This is disgusting [modified]
-
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
paucity
You love that word.
Oakman wrote:
I believe anyone who thinks they've got it all figured out shows a paucity of imagination.
I don't think I've got it all figured out. But I do think I'm closer to doing so than someone completely incapable of accepting that they might be wrong. And before you say anything, no, I'm not too stubborn to recognise that I might be wrong about something - it just takes more than empty rhetoric to convince me.
Oakman wrote:
Nor can you say it doesn't, just because. An absence of proof is not an absence of truth.
I can say that it almost certainly doesn't exist, at least not in the way that these guys are talking about. It being there would violate just about every law of nature that I can think of; entire fields of science would have to be completely reformulated. Why would I favour or give equal ground to that idea when I could go with the one consistent with the anatomy and physiology of the brain?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You love that word.
I love words. I love the English language - it is rich in nuance, powerful in its synonyms, and beautiful in grandeur.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
someone completely incapable of accepting that they might be wrong.
It would appear that is you. I freely admit that you might be right - or that Stan is - or Ilion is (in which case, Hell is definitely the place to go for good company). Stan appears to be far more interested in protecting the right to consider possibilities, not dismissing them because they don't fit his world view. You, on the other hand, are advancing this months pet theories as if they are eternal verities.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You love that word.
I love words. I love the English language - it is rich in nuance, powerful in its synonyms, and beautiful in grandeur.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
someone completely incapable of accepting that they might be wrong.
It would appear that is you. I freely admit that you might be right - or that Stan is - or Ilion is (in which case, Hell is definitely the place to go for good company). Stan appears to be far more interested in protecting the right to consider possibilities, not dismissing them because they don't fit his world view. You, on the other hand, are advancing this months pet theories as if they are eternal verities.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I love words. I love the English language - it is rich in nuance, powerful in its synonyms, and beautiful in grandeur.
So do I.
Oakman wrote:
It would appear that is you.
And veins appear blue. Doesn't mean that they are.
Oakman wrote:
Stan appears to be far more interested in protecting the right to consider possibilities, not dismissing them because they don't fit his world view. You, on the other hand, are advancing this months pet theories as if they are eternal verities.
The second that someone here advances a theory about consciousness that isn't completely retarded, I'll be prepared to adjust my thoughts regarding it.
-
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.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
don't even know what you mean. I suspect you don't either.
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The brain doesn't.
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
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:
don't even know what you mean. I suspect you don't either.
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The brain doesn't.
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
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:
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
OK.
Stan Shannon wrote:
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all. In fact, YOU'RE the one saying that. Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
-
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
Fisticuffs wrote:
Maybe you should start by defining "mind" and "consciousness."
And that is precisely the point. Does consciousness exist or doesn't it? If it does, what the hell is it? Is it a form of energy? A state of matter? You are trying to oversimplify the issue by dismissing the core question - What the fuck am I? And you are doing it precisely because you are vested philosphically in promoting a purposeless, mechanistic universe. Any thing that might possibly conflict with that is to be swept under the carpet and ignored. If my mind is the result of purely mindless mechanisitc processess, I want an explanation that isn't based on some magic number of neurons.
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.
-
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
Oakman wrote:
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.
Exactly. This all smacks too much of trying to keep the earth at the center of the universe so that the underlieing philosophical foundations that everyone is invested in won't be disturbed. We force things to conform to some predefined rationality. But there can be no true progress unless you are capable of stepping outside that box.
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:
Every physical property of the human body represents an adaption to the physical properties of the environment in which we evolved.
OK.
Stan Shannon wrote:
According to you it does - unless you are saying that consciousness doesn't really exist at all. That it is merely a kind of illusion.
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all. In fact, YOU'RE the one saying that. Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all.
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was. All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
The conscious part - you know - being awake.
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:
Wha...? I'm not saying that at all.
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was. All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Tell me what part of the mind isn't explained by the anatomy and physiology of the brain.
The conscious part - you know - being awake.
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:
Yes, you are. You are saying explicitely that consciousness is being generated by the brain, that it is a unique property of the universe which does not exist until some particular arrangment of matter just happens to occur. That it does not have any more basic physical reality than dancing around like a ghost on a 100 trillion neural connections, or what ever the magic number was.
It has the same physical reality as a traffic jam. It doesn't exist until you have traffic, and it depends on how many cars you have and how they're arranged.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All I'm saying is that that is a questionable assumption. I submit that it makes more sense to assume that the brain has evolved to adapt to some as yet mysterious property of the universe which we experience as consciousness. That, if consciousness exists, that there is no reason to suppose that it must exist in only one particular arrangment of matter and energy.
I think that that's extremely unlikely. Why would there be a completely undetectable 'mind field' extending throughout all of space and only interacting with a particular arrangement of matter? Why would people have separate consciousnesses if they were all interacting with the same field? And what 'property of reality' did the gallbladder adapt to?
-
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.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I thought you were referring to the prejudice that you undoubtedly harbour against cognitive neuroscience.
:sigh: I harbour no prejudice against neuroscience (or any science), nor have I expressed any in this thread. Science is a tool that is useful in explaining things to which it has a view, i.e. the physical world. I believe there are things that exist apart from (or outside of) the physical world and, as such, can't be explained by science.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Seriously
That's what's so funny!
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