1
   

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

 
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 01:13 pm
@richrf,
richrf;79043 wrote:
From my vantage point genetics is just a lot of guess work and a place holder for what scientists don't understand.


Your vantage point isn't well-informed

DUPLICATE VIDEO REMOVED


richrf;79043 wrote:
For example: Where do humans come from? Genetics.


Yeah we evolved and stuff, starting several billion years ago. LONG story

richrf;79043 wrote:
Why do we do this? Genetics. Why do we do that? Genetics? Where do genetics come from? Genetics? Genetics is all powerful, omnipresent, and omniscient.


This is strawmanning

richrf;79043 wrote:
Yep. You have your lovely faith and belief in genetics - whatever the heck that is. Some silly little pieces of mass that magically do everything you can every imagine, forever and ever


That's not what I said

What I was saying is that instinctual behaviors (like breathing) are hard-wired into our genes, in the same way that growing hair and pooping are. We don't learn them

richrf;79043 wrote:
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.


While you're trivializing the entire field of biochemistry, I should point out that I am setting aside CPU time that could be used for playing Doom running protein-folding simulations for Stanford so that people, including those who think science is a lie, can not die of cancer and Alzheimer's in the future.

Just sitting here on my ass, or even sleeping, I'm doing more than God ever did...

...which, before you accuse me of hubris, isn't saying much.

richrf;79043 wrote:
Yes, I can tell. I woud call it zealotry myself.


Do you know what radical behaviorism is?
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:11 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;79047 wrote:
...


I tell you. When I exchange messages with you it feels exactly like talking to a religious zealot. Feels no different at all.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:19 pm
@richrf,
richrf;79064 wrote:
I tell you. When I exchange messages with you it feels exactly like talking to a religious zealot. Feels no different at all.

Rich


I was going to say something about how I feel like I'm talking to the greeting cards display at CVS but forget it

So, anyway, you appear to be confused about what radical behaviorism means

It's not some kind of cult religion, it's behaviorism with a few provisions, including the provision that mental behavior exists in the form of "private states" (although these are becoming less private), that's all
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:24 pm
@richrf,
I sense that there is a reluctance to open your mind to what we are suggesting here. We are not trying to suggest that our more physical approach is more valid than your more abrtract approach. I think there is merit in a bastardisation of of the two thoughts.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:32 pm
@markymark phil,
markymark;79067 wrote:
I sense that there is a reluctance to open your mind to what we are suggesting here. We are not trying to suggest that our more physical approach is more valid than your more abrtract approach. I think there is merit in a bastardisation of of the two thoughts.


I don't expect to convince anyone who disagrees with me in this particular argument

However, close-minded opponents serve as ... rhetorical quintains. When I meet someone who is actually willing to consider the facts, I'll be ready.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:33 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;79066 wrote:
I was going to say something about how I feel like I'm talking to the greeting cards display at CVS but forget it

So, anyway, you appear to be confused about what radical behaviorism means

It's not some kind of cult religion, it's behaviorism with a few provisions, including the provision that mental behavior exists in the form of "private states" (although these are becoming less private), that's all


If you are talking about Skinner. Yep, I studied his ideas in school. I even thought they were pretty cool until I figgered out that they have nothing to do with people in real life. But it is always fun trying to make robots out of humans, rather than making them out of metal as they normally would be made. Some people can do some really odd things in their life. Lots of this stuff sounds really good on paper, it is only when you actually observe the results that the whole thing falls apart. Kind of like trying to fly with man-made bird-wings. Sounds and looks great until you fall straight down. BTW, did I just describe genetics again? Crazy me.

Rich
0 Replies
 
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:34 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;79071 wrote:
I don't expect to convince anyone who disagrees with me in this particular argument

However, close-minded opponents serve as ... rhetorical quintains. When I meet someone who is actually willing to consider the facts, I'll be ready.


I forgot to quote the other guy. I was actully agreeing with you.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:38 pm
@markymark phil,
markymark;79067 wrote:
I sense that there is a reluctance to open your mind to what we are suggesting here. We are not trying to suggest that our more physical approach is more valid than your more abrtract approach. I think there is merit in a bastardisation of of the two thoughts.


I'm all for bastardisation. Did I just say that? Sorry, I mean for looking deeper into subjects. But if someone is going to tell me its genetics, well to me it is like saying its magic, or God did it. No difference. It feels like I am trying to talk to religious zealots, and I think we both agree that that kind of discussion really goes no where. God. Genetics. There is always one catch-all phrase.

Actually, I think matter is just a condensed version of energy which in turn is a condensed version of consciousness. So for me it is all the same. Just a continuum. However, at the center, I see consciousness. Sort of like vapor condensing into water condensing into ice.

Rich
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 02:42 pm
@richrf,
richrf;79075 wrote:
I'm all for bastardisation. Did I just say that? Sorry, I mean for looking deeper into subjects. But if someone is going to tell me its genetics, well to me it is like saying its magic, or God did it. No difference. It feels like I am trying to talk to religious zealots, and I think we both agree that that kind of discussion really goes no where. God. Genetics. There is always one catch-all phrase.

Actually, I think matter is just a condensed version of energy which in turn is a condensed version of consciousness. So for me it is all the same. Just a continuum. However, at the center, I see consciousness. Sort of like vapor condensing into water condensing into ice.

Rich

Sheeeet ( the wire) I agree with Oden whatever he call s himself. You however need to clarify your ideas, so far they have been exactly like that mist you've been talking about.
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 03:29 pm
@markymark phil,
richrf;79073 wrote:
If you are talking about Skinner. Yep, I studied his ideas in school. I even thought they were pretty cool until I figgered out that they have nothing to do with people in real life.


Well psychology is one part of the puzzle, there's also neuroscience and so on and, regardless, radical behaviorism for its shortcomings is a hell of a lot better than pseudoscientific claptrap like the "collective unconscious".

richrf;79073 wrote:
But it is always fun trying to make robots out of humans, rather than making them out of metal as they normally would be made.


Well, we are biological machines. But a metal chassis could be kind of cool

http://i32.tinypic.com/120scvc.gif

richrf;79073 wrote:
Lots of this stuff sounds really good on paper, it is only when you actually observe the results that the whole thing falls apart.


Behavioral analysis has yielded much, much more useful research than this:

[indent]Synchronicity is an explanatory principle, according to its creator, Carl Jung. Synchronicity explains "meaningful coincidences," such as a beetle flying into his room while a patient was describing a dream about a scarab. The scarab is an Egyptian symbol of rebirth, he noted. Therefore, the propitious moment of the flying beetle indicated that the transcendental meaning of both the scarab in the dream and the insect in the room was that the patient needed to be liberated from her excessive rationalism.[/indent]

lol? was that guy serious?

richrf;79073 wrote:
Kind of like trying to fly with man-made bird-wings. Sounds and looks great until you fall straight down.


Actually DARPA is working on ornithopter designs for very small, inconspicuous UAVs, like this one:

YouTube - Delfly competition demo

...because Taliban officials in hiding would be alerted to the presence of a 5-ton monster like the Predator in their cave very quickly.

Moths controlled with a neural implant embedded at the pupal stage are another interesting possibility

DARPA to create brain-chipped cyborg moths ? The Register

[indent]"A bunch of experiments have been done over the past couple of years where simple animals, such as rats and cockroaches, have been operated on and driven by joysticks, but this is the first time where the chip has been injected in the pupa stage and 'grown' inside it.


"Once the moth hatches, machine learning is used to control it."[/indent]

You'd be surprised at what they're doing now. I want to be a DARPA neuroscientist at some point and so I keep tabs on many of their latest and greatest forays. I'm not sure whether you really want to hear about them but suffice it to say that, if you are really opposed to these kinds of things, covering your ears with your hands, closing your eyes and shouting "THIS ISN'T HAPPENING" loudly and repeatedly will not do your cause any good.

But hey idk, maybe it's best if people who don't want to understand are left in the dark.

richrf;79073 wrote:
BTW, did I just describe genetics again?


No, you described a straw man.

markymark;79074 wrote:
I forgot to quote the other guy. I was actully agreeing with you.


No worries: I understood what you meant.

---------- Post added 07-23-2009 at 05:37 PM ----------

richrf;79075 wrote:
God. Genetics. There is always one catch-all phrase.


I never offered genetics as a catchall, although it does answer a lot of questions of yours that could be resolved easily by going to the library

richrf;79075 wrote:
Actually, I think matter is just a condensed version of energy which in turn is a condensed version of consciousness. So for me it is all the same. Just a continuum. However, at the center, I see consciousness. Sort of like vapor condensing into water condensing into ice.


wut
0 Replies
 
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 07:18 am
@odenskrigare,
If concsciousness is something we are aware of then surely in circumstances such as sleep or injury (concussion) the brain has turned the tap off and we no longer experience concsciousness. We even call that being unconscious. Perhaps we are talking about the experience being greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not sure however we can explain away the physical aspect/connection that the brain creates thought and not the other way around.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 07:55 am
@odenskrigare,
Yeah for example if you damage Broca's region you will stop speaking coherently

It would appear that having the cortex for a certain function is necessary and sufficient for that function
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 07:57 am
@markymark phil,
markymark;79250 wrote:
If concsciousness is something we are aware of then surely in circumstances such as sleep or injury (concussion) the brain has turned the tap off and we no longer experience concsciousness. We even call that being unconscious.


The terms conscious and unconscious were coined by Freud and Jung to differentiate different states of the mind. However Jung went further and suggested that there was a collective unconscious shared by all human beings.

I use the term consciousness in a metaphysical not psychological - meaning a sense of awareness which we do have when we are asleep. What goes on in sleep states is a subject that I ponder. For me, it can be similar to the birth/death cycle.

I would say that a full definition of consciousness is as fluid as that of the descriptive meaning of quantum physics.

Quote:
Perhaps we are talking about the experience being greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not sure however we can explain away the physical aspect/connection that the brain creates thought and not the other way around.
For me, I have thought creating all in the same way vapor condenses into water and ice. All one has to do is drill down into elementary particles as far as you can go (as far as quantum physics allows), and see what is left.
And then, one has to interpret what it all means.

Quantum Electron Cloud Image Visualization

http://www.voyle.net/2006%20Images/Aug%2006/02-08-2006-001.jpg

In my interpretation, there are waves of thought energy, (the flux of Heraclitus, the ying/yang waves of Daoism), that are condensing. It is my interpretation.

I would like to hear what others think is happening at the lowest level of matter which composes everything, including the brain. The brain cannot escape quantum physics. Newtonian physics is gone and so are the billiard ball models of matter and life.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-24-2009 at 09:03 AM ----------

odenskrigare;79263 wrote:
Yeah for example if you damage Broca's region you will stop speaking coherently

It would appear that having the cortex for a certain function is necessary and sufficient for that function


I think you may want to re-examine the evidence.

Broca's area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Examination of the brains of Paul Pierre Broca's two historic patients with high resolution MRI has produced several interesting findings. First, the MRI findings suggest that other areas besides Broca's area may also have contributed to the patients' reduced productive speech. This finding is significant because it has been found that though lesions to Broca's area alone can possibly cause temporary speech disruption, they do not result in severe speech arrest. Therefore, there is a possibility that the aphasia denoted by Broca as an absence of productive speech also could have been influenced by the lesions in the other region. Another interesting finding is that the lesion, which was once considered to be critical for speech by Broca, is not precisely the same region as what is now known as Broca's area. This study provides further evidence that language and cognition are far more complicated than once thought and involve various networks of brain regions.
The problem I have is that it appears that certain scientists who practice the art, are in such a hurry to prove their point that they tend to ignore and dismiss all contrary evidence. They are humans who are simply seeking to prove their point and sometimes will go to great extents in order to make that point - especially, I believe, if their livelihood depends upon it. The survival instinct at work. This is sometimes referred to as confirmation bias:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Rich
markymark phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:20 am
@odenskrigare,
How can you subscribe to a metaphysical approach to consciousness and yet believe the answers are to be found in quantum physics!!
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:28 am
@markymark phil,
markymark;79273 wrote:
How can you subscribe to a metaphysical approach to consciousness and yet believe the answers are to be found in quantum physics!!


There is no contradiction. There cannot be. I think they are all part of the same universe. It is a matter of figuring out what it might all mean - which may never happen. Like the old TV game show Camouflage:

SuperShow 8000: Screengrabs from Camouflage

It is all done with the mind (consciousness), even the thought experiments that led us to quantum mechanics theory and relativity. I would love it if scientists gave up their Newtonian view of the world (billiard balls) and embraced the electron cloud of uncertainty.

Rich
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:32 am
@richrf,
richrf;79264 wrote:
The terms conscious and unconscious were coined by Freud and Jung to differentiate different states of the mind. However Jung went further and suggested that there was a collective unconscious shared by all human beings.


Too bad this is pseudoscientific

richrf;79264 wrote:
I would say that a full definition of consciousness is as fluid as that of the descriptive meaning of quantum physics.


Wait

What?

richrf;79264 wrote:
I would like to hear what others think is happening at the lowest level of matter which composes everything, including the brain. The brain cannot escape quantum physics. Newtonian physics is gone and so are the billiard ball models of matter and life.


Newtonian physics is applied throughout the world everyday, what are you talking about

It's not faultless, but dead is a reckless exaggeration

Also the brain does not appear to rely on any of the computational possibilities that quantum particles afford ... it's all at the electrical or chemical level

richrf;79264 wrote:
I think you may want to re-examine the evidence.

Broca's area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yeah and you'll notice there's something called Broca's aphasia which occurs when this region and several related regions are damaged or their development is affected negatively

Nowhere did I say that Broca's area is THE language center

richrf;79264 wrote:
The problem I have is that it appears that certain scientists who practice the art, are in such a hurry to prove their point that they tend to ignore and dismiss all contrary evidence.


As far as I can tell, your issue with science is that it's always pissing on mysticism and other god of the gaps type thinking

Which would explain why the only "science" you're willing to believe is bastardizations of quantum physics that no one in the field actually takes seriously

---------- Post added 07-24-2009 at 10:35 AM ----------

richrf;79278 wrote:
It is all done with the mind (consciousness), even the thought experiments that led us to quantum mechanics theory and relativity. I would love it if scientists gave up their Newtonian view of the world (billiard balls) and embraced the electron cloud of uncertainty.


I don't see how recognizing uncertainty requires you to believe in metaphysical claptrap
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:40 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;79280 wrote:
Too bad this is pseudoscientific


My suggestion is that you spend some time looking into confirmation bias. It may be helpful to you in your professional career. Everyone should study their own perspective and what brings them there.

Thanks for your other comments.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:46 am
@richrf,
richrf;79287 wrote:
My suggestion is that you spend some time looking into confirmation bias.


Rich, asking for evidence isn't close-minded. Entertaining a zillion supernatural beliefs and then being skeptical of skepticism isn't open-minded.

I am going to link to this video for the 3rd time in the hope that you will actually watch it, although I don't have high hopes

REMOVED DUPLICATE VIDEO

It explains the errors in your thinking in lucid detail
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 08:51 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;79292 wrote:
It explains the errors in your thinking in lucid detail


Let me return the favor:
Quote:
The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

Picture of Dorian Gray
Oscar Wilde
I have learned this idea is quite valuable in understanding oneself. I think that the mind is so creative and humorous in the way it reveals itself. :bigsmile::detective:

Life is a blast!

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jul, 2009 09:03 am
@richrf,
richrf;79293 wrote:
Let me return the favor


Oh look more out of context quotes

Here's one in context

"Un bot mot ne prouve rien"

Ironically you are being the close-minded one here. I used to believe in metaphysical horse-hockey, too, Rich. I defended it vigorously ... but ... someone convinced me to reconsider. I was being open-minded

If and when you stop indulging in glorified versions of this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v607/amongtheomegas/NO_U.jpg

You too may come to appreciate reason
 

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 01/27/2022 at 05:17:45