Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@Kielicious,

I thought the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) was an attempt, among many things, to make contributions to string theory.

What every happened to that particle accelerator? Haven't checked in months.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Aedes;92812 wrote:

I feel the same way. String theory isn't a holy grail of anything except for mathematical rhetoric -- that is unless it is experimentally predictive of all observed phenomena. Otherwise, it's like Plato's little syllogism in which he logically proves that your dog is your father. Amazing how things can make perfect sense and still not be true.

this is pretty much why math is ancillary to everything else I study now. after I stopped being a Neoplatonist and became agnostic, math was demoted from an end in itself to only a potentially useful tool. in fact I'm glad for this too because I no longer feel jealous when I see abstract as hell graduate level math texts and can't make head or tail of what's in them

Zetherin;92815 wrote:

I thought the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) was an attempt, among many things, to make contributions to string theory.

What every happened to that particle accelerator? Haven't checked in months.

the hype about creating a killer black hole came to a rather anticlimactic head: what with the LHC having been built by French people and all it's not operating aright. they need to fix it up before it can be put to optimum use if I remember correctly

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you're ruining any pretension you might have had to being open-minded and critical. it's just gotten ridiculous now

Sorry. I think you are again talking about yourself.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 04:51 PM ----------

paulhanke;92777 wrote:

if I were to trot this pet hypothesis out in this thread as being equal in coherence and consistency to the mind-brain identity theory, I'd be labeled a quack, too, because I haven't done the legwork to see if it holds water better than the mind-brain identity theory ...

Hi Paul,

I don't think this is a minor issue. I think that it should be possible for any hypothesis to be trotted out, if for no other reason than it might spark some idea in someone's head sometime in the future.

Einstein's EPR eventually led to Bell's Inequality, which led to Aspect and other similar experiments. EPR was originally conceived to demonstrated the absurdity of Quantum Physics - only to be found to be true!

Similarly Wheeler's Delayed Choice Gedanken, eventually led to more recent experiments which are apparently confirming it.

So, wild ideas ultimately can lead to a broader understanding of the nature of Nature. I personally am all for people putting their ideas on the table so that we all may be able to share in them - and then let's see where it goes.

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

is there any reason you chose to ignore the rest of my post rich?

I spent hours arguing with a Baptist preacher today. same as you. changes the subject whenever cornered, can't muster any argument sounder than "NO U"

here is my whole post for reference:

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you still haven't answered my original question: "which material about QM have you read?"

you are using a tu quoque (i.e., NO U) argument. this is a logical fallacy

string theory is borne out by like one actual experiment so far. so, while it might turn out to be the next big thing in physics, it might also turn out to be mathematical flapdoodle

evolution and neuroscientific theories of mind, which you rail against here, are actually borne out by heaps of evidence, experimentation, and have substantial predictive power and practical applications

this is what I mean when I say you just glom on to whatever makes you feel good without even necessarily understanding it. you'll defend string theory like it's already widely accepted then turn around and attack theories that are actually well-tested and pretty much accepted by all experts. you're ruining any pretension you might have had to being open-minded and critical. it's just gotten ridiculous now

and specifically

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you still haven't answered my original question: "which material about QM have you read?"

... a question you still haven't answered

and

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you are using a tu quoque (i.e., NO U) argument. this is a logical fallacy

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you are using a tu quoque (i.e., NO U) argument. this is a logical fallacy

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you are using a tu quoque (i.e., NO U) argument. this is a logical fallacy

odenskrigare;92765 wrote:

you are using a tu quoque (i.e., NO U) argument. this is a logical fallacy

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;92812 wrote:

I feel the same way. String theory isn't a holy grail of anything except for mathematical rhetoric -- that is unless it is experimentally predictive of all observed phenomena. Otherwise, it's like Plato's little syllogism in which he logically proves that your dog is your father. Amazing how things can make perfect sense and still not be true.

Never said it was a holy grail or even that I embrace it. I presented it as one possible example of subtle vibrations at or below the quantum level.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 04:53 PM ----------

odenskrigare;92825 wrote:

is there any reason you chose to ignore the rest of my post rich?

Well, yes. And not only your posts.

BTW, your whole last post was about yourself. Read it and understand it. I think you will learn a lot about yourself.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;92826 wrote:

BTW, your whole last post was about yourself. Read it and understand it. I think you will learn a lot about yourself.

no psychoanalytic bull**** rich

what have you read about quantum mechanics? give a straight answer

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

guys let's take the level of aggression back a couple notches

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

rich is infuriating ... he just says every criticism is about the person who issues it. he tries to make himself unassailable and changes the topic whenever pinned down. it's very slippery

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Oden, it doesn't matter how infuriating you find someone. All you have control over is yourself.

You're a good contributor, and you should let your ideas and not your reactions do the talking.

Besides, I've got a lot of UB loyalty so you need to represent them well.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

what's going to happen when I use reason

also did u g2ub

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Reasonable people will respond reasonably, unreasonable people will respond unreasonably, and you'll be none the worse one way or the other. But if you find someone unreasonable, then escalating the war won't help. But finding common ground may. You're full of evidence and you're well educated -- and that resonates well with me. But with Rich, what infuriates you is that you perceive him as needing more evidence when the problem is that he has a whole different paradigm, and evidence isn't the issue. It ain't how I think, but again common ground -- if there is any -- is the only thing that makes these conversations worthwhile. Otherwise you just piss yourself off without helping anyone.

And no I did not go to UB, but my mom and two of her sisters went there for both undergrad and grad school, and my dad went there for dental school. Spent a lot of time in Buffalo growing up, but my grandparents and other family have all since moved to CT where I'm from.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;92812 wrote:

I feel the same way. String theory isn't a holy grail of anything except for mathematical rhetoric -- that is unless it is experimentally predictive of all observed phenomena. Otherwise, it's like Plato's little syllogism in which he logically proves that your dog is your father. Amazing how things can make perfect sense and still not be true.

I, too, would be more into String Theory if it actually did something, anything. String Theory has made no progression since it was first initiated some three decades ago, and makes no verifiable predictions whatsoever. It's dead in the vibrating water. But anyways, back to consciousness Wink

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 07:33 PM ----------

Zetherin;92815 wrote:

I thought the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) was an attempt, among many things, to make contributions to string theory.

What every happened to that particle accelerator? Haven't checked in months.

The last I read it was supposed to be fully repaired and running within the next few months but, that was awhile ago...

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;92872 wrote:

I, too, would be more into String Theory if it actually did something, anything. String Theory has made no progression since it was first initiated some three decades ago, and makes no verifiable predictions whatsoever. It's dead in the vibrating water. But anyways, back to consciousness

I don't understand why people are in such a rush. Copernicus proposed the heliocentric universe in the about 200 BC and it wasn't until the 17th century that Galileo proposed his support for the theory (much to his regret). And even then it did not have much practical value. It just adjusted Earth's place in the universe which impacted the way people thought - which is probably more important than any material contribution.

As for string theory, it seems to me to have merit, but when you are trying to research this layer of the universe, things are just going to take time. In so far as the practical aspects - it will open new ways of thinking about the nature of humans from philosophical and certainly from biological health perspectives.

Instead of just dismissing it, I would just observe or even participate. Frankly, I think materialism is very stale and unexciting from all dimensions. If you leave out consciousness in biology, I think you have missed the boat entirely. But you can live your life where you wish, and I'll go where my consciousness leads me.

Rich

3 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92908 wrote:

Frankly, I think materialism is very stale and unexciting from all dimensions

the truth isn't dictated by your feelings about a subject

also quantum or even string theory approaches to consciousness would still be materialist

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;92911 wrote:

the truth isn't dictated by your feelings about a subject

Never mentioned the word truth. However, when you do find the arbiter of truth, I would be interested on knowing the person's name.

Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

the truth generally isn't found out by one person especially in these interdisciplinary days

it's reckoned in an emergent way by many people, who criticize each other

(this is probably why you don't understand how the brain works ... failure to appreciate vector/ensemble processing)

odenskrigare;92911 wrote:

also quantum or even string theory approaches to consciousness would still be materialist

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;92914 wrote:

the truth generally isn't found out by one person especially in these interdisciplinary days

it's reckoned in an emergent way by many people, who criticize each other

(this is probably why you don't understand how the brain works ... failure to appreciate vector/ensemble processing)

When it emerges, let me know.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;92915 wrote:

When it emerges, let me know.

the vast majority of psychologists and neuroscientists identify themselves with the "stale, boring" view and there don't seem to be any real contenders to it now

no falsification before emergence of a better theory ...

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92908 wrote:

Frankly, I think materialism is very stale and unexciting from all dimensions.

we all know you're guided solely by your feelings and not evidence.

richrf wrote:

If you leave out consciousness in biology, I think you have missed the boat entirely. But you can live your life where you wish, and I'll go where my consciousness leads me.

Rich

Have you read the title of the thread lately?

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;92914 wrote:

the truth generally isn't found out by one person especially in these interdisciplinary days

it's reckoned in an emergent way by many people, who criticize each other

(this is probably why you don't understand how the brain works ... failure to appreciate vector/ensemble processing)

What you are talking about is the discovery of a truth, it can be discovered, unraveled and revealed but you make it sound as though you are creating the truth by devising it somehow. The truth is what it is whether or not you ever find it Oden.

The failure here is not our understanding of brain function, the failure is in your absolute denial of the truth that you are unravelling when you do find it. you want the truth to be what you choose to define it as instead of its reality. And then you go on to tell everyone else that your version of the truth is the only one that anyone should consider because you have devised a system of evidence based upon your self delusion.

That is not accurate evidence when it leaves out and refuses to answer ALL of the questions, It is mere supposition based upon personal choice to accept half truth as fact.

What is the mysterious force that makes it all happen ?

if you do not want to answer that question than you should not expect anyone else to accept your version of teaching, and you should definitely not be ridiculing anyone else when you are the one practicing self delusion here. Those who you are ridiculing are sitting back and asking themselves how someone of your education could be so narrow-minded and self deluded.

The moderators get all upset when someone returns your ridicule.

Why don't you just stop talking down to us from your high horses and answer our simple questions?

What is the mysterious force that makes all of this biological shiat work in the first place? It is the root of this whole discussion and the question that anyone would ask you when propose the things that you do. So why are you so afraid to answer the question? Could this consciousness that you are claiming is simply biological function have more to it than that and is that possible truth found in the metaphysical aspect of the mystery that you have no answer for?

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know