This is disgusting [modified]
-
Synaptrik wrote:
But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
I don't need to provide evidence that there can ONLY be - you would essentially be asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible or pragmatic. It's the difference between me telling you to prove you're not a homosexual and you claiming that you are a heterosexual (eg citing a wife/girlfriend) and challenging me to demonstrate otherwise. How the hell would you prove that you aren't? In the face of evidence you might provide I guess I could claim that you *might* be a homosexual, but what difference does it make to claim things about what might be? So I only need to provide evidence that the brain is sufficient to explain human behaviour. And to that I respond with (again) the brain lesion studies, brain imaging studies, live brain stimulation studies, studies of drug effects, studies of known neuroanatomy, in-vitro studies of neuronal plasticity mechanisms (eg potentiation), and animal models. This massive amount of empiric knowledge reasonably explains human behaviour as a function of the brain. So you have two options: 1) go get a neuroanatomy/physiology text and learn it, then pick out inconsistencies, because I'm certainly not going to offer a comprehensive education on the subject here 2) provide a counter-example that can not be explained by existing mechanisms, which would be sufficient to demonstrate your point So if you want to ACTUALLY claim that there is more than the brain, then do it. If all you want to do is claim there MIGHT be, well, that's swell, but it's useless meandering of no practical consequence. FYI, I'm ignoring your other posts as this already addresses those points.
- F
So far throughout this thread Ravel and you both have argued that there is no other component other than physical to explain consciousness. Stan and I have suggested that its possible that there is more. You have rebuttled with "Nuh uh." Now, we have not claimed this as fact, but as a possibility and more to the point a direction we favor in our musings. So, yes. The onus is on you to provide empirical evidence if you wish to sway our musings. And you correctly assert that that isn't possible. So leave it at that. Note also, that we have not attempted to convince you of our position. Only to get you to admit that it is possible. You have attempted to convince us of your position. Hence the onus of empirical evidence resides with you.
This statement is false
-
Let me see if I have this right...we were having a discussion about the mind, the brain and neuroscience and you somehow thought my sig was relative to the discussion, in the absence of any other reason for singling me out. I wasn't mocking "Al," I was asking him a serious question. Since you didn't respond to "Al," I can only assume that you believe he was not mocking me and agree with what he wrote. Have I missed anything?
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
-
Clever bit of sophistry there. Evaded my point entirely. Nicely done.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Have I missed anything?
Entirely.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Clever bit of sophistry there. Evaded my point entirely. Nicely done.
Ditto
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
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I wasn't referring to the scientific community. I was refering to you, fisty, and the entire social movement that uses every otherwise unrelated bit of scientific research to give its political views some sort of phoney legitimacy. I realize that it might be difficult for you to accept, but you have no relationship at all to any entity that can be legitimately called 'the scientific community' and probably never will.
This may come as a huge shock for you, but I don't actually really consider myself to have a political affiliation. Simply because I don't care. I certainly wouldn't intentionally bastardise scientific research to further my 'political views'. I would gladly accept some good scientific evidence for what you're saying, but there isn't any. I know you think you have good arguments, but you don't. They show a profound lack of understanding in the matter.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I certainly wouldn't intentionally bastardise scientific research to further my 'political views'.
That fact is that you belong to a very well developed political movement which does just that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I would gladly accept some good scientific evidence for what you're saying, but there isn't any.
I never said there was. The point is that science cannot progress at all without someone thinking outside the box about something. The problem with the modern politicalization of science is that it now prohibits certain lines of thought which have not already been validated by scientific results. If either Einstien, Newton, or even Darwin had existed in such an intellectual environment, our science would not have progressed at all to where it is now.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
know you think you have good arguments, but you don't.
Thats an arrogant statement. I think no such thing. I think about things because they are fun to think about, not because they are validated by someone's exeperimental evidence. Its fun to consider possible alternatives of the standard model validated by science, free of the confining influence of intellectual authority. The only sad thing is that an old man has to tell you that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They show a profound lack of understanding in the matter.
No, they show an understanding of something far more profound than your young mind has yet considered.
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:
That is actually a perfect example. The traffic jam consists of component parts, what does conscioiusness consist of?
It's a good analogy, but not in the way that you think it is. The cars represent the neurons in the brain, and a 'traffic jam' is the name of the phenomenon arising from a specific kind of interaction between them. A traffic jam is not a 'thing' per se, in the same way that the mind is not a 'thing'. A traffic jam doesn't just consist of component parts, it's also very much about how they interact.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why would there be space itself?
I dunno. But there is. And it's existence doesn't prove the other thing's.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I never suggested that. Perhaps it pervades everything as a fundamental property of the universe. Perhpas the brain is merely adpated to provide observational properties to consciousness.
Perhaps it does. Or perhaps we're all figments of a dream of a wise and very ancient ice-cream man who lives in the centre of Saturn? It has just as much evidence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps we don't - only different perspectives.
And this is a good explanation...how?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't know, but my guess would be teenagers...
The fact is that it didn't. Its purpose is to concentrate bile produced by the liver, and that's why it's there. It doesn't see light, feel heat, point North. It evolved because it's useful, and so did the brain. It's there to help organisms survive by processing information and making rational judgments based off it, to learn from mistakes, to remember, etc.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a good analogy, but not in the way that you think it is. The cars represent the neurons in the brain, and a 'traffic jam' is the name of the phenomenon arising from a specific kind of interaction between them. A traffic jam is not a 'thing' per se, in the same way that the mind is not a 'thing'. A traffic jam doesn't just consist of component parts, it's also very much about how they interact.
Than we are back to my previous comment - consciousness has no reality. It isn't real. It is nothing more than ... well... something else. For your analogy to be correct, you would have to suggst that a collection of cars in some particular arrangment can generate a conscious state. Whats the difference between cars and neurons? Why couldn't a traffic jam be conscious? If neurons can do it, why not cars?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It has just as much evidence.
What evidence do you have that neurons generate consciousness?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And this is a good explanation...how?
I didn't say it was an explaination of anything. Its just a different way of thinking about things. seeing the universe from a different point of view.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact is that it didn't. Its purpose is to concentrate bile produced by the liver, and that's why it's there. It doesn't see light, feel heat, point North. It evolved because it's useful,
And it is useful due to the physical parameters confronted by the overall organism.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's there to help organisms survive by processing information and making rational judgments based off it, to learn from mistakes, to remember, etc.
But that isn't an explanation of how it acutally works. If the gall bladder can function without being conscious, why can't the brain?
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.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
"He who knows says he knows not, while he who knows not says he knows."
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
So far throughout this thread Ravel and you both have argued that there is no other component other than physical to explain consciousness. Stan and I have suggested that its possible that there is more. You have rebuttled with "Nuh uh." Now, we have not claimed this as fact, but as a possibility and more to the point a direction we favor in our musings. So, yes. The onus is on you to provide empirical evidence if you wish to sway our musings. And you correctly assert that that isn't possible. So leave it at that. Note also, that we have not attempted to convince you of our position. Only to get you to admit that it is possible. You have attempted to convince us of your position. Hence the onus of empirical evidence resides with you.
This statement is false
You saying so doesn't make it so. If you'd like to emphasize the fact that I'm not going to teach you biochemistry and neuroanatomy to prove a point on the internet, I guess you can count that as a moral victory. :laugh: But you're still ignorant. My point is that you can claim all the possibilities you want, but who cares? There's a slim chance that pink unicorns farting make up human consciousness. Have fun with your endless possibilities. :rolleyes: The only useful ones are the ones that are testable.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I certainly wouldn't intentionally bastardise scientific research to further my 'political views'.
That fact is that you belong to a very well developed political movement which does just that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I would gladly accept some good scientific evidence for what you're saying, but there isn't any.
I never said there was. The point is that science cannot progress at all without someone thinking outside the box about something. The problem with the modern politicalization of science is that it now prohibits certain lines of thought which have not already been validated by scientific results. If either Einstien, Newton, or even Darwin had existed in such an intellectual environment, our science would not have progressed at all to where it is now.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
know you think you have good arguments, but you don't.
Thats an arrogant statement. I think no such thing. I think about things because they are fun to think about, not because they are validated by someone's exeperimental evidence. Its fun to consider possible alternatives of the standard model validated by science, free of the confining influence of intellectual authority. The only sad thing is that an old man has to tell you that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They show a profound lack of understanding in the matter.
No, they show an understanding of something far more profound than your young mind has yet considered.
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:
I never said there was. The point is that science cannot progress at all without someone thinking outside the box about something.
There's thinking outside the box, but science still requires testable and falsifiable hypotheses to remain true to scientific philosophy and be useful to, oh, i dunno, anyone. The drivel you spout and teenagers going, "but what if we're all just part of the matrix, dude" are empirically equivalent.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a good analogy, but not in the way that you think it is. The cars represent the neurons in the brain, and a 'traffic jam' is the name of the phenomenon arising from a specific kind of interaction between them. A traffic jam is not a 'thing' per se, in the same way that the mind is not a 'thing'. A traffic jam doesn't just consist of component parts, it's also very much about how they interact.
Than we are back to my previous comment - consciousness has no reality. It isn't real. It is nothing more than ... well... something else. For your analogy to be correct, you would have to suggst that a collection of cars in some particular arrangment can generate a conscious state. Whats the difference between cars and neurons? Why couldn't a traffic jam be conscious? If neurons can do it, why not cars?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It has just as much evidence.
What evidence do you have that neurons generate consciousness?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And this is a good explanation...how?
I didn't say it was an explaination of anything. Its just a different way of thinking about things. seeing the universe from a different point of view.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact is that it didn't. Its purpose is to concentrate bile produced by the liver, and that's why it's there. It doesn't see light, feel heat, point North. It evolved because it's useful,
And it is useful due to the physical parameters confronted by the overall organism.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's there to help organisms survive by processing information and making rational judgments based off it, to learn from mistakes, to remember, etc.
But that isn't an explanation of how it acutally works. If the gall bladder can function without being conscious, why can't the brain?
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 that isn't an explanation of how it acutally works. If the gall bladder can function without being conscious, why can't the brain?
So did you ever learn the biochemical basis of neuronal action or what? Because you ask some pretty stupid fucking questions for someone with a BSc. You seriously don't know how a brain works? Neurons, oligodendrocytes, astrocytes? Sodium, potassium, action potentials, anything like that ringing a bell? Dendrites, axonal transport, kinesin, actin, myosin? Anything?
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that isn't an explanation of how it acutally works. If the gall bladder can function without being conscious, why can't the brain?
So did you ever learn the biochemical basis of neuronal action or what? Because you ask some pretty stupid fucking questions for someone with a BSc. You seriously don't know how a brain works? Neurons, oligodendrocytes, astrocytes? Sodium, potassium, action potentials, anything like that ringing a bell? Dendrites, axonal transport, kinesin, actin, myosin? Anything?
- F
Yeah, I actually have a degree in biology, with about 8 hours of organic chemistry. And at one time my goal was to actually study neural anatomy for the very purpose of understanding consciousness and integration with computers and all that cool stuff. The problem is that none of that can explain consciousness. It is simply impossible. Unless you are suggesting it resides somewhere in the sodium atoms, or the action potentials or the dendrites or the whatever. I'm not the one asking the stupid questions. There is a bigger mystery here than can be explained away by the magic of 'emergent properties'. Either you are not thinking the problem through sufficiently, or you simply refuse to confront it because it brings your entire intellectual framework into question. The real irony is that consciousness is the only aspect of the universe that we actually experience in any direct way. It is the only thing you can possibly experience which is not, in fact, an illusion. Yet it is the one thing you refuse to ackowledge has any actual reality.
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.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
"He who knows says he knows not, while he who knows not says he knows."
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true. I can provide a counter-example: a guy has a weird lesion on his arm, and asks his busboy friend what it is. "I don't know, you'd better see a doctor." Guy goes to see doctor, who says, "I know what that is, it's solar keratosis." Of course, maybe the doctor should have entertained the possibility that it was a scar from when the aliens implanted a tracking device in the guy. There's no reason why it should be, but it's possible after all.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Gary isn't a threat. You are using your generic example to justify attempting to sway Gary's beliefs. I do find it funny that you both attempt to sway the other. Nothing like watching two true-believers going at it trying to convince the other.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I absolutely can,
Provide it then. And let me preface that Stan wasn't suggesting that what Ravel was presenting wasn't true on its own, but not exclusive to the debate. That there could in fact be more than what's presented. That mind may in fact be more than the interaction of synapses and neurons. But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
This statement is false
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Synaptrik wrote:</div>But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain. </blockquote> http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=brain+damage+personality+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search[^] There. Empirical evidence. Go nuts.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No. That's because the question is formulated in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.
Exactly. Absolutes are testy beasts. My point is that its silly to state that we know absolutely, anything. There will always be a bit of mystery involved. And...
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So you think I should cloak myself in fantasy and ignorance?
Not at all. Its a proverb. I'm not supposed to impart any meaning onto you. You are to derive from it what you will. But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Exactly. Absolutes are testy beasts. My point is that its silly to state that we know absolutely, anything. There will always be a bit of mystery involved.
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say. The theory that the mind is physical explains the structure of the brain, is testable, and falsifiable, and makes useful predictions. These predictions include people's minds changing in a predictable way following physical injury to the brain. There are thousands of documented instances of this. It also explains why psychoactive drugs work the way that they do. Of course the mind could be non-physical. It could be ANYTHING if you define it in such a way as to be completely useless and unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
A roller-coaster is only fun if you know that it's not going to kill you.
-
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true. I can provide a counter-example: a guy has a weird lesion on his arm, and asks his busboy friend what it is. "I don't know, you'd better see a doctor." Guy goes to see doctor, who says, "I know what that is, it's solar keratosis." Of course, maybe the doctor should have entertained the possibility that it was a scar from when the aliens implanted a tracking device in the guy. There's no reason why it should be, but it's possible after all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true.
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can provide a counter-example
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence. But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true.
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can provide a counter-example
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence. But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Make me a sandwich.
Oakman wrote:
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence.
I admit that I don't know everything. I have no problem admitting that. But I do know that it's pointless to conjure up a transcendental mind when the physical mind - at this point in scientific understanding - explains everything perfectly. It's like saying that the law of conservation of angular momentum only works because little invisible demons grab a hold of the object and make it work. Sure it's narrow-minded of me to not consider it, sure I arrogantly believe I know everything because I don't believe it, sure it's possible, sure nobody can prove that it doesn't work like that, but it's a completely empty idea.
Oakman wrote:
But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Was that before it was discovered or just before it was really understood?
-
You saying so doesn't make it so. If you'd like to emphasize the fact that I'm not going to teach you biochemistry and neuroanatomy to prove a point on the internet, I guess you can count that as a moral victory. :laugh: But you're still ignorant. My point is that you can claim all the possibilities you want, but who cares? There's a slim chance that pink unicorns farting make up human consciousness. Have fun with your endless possibilities. :rolleyes: The only useful ones are the ones that are testable.
- F
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Synaptrik wrote:</div>But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain. </blockquote> http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=brain+damage+personality+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search[^] There. Empirical evidence. Go nuts.
-
OK, now resort to petty insults because a few of us are open to the possibilities that we don't know everything there is to know about mind and consciousness. You're really proving your point with this schoolyard bull. How old are you, 12?
This statement is false
-
Oakman wrote:
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Make me a sandwich.
Oakman wrote:
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence.
I admit that I don't know everything. I have no problem admitting that. But I do know that it's pointless to conjure up a transcendental mind when the physical mind - at this point in scientific understanding - explains everything perfectly. It's like saying that the law of conservation of angular momentum only works because little invisible demons grab a hold of the object and make it work. Sure it's narrow-minded of me to not consider it, sure I arrogantly believe I know everything because I don't believe it, sure it's possible, sure nobody can prove that it doesn't work like that, but it's a completely empty idea.
Oakman wrote:
But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Was that before it was discovered or just before it was really understood?
Is it really that difficult to accept that some of us are comfortable with the idea that there could be more to mind and consciousness than the gears and pulleys you insist entirely make up the show? I'm not trying to convince you that it is. But its my stance. My belief. I'm not suggesting that you share the same thoughts. Don't twist your Mind over it so much. What bugs you about me believing this? Why do you experience cognitive dissonance regarding what I believe? I'm ok with you being atheist and Gary being a theist. Doesn't bother me at all. I'm agnostic. I'm one of those weirdos who accepts that we can't know the truth of some things. That a little mystery goes a long way. Enjoy.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Exactly. Absolutes are testy beasts. My point is that its silly to state that we know absolutely, anything. There will always be a bit of mystery involved.
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say. The theory that the mind is physical explains the structure of the brain, is testable, and falsifiable, and makes useful predictions. These predictions include people's minds changing in a predictable way following physical injury to the brain. There are thousands of documented instances of this. It also explains why psychoactive drugs work the way that they do. Of course the mind could be non-physical. It could be ANYTHING if you define it in such a way as to be completely useless and unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
A roller-coaster is only fun if you know that it's not going to kill you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say.
Who criticized you? I didn't ask you to believe me. I said what I believe and you proceeded to tell me I was wrong. You and fisty are criticizing Stan and I for what we believe which is only that we don't know. Hah! So relax. If you really are just a teenager, then relax. Not everything is testable with the tools present. N-Dimensional Non-Euclidean Geometry presents some interesting notions. If mind happened to exist in more than 3 dimensions, how would you expect it to be falsifiable in 3? Have you ever experienced time fluctuations in your mind? Of course, in dreams. Time isn't the same. That's 4th dimension. But, you'll probably respond with more insults and start quoting the uselessness of my theories.
This statement is false