OK, now all we need
-
Even if some do fall through the safety net, it should be strong enough to catch most. And a safety net just does include a "minimal acceptable level of social security" but also includes compassion in times of personal and family crisis and that would include a minimum acceptable level of healthcare from Doctors surgery to hospitalised activities. A safety net has the capacity to be comprehensive but it does all boil down to the political will of the people and also of the peoples' representatives at State and National levels.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even if some do fall through the safety net
Than it isn't good enough, is it?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but also includes compassion in times of personal and family crisis and that would include a minimum acceptable level of healthcare from Doctors surgery to hospitalised activities. A safety net has the capacity to be comprehensive but it does all boil down to the political will of the people and also of the peoples' representatives at State and National levels.
But is there only one means of achieving that? Why is it a given that government has to be empowered to force a particular version of such compassion upon all of society?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Frankly, the link is a better explanation of the mind than simply saying "God did it", but I'm not interested in debating God today.
Neither am I. But the issue of consciousness has always been of particular fascination for me.
73Zeppelin wrote:
How would I know if nobody else knows - including the author of that theory and article? What I linked to is a plausible theory of mind. It provides a possible explanation as to why your iPod is different than a biological brain.
So, let me ask the question this way. If we are to propose this cemf hypothesis, is it possible to reduce it to a more basic, elemental theory. Do not all of these components reduce to underlieing physical interactions? Isn't there some hypothecial partical of magnetism? The monopole or whatever its called. Isn't an ion merely an atomic nucleus with too few or too many electrons? Doesn't this model suggest that the basic unit of consciousness is somehow an interaction at this level? I'm open to that concept, but I simply do not understand why conscioiusness would be any more likely to be generated by that model than by me banging on a rock with a hammer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Couple of interesting research documents for you to get your teeth into... The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution[^] and First-Person Neuroscience: A new methodological approach for linking mental and neuronal states[^] and Does any aspect of mind survive brain damage that typically leads to a persistent vegetative state? Ethical considerations[^]
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Trying to prove something based on a gross oversimplification or screwy analogy is something, say, anti-evolutionists do all the time
On the other hand, seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple) or in a 'screwy' way (Einstein's relativity) has led to some of our most powerful scientific insights.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple)
That's not what happened at all. He reasoned that the force that causes an apple to fall is the same that keeps the moon and other bodies in orbit.
Stan Shannon wrote:
'screwy' way (Einstein's relativity)
Hardly 'screwy', and hardly the issue. Einstein didn't use faulty analogies to support his theory, he used the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment and a whole lot of physics and mathematics.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Frankly, the link is a better explanation of the mind than simply saying "God did it", but I'm not interested in debating God today.
Neither am I. But the issue of consciousness has always been of particular fascination for me.
73Zeppelin wrote:
How would I know if nobody else knows - including the author of that theory and article? What I linked to is a plausible theory of mind. It provides a possible explanation as to why your iPod is different than a biological brain.
So, let me ask the question this way. If we are to propose this cemf hypothesis, is it possible to reduce it to a more basic, elemental theory. Do not all of these components reduce to underlieing physical interactions? Isn't there some hypothecial partical of magnetism? The monopole or whatever its called. Isn't an ion merely an atomic nucleus with too few or too many electrons? Doesn't this model suggest that the basic unit of consciousness is somehow an interaction at this level? I'm open to that concept, but I simply do not understand why conscioiusness would be any more likely to be generated by that model than by me banging on a rock with a hammer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, let me ask the question this way. If we are to propose this cemf hypothesis, is it possible to reduce it to a more basic, elemental theory. Do not all of these components reduce to underlieing physical interactions? Isn't there some hypothecial partical of magnetism? The monopole or whatever its called. Isn't an ion merely an atomic nucleus with too few or too many electrons? Doesn't this model suggest that the basic unit of consciousness is somehow an interaction at this level? I'm open to that concept, but I simply do not understand why conscioiusness would be any more likely to be generated by that model than by me banging on a rock with a hammer.
Because it most likely comes from some kind of organized interaction, the roots of which, probably lie in quantum mechanical interactions. I think the key is "organization" on some level. A hammer on a rock isn't a sustained process that displays some kind of organization. Electromagnetic fields can resonate an produce peculiar effects as well. So there are lots of possible mechanisms to investigate, and possibly mechanisms to discover as well. You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Why? It would seem to me that any natural phenomenon would be reducible to, and best understood at, some basic, least complex, state.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
And what do we learn from that observation? What is so special about electricity that it is required for the existence of a conscious state?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? It would seem to me that any natural phenomenon would be reducible to, and best understood at, some basic, least complex, state.
But oversimplification ruins everything. Simplest is good, but simplest-er is horrible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And what do we learn from that observation? What is so special about electricity that it is required for the existence of a conscious state?
Because the body is well set-up to use electrical impulses, owing to sodium and potassium ions generating voltage. It's worth pointing out that it's not ONLY electricity that carries action potentials: between neurons in the chemical synapse, to carry the impulse from one cell to another a chemical neurotransmitter is generated from the axon of the first neuron and binds to receptors in the second.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, what is the materialistic cause for the mind?
Electrical activity within the brain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
The brain's functioning is more chemical than electrical.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're keeping it simplistic. Too simplistic. WAY too simplistic.
Why? It would seem to me that any natural phenomenon would be reducible to, and best understood at, some basic, least complex, state.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The energy generated by the steam engine would probably just be converted into electrical energy anyway. In fact, it wouldn't really be all that different - you'd be changing chemical energy into electrical energy, which is what the human body does.
And what do we learn from that observation? What is so special about electricity that it is required for the existence of a conscious state?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
None of them, ever show enough of a grasp of rality for you to believe that they will understand what you think you are reminding them of.
Or perhaps some of us simply feel that the standard, orthodox model of reality that has been sanctioned and approved by the ruling elites needs to be challanged. Sorry that you are so uncomfortable with that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or perhaps some of us simply feel that the standard, orthodox model of reality that has been sanctioned and approved by the ruling elites needs to be challanged.
Pass out the aluminum beanies, the folks who don't accept reality are here.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even if some do fall through the safety net
Than it isn't good enough, is it?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but also includes compassion in times of personal and family crisis and that would include a minimum acceptable level of healthcare from Doctors surgery to hospitalised activities. A safety net has the capacity to be comprehensive but it does all boil down to the political will of the people and also of the peoples' representatives at State and National levels.
But is there only one means of achieving that? Why is it a given that government has to be empowered to force a particular version of such compassion upon all of society?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than it isn't good enough, is it?
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why is it a given that government has to be empowered to force a particular version of such compassion upon all of society
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Trying to prove something based on a gross oversimplification or screwy analogy is something, say, anti-evolutionists do all the time
On the other hand, seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple) or in a 'screwy' way (Einstein's relativity) has led to some of our most powerful scientific insights.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple)
Yep very simple: "Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses: F=G m1m2/r^2 where: F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first point mass, m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and r is the distance between the two point masses." Up until then, everybody dealt with gravity by saying "Things fall down," and they were all glad that Newton simplified it for 'em. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, feedback loops are all that is necessary for consciousness? The em field itself is conscious? Or is it the matter the field is working on that is conscious? Are all em fields conscious? Or only those associated with ion pumps? Where is the conciousness actually at in this model?
How would I know if nobody else knows - including the author of that theory and article? What I linked to is a plausible theory of mind. It provides a possible explanation as to why your iPod is different than a biological brain. Frankly, the link is a better explanation of the mind than simply saying "God did it", but I'm not interested in debating God today.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple)
Yep very simple: "Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses: F=G m1m2/r^2 where: F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first point mass, m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and r is the distance between the two point masses." Up until then, everybody dealt with gravity by saying "Things fall down," and they were all glad that Newton simplified it for 'em. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses: F=G m1m2/r^2 where: F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first point mass, m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and r is the distance between the two point masses."
And he was able to arrive at that conclusion after consideration of the system in its most elemental terms - a falling apple. He didn't start by trying to figure out the most complex state he oculd imagine, but the most simple one. (If there is any truth to the legend, that is)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple)
That's not what happened at all. He reasoned that the force that causes an apple to fall is the same that keeps the moon and other bodies in orbit.
Stan Shannon wrote:
'screwy' way (Einstein's relativity)
Hardly 'screwy', and hardly the issue. Einstein didn't use faulty analogies to support his theory, he used the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment and a whole lot of physics and mathematics.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's not what happened at all. He reasoned that the force that causes an apple to fall is the same that keeps the moon and other bodies in orbit.
Which is an exaple of reducing a complex system to a simple one.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hardly 'screwy', and hardly the issue. Einstein didn't use faulty analogies to support his theory, he used the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment and a whole lot of physics and mathematics.
Actually, Einstein's initial insights came while riding on a bus observing a clock tower he was moving away from and the famous thought experiment of riding on a beam of light. Those are certainly examples of screwy thinking that lead to great discoveries.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? It would seem to me that any natural phenomenon would be reducible to, and best understood at, some basic, least complex, state.
But oversimplification ruins everything. Simplest is good, but simplest-er is horrible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And what do we learn from that observation? What is so special about electricity that it is required for the existence of a conscious state?
Because the body is well set-up to use electrical impulses, owing to sodium and potassium ions generating voltage. It's worth pointing out that it's not ONLY electricity that carries action potentials: between neurons in the chemical synapse, to carry the impulse from one cell to another a chemical neurotransmitter is generated from the axon of the first neuron and binds to receptors in the second.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But oversimplification ruins everything. Simplest is good, but simplest-er is horrible.
Well, fine. But please explain why the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be considered as, say, simply being aware of an apple. Why is that 'simplest-er'? Wouldn't consciousness of an apple be the same as consciousness of anything else?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Because the body is well set-up to use electrical impulses, owing to sodium and potassium ions generating voltage. It's worth pointing out that it's not ONLY electricity that carries action potentials: between neurons in the chemical synapse, to carry the impulse from one cell to another a chemical neurotransmitter is generated from the axon of the first neuron and binds to receptors in the second.
All of which represent well known energy exchanging reactions fundamentally no different than countless others one could mention. At what clearly descernable point in the process is a unit of consciousness generated?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses: F=G m1m2/r^2 where: F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of the first point mass, m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and r is the distance between the two point masses."
And he was able to arrive at that conclusion after consideration of the system in its most elemental terms - a falling apple. He didn't start by trying to figure out the most complex state he oculd imagine, but the most simple one. (If there is any truth to the legend, that is)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And he was able to arrive at that conclusion after consideration of the system in its most elemental terms - a falling apple.
I am so glad we have wise and hard thinking folks like you to explain Newton to the rest of us. I am sure that many folks have compared you to Asimov. However, some few of us holdouts who don't recognize your insights quite as well as I am sure your friends and family do, think that what made Newton great was he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, let me ask the question this way. If we are to propose this cemf hypothesis, is it possible to reduce it to a more basic, elemental theory. Do not all of these components reduce to underlieing physical interactions? Isn't there some hypothecial partical of magnetism? The monopole or whatever its called. Isn't an ion merely an atomic nucleus with too few or too many electrons? Doesn't this model suggest that the basic unit of consciousness is somehow an interaction at this level? I'm open to that concept, but I simply do not understand why conscioiusness would be any more likely to be generated by that model than by me banging on a rock with a hammer.
Because it most likely comes from some kind of organized interaction, the roots of which, probably lie in quantum mechanical interactions. I think the key is "organization" on some level. A hammer on a rock isn't a sustained process that displays some kind of organization. Electromagnetic fields can resonate an produce peculiar effects as well. So there are lots of possible mechanisms to investigate, and possibly mechanisms to discover as well. You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
73Zeppelin wrote:
You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
But don't you find that to be intellectually unsatisfying? Are we saying that consciousness is simply unreducible to more fundamental processes? Frankly, I do find that to be a weak point in the entire mechanistic interpretation of the physical universe. If a natural phenomenon cannot be reduced to more elemental processess (ie - the basic unit of consciousness is partical A interacting with partical B in manner Z) than the possibility must be considered that it is an elemental state of nature in its own right. To me that is an altogether glaring alternative explanation for the phenomenon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than it isn't good enough, is it?
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why is it a given that government has to be empowered to force a particular version of such compassion upon all of society
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
But the underlieing logic of the original justification demands an unrelenting effort to make it so.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
But than you are confronted with the question of whether a society dependent upon government for its most basic security can trully be considered a democracy at all regardless of how free the people are to cast a vote. Dependency upon government introduces a non-democratic factor into the entire equation of democracy. Will not most people simply tend to vote for which ever platform is most likely to provide them with their basic needs? The question becomes who will those in the safety net vote for? Those who will help them out of it, or those who will simply make the net more comfortable? And would it not be in the interest of any government to put as many people as possible into the safty net merely to get their votes?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
But don't you find that to be intellectually unsatisfying? Are we saying that consciousness is simply unreducible to more fundamental processes? Frankly, I do find that to be a weak point in the entire mechanistic interpretation of the physical universe. If a natural phenomenon cannot be reduced to more elemental processess (ie - the basic unit of consciousness is partical A interacting with partical B in manner Z) than the possibility must be considered that it is an elemental state of nature in its own right. To me that is an altogether glaring alternative explanation for the phenomenon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Sure it's unsatisfying; especially from my viewpoint as a physicist. The boundary between classical and quantum has always troubled me. However, I'm not really active with physics anymore. I wasn't smart enough to handle the deeper mathematics, so I couldn't build a career on purely theoretical physics. I had to go into other things. I think about these things, but at the moment I don't have much time - I'm occupied with a million other things. I try to follow the popular press and read articles by scientists I know are working on the problem. Aside from that, there isn't much that I can do in a realistic sense to add to the solution or debate.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'm not interested in debating God
That's good. God doesn't want to debate anyone today, either. He told me so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That's good. God doesn't want to debate anyone today, either. He told me so.
Yeah, we're still at war, but we've agreed to a Christmas Truce.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
But the underlieing logic of the original justification demands an unrelenting effort to make it so.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
But than you are confronted with the question of whether a society dependent upon government for its most basic security can trully be considered a democracy at all regardless of how free the people are to cast a vote. Dependency upon government introduces a non-democratic factor into the entire equation of democracy. Will not most people simply tend to vote for which ever platform is most likely to provide them with their basic needs? The question becomes who will those in the safety net vote for? Those who will help them out of it, or those who will simply make the net more comfortable? And would it not be in the interest of any government to put as many people as possible into the safty net merely to get their votes?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the underlieing logic of the original justification demands an unrelenting effort to make it so.
I agree
Stan Shannon wrote:
Dependency upon government introduces a non-democratic factor into the entire equation of democracy
And a situation of compulsion becomes evermore evident especially in times of expanding unemployment
Stan Shannon wrote:
And would it not be in the interest of any government to put as many people as possible into the safty net merely to get their votes
No because to keep people there becomes extortionately expensive. Not just in financial terms but in terms of peoples self worth. Yet, politically, in a Parliamentary democracy such as UK, this could happen as the government is the political party that (usually - hung parliament not withstanding) has most seats in Parliament, but in a Presidential style democracy such as USA, it is doubtful as the sitting President is the leader of the relevant political party rather than the tool of the political party as the limitations of a President is restricted to 2 terms. Thus the concept of a political party having its "way" is perhaps relegated to some localised or Congressional activities.