1
   

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

 
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:53 pm
@richrf,
richrf;78518 wrote:


Well, I guess there is no more for us to discuss on the original subject of this thread, is there?

Rich


For you, probably not
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 12:42 am
@odenskrigare,
New Thread direction: Your question "What else could exhibit consciousness?" e.g., an artificial brain based on belief networks or something similar.

How do you verify consciousness? I take it for granted that other people are conscious, even though it seems just as reasonable that this could be false, as is suggested by the zombie thought experiment. I think that both views, dualism and physicalism, boil down to an inability to reliably detect consciousness. So the two views are in actuality isomorphic and serve a similar purpose.

So how does one even verify that an artificial brain is conscious? Does this even matter as long as it can mimic consciousness fairly accurately? As long as the machine can problem solve on any sort of regular basis and interact with humans in a convincing way, can it be considered conscious? This is generally how we verify consciousness in other people, so why not robots?

When you really look at Kripke's Zombie, what is stripped away? Subjective experience. All he is pointing out is that emotion in other beings is unverifiable, since the perception of another person's emotion is really a combination of projection of your own past emotions onto actions that you interpret as signals for said emotions.

So the question really boils down to this: Can we create the semblance of self awareness, of consciousness? I would say that this is probable. Whether it actually is consciousness is beside the point.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 01:11 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;78547 wrote:
New Thread direction: Your question "What else could exhibit consciousness?" e.g., an artificial brain based on belief networks or something similar.

How do you verify consciousness? I take it for granted that other people are conscious, even though it seems just as reasonable that this could be false, as is suggested by the zombie thought experiment. I think that both views, dualism and physicalism, boil down to an inability to reliably detect consciousness. So the two views are in actuality isomorphic and serve a similar purpose.

So how does one even verify that an artificial brain is conscious? Does this even matter as long as it can mimic consciousness fairly accurately? As long as the machine can problem solve on any sort of regular basis and interact with humans in a convincing way, can it be considered conscious? This is generally how we verify consciousness in other people, so why not robots?

When you really look at Kripke's Zombie, what is stripped away? Subjective experience. All he is pointing out is that emotion in other beings is unverifiable, since the perception of another person's emotion is really a combination of projection of your own past emotions onto actions that you interpret as signals for said emotions.

So the question really boils down to this: Can we create the semblance of self awareness, of consciousness? I would say that this is probable. Whether it actually is consciousness is beside the point.


Well I certainly would not want beings of faux consciousness all over the planet

But I don't think that's an issue

Behaviorist (or, at least, non-radical behaviorist) appraisals of mental processes are bogus in my view, which is why I don't take stock in the Turing Test. But analogy suggests that anything designed on principles very similar to those in our brain should exhibit consciousness, assuming that evolution probably had at least a little leeway in designing the central nervous system (i.e., our brains come from one of many possible designs, though all of them may be similar to some degree)

And as it stands, we are starting to get pretty invasive with implants:

Brain Develops Motor Memory For Prosthetics

So I think a good test would be to try to carry out Hans Moravec's thought experiment: say you had a kind of nanobot that could find its way to the brain in the bloodstream, find a neuron, figure out its properties, lyse it and then take over. One neuron is not going to make a difference either way, two, three, four are small numbers as well, shouldn't matter. So repeat until the entire brain is replaced.

I think this person would still be conscious.

John Searle argues that if you replaced a person's visual cortex like this, he wouldn't really see, but act like he does. He argues moreover that, if you replaced a person's auditory cortex, he wouldn't really hear, but act like he does again. And so on.

But the evidence is slowly starting to point a damning finger at him. The monkeys in that article there weren't hooked up to a real spinal cord, they were hooked up to a kind of iffy abstraction of a spinal cord.

Even so they learned how to use these prostheses in 4 to 5 days. And they're monkeys for Chrissake! So PNS neurons aren't magical. Granted, CNS neurons are different, but share many things in common with their peripheral counterparts. If you smell something funky, that's Searle painting himself into a corner. He'd better crack a window before the fumes overwhelm him. (I think he's going to find his position increasingly untenable in the coming years.)
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 11:05 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78549 wrote:
Well I certainly would not want beings of faux consciousness all over the planet

But I don't think that's an issue


Why would you not rather have beings that feign consciousness to the degree that they can accomplish their given tasks than one that is non-human and conscious?

odenskrigare;78549 wrote:
Behaviorist (or, at least, non-radical behaviorist) appraisals of mental processes are bogus in my view, which is why I don't take stock in the Turing Test. But analogy suggests that anything designed on principles very similar to those in our brain should exhibit consciousness, assuming that evolution probably had at least a little leeway in designing the central nervous system (i.e., our brains come from one of many possible designs, though all of them may be similar to some degree)

And as it stands, we are starting to get pretty invasive with implants:

Brain Develops Motor Memory For Prosthetics

So I think a good test would be to try to carry out Hans Moravec's thought experiment: say you had a kind of nanobot that could find its way to the brain in the bloodstream, find a neuron, figure out its properties, lyse it and then take over. One neuron is not going to make a difference either way, two, three, four are small numbers as well, shouldn't matter. So repeat until the entire brain is replaced.

I think this person would still be conscious.

John Searle argues that if you replaced a person's visual cortex like this, he wouldn't really see, but act like he does. He argues moreover that, if you replaced a person's auditory cortex, he wouldn't really hear, but act like he does again. And so on.


The question is still lingering, how does one test for consciousness reliably?

Also, this is straying from what the initial question was; I wonder why it would be the case that we would want other man made machines to exhibit consciousness. How would this benefit us?
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 02:35 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;78624 wrote:
Why would you not rather have beings that feign consciousness to the degree that they can accomplish their given tasks than one that is non-human and conscious?


See below. Very bottom.

Zetetic11235;78624 wrote:
The question is still lingering, how does one test for consciousness reliably?


Well, if Moravec's experiment were carried out, I guess it would be through self-report, at least partly. There have got to be some better ways though.

Zetetic11235;78624 wrote:
Also, this is straying from what the initial question was; I wonder why it would be the case that we would want other man made machines to exhibit consciousness. How would this benefit us?


We'd become them. Smile
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:10 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78672 wrote:

We'd become them. Smile


Is that really the best approach? Is it necessary?

Until we have a reliable test for self awareness and consciousness, its no dice beyond enhancement and cybernetics.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:50 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;78677 wrote:
Is that really the best approach?


Yeah

I think ordinary humans sponging off of artilects would become untenable past a certain point

Zetetic11235;78677 wrote:
Is it necessary?


Yeah

Zetetic11235;78677 wrote:
Until we have a reliable test for self awareness and consciousness, its no dice beyond enhancement and cybernetics.


Consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[indent]As there is no clear definition of consciousness and no empirical measure exists to test for its presence, it has been argued that due to the nature of the problem of consciousness, empirical tests are intrinsically impossible. However, several tests have been developed which attempt to provide an operational definition of consciousness and try to determine whether computers and non-human animals can demonstrate through their behavior, by passing these tests, that they are conscious.[/indent]

The more of these behaviorist hoops a thing can jump through, the more likely it is to be conscious.
0 Replies
 
Poseidon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:09 pm
@odenskrigare,
emergence = something *magically* arising out of nothing

If consciousness emerged out of my coffee cup suddenly, I would be more than a tad surprised.

A brain is a finite thing.
Consciousness can conceive of the infinite.

Can infinity emerge out of the finite?
Can x emerge out of y if x is greater than y?

Surely it makes more sense to realise that the finite is an aspect of the infinite?
It makes no sense to suggest that infinity can *emerge* out of the finite.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 10:11 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;78746 wrote:
emergence = something *magically* arising out of nothing

If consciousness emerged out of my coffee cup suddenly, I would be more than a tad surprised.

A brain is a finite thing.
Consciousness can conceive of the infinite.

Can infinity emerge out of the finite?
Can x emerge out of y if x is greater than y?


(%i7) limit(%e^x/x,x,inf);
(%o7) inf

This is from my crappy computer, which I do not even consider a conscious entity. It would be awful difficult to implement a strong AI on a Pentium III von Neumann architecture

This is one way to illustrate the point that you are equivocating between actual physical size and representation:

[indent]Can infinity emerge out of the finite?
Can x emerge out of y if x is greater than y?[/indent]

Of course, for example, an elephant can't fit in a person's head. (Not without a Cuisinart at any rate.) But all the mental states associated with "elephant" in a person's brain obviously aren't an elephant. They're numbers. Lots of numbers. With ~100 billion neurons and somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times as many synapses, you can represent an awful lot. But let's not confuse that with physical storage.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 01:21 am
@odenskrigare,
anybody on this thread heard of Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness by Alva Noe? I had been arguing in another thread that 'mind is not brain' but this guy is a current professor of philosophy at Berkeley and he also seems to support this argument. Anybody read it?

The other stream of thought that seems relevant to all this is the idea of 'embodied consciousness' as discussed in The Embodied Mind:Cognitive Science and Human Experience by Francisco Varela. The name Maurice Merleau-Ponty seems writ large in both these volumes.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 01:41 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;78941 wrote:
anybody on this thread heard of Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness by Alva Noe? I had been arguing in another thread that 'mind is not brain' but this guy is a current professor of philosophy at Berkeley and he also seems to support this argument.


What is he arguing for exactly
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:39 am
@odenskrigare,
The blurb says
Quote:


It seems to have some similarities to an argument I tried on another thread 'consciousness is a biological problem'. It will be a while before I get it and read it, but this question keeps coming up on the forum so I will return to it later. Cheers.
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 03:02 am
@odenskrigare,
Duh yeah and his point is?
0 Replies
 
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 07:31 am
@richrf,
richrf;78518 wrote:
odenskrigare;78491 wrote:


Well, I guess there is no more for us to discuss on the original subject of this thread, is there?

Rich


Hi Rich, the original question seemed so simple, but oh...didn't it get complicated!!
My interpretation is this. Consciousness is part of a developmental process from birth to adulthood. The brain I believe does not come into this world already conscious but rather primed, ready to develop that aspect of brain function.
Brain development starts through the introduction of stimuli which in turn creates the beginnings of a neural architecture. As this process continues the brain creates so many connections we begin to exhibit the ability to reason and thus reach at this point full consciousness.
Consciousness to me is just an illusion, the dragon in the garage as it were. The almost infinite neural paths one could take during thought, darting at huge speeds from one thought to the next or developing a thought to ridiculous levels of detail gives us the impression that thought is separate from the mechanisms that produced it.

Emotion also contributes hugely to consciousness. If we believe consciousness is a felt experience than maybe without emotion It would be like cutting yourself and feeling no pain. You are still have consciousness but don't experience it as you should - this otherworldly experience of being disconnected from the mind that produced it.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 08:02 am
@markymark phil,
Hi markymark,

markymark;78978 wrote:
Hi Rich, the original question seemed so simple, but oh...didn't it get complicated!!


Yes, it is. The original thread, that was interrupted, introduced the concepts of Rupert Sheldrake, which likened the brain to a TV set, and consciousness to the source of the signals. Very similar to Jung's theory of the collective consciousness.

Quote:
My interpretation is this. Consciousness is part of a developmental process from birth to adulthood. The brain I believe does not come into this world already conscious but rather primed, ready to develop that aspect of brain function.
And here is where we rapidly depart. What caused me to move away from this line of thinking were all my observations to the contrary. Where did children learn to dream? Who taught them how to make sounds (at the moment of birth)? Where did things like emotions, instincts, inherited capabilities come from? And these are some of the very obvious ones. People such as Jung noticed, in their practice, the people around the world shared myths, even when they have never had contact with the stores. Symbols were also shared. He speculated that it all came from the collective unconscious. There are tons of things that we do, e.g. eat and digest, that we do spontaneously. All of this, I consider part of the consciousness.

Now there are many definitions of unconsciousness. So, I am attempting to be as specific as I can be here. Consciousness is who we are. The totality. The ability to think, to be aware, to survive, to communicate. Everything. There is the individual consciousness which makes us each unique, but there is also, I believe, the universal consciousness, or collective consciousness, of all that we share.

Did you ever notice how you go to sleep? How you awake? Where did that come from? And everything in between? Why is sleep and awake so different and where did that come from?

Quote:
Consciousness to me is just an illusion, the dragon in the garage as it were. The almost infinite neural paths one could take during thought, darting at huge speeds from one thought to the next or developing a thought to ridiculous levels of detail gives us the impression that thought is separate from the mechanisms that produced it.
I look at things differently. Everything that I am and what I perceive is real. Why think it otherwise? Why use the concept of illusion to dismiss aspects of our lives? Instead, I am more interested in why reality switches and how the heck it happens - from awake to sleep and back again. Maybe from birth to death and back again?

Quote:
Emotion also contributes hugely to consciousness.
I very much agree. But before we cut away to quickly from this, where did emotions come from and what purpose do they serve? They are there. They are very real to me in both sleep and awake states!

Quote:
If we believe consciousness is a felt experience than maybe without emotion It would be like cutting yourself and feeling no pain. You are still have consciousness but don't experience it as you should - this otherworldly experience of being disconnected from the mind that produced it.
Possibly so. But emotions for me seem to have a deep affect. For example, sadness demands change. Happiness is a the reward for change. Anger makes me look at myself. Love - well I have figured that one out yet, but it seems to be a draw to someone else, like gravity. But why am I drawn to some and not others. This is not learned. This is something that just happens.

So, you see, I am very interested in peeling away the layers of the onion and looking deeper into the nature of the mind. Suggesting that it all happens miraculously out of no where, for me is tantamount to saying God did it. It provides no satisfaction. For me, it would be just the lazy way out of tough questions. And I don't shirk away from the really tough questions in life. Smile

Let me know what you think.

Thanks for the comments.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 09:34 am
@richrf,
richrf;78984 wrote:
And here is where we rapidly depart. What caused me to move away from this line of thinking were all my observations to the contrary. Where did children learn to dream? Who taught them how to make sounds (at the moment of birth)? Where did things like emotions, instincts, inherited capabilities come from?


Genetics

Not all behavior is learned

This is like asking "where does an archer fish learn to spit?"

richrf;78984 wrote:
Did you ever notice how you go to sleep? How you awake? Where did that come from? And everything in between? Why is sleep and awake so different and where did that come from?


There are texts that can help shed light on your questions

richrf;78984 wrote:
So, you see, I am very interested in peeling away the layers of the onion and looking deeper into the nature of the mind. Suggesting that it all happens miraculously out of no where, for me is tantamount to saying God did it. It provides no satisfaction. For me, it would be just the lazy way out of tough questions.


Incidentally, this is what you are doing

Here's a film clip I'd very much like you to watch

YouTube - Open-mindedness

It's about open-mindedness
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 09:46 am
@richrf,
Quote:
And here is where we rapidly depart. What caused me to move away from this line of thinking were all my observations to the contrary. Where did children learn to dream? Who taught them how to make sounds (at the moment of birth)? Where did things like emotions, instincts, inherited capabilities come from


For me I think this all depends on how you view the developmental process. Sleep is still a grey area in science but we are still far closer to understanding that than consciousness. Most of those observations apart from emotions can be explained away by current science.

Quote:
There are tons of things that we do, e.g. eat and digest, that we do spontaneously. All of this, I consider part of the consciousness.


I don't really agree with this. The digestive system is no different than the heart in that we cannot stop it digesting by thought or indeed start the process of digesting when we eat. Unconscious thought takes the form of deep processing. In other words we cannot call walking an unconscious act as we have to learn how to walk from a child. We do however get to the stage where this act is autonomous needing little or no processing in the brain to achive. Conscious behaviour is in the now and is really concerned with reasoning and learing new skills. Unconscious behaviour frees up processing to achieve this.

Quote:
Consciousness is who we are. The totality. The ability to think, to be aware, to survive, to communicate. Everything. There is the individual consciousness which makes us each unique, but there is also, I believe, the universal consciousness, or collective consciousness, of all that we share.


I have trouble with this. I believe that the unsconciousness is who we are. If you delete the past and all we have learnt, experiences, memories etc then who are we? Every encounter we have or situation we enter is dealt with by drawing on experiences of the past. Think of a juggler, the balls are unconscious thoughts, experiences etc and the juggler is conscious thought keeping the balls in the air using the information creatively to deal with the situation or problem.


Quote:
I look at things differently. Everything that I am and what I perceive is real. Why think it otherwise? Why use the concept of illusion to dismiss aspects of our lives?


Exactly my point, I see the concept of consciousness as an illusion as most people believe it is not directly a function of the brain but separate some how. I firmly believe everything I perceive is real too.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 10:29 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;78995 wrote:
Genetics


For me, just another word for God. I have no idea how a gene learns to breathe or how to make a chocolate cake - or how to be so sure of itself.

Quote:
Not all behavior is learned
Well where did it come from?

Quote:
This is like asking "where does an archer fish learn to spit?"
Exactly. It is the most simple questions that are the most difficult to answer. But rather than ignore them or create a new word (God, genetics, or whatever) to explain them, I ponder it.

Quote:
There are texts that can help shed light on your questions
Appreciate the hint.

Rich


---------- Post added 07-23-2009 at 11:44 AM ----------

markymark;78997 wrote:
For me I think this all depends on how you view the developmental process. Sleep is still a grey area in science but we are still far closer to understanding that than consciousness. Most of those observations apart from emotions can be explained away by current science.


Again, we differ. I think science explains nothing. However, physics does provide us with some predictive mathematical equations which do help us build things (technology, mechanization). I have never seen anything in science that explains where emotions come from. Science is content with measuring stuff. Measure this. Measure that. Ad infinitum. Sometimes, physicists come up with some great thought experiments, but that comes from some extremely creative physicists like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, etc., who are using their creative minds.

Quote:
I don't really agree with this. The digestive system is no different than the heart in that we cannot stop it digesting by thought or indeed start the process of digesting when we eat.


OK. We have a survival instinct. From where? Why?

Quote:
Unconscious thought takes the form of deep processing. In other words we cannot call walking an unconscious act as we have to learn how to walk from a child.


From where did the impetus to learn to walk come from? Why did humans go upright and what was the impetus? The starting point?

Quote:
Conscious behaviour is in the now and is really concerned with reasoning and learing new skills. Unconscious behaviour frees up processing to achieve this.


Once you get into the area of consciousness and unconsciousness we enter into psychology where there are many, many interpretations, anywhere from Freud's sexual motivation, to Adler's inferiority complex, to Jung's collective unconscious. I kind of subscribe to Jung myself. Of course there are many other branches of psychology, all with their own interpretations of what is happening in the human psyche.

Quote:
I have trouble with this. I believe that the unsconciousness is who we are. If you delete the past and all we have learnt, experiences, memories etc then who are we?


I agree. But you are limiting yourself to the potential for only one physical life. Which is OK. But suppose all that we perceive as inherited characterisitcs, inate abilities, instincts, emotions, etc. came from prior lives of a soul? Just another way of looking at things, that is all. We have no idea what comes before birth and what comes after death. I have decided to allow for alternative possibilities and look for evidence of it.

Quote:
Every encounter we have or situation we enter is dealt with by drawing on experiences of the past. Think of a juggler, the balls are unconscious thoughts, experiences etc and the juggler is conscious thought keeping the balls in the air using the information creatively to deal with the situation or problem.


I would agree that everything we encounter is drawn from the past. So when I observe humans around the world, all with the hunger for food, I wonder from what past did that come from?

Rich




Exactly my point, I see the concept of consciousness as an illusion as most people believe it is not directly a function of the brain but separate some how. I firmly believe everything I perceive is real too.[/QUOTE]
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 10:53 am
@richrf,
richrf;79008 wrote:
For me, just another word for God.


Except that genetic theory and indeed everything else in biology is testable, well-defined, falsifiable and all that other jazz.

God isn't.

Indeed, no form of mysticism is, and that includes the Dao or collective unconscious or whatever. And so I count my lucky stars that I am living to see, and maybe even participate in the greatest demise of magical belief systems since the Enlightenment.

http://i32.tinypic.com/3sjk4.gif
EMPIRICISTS: No magic will stand in our way.

richrf;79008 wrote:
I have no idea how a gene learns to breathe or how to make a chocolate cake


One of the things I love the most about the West is the openness of university libraries. I stopped taking this for granted after my bro from Henan by way of Shanghai told me you can't go in Chinese university libraries without university identification.

But I trust that you could probably walk right into any of the University of Chicago's libraries and read to your heart's content, maybe even sign up for a patron account.

I would strongly recommend doing so, and hitting the biology stacks, before you put together more phrases like "how a gene learns to ..."

richrf;79008 wrote:

Well where did it come from?


That's a grand story and I couldn't possibly recount all of it here.

These two articles are a good start though:

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 07-23-2009 at 12:59 PM ----------

richrf;79008 wrote:
I have never seen anything in science that explains where emotions come from.


Amygdala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

richrf;79008 wrote:
OK. We have a survival instinct. From where? Why?


Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

richrf;79008 wrote:
From where did the impetus to learn to walk come from? Why did humans go upright and what was the impetus? The starting point?


Bipedalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

richrf;79008 wrote:
Once you get into the area of consciousness and unconsciousness we enter into psychology where there are many, many interpretations, anywhere from Freud's sexual motivation, to Adler's inferiority complex, to Jung's collective unconscious. I kind of subscribe to Jung myself. Of course there are many other branches of psychology, all with their own interpretations of what is happening in the human psyche.


I subscribe to radical behaviorism

btw

psychoanalysis - Sigmund Freud - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
synchronicity - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
collective unconscious - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 12:57 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;79014 wrote:
Except that genetic theory and indeed everything else in biology is testable, well-defined, falsifiable and all that other jazz. God isn't.


From my vantage point genetics is just a lot of guess work and a place holder for what scientists don't understand. For example: Where do humans come from? Genetics. Why do we do this? Genetics. Why do we do that? Genetics? Where do genetics come from? Uh .. God? Genetics is all powerful, omnipresent, and omniscient. It is the final answer for everything, but for me it is no answer at all. The big fat zero for genetics.

Quote:
Indeed, no form of mysticism is, and that includes the Dao or collective unconscious or whatever. And so I count my lucky stars that I am living to see, and maybe even participate in the greatest demise of magical belief systems since the Enlightenment.


Yep. You have your lovely faith and belief in genetics - whatever the heck that is. Some pieces of mass that magically do everything you can every imagine, forever and ever. Almost puts God to shame.

Quote:
I would strongly recommend doing so, and hitting the biology stacks, before you put together more phrases like "how a gene learns to ..."


I find your religion rather amusing. Such strong beliefs. Stronger than most religious people that I know. Like a say, I would rather have a God than the barren genetics world that you live in. Empty beliefs and faith in a strand of material. Almost like idolatry. And it does nothing. It doesn't even look good. However, with the mastery of genetics one can cure all diseases and possibly rule the world. Sounds like a cult to me.

Quote:
I subscribe to radical behaviorism
Yes, I can tell. I would call it zealotry myself.

BTW, your articles are amusing. It seems you really idolize little strands of matter. For me, I find consciousness much more exciting. Especially in my dreams. Different strokes for different folks.

Rich
 

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 05:07:49