Materialism and Consciousness.

[Sidhe]

Witgenstein got rather too tied up on the idea of everything boiling down to the way you said something and what the words meant, I think this is a little too reductionist for my liking, I acknowledge the point. But if philosophy is only about the language then we could just simply spend all our time playing with words and going round in circles, at some point someones got to give us something to work with that isn't open to intepritation and meaning analysis:

Conciousness=Thought+encryption in synapses via chemical and electrical impulse. So an Orange = the representation of 80 synapses arranged in a pattern that represents and can be translated by our visualisation centre to match d, which is a representation of the image of orange that was obtained form the optic nerve.

image below represents the initial path of travel of an impulse from the optic nerve through the circuit pathways of the visual cortex as expressed by the chemicle encoding sequences. It is now compared in group a retrieved from memory cortex b and then fed back to the optic nerve and imaged and relayed back to the visual cortex. each number can be between 1 and 80 so it is in base 80 most paths are between 1-16 range though

Orange=
10122x3*43232
ee37483483844
488f5784e58745
459f448948594
4545454z54545
232f9328323233
3434d387837483
463776327e63f7z
&^1243*3232647

= visual image

smell and taste= so on and so on

etc,etc,etc

We got to at least try and make sense of stuff and not get to caught up in semantics, philosophy of philosophy and playing with words is all very well as long as it makes a point

Please don't think this is a theory of how the brain encodes anything as such I'm just trying to make a point. I'm sure it's all nonsense or whatever

 

[CartesianFart]

Looking at your previous posts I get the feeling that you tend to shoot from the hip and believe things that you read because they feel right and not because you understand them. Please reread the first part of your signature, I think it applies here.

The insight is that we are not special, we come from the lineage of life and share everything with it. None of the things you listed need to be separated from our physical aspects - just looked at in an evolutionary light.

Looks of here of these two quotes that you have just quoted [i switch it around]pretty much say that you liketo contradict youself.Or unless this is a prime example of the beginning of senility. Not to be too much argumentum ad hominem

It seems that by philosophize you mean 'spout nonsense'. I understand that that is the OT tradition, but I prefer more grounded conversation.

I don't understand this metaphor,"grounded conversation."Please elaborate.

Nearly everything you listed are behaviors seen in organisms much simpler than ourselves, that is where insight must start. That or revelation.

Are you saying that we must not confuse what is a human being and an animal or other organism?

 

[Sidhe]

Heh, still mad about how I dismissed your QM stuff eh?

I've looked at lots of 'stuff on biology', it would take a course to even begin to get at the basic literature on one of these topics. I did study animal behavior in college, admittedly a long time ago - but it is a topic I am interested in. I still read and engage in philosophy.

The insight is that we are not special, we come from the lineage of life and share everything with it. None of the things you listed need to be separated from our physical aspects - just looked at in an evolutionary light.

I did offer a couple examples of how things get biologically encoded. Did you want a discussion of how rods and cones work? Of how our heart keeps beating? Of eusocial behavior in insects? I did not say 'it is just there' about anything afaikt.

What do you mean by 'thought can effect DNA'?
Maybe you mean gene expression? What?
How would that lead to instinct?

What I've said previously is that there is no need for free will (in the sense cg meant, I actually am closer to Ayatollah So in philosophy), and that I don't see where such a thing would originate. This is not from a lack of imagination, quite the opposite. These ideas are quite obviously at odds with most peoples world view.

I did offer possible origins for free will in my response to cg (post #381), and that I don't see the need for them.

Looking at your previous posts I get the feeling that you tend to shoot from the hip and believe things that you read because they feel right and not because you understand them. Please reread the first part of your signature, I think it applies here.

It seems that by philosophize you mean 'spout nonsense'. I understand that that is the OT tradition, but I prefer more grounded conversation.

If you want a more specific discussion about any of the topics you listed, you need to ask more specific questions.

Nearly everything you listed are behaviors seen in organisms much simpler than ourselves, that is where insight must start. That or revelation.

You didn't dismiss it at all all you said was it was open to interpritation, saying you dismissed it is total nonsense, I'm still waiting to hear exactly how your saying there is no free will based on a total understanding of human thought?

Any answer would have been better than yours it goes to show the difference between those who advocate free will and those who dismiss it, no concept of the difficulty of the problem involved and no understanding of it either, just reductionism and saying must be true then, I've explained nothing but why should I have to it's all as simple as ABC or DNA total crap and you know it con sarn it

Gotta love this guy he says it's all so simple but science can't explain how any of the bahviours work in animals at the fundemental level at any level but it's all so simple. Come on then how does the brain encode information from this explain how thought works now explain emotion now explain exactly how we remember, you can't explain jack because no one in science can explain it, your like the guy in the Simpsons who when Lisa asks him to explain something about the monorail he says, we both know only you and I would understand the answer, a sort of flim flam artist with no insight at all into just how difficult the problem is to tackle and just how little knowledge we have or real comprehension on anything but the most simplistic and superficial level?

So I'll ask again tell me again how free will doesnt exist or is irrelevant and this time I want some diagrams and a bar graph and some science to back it up not just hot air or circles within circles?

I am thiinking and making suggestions the way you talk about things sometimes it sounds alot like you think and know the answer when in fact it's just a suggestion. This is not an example of thinking but of ignorance IMO.

 

[El_Machinae]

Consider how legal punishment would use your term? Can we send anyone to jail any more? Can we continue to beleive in "evil" crimes that warrant the death penalty or life imprisonment? Why would these questions be decided democratically, anyway?

I think that this can be answered quite easily. Even if there is a control ("we'll always do what we think is best for us"), it makes sense for society to effect that control.

We've noticed, over time, that punishing people for undesirable behaviour reduces that undesirable behaviour. In effect, we're changing the only option for "what's best for the criminal".

In neurology, we have a different question though. A lot of criminal behaviour comes from the inability to enact long-term planning (people just don't see the consequences of their actions). Increasing the convinction rate really helps (in two ways, ridding the streets of criminals and scaring other potential criminals), and conviction and punishment tend to increase the 'health' of the part of the brain associated with long-term planning (hmmmn, "tend to" is the wrong word because it might not be common - "can increase the health" is better).

Just like, training a child to be disciplined increases their ability to be disciplined.

SO, if the health of these parts of the brain (Self-control, long-term planning, etc) can be augmented by medicines (instead of just the 'therapy' of incarceration), do we have the right (or even duty) to augment people this way?

 

[CartesianFart]

Witgenstein got rather too tied up on the idea of everything boiling down to the way you said something and what the words meant, I think this is a little too reductionist for my liking, I acknowledge the point. But if philosophy is only about the language then we could just simply spend all our time playing with words and going round in circles, at some point someones got to give us something to work with that isn't open to intepritation and meaning analysis:

I think you are failing the point of what i am writing here.Philosophers(the middle man between science and religion) role today is to be a travel guide,merely putting stop signs for other travelers carrying a backpack of a particular knowledge in order to make sure that the traveler do not step outside the socially agreed rules which lay down both meanings and references of the knowledge that the traveler is pursuing.Philosophers(the true 21st century ones)are merely linguists.

Conciousness=Thought+encryption in synapses via chemical and electrical impulse. So an Orange = the representation of 80 synapses arranged in a pattern that represents and can be translated by our visualisation centre to match d, which is a representation of the image of orange that was obtained form the optic nerve.

image below represents the initial path of travel of an impulse from the optic nerve through the circuit pathways of the visual cortex as expressed by the chemicle encoding sequences. It is now compared in group a retrieved from memory cortex b and then fed back to the optic nerve and imaged. each number can be between 1 and 80 so it is in base 80 most paths are between 1-16 range though

Orange=
10122x3*43232
ee37483483844
488f5784e58745
459f448948594
4545454z54545
232f9328323233
3434d387837483
463776327e63f7z
&^1243*3232647


smell and taste= so on and so on

etc,etc,etc

We got to at least try and make sense of stuff and not get to caught up in semantics, philosophy of philosophy and playing with words is all very well as long as it makes a point

Please don't think this is a theory of how the brain encodes anything as such I'm just trying to make a point. I'm sure it's all nonsense or whatever

No problem.I find this interesting.But since this is new to me.I have to inquire this on my own.What science is this?

 

[Sidhe]

It isn't science as such it's just me trying to make sense of the problem science has with explaining exactly how the brain stores and encodes visual images. I seriously doubt if its very scientificaly valid but then it's about as valid as any other theory of how the brain does it at the moment since no one has the vaguest idea.

I messed up anyway it should have been encoded via the visual cortex by way of the optic nerve sent to memory then later retrieved and returned to the optic nerve imaged and returned back to the visual cortex damn sorry

 

[CartesianFart]

It isn't science as such it's just me trying to make sense of the problem science has with explaining exactly how the brain stores and encodes visual images. I seriously doubt if its very scientificaly valid but then it's about as valid as any other theory of how the brain does it at the moment since no one has the vaguest idea.

I messed up anyway it should have been encoded via the visual cortex by way of the optic nerve sent to memory then later retrieved and returned to the optic nerve imaged and returned back to the visual cortex damn sorry

Don't quit your day job for an Optometrician specialist.

 

[Sidhe]

I think you missed the point anyway, it was merely pointing out that at some point we have to resort to science, it's painfull but without proving in some sense our ideas we have nothing to philosophise on

Which is abotu where philosophy is at the moment, no ones come up with any real biological answers to how thought works so philosophy has kind of stalled on represetning ideas without actually having anything concrete to work with.

As I said in the original post it isn't suposed to be an explanation that's scientifically correct it's merely there to make a point

If it's correct I'll eat my hat and my foot

 

[CartesianFart]

I think you missed the point anyway, it was merely pointing out that at some point we have to resort to science, it's painfull but without proving in some sense our ideas we have nothing to philosophise on

I got the 'point'.But what i am saying is that you and alot of people are not aware that philosophy have changed from the tradition of the enlightenment(which most of the posters in this thread is confusing or not acknowledging the important of this movement).But you are somewhat expressing a post-modernistic one of philosophy and that is pretty much been going around since Nietzche to all the way to the radical "Viennese Circle",from Austria to all of England and North America.

I got this book and i will repeat a brief detail on the situation of Science from a typical Post-Modernist perspective:

No branch of human knowledge escape from this radical and corrosive postmodern relativism.Science and logic are similary accused of being "constructs"-merely interpretations of experience.There is no timeless and universal reality,and no certain knowledge of it either

.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS PROVISIONAL

Thomas Kuhn(i highly agree with this view) said that scientists are more like religious believers than neutral investigators,and their science is mediated by the rarely questioned central "paradigms" of their community.

Of course this is relativism.I could be wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

that scientists are more like religious believers than neutral investigators,and their science is mediated by the rarely questioned central "paradigms" of their community.

Stunningly true. But part of our 'faith' is that our paradigms have been tested by previous scientists with the same rigour that we test our current additions.

I have a friend who has disproven an assumption in biochemistry that's been held since 1968 (regarding the bonding of Lanthanide, I believe) - but when the results get published, he'll change the paradigm a bit. (Although, one reason why the 'false' theory has lasted 40 years is because it is rarely referenced - but in 2005 it was!)

 

[CartesianFart]

Stunningly true. But part of our 'faith' is that our paradigms have been tested by previous scientists with the same rigour that we test our current additions.

I have a friend who has disproven an assumption in biochemistry that's been held since 1968 (regarding the bonding of Lanthanide, I believe) - but when the results get published, he'll change the paradigm a bit. (Although, one reason why the 'false' theory has lasted 40 years is because it is rarely referenced - but in 2005 it was!)

Yep,it takes an maverick scientist to upstart the paradigm.I must say that most of the people in here are hack and lives in a internal torment of not being the "Top Dog" in their scientific church.Most scientists are unimaginative worker bee's in this paradigm world that they live in.

 

[Sidhe]

I think there is a difference between between science, that which is proven to be true by experimentation in as much as it can be and science that is accepted to be true because no one has bothered to argue against it or relatively little research is done.

Also there is a difference between the conservatives or establishment blinkered and probably what are real scientists. When Einstein first published his 3 landmark papers there was understandably an uproar, some young upstart was suggesting that Newtons laws that had pretty much explained the whole classical world and neatly tied up the loose ends were wrong, they could not explain the whole picture, Blasphemy!! Preposterous!! The thing is though that although much of the scientific world thought and fought hard to destroy the upstarts revolutionary ideas, at the end of the day he was right. In science you can sometimes acuse scientists of being dismissive or slightly blinkered but if you want to be heard be right and prove it.

Not all scientists are dismissive of new ideas not In my experience, they may say "ah but you really don't know enough about A to comment" and they may annoy people, but at the end of the day you probably really don't know enough about A, and until you learn it you can't necessarily contribute as well as you might.

Scientists understand that good science is key to science and good science is key to disproving good science, they may seem a little elitist but you'll find they'll listen if you prove them wrong

Niehls Bohr

Science is but one death after another.

 

[Gothmog]

@CartesianFart

I admit to engaging in a bit an attack on Sidhe, I felt I responded in kind to him. I'm really not used to the sort of personal attack he leveled on me.

That is not the same thing as 'argumentum ad hominem', I did not claim that my ideas were right because he is a bit of a fool.

The second part you quote is definitely not argumentum ad hominem, where is the contradiction within it? I don't see it, perhaps I am going senile.

Grounded conversation as in not making vast misrepresentations of theories you don't understand in the first place, then taking people to task for disagreeing with you.

I was saying that humans are animals IMO. The lineage of animals is still mostly here intact on the earth. We see everything from unicellular all the way up to chimps like us.

Sidhe wrote

I'm still waiting to hear exactly how your saying there is no free will based on a total understanding of human thought?

I never made that claim. Please show me where I did or stop repeating this nonsense. In fact I offered ways for free will to fit within materialism (again post #381). I have said that said there is no need for it and that we wouldn't know if we had it.

I also don't see any scientific basis for where it would originate. I asked you about this and you have not replied (post #383).

You didn't dismiss it at all all you said was it was open to interpritation, saying you dismissed it is total nonsense

OK how many times did you say this

if you accept QM then you have to accept there is free will

There is not a shred of truth here, some interpretations of QM may rule out determinism, but ruling out determinism is not the same as suggesting the existence of free will. Not at all.

I also showed that your experience and understanding of QM is very limited as in

Actually all interpretations of QM rule out determinism in any form you care to put it

being simply and totally false.

The question of free will is totally philosophical at this point, there are no experiments that measure anything like it. There is no reason to hypothesise its existence, in fact there are lots of experiments set up to measure it which find that it doesn't exist. Things that we think of as free will (such as when to reach for a glass of water), are in fact governed at the unconscious level and then relayed upto the conscious for justification.

From a philosophical point of view, I believe that I make decisions based on my past experiences mixed with my basic nature (my physical nature). Now we may be talking past eachother at this point, but I don't think that's what you believe. Again in post #383 I asked

But let me ask you this, where do you think your will originates? Not in your DNA, or extranuclear material; not in the sum of your experiences or their interaction with your physical being; so where?

I guess you didn't go to the link provided by punkbass (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116999) but in it I go into more philosophical detail. My first post in the thread is this http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2708288&postcount=3 and I outline the problem of definition in free will there. A bit more here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2710841&postcount=11

 

[El_Machinae]

Things that we think of as free will (such as when to reach for a glass of water), are in fact governed at the unconscious level and then relayed upto the conscious for justification.

I vaguely remember that paper, and how creepy it was. Though not nearly as creeped out as the people who were in the experiment!

 

[CartesianFart]

Grounded conversation as in not making vast misrepresentations of theories you don't understand in the first place, then taking people to task for disagreeing with you.

I am trying to figure this puzzle.Can you please tell me that you are in planet earth.I find a martian in you dude.

a.How can you make a misrepresentation when the method of any given theory be inferred of making someone have a misunderstanding on what verification can be included?
b.Why is this a confusion when i am confused that you are saying that when people disagree and have not explain really why the disagreement is already settled?

I was saying that humans are animals IMO. The lineage of animals is still mostly here intact on the earth. We see everything from unicellular all the way up to chimps like us.

Kinda of a evolutionary concept but it is flirting to be too metaphysical.Go read Plato's "Timeas",maybe you need a disciplinary study in order to construct a more comprehensive way of building a better system in general terms.I see no discipline in you.:thumbdown You give the word 'piecemeal' a bad name.

From a philosophical point of view, I believe that I make decisions based on my past experiences mixed with my basic nature (my physical nature). Now we may be talking past eachother at this point, but I don't think that's what you believe.

We all can make statements of the personal account of what we've experience.I can give you that.But you are not telling any physicalist insight on what is your overall viewpoint on what is your physical nature.Isn't the concept of physical nature is a objective concept that have a particular law or is this physical nature of yours only your own subjective experience?

I guess you didn't go to the link provided by punkbass (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116999)

Nonsense.Punky is a poorman Heraclitus.Unless he beg to differ.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Any answer would have been better than yours it goes to show the difference between those who advocate free will and those who dismiss it, no concept of the difficulty of the problem involved and no understanding of it either, just reductionism and saying must be true then, I've explained nothing but why should I have to it's all as simple as ABC or DNA total crap and you know it con sarn it

Gotta love this guy he says it's all so simple but science can't explain how any of the bahviours work in animals at the fundemental level at any level but it's all so simple. Come on then how does the brain encode information from this explain how thought works now explain emotion now explain exactly how we remember, you can't explain jack because no one in science can explain it, your like the guy in the Simpsons who when Lisa asks him to explain something about the monorail he says, we both know only you and I would understand the answer, a sort of flim flam artist with no insight at all into just how difficult the problem is to tackle and just how little knowledge we have or real comprehension on anything but the most simplistic and superficial level?

So I'll ask again tell me again how free will doesnt exist or is irrelevant and this time I want some diagrams and a bar graph and some science to back it up not just hot air or circles within circles?

I am thiinking and making suggestions the way you talk about things sometimes it sounds alot like you think and know the answer when in fact it's just a suggestion. This is not an example of thinking but of ignorance IMO.

The only explanation for your post (that would leave you with any dignity) is that you are new to OT. All of us who have engaged Gothmog in discussion know him to be one of the most thoughtful, knowledgeable and provocative scientists who post here. Unlike CG who is smart teenager without substantial experience, Gothmog has the experience to add real depth to his thinking. You are squandering an opportunity to have a fascinating conversation and, instead, resorting to pointless rudeness. You would be better to ask intellignet questions and make inquiry about his responses. Your post is...dead wrong. And if you think that you are entitled to such an opinion, you are, but it is still wrong.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Repeat my previous post for CartesianFart.

 

[CartesianFart]

I am starting to think this is not a persuit of the truth,but more like a childish political game with people teaming up with one another to give more weight and leverage over one to another.

What is wrong with disagreeing with one another.I see no combative spirit in these letters at all.Bird poop on a Jaquar is the prime example.

 

[Sidhe]

@CartesianFart

I admit to engaging in a bit an attack on Sidhe, I felt I responded in kind to him. I'm really not used to the sort of personal attack he leveled on me.

That is not the same thing as 'argumentum ad hominem', I did not claim that my ideas were right because he is a bit of a fool.

The second part you quote is definitely not argumentum ad hominem, where is the contradiction within it? I don't see it, perhaps I am going senile.

Grounded conversation as in not making vast misrepresentations of theories you don't understand in the first place, then taking people to task for disagreeing with you.

I was saying that humans are animals IMO. The lineage of animals is still mostly here intact on the earth. We see everything from unicellular all the way up to chimps like us.

Sidhe wrote I never made that claim. Please show me where I did or stop repeating this nonsense. In fact I offered ways for free will to fit within materialism (again post #381). I have said that said there is no need for it and that we wouldn't know if we had it.

I also don't see any scientific basis for where it would originate. I asked you about this and you have not replied (post #383).


OK how many times did you say this There is not a shred of truth here, some interpretations of QM may rule out determinism, but ruling out determinism is not the same as suggesting the existence of free will. Not at all.

I also showed that your experience and understanding of QM is very limited as in being simply and totally false.

The question of free will is totally philosophical at this point, there are no experiments that measure anything like it. There is no reason to hypothesise its existence, in fact there are lots of experiments set up to measure it which find that it doesn't exist. Things that we think of as free will (such as when to reach for a glass of water), are in fact governed at the unconscious level and then relayed upto the conscious for justification.

From a philosophical point of view, I believe that I make decisions based on my past experiences mixed with my basic nature (my physical nature). Now we may be talking past eachother at this point, but I don't think that's what you believe. Again in post #383 I asked

I guess you didn't go to the link provided by punkbass (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116999) but in it I go into more philosophical detail. My first post in the thread is this http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2708288&postcount=3 and I outline the problem of definition in free will there. A bit more here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2710841&postcount=11

Actually if you accept that pretty bizarre **** happens in QM like particles appearing to spontaneously appear or disappear it is a fairly good argument for free will regardless of any interpretation.

And yes I have only recently began to flirt with QM, so maybe my understanding isn't as great as i tcould be, but you tend to make swepping statements based on nothing as if they were true so I have to prod you to explain them which you then don't and you say things like instinct is blah blah blah as if just saying it is so makes it true.

To be honest I have very little respect for your view point because you keep making sweeping generalisations and not backing them up even when asked to.

And then when I said try and explain certain aspects you come out with a load of sweeping generalisations and no substance. I also see holes in your philosophical ideas but cart seems to point them out far better than I. It would be nice to see you say well I'm not sure or this is just an idea, because you tend to present your case as if its true and then when asked to back it up you insult the other person instead of actually presenting any reasoned arguments.

To be honest you tend to gloss over your points, make vague statements that would make an iceberg blush and then attack someones points without filling in your own blanks.

I suggest you step back and take a look at some of your arguments, they are paper thin and have no real insight. Explain what it is your saying, don't just link to web sites, explain why you believe this is thought to be. I find it so much better if you can say well so and so said this and I think it's true because of A. Not Free will is unnecessary? This is a philosophical discussion and sometimes a scientific one, what else is unnecessary in your view. Fine it's not necessary why?

I'm only attacking you because you have so many holes on what you argue that it's like watching swiss cheese under a grill.

And I'm not going to read back to the beginning of the thread every time you make some vague reference either? Why bother?

I think that last post is the first time I've seen you say I believe.

cg wrote: I would call that something of a revelation.

I would be interested for you to follow up on that last part.
How IYO does the free will theory answer the question of the First Cause?

@Sidhe.

Put all those properties it in an evolutionary context,
mix in a refusal to posit unnecessary complications,
and it seems pretty straight forward.

Intuition - this is just a feeling. It is wrong as often as right.

Instinct - we must have many hard coded behaviors. We could not survive otherwise. Simple ones like semi-autonomous breathing to more complex like pattern discrimination (essential for using our senses).

Visualization - we must keep a running integration of the information our senses provide us with, or they are next to useless.

Senses - obviously and conclusively evolutionary and completely physical.

Creativity - adaptation to change is the most important evolutionary advantage. Thus the difference between phenotype and genotype. It most likely even explains sexual reproduction. Creativity is nothing more than a phenotype within the genotype.

etc. etc. etc.

This is what I'm talking about. I didn't ask anyone to discuss each point and gloss over the answers I asked for some insight and I got none, and the only links I saw made me think that he was just being to vague and too opinionated, maybe I have misjudged him, but from the few links I saw, I just saw an opinion not a reasoned argument? I apologise if he usually backs up his arguments with abit of substance but so far I don't see it?

 

[jonatas]

To be honest you tend to gloss over your points, make vague statements that would make an iceberg blush and then attack someones points without filling in your own blanks.

@ Sidhe, if you know as much about QM as you do about the Gospel of Thomas, which you were talking about in a thread a while ago on this site, then you're in trouble. Your misrepresentations then were atrocious, and made in the same invective tone you talk about QM. I don't think you have any credibility.