival under those circumstances. Hence, a variety of ideas is preferable.
If evolution is mainly defined in terms of successful reproduction, then all the modern scientific and technological societies are failing at it, currently falling just at or below replacement level, which indicates that our secular, rational, technological worldview is inadequate to inspire optimism for the future, and that a different metaphysical ideology is in order. Personally, I do not believe that a return to the traditional metaphysical ideas of the West will be the path, but rather a new synthesis of naturalism and the best metaphysical ideas from many traditions.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2016 - 09:14pm PT
|
Don't feed the troll.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2016 - 10:11pm PT
|
Oh really?
Paraphrasing: The majority of stars one sees in the sky are long dead. (Paul R)
Ring a bell?
With all due respect, claims like this are a dead give away to general science acumen. In this case that covering astronomy.
Just as in the case of confusing a pitcher and a quarterback is in sports talk. It would be worth a facepalm for many.
Here's what I actually said:
When you look at the night sky a substantial portion of the stars you behold no longer exist. Their light continues to travel across the universe in spite of the fact the source for that light is gone. The structure is gone but its perception is still available and that perception is not the structure.
Which is true except you need a powerful telescope to see such light. The whole point being that when you look at the night sky you aren’t seeing what is occurring now but what occurred in the past. Why? Because light is detached from its source and continues, and by the time we detect it its source may be already gone.
That such a statement is evidence of scientific knowledge or education or lack thereof is nonsense. You exaggerated what I said, as a scientist you should know better.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 06:24am PT
|
So, just what is, exactly, the difference between science and philosophy (the metaphysics branch)? They both require managing a large body of "facts" and ideas, analyzing them, putting them into hierarchies, and coming up with some sort of overall theory. They both have a creative element, which is probably what makes then so appealing to pursue.
Science of course, built it's heavy edifice of knowledge specifically with testability in mind. It is anchored in the natural world, and a huge percentage of scientists agree on its fundamental principles. Scientific knowledge grows and evolves. Bad ideas are like bad genes, they get weeded out quickly. Good ideas, on the other hand, have a tendency to flourish.
Presumably, based on the word, the metaphysicist (philosopher) is expected to ask questions and deal in domains "above" that of the scientist. Above this big edifice of agreed-upon knowledge. Of course, to the scientist this seems absurd. Throughout history, phenomenon that used to be considered "above science" ended up being easily explained by science. That's not to say that we shouldn't be pushing the boundaries of knowledge. That's what scientists do.
Philosophy, in general, should stay away from the metaphysics. Maybe a little more on the ethics and aesthetics.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 06:28am PT
|
perception is not the structure
You don't need possibly dead stars to make this point. My perception of your posts is not you. At least I hope not.
;^)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 07:32am PT
|
HFCS: Pay em no mind, eeyonkee. They're just blowin smoke. Here I am just re-affirming what you already know: there's a whole world of true "science types" out there who would get your posts incl the last one immediately and perfectly.
In what sense is “We are the products of evolution. Mind is the product of evolution” ???
Is this meant in a technical sense or a metaphorical sense?
If you mean it in a technical sense, then present the argument for how mind is a product of evolution. 1. What would be the environment of the mind? 2. How does the environment "choose" among all minds those minds that are better suited to “the environment?” 3. What is the specie of minds among those chosen?
If you mean the comment in a metaphorical sense, then it’s “an approximation.” It’s mythological, a story. You're kinda sorta just talking
You’re no scientist. You don’t appear know what science is. It’s a method. It’s not a finding. Moronic.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 07:42am PT
|
^^^^^
Do YOU have the answers to my questions?
EDIT: After about 30 years of being in the business, I think I can approximately report the consensus about what constitutes "science." You?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 07:47am PT
|
Too bad. I'm in it for the conversation.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 07:50am PT
|
Try to stay with the conversation. Do you have a point to make about minds being a result of evolution technically or theoretically? The ad hominems aren't helping.
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 07:51am PT
|
Evolutionary psychology and modularity of mind propose the answers you're looking for.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 07:58am PT
|
The answer used to always be Blue, no wait Orange....
nah it is 17 the number
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 08:14am PT
|
Cintune:
Thank you.
Fodor's theories (modularities in mind) didn't seem to get us very far in cognitive science as I remember his work. It relied upon a computational model of thinking and perceptions. I've argued many times here that the "brain as a computer" seems to have been challenged by "grounded cognition" or "embodied cognition" theories (need citations?), which I favor and which seem to have more evidence (today, anyway) to support it.
As for evolutionary psychology, Largo has presented many criticisms of it: the brain is not the mind, nor are behaviors or actions. I would agree with that.
What we can appear to do is to replicate the results of brains and even minds (look at AI), but we can't seem to say what mind is because we can't find it--we can't get our minds around it, as it were. That might present an inherent paradox which cannot be solved in that manner (mind looking at mind). As Largo says over and over, can the eye see itself??
As an aside, I'll complain regularly about those posts that present science as something that it's not. It is not a religion that one should believe in without doubt. It's just a method, that's all. Findings are those seeming "facts" that result from epistemological methods, of which science is but one.
Again thanks for the conversation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 08:42am PT
|
Randisi to MikeL -- "You've demonstrated a high ability to not learn anything from anything anyone writes here."
That's not true.
When largo says 'we will never' I gotta tell you, its a troll.
You'll never get "IT" ...... :-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 09:15am PT
|
A lot of shuck and jive on this thread.
.....
Alright, Chalmers fans. He's come to the Sam Harris podcast...
The Light of the Mind
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-light-of-the-mind
"Why does all that processing feel like something from the inside?" -Chalmers
"If we built a robot that could do all the things we can it seems to me at no point in refining its mechanism would we have reason to believe that it is now conscious, even if it passes the Turing test." -Sam Harris
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 11:42am PT
|
The corollary is in the "we." There is consensus about a great deal, and thereby "mind" escapes from the potential of grievous solipsism.
Unless you're into that sort of thing.
I've also seen the whole "receiver" theory of the brain debunked pretty thoroughly here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-brain-is-not-a-receiver/
A more accurate analogy would be this – can you alter the wiring of a TV in order to change the plot of a TV program? Can you change a sitcom into a drama? Can you change the dialogue of the characters? Can you stimulate one of the wires in the TV in order to make one of the on-screen characters twitch?
Well, that is what would be necessary in order for the analogy to hold.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 12:03pm PT
|
A lot of shuck and jive on this thread.
Like "flim flam" a masterly debating technique that requires no argument at all
"Why does all that processing feel like something from the inside?" -Chalmers The hard problem, the great mystery: as I said earlier what is the taste of chocolate?
"If we built a robot that could do all the things we can it seems to me at no point in refining its mechanism would we have reason to believe that it is now conscious, even if it passes the Turing test." -Sam Harris
Couldn't agree more and a serious "hitch in the get a long" of AI. Perhaps it should be called ZAI as in Zombie Artificial Intelligence. Surprised you posted this.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 12:09pm PT
|
Surprised you posted this. -Paul
lol, as if I've been saying anything else for the last 20 years.
"What are we, robots?!"
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
A more accurate analogy would be this – can you alter the wiring of a TV in order to change the plot of a TV program? Can you change a sitcom into a drama? Can you change the dialogue of the characters? Can you stimulate one of the wires in the TV in order to make one of the on-screen characters twitch?
Well, that is what would be necessary in order for the analogy to hold.
well, when i whistle twice my dog turns right. My sound wave infiltrates his hard wiring causing him to jump.
i think that guy should look for more fairies;)
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 01:50pm PT
|
What we can appear to do is to replicate the results of brains and even minds (look at AI), but we can't seem to say what mind is because we can't find it--we can't get our minds around it, as it were. That might present an inherent paradox which cannot be solved in that manner (mind looking at mind). As Largo says over and over, can the eye see itself?? (MikeL)
The "inherent paradox" is something I have proposed for empty awareness. JL argues that that implies awareness is a "thing" and blah, blah, blah . . .
String theory might be said to be a metaphysical concept since it seems to defy experimental verification. But it involves a use of sophisticated mathematics to interpret reality that JL's metaphysical arguments lack completely. And whereas non-mathematical explanations are quite suitable for the humanities such is not the case for science.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2016 - 02:35pm PT
|
^^^that certainly sounds like a monkey's mind;)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!