1
   

*new* mind is more than brain (???)

 
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 02:15 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78142 wrote:
I guess I see consciousness creating these forms/structures/laws, just like consciousness creates a painting.

Rich


... ah, but isn't a painting itself a shining example of one of these new forms/structures/laws? Wink ... so while I think I would probably not agree with the cosmology of morphic fields, nor in the primacy of consciousness in creating them, I think we are in agreement on the general concept of consciousness (once it arrives on the scene) as a powerful (addition to the) creative force in the universe Smile
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jul, 2009 02:20 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;78187 wrote:
... ah, but isn't a painting itself a shining example of one of these new forms/structures/laws? Wink ... so while I think I would probably not agree with the cosmology of morphic fields, nor in the primacy of consciousness in creating them, I think we are in agreement on the general concept of consciousness (once it arrives on the scene) as a powerful (addition to the) creative force in the universe Smile


Hi Paul,

The reason I take my point of view, is that I observe consciousness creating things all of the time, even when asleep. I expect that all originates (created) from the same source. Does the painting create the artist or is it the artist imagination create the painting? So I look for the ultimate source.

Rich
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 07:47 am
@richrf,
paulhanke;78134 wrote:
... okay, I'll meet you halfway, as it seems I have been harboring a biological bias with respect to the emergence of meaning Wink ... so consciousness is not an emergent of any arbitrary batch of neurons, but rather is an emergent of neurons hooked up to sensors and effectors (i.e., embodied) within a larger playing field (i.e., world) ... on the other hand, self-perpetuation is not needed to create the meaning we associate with the words "self" and "other" - merely being embodied in a world is enough for a sufficiently advanced "brain" to establish this meaning ... sound agreeable so far? Smile


Sure, I guess.

paulhanke;78134 wrote:
... I think I see where you're going with this ... your argument is that if self awareness developed in response to the will to live, then when the will to live disappears self awareness should also disappear ...


That's not what I'm saying.


paulhanke;78134 wrote:

... actually, the vast majority of mutations are destructive, if not fatal ... it's only once in a blue moon that a mutation has adaptive value ...


Most mutations are benign (everyone has a few mutations, they're just not obvious). A few produce monstrosities. And a few are beneficial. But these beneficial mutations are necessary.

richrf;78142 wrote:
I guess I see consciousness creating these forms/structures/laws, just like consciousness creates a painting.

Rich


Huh
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:01 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78280 wrote:
Huh


I always look for sources that satisfy all situations.

When I am asleep, there is no sense of the material. Just images. So where are they coming from? What is providing the initial impetus for the formation of dream images? By guess is that it is consciousness. Consciousness is the beginning of the formation of everything - material and immaterial. In quantum physics they might call this the wave function collapse by consciousness, which is one interpretation of quantum physics that continues to be debated. For me, it makes most sense since everything seems to spring from consciousness.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:12 am
@richrf,
richrf;78283 wrote:
I always look for sources that satisfy all situations.

When I am asleep, there is no sense of the material. Just images. So where are they coming from? What is providing the initial impetus for the formation of dream images?


Well yeah they are coming from your brain

richrf;78283 wrote:
In quantum physics they might call this the wave function collapse by consciousness, which is one interpretation of quantum physics that continues to be debated.


Quantum mysticism is pretty bogus
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:24 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78286 wrote:
Well yeah they are coming from your brain


Well, we still have to figure out what caused the elementary particles to collapse into a brain form and what causes the neurons to fire off in particular patterns. Something must get the whole thing started - unless you think that it all just came out of nothing - which I guess is a reasonable form of mysticism.

"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images." [Neils Bohr]

"I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research." [Albert Einstein]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." [Albert Einstein]

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:37 am
@richrf,
richrf;78287 wrote:
Well, we still have to figure out what caused the elementary particles to collapse into a brain form and what causes the neurons to fire off in particular patterns.


I'm pretty sure sensory stimulation is what causes it

Seriously, this is like asking: "what causes letters to appear on my computer screen"

Well you're punching that keyboard and bla bla bla

And when you dream, you recall prior sensory experience

For example, though I don't believe that space aliens are coming to Earth, I still dream about them frequently because they're part of our cultural Zeitgeist. And the image I have is the one put in our heads more or less c/o Betty and Barney Hill, it's just our (pop) culture and environment, etc. that defines what's in our dreams.

richrf;78287 wrote:
Something must get the whole thing started - unless you think that it all just came out of nothing - which I guess is a reasonable form of mysticism.


What caused the First Cause?

richrf;78287 wrote:
"When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images." [Neils Bohr]

"I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research." [Albert Einstein]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." [Albert Einstein]


Have we already descended into the Quote Mines?
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 08:55 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78288 wrote:
I'm pretty sure sensory stimulation is what causes it


Another way to look at it, is that sensory stimulation is the result of it.

Quote:
Seriously, this is like asking: "what causes letters to appear on my computer screen"


Yes, these are the kinds of questions I ask.

Quote:
Well you're punching that keyboard and bla bla bla


Yes, but what starts the fingers going on the keyboard? What is the impetus?

Quote:
And when you dream, you recall prior sensory experience


But what starts the process of recalling, if that is what it is?

Quote:
For example, though I don't believe that space aliens are coming to Earth, I still dream about them frequently because they're part of our cultural Zeitgeist.


What Jung might call the collective unconscious.

Quote:
And the image I have is the one put in our heads more or less c/o Betty and Barney Hill, it's just our (pop) culture and environment, etc. that defines what's in our dreams.


But what was the impetus behind creating that particular image in the head?

Quote:
What caused the First Cause?


Yes. You have to go back to the beginning. This is the realm of metaphysics, as Einstein suggested in his quote.

Quote:
Have we already descended into the Quote Mines?


Absolutely. I have a ton of them:

"A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself." [Niels Bohr]

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." [Niels Bohr]

"God does not play dice with the universe." - [URL="javascript:%20copy_to_clipboard('quote.text');"][/URL][Albert Einstein]

"Einstein, stop telling God what to do!" [Niels Bohr]

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:05 am
@richrf,
richrf;78290 wrote:
Another way to look at it, is that sensory stimulation is the result of it.


Well there are feedback connections in neocortex, including in the sensory cortices but I don't think that's what you're saying

richrf;78290 wrote:
Yes, but what starts the fingers going on the keyboard? What is the impetus?


Nerves


richrf;78290 wrote:
But what starts the process of recalling, if that is what it is?


Nervous activity

richrf;78290 wrote:
What Jung might call the collective unconscious.


psychoanalysis : psychology :: alchemy : chemistry

I mean they both served their purposes but can we just give them a rest already

richrf;78290 wrote:
But what was the impetus behind creating that particular image in the head?


Nervous activity

richrf;78290 wrote:
Yes. You have to go back to the beginning.


That leads to infinite regression

richrf;78290 wrote:
Absolutely. I have a ton of them:


Mostly out of context
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:12 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78291 wrote:
Well there are feedback connections in neocortex, including in the sensory cortices but I don't think that's what you're saying


What created the feedback mechanism? What causes the feedback to occur?



Quote:
Nerves


What created the nerves?

Quote:
Nervous activity


What started the nervous activity?

Quote:
That leads to infinite regression


Welcome to the world of questioning and metaphysics. This is what has been happening and will probably continue to happen ..... there is no end as far as I can tell. But each question leads to new answers - the act of creation. Just like a child playing with play dough.

Quote:
Mostly out of context


But some are marvelously on target! I love quoting the creators of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Not the interpreters mind you. The CREATORS. Bless their souls. Smile

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:25 am
@richrf,
richrf;78294 wrote:
What created the feedback mechanism? What causes the feedback to occur?


Genetics

richrf;78294 wrote:
What created the nerves?


Genetics

richrf;78294 wrote:
What started the nervous activity?


Sensory input that starts prenatally

richrf;78294 wrote:
But some are marvelously on target! I love quoting the creators of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Not the interpreters mind you. The CREATORS. Bless their souls. Smile


I can't find anything about Bohr's religious beliefs, though he was technically Jewish I guess, but Einstein was only religious in a figurative sense

Even so we shouldn't feel compelled to imitate everything they did by the lump

Also relativity and quantum physics are money-making scientist $cam$. Just look at how much money is going into the Large Hadron Collider
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:34 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78296 wrote:
Genetics


Please define genetics for me? At this point, it sounds a lot another word for God to me.


Quote:
Sensory input that starts prenatally
How did it start?

Quote:
I can't find anything about Bohr's religious beliefs, though he was technically Jewish I guess, but Einstein was only religious in a figurative sense.
Sounds to me a lot more than figurative. He seemed to be pretty specific about it.

Quote:
Even so we shouldn't feel compelled to imitate everything they did by the lump
I agree. But I think one can learn from different perspectives.

Quote:
Also relativity and quantum physics are money-making scientist $cam$. Just look at how much money is going into the Large Hadron Collider
I think your words are rather harsh. I would say that everyone is trying to find a way to survive and they do it in their own way.

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom." [Albert Einstein].

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 09:38 am
@richrf,
richrf;78298 wrote:
Please define genetics for me? At this point, it sounds a lot another word for God to me.


k

Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as it so happens, a part of our genome dictates the development of the nervous system

richrf;78298 wrote:

How did it start?


In the womb

richrf;78298 wrote:
Sounds to me a lot more than figurative. He seemed to be pretty specific about it.


He didn't believe in a personal God, definitely

richrf;78298 wrote:
I agree. But I think one can learn from different perspectives.


Swallowing twisted interpretations of quantum physics and then turning around and blasting the rest of science isn't much of a way to learn

richrf;78298 wrote:
I think your words are rather harsh. I would say that everyone is trying to find a way to survive and they do it in their own way.


Yes but science is a profit-driven scam
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:00 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78299 wrote:
k

Genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as it so happens, a part of our genome dictates the development of the nervous system


But were did the genome come from and how does it know how to dictate development?

Quote:
In the womb
Where did the womb come from?

Quote:
He didn't believe in a personal God, definitely
I did not know him personally.


Quote:
Swallowing twisted interpretations of quantum physics and then turning around and blasting the rest of science isn't much of a way to learn
Kind of harsh on those scientists such a Wigner, Wheeler, Bohm, etc. But I will allow them to speak for themselves.

Quote:
Yes but science is a profit-driven scam
Again, I think you are being overly harsh. People are just trying to get by in life. We all are. It is like surviving the game of Monopoly. Everyone has their own journey.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 10:19 am
@richrf,
richrf;78307 wrote:

But were did the genome come from and how does it know how to dictate development?


It started a few billion years ago and the Disney feature Fantasia gives a good overview of the whole process in animating The Rite of Spring

YouTube - Fantasia 1940 - The Rite of Spring - Part 2: Evolution

YouTube - Fantasia 1940 - The Rite of Spring - Part 3: Extinction

(Although the dinosaurs drag their tails, that's very inaccurate actually)

richrf;78307 wrote:
Where did the womb come from?


Do you want the stork version or the honest version

richrf;78307 wrote:
Kind of harsh on those scientists such a Wigner, Wheeler, Bohm, etc. But I will allow them to speak for themselves.


Scientists are overzealous tinkerers and besides most of them either don't believe in or are agnostic to God and the supernatural

richrf;78307 wrote:
Again, I think you are being overly harsh. People are just trying to get by in life. We all are. It is like surviving the game of Monopoly.


If only some $cienti$t$ could survive this game without gobbling up entire blocks and filling them with expensive hotels
[URL="javascript: leoHighlightsIFrameClose();"]
[/URL]
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 11:55 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78311 wrote:

Scientists are overzealous tinkerers and besides most of them either don't believe in or are agnostic to God and the supernatural


Again rather harsh. In any case,

Survey of Scientists Finds A Stability of Faith in God - The New York Times

Quote:
.... about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.'' Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:20 pm
@richrf,
Richrf,

I'm pretty sure he is still giving you a hard time for what your summary of science (being a big scam) in the original thread. I had to say it because this is getting ridiculous.

Remember this : 'My summation of all scientific literature:

Scientists have no idea what they are talking about but they say it with so much certainty, vague nomenclature, statistical gobbledygook, and overwhelming wordiness, that they hope no one notices. This way they can keep getting millions upon millions of research dollars.

Recently I read that one researcher wants to classify death as a disease, presumably to gather some research dollars to cure death. Now this is a big marketplace. Gotta hand it too him. Ain't nobody going to top death.

Rich'

All scientific literature would include anything about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So this is a jab a the very people you are quoting, whether it was meant to be one or not. If you want to clarify, feel free.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:27 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78317 wrote:


I've seen hugely different numbers:

Leading Scientists Still Reject God

...but that's not the point.

Let's look at your numbers:
[INDENT].... about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.'' Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.[/INDENT]40% - Godbots
60% - not Godbots

A simple majority of scientists, by your figures, are not Godbots

Also, belief varies according to field. In neuroscience, for example, I'd be surprised if the percentage of believers broke 20%.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 01:54 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;78325 wrote:
Richrf,

I'm pretty sure he is still giving you a hard time for what your summary of science (being a big scam) in the original thread. I had to say it because this is getting ridiculous.

Remember this : 'My summation of all scientific literature:

Scientists have no idea what they are talking about but they say it with so much certainty, vague nomenclature, statistical gobbledygook, and overwhelming wordiness, that they hope no one notices. This way they can keep getting millions upon millions of research dollars.

Recently I read that one researcher wants to classify death as a disease, presumably to gather some research dollars to cure death. Now this is a big marketplace. Gotta hand it too him. Ain't nobody going to top death.

Rich'

All scientific literature would include anything about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So this is a jab a the very people you are quoting, whether it was meant to be one or not. If you want to clarify, feel free.


I believe that this was in regard to a discussion about schizophrenia, where someone called me ignorant for not knowing that it was due to genetics. I then linked to many papers on this subject, that displayed the very wide divergences of opinion within the community studying the genetic aspect of schizophrenia. The conclusions were anywhere from 0 - 80%. A pretty wide variance. So to call me ignorant, I believe was uncalled for.

So in the midst of all this certainty among scientists and all other professions that I have been involved with, I discovered an enormous amount of uncertainty, guesswork, faith in one's applied point of view. I have also noticed that people manufacture work. Again in all professions. In the construction trade they call it featherbedding. The example of the medical scientist who wants to declare death a disease and spend his life research a cure, is an extreme example of this in the medical arena. But it exists everywhere and anywhere. Madoff is an extreme example of a common practice in the financial industry.

Personally, I believe every profession should take a look at itself and see to what extent money is affecting the work that is being performed. This goes from sports, to arts, to science, to teaching. It is alright to want to make money in order to survive (we all must do this), but before calling other people ignorant, maybe there should first be some introspection.

I hope this presents my viewpoint in a satisfactory manner.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-19-2009 at 03:00 PM ----------

odenskrigare;78328 wrote:

40% - Godbots
60% - not Godbots

A simple majority of scientists, by your figures, are not Godbots


Please review the conclusions of the study again. I believe you are inaccurate in the way you are interpreting the conclusions of the study.

Quote:
Also, belief varies according to field. In neuroscience, for example, I'd be surprised if the percentage of believers broke 20%.


I would not be surprised, because I do not approach these subjects with a predisposition or bias to what might occur. However, if I was to guess, I would say that the results of such a survey would be about the same. Same, meaning, the conclusion of the survey that I posted, not your interpretation.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jul, 2009 02:03 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78332 wrote:
Personally, I believe every profession should take a look at itself and see to what extent money is affecting the work that is being performed. This goes from sports, to arts, to science, to teaching.


How about the religion indu$try?

richrf;78332 wrote:

Please review the conclusions of the study again. I believe you are inaccurate in the way you are interpreting the conclusions of the study.


How am I being inaccurate
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 05:16:35