This is disgusting [modified]
-
So what is it? If it's not matter, then why is it so strongly affected by chemicals and yet completely undetectable? If I were to take a clump of neurons and carefully, one by one, wire them together like they are in the brain, at what point do they have a mind?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If it's not matter, then why is it so strongly affected by chemicals and yet completely undetectable? If I were to take a clump of neurons and carefully, one by one, wire them together like they are in the brain, at what point do they have a mind?
On the other hand, if some particular arrangement of matter can generate a mind, why not some other arrangement of matter? What is so magical about neurons and chemicals? You are still left with the essetial issue of what are the precise physical components necessary to produce a conscious mind. If a neuron can be conscious, why not a rock? And if two neurons are required to produce consciousness, where does the mind actually exist? In the neurons? In the chemicals passing between them? In the electrons passing through them? In the electro-magnetic fields generated? Where the hell is it?
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.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I am not convinced that the "mind is simply the sum of the chemical reactions occurring in your body."
Just out of curiosity - hypothetically speaking, what evidence would you require to be convinced of this?
- F
The association between physical properties and mental states does not prove anything one way or another beyond the fact that we experience consciousness in association with certain physical parameters. There is absolutely no scientific theory that explains the conscioius state sufficiently that we could, for example, reliably duplicate it in some other physical form. And if the mind is purely a mechanistic phenomenon, one would assume that it would be fairly easy to explain in purely mechanistic terms given our current understanding of the physics and chemistry underlieing organic processess.
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If it's not matter, then why is it so strongly affected by chemicals and yet completely undetectable? If I were to take a clump of neurons and carefully, one by one, wire them together like they are in the brain, at what point do they have a mind?
On the other hand, if some particular arrangement of matter can generate a mind, why not some other arrangement of matter? What is so magical about neurons and chemicals? You are still left with the essetial issue of what are the precise physical components necessary to produce a conscious mind. If a neuron can be conscious, why not a rock? And if two neurons are required to produce consciousness, where does the mind actually exist? In the neurons? In the chemicals passing between them? In the electrons passing through them? In the electro-magnetic fields generated? Where the hell is it?
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:
On the other hand, if some particular arrangement of matter can generate a mind, why not some other arrangement of matter? What is so magical about neurons and chemicals?
I see no particular reason why not. It's just that neurons are so good for it. And, uh, pretty much everything is made of chemicals - that's what's so magical about them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are still left with the essetial issue of what are the precise physical components necessary to produce a conscious mind.
Yes, I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If a neuron can be conscious, why not a rock?
A neuron isn't conscious. Consciousness is a process arising from the interaction between neurons. Many neurons.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if two neurons are required to produce consciousness, where does the mind actually exist? In the neurons? In the chemicals passing between them? In the electrons passing through them? In the electro-magnetic fields generated? Where the hell is it?
I have actually said this before, but the mind isn't like a tumour that just sits there. It's akin to asking where the light is in a light bulb.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How very open-minded of you.
How does that make me closed-minded? He made a statement to me that I have made to people like you, therefore it sounded familiar.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
This is what religious extremism is made from.
:laugh:
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
How does that make me closed-minded? He made a statement to me that I have made to people like you, therefore it sounded familiar.
Ah, OK. You weren't very clear. I thought you were referring to the prejudice that you undoubtedly harbour against cognitive neuroscience.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Laugh
Seriously.
-
The association between physical properties and mental states does not prove anything one way or another beyond the fact that we experience consciousness in association with certain physical parameters. There is absolutely no scientific theory that explains the conscioius state sufficiently that we could, for example, reliably duplicate it in some other physical form. And if the mind is purely a mechanistic phenomenon, one would assume that it would be fairly easy to explain in purely mechanistic terms given our current understanding of the physics and chemistry underlieing organic processess.
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:
The association between physical properties and mental states does not prove anything one way or another...
It is certainly highly suggestive, though.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is absolutely no scientific theory that explains the conscioius state sufficiently that we could, for example, reliably duplicate it in some other physical form.
It takes a supercomputer to emulate a mouse brain. It's not something you can just write an algorithm for and stick it in a pocket calculator.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if the mind is purely a mechanistic phenomenon, one would assume that it would be fairly easy to explain in purely mechanistic terms given our current understanding of the physics and chemistry underlieing organic processess.
It's not a complete mystery, you know. There is a great deal that we DO know about the brain. But more work is still needed. I have faith.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
On the other hand, if some particular arrangement of matter can generate a mind, why not some other arrangement of matter? What is so magical about neurons and chemicals?
I see no particular reason why not. It's just that neurons are so good for it. And, uh, pretty much everything is made of chemicals - that's what's so magical about them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are still left with the essetial issue of what are the precise physical components necessary to produce a conscious mind.
Yes, I am.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If a neuron can be conscious, why not a rock?
A neuron isn't conscious. Consciousness is a process arising from the interaction between neurons. Many neurons.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if two neurons are required to produce consciousness, where does the mind actually exist? In the neurons? In the chemicals passing between them? In the electrons passing through them? In the electro-magnetic fields generated? Where the hell is it?
I have actually said this before, but the mind isn't like a tumour that just sits there. It's akin to asking where the light is in a light bulb.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Consciousness is a process
Is it? Who says?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
arising from the interaction between neurons. Many neurons.
How many? Why would the number be important? Does consciousness suddenly 'emerge' when you have 683,234 neurons plus 1? If a billion neurons can be conscious, why not two? Does a house fly have a mind? It has a brain after all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's akin to asking where the light is in a light bulb.
No, its akin to asking how the light got into the light bulb in the first place.
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.
-
The association between physical properties and mental states does not prove anything one way or another beyond the fact that we experience consciousness in association with certain physical parameters. There is absolutely no scientific theory that explains the conscioius state sufficiently that we could, for example, reliably duplicate it in some other physical form. And if the mind is purely a mechanistic phenomenon, one would assume that it would be fairly easy to explain in purely mechanistic terms given our current understanding of the physics and chemistry underlieing organic processess.
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.
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain. It's really easy to posit that OOH THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE... SOMETHING MAGICAL AND YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE and leave it at that like the good armchair pseudo-scientist you are but that doesn't make any difference to anyone, doesn't aid in understanding human behaviour, and doesn't help anyone in any way. Good for you! And another resounding "good job" on discreetly moving your goalposts to impossibleville so that it's not just necessary to have a good enough understanding of the brain to conclude that the brain sufficiently explains the "mind" but somehow scientists also have to REPLICATE it in a lab setting. Ahh, memories of creationist logic. Take ten trillion neuronal connections and replicate it in a lab. Yeah, THEN I'm sure you'll accept without question that there's no secret/magical/invisible mind beyond the brain. Sure. Besides, the onus is on you to demonstrate your hypothesis. In science (as you well know), demonstration is the responsibility of the proponent, because you can do what you just did and make it impossible to sufficiently demonstrate a negative. You say the brain isn't everything, so what are the testable properties of the "mind" that remain after a lesion and are INCONSISTENT with the emergent properties of the neurons lost by the lesion? Go ahead.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Consciousness is a process
Is it? Who says?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
arising from the interaction between neurons. Many neurons.
How many? Why would the number be important? Does consciousness suddenly 'emerge' when you have 683,234 neurons plus 1? If a billion neurons can be conscious, why not two? Does a house fly have a mind? It has a brain after all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's akin to asking where the light is in a light bulb.
No, its akin to asking how the light got into the light bulb in the first place.
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:
Is it? Who says?
How about we call it a 'thing that happens'?
Stan Shannon wrote:
How many? Why would the number be important? Does consciousness suddenly 'emerge' when you have 683,234 neurons plus 1? If a billion neurons can be conscious, why not two? Does a house fly have a mind? It has a brain after all.
The exact number probably doesn't matter overly. It's a qualitative function depending not strictly on number but how intricately they can interconnect. Obviously with more neurons there are more connections. In the human brain there is something like 100 billion neurons, each one being able to connect to about 7000 other neurons. The number of synapses is in the order of hundred trillions to quadrillions. That's a LOT of pathways, and certainly hints at how something as complicated as consciousness could arise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, its akin to asking how the light got into the light bulb in the first place.
OK, equally as ridiculous.
-
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain. It's really easy to posit that OOH THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE... SOMETHING MAGICAL AND YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE and leave it at that like the good armchair pseudo-scientist you are but that doesn't make any difference to anyone, doesn't aid in understanding human behaviour, and doesn't help anyone in any way. Good for you! And another resounding "good job" on discreetly moving your goalposts to impossibleville so that it's not just necessary to have a good enough understanding of the brain to conclude that the brain sufficiently explains the "mind" but somehow scientists also have to REPLICATE it in a lab setting. Ahh, memories of creationist logic. Take ten trillion neuronal connections and replicate it in a lab. Yeah, THEN I'm sure you'll accept without question that there's no secret/magical/invisible mind beyond the brain. Sure. Besides, the onus is on you to demonstrate your hypothesis. In science (as you well know), demonstration is the responsibility of the proponent, because you can do what you just did and make it impossible to sufficiently demonstrate a negative. You say the brain isn't everything, so what are the testable properties of the "mind" that remain after a lesion and are INCONSISTENT with the emergent properties of the neurons lost by the lesion? Go ahead.
- F
I agree. :) Except...
Fisticuffs wrote:
ten trillion neuronal connections
I heard 100 trillion at least. ;P
-
I agree. :) Except...
Fisticuffs wrote:
ten trillion neuronal connections
I heard 100 trillion at least. ;P
-
You're a biochemist, right?
-
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain. It's really easy to posit that OOH THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE... SOMETHING MAGICAL AND YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE and leave it at that like the good armchair pseudo-scientist you are but that doesn't make any difference to anyone, doesn't aid in understanding human behaviour, and doesn't help anyone in any way. Good for you! And another resounding "good job" on discreetly moving your goalposts to impossibleville so that it's not just necessary to have a good enough understanding of the brain to conclude that the brain sufficiently explains the "mind" but somehow scientists also have to REPLICATE it in a lab setting. Ahh, memories of creationist logic. Take ten trillion neuronal connections and replicate it in a lab. Yeah, THEN I'm sure you'll accept without question that there's no secret/magical/invisible mind beyond the brain. Sure. Besides, the onus is on you to demonstrate your hypothesis. In science (as you well know), demonstration is the responsibility of the proponent, because you can do what you just did and make it impossible to sufficiently demonstrate a negative. You say the brain isn't everything, so what are the testable properties of the "mind" that remain after a lesion and are INCONSISTENT with the emergent properties of the neurons lost by the lesion? Go ahead.
- F
Firstly, I'm no more a creationist than are you. But the simple fact of the matter is that there exists no theory which explains consciousness. There is no means of reducing the phenomenon down to more basic properties. We can explain every other phenonmenon of nature down to the level of the quark. But we cannot do that with what is going on in our own brains. No one can say "if I take property X and combine it with property Y, I will generate a conscious state!". There is no mathematical formula that defines it, no chemical equation which models it. Nothing. I fully support continueing scientific exploration into the the nature of the mind, but I will never accept any explaination that cannot explain the phenomenon in terms of more basic physical properties. How does a quark cause consciousness? That is what I want to know.
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:
Is it? Who says?
How about we call it a 'thing that happens'?
Stan Shannon wrote:
How many? Why would the number be important? Does consciousness suddenly 'emerge' when you have 683,234 neurons plus 1? If a billion neurons can be conscious, why not two? Does a house fly have a mind? It has a brain after all.
The exact number probably doesn't matter overly. It's a qualitative function depending not strictly on number but how intricately they can interconnect. Obviously with more neurons there are more connections. In the human brain there is something like 100 billion neurons, each one being able to connect to about 7000 other neurons. The number of synapses is in the order of hundred trillions to quadrillions. That's a LOT of pathways, and certainly hints at how something as complicated as consciousness could arise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, its akin to asking how the light got into the light bulb in the first place.
OK, equally as ridiculous.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's a LOT of pathways, and certainly hints at how something as complicated as consciousness could arise.
Or it hints at the evolution of an organ to take advantage of the existence of some more basic property of nature, precisely as every other organ has evolved to do. The eye does not generate light after all, it has simply evolved to take advantage of the existence of light. Why should be think of the brain itself as being any different?
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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's a LOT of pathways, and certainly hints at how something as complicated as consciousness could arise.
Or it hints at the evolution of an organ to take advantage of the existence of some more basic property of nature, precisely as every other organ has evolved to do. The eye does not generate light after all, it has simply evolved to take advantage of the existence of light. Why should be think of the brain itself as being any different?
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 it hints at the evolution of an organ to take advantage of the existence of some more basic property of nature, precisely as every other organ has evolved to do.
What about the thyroid gland? Or the testes?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Or it hints at the evolution of an organ to take advantage of the existence of some more basic property of nature, precisely as every other organ has evolved to do.
What about the thyroid gland? Or the testes?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What about the thyroid gland? Or the testes?
Or the heart, or the liver... all evovled to adapt to physical properties of the environment. None of them are generating something from nothing.
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.
-
Firstly, I'm no more a creationist than are you. But the simple fact of the matter is that there exists no theory which explains consciousness. There is no means of reducing the phenomenon down to more basic properties. We can explain every other phenonmenon of nature down to the level of the quark. But we cannot do that with what is going on in our own brains. No one can say "if I take property X and combine it with property Y, I will generate a conscious state!". There is no mathematical formula that defines it, no chemical equation which models it. Nothing. I fully support continueing scientific exploration into the the nature of the mind, but I will never accept any explaination that cannot explain the phenomenon in terms of more basic physical properties. How does a quark cause consciousness? That is what I want to know.
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 simple fact of the matter is that there exists no theory which explains consciousness.
Yes, that of 100 trillion neuronal connections in the brain. Maybe you should start by defining "mind" and "consciousness." Because it seems like you're looking awfully hard for a way to make them more complicated then they really are. Quarks? Reducing to "basic properties?" No mathematical formula exists? You're working hard to attach unnecessary conditions to the understanding of human behaviour for no reason other than to obfuscate the issue. Hell, I could just as easily say that I don't accept that this computer works with electricity alone because nobody has figured out what an electron is made of. So I'll start: We store memories of the input of the five senses using neuronal plasticity via the hippocampus - and can also generate new neurons and new connections in the hippo. Some memories are stronger than others (and are therefore more influential in planning) as mediated by adjacently triggered emotional/physical stimuli. We recall those memories in order to plan actions. How does this not satisfactorily explain human behaviour?
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What about the thyroid gland? Or the testes?
Or the heart, or the liver... all evovled to adapt to physical properties of the environment. None of them are generating something from nothing.
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 the heart, or the liver... all evovled to adapt to physical properties of the environment.
I don't even know what you mean. I suspect you don't either.
Stan Shannon wrote:
None of them are generating something from nothing.
The brain doesn't.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is it? Who says?
How about we call it a 'thing that happens'?
Stan Shannon wrote:
How many? Why would the number be important? Does consciousness suddenly 'emerge' when you have 683,234 neurons plus 1? If a billion neurons can be conscious, why not two? Does a house fly have a mind? It has a brain after all.
The exact number probably doesn't matter overly. It's a qualitative function depending not strictly on number but how intricately they can interconnect. Obviously with more neurons there are more connections. In the human brain there is something like 100 billion neurons, each one being able to connect to about 7000 other neurons. The number of synapses is in the order of hundred trillions to quadrillions. That's a LOT of pathways, and certainly hints at how something as complicated as consciousness could arise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, its akin to asking how the light got into the light bulb in the first place.
OK, equally as ridiculous.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How about we call it a 'thing that happens'?
So it's just semantics?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The exact number probably doesn't matter overly
In other words, you have no idea?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, equally as ridiculous.
Of course it's rediculous. We know exactly how lightbulbs came to exist, why they are created,and who made them. Unless of course, you are saying they just spontaneously came about when lightning struck some primordial chemical soup. You know a lot, grasshopper, but your analogy sucks scissors sideways.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain. It's really easy to posit that OOH THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE... SOMETHING MAGICAL AND YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE and leave it at that like the good armchair pseudo-scientist you are but that doesn't make any difference to anyone, doesn't aid in understanding human behaviour, and doesn't help anyone in any way. Good for you! And another resounding "good job" on discreetly moving your goalposts to impossibleville so that it's not just necessary to have a good enough understanding of the brain to conclude that the brain sufficiently explains the "mind" but somehow scientists also have to REPLICATE it in a lab setting. Ahh, memories of creationist logic. Take ten trillion neuronal connections and replicate it in a lab. Yeah, THEN I'm sure you'll accept without question that there's no secret/magical/invisible mind beyond the brain. Sure. Besides, the onus is on you to demonstrate your hypothesis. In science (as you well know), demonstration is the responsibility of the proponent, because you can do what you just did and make it impossible to sufficiently demonstrate a negative. You say the brain isn't everything, so what are the testable properties of the "mind" that remain after a lesion and are INCONSISTENT with the emergent properties of the neurons lost by the lesion? Go ahead.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
The simple fact is that consciousness (alertness as a function of the brainstem, awareness as a function of the cortex) and complex behaviour (cortical) is well explained by the physical properties of the brain.
No, it's neither simple, nor explained. To point to something and say, "That's where it happens," is not an explanation; it's geography. The problem you and Ravel face in arguing with Stan by the way, is that he (like me) does not claim to have T.H.E. A.N.S.W.E.R. But, unlike too many folks who think that everything there is to know has already been discovered, he does not let the fact that he does not know it, mean that he dismisses the question.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How about we call it a 'thing that happens'?
So it's just semantics?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The exact number probably doesn't matter overly
In other words, you have no idea?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, equally as ridiculous.
Of course it's rediculous. We know exactly how lightbulbs came to exist, why they are created,and who made them. Unless of course, you are saying they just spontaneously came about when lightning struck some primordial chemical soup. You know a lot, grasshopper, but your analogy sucks scissors sideways.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So it's just semantics?
I would hardly call 'thing that happens' arguing semantics.
Oakman wrote:
In other words, you have no idea?
I have some idea. For example, an infant has about 10 times more synaptic connections than an adult. I was just weakly asserting it, because when I say things with more certainty you always disparage me for it.
Oakman wrote:
Of course it's rediculous. We know exactly how lightbulbs came to exist, why they are created,and who made them. Unless of course, you are saying they just spontaneously came about when lightning struck some primordial chemical soup. You know a lot, grasshopper, but your analogy sucks scissors sideways.
Only because you suck at interpreting them. I wasn't talking about where the lightbulb came from, I was talking about where the light is contained within it.