0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/10/2013 17:50:58...I think that the exclusively material side of evolution represented by the scientific Darwin's exclusively biological physical material theory of evolution , when Darwin's scientific material (Do not confuse material with materialism ) theory of evolution thus does not cross the boundaries of the material realm and jurisdiction of science at leat , can tell us only about the material side of evolution though ....relatively speaking then , relatively speaking , simply because there is still a lot to be known and discovered about all those missing links and gaps Darwin's scientific exclusively biological material physical theory of evolution and all its scientific post-Darwin updates up untill now cannot yet answer yet ....Second : Do not confuse the materialist version of evolution = the materialist belief assumption -misinterpretation of evolution , with Darwin's scientific exclusively biological physical theory of evolution ,Well, if we are confused about the theory of evolution, apparently Darwin was as well. Too bad you weren't there to correct him.
...I think that the exclusively material side of evolution represented by the scientific Darwin's exclusively biological physical material theory of evolution , when Darwin's scientific material (Do not confuse material with materialism ) theory of evolution thus does not cross the boundaries of the material realm and jurisdiction of science at leat , can tell us only about the material side of evolution though ....relatively speaking then , relatively speaking , simply because there is still a lot to be known and discovered about all those missing links and gaps Darwin's scientific exclusively biological material physical theory of evolution and all its scientific post-Darwin updates up untill now cannot yet answer yet ....Second : Do not confuse the materialist version of evolution = the materialist belief assumption -misinterpretation of evolution , with Darwin's scientific exclusively biological physical theory of evolution ,
Excellent post, Cheryl!As for the last part, I think there is a 'you' that decides, but it does so as a composite (i.e. I don't think there's a single conscious controller , it just often feels that way) .Currently I lean towards the idea that consciousness, which seems to depend on the breadth of synchronised activity across the brain, and the number of regions involved, becomes increasingly active when there is no clear 'winner' among the possible solutions from competing processes, or when high-level deliberative thought is required, and so the cogitation is opened to a wider selection of contributing brain areas, e.g. those with less direct influence, to achieve a broader consensus. When the areas involving planning, behavioural modelling, linguistic and high-level abstraction processing are all involved, we have a higher level of consciousness than when they are not. These features are important to sophisticated social coordination and interaction, and a sense of self is particularly useful here, both as a consistent representation or avatar for the individual in different contexts, and for what-if modelling of social interactions. For me, the feeling that the verbal, deliberative, consciously aware self is the 'real' you, and in control, is the main illusion of consciousness; it seems quite reasonable that processing should be arranged to express relevant aspects of behaviour through the convenient & unitary representative 'avatar' of the concept of self. In other words, the conscious self is less a controller than an (apparently) integrated representative and spokesman for the underlying composite of processes. These ideas are all speculative and open to revision. Your mileage may vary
You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.
Quote from: David Cooper on 16/10/2013 19:44:44The reality is that most people hardly ever change their mind about anything that matters to them because they're only interested in taking up those ideas that agree with what they already believe while they reject the rest. It doesn't matter how much you prove them wrong, they will resolutely refuse to see it. It happens in every field and at every level, and because this phenomenon is something I study (Natural General Intelligence and how it goes wrong), I'm still skim-reading this thread, but there's no way I'll be dragged back into wasting any more time writing long posts for it.Thoughts on Bias:It does seem true that people rarely change their positions even with contradictory evidence. Bias is a tricky problem to control and creeps into experiments in unexpected ways. Pollsters, at least those ones sincerely interested in finding out what people think, and not collecting evidence to build a case, often rephrase the same question a dozen different ways in case the wording influences people to chose one answer over another. I can think of times when I absolutely and completely changed my mind about something. When I was fifteen, I believed in astrology. The reason why I came to believe in it was because there was a neighbor lady who was an astrologer, and I liked her, and astrology seemed to explain why people had different personalities. We had to write a paper in my freshman biology class and that was the topic I chose, carefully citing many references about the moon's effect on emergency room visits and the tides, etc. I don't remember the grade I got; I think it was a B- or something. But I do remember that Mr. Soldo did not laugh at me, or embarrass me, or throw a hundred statistics at me that proved I was wrong. He said it was thoughtful and well written, but mentioned a few things that planted a seed of doubt in my mind, and then I went on to learn about photosynthesis and glycolysis and evolution in that class, and that is really when my mind changed. I understood, on my own, that this old idea wasn't compatible with my new ones. They could not co-exist if they were contradictory.But I really liked photosynthesis and glycolysis better. I had a crush on science. I can think of examples of other people changing their beliefs. It is usually slowly, by qualifying a belief in some way, and making exceptions. This is sometimes true for racism, and although some people see others who harbor any racist beliefs as "closet racists," I see it as a transition from one concept to another. A racist begins believing "people of different races are different or inferior in important ways." But he meets a person of another race who violates his expectations. So, he concludes "People of that race are inferior, but Bob is an exception. Bob is special." Then perhaps he meets more people like Bob, and decides "There are two types of people of that race, good ones and bad ones." Finally it becomes, "Maybe race has nothing to do with the qualities I dislike in people." That is the pattern most people follow.I can think of times, when I very quickly changed my opinion, when it was easy, with out shifting gradually. This summer I worked for an elderly couple. She seemed like a very nice old lady, sweet, talkative, baked cookies, but kind of "simple minded.". After about nine weeks, she casually mentioned that she used to be a computer programmer in aeronautics. She worked with Univac. My impression of her, who she was and her interests, wasn't just a little off, it was way, way, almost a 100%, wrong. So why is it so easy to radically changes ones mind in some cases but not others? Because the beliefs were only held for a short time? Because it doesn't threaten the ego or self worth? Because one has nothing to gain or lose either way? Because the evidence seems more factual and not fuzzy or interpretable in multiple ways? When choosing his cabinet members, Abraham Lincoln picked adversaries like William Seward and Salmon Chase. (They weren't adversaries to him, they were adversaries to one another.) Likewise, in 2009, Chinese president Hu Jintao picked two opposing faction leaders, Xi Jimping and Li Keqiang, to make decisions about Chinese economic policy. As long as one still has control, it's an advantage to let a team of rivals present their best arguments, and fight it out. It saves you a lot of work. And even if you have a bias towards one position or another, somehow ones ego is less threatened when that position is being presented, and attacked by someone else. You can just sit back and listen, and see how it plays out. Some neuroscientists suggest that that is how the brain works - separate components that are like a team of rivals, each trying to interpret information or solve a problem in their own way, each vying for attention and control. Is there a "you" that decides? Is there an Abraham Lincoln of the brain? Or is the "you" whomever presents the best argument at that moment to the body? Whether you are a materialist like me, or a mystic like Don, that really is the big question, the essence of the hard problem of consciousness.
The reality is that most people hardly ever change their mind about anything that matters to them because they're only interested in taking up those ideas that agree with what they already believe while they reject the rest. It doesn't matter how much you prove them wrong, they will resolutely refuse to see it. It happens in every field and at every level, and because this phenomenon is something I study (Natural General Intelligence and how it goes wrong), I'm still skim-reading this thread, but there's no way I'll be dragged back into wasting any more time writing long posts for it.
Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/10/2013 17:15:29...As a scientist , you should at leat try to be relatively objective fair honest unbiased , as much as possible though , even though objectivity is a myth , even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere .I completely agree
...As a scientist , you should at leat try to be relatively objective fair honest unbiased , as much as possible though , even though objectivity is a myth , even at the level of exact sciences, let alone elsewhere .
QuoteDid science ever prove the "fact ", or rather the materialist belief assumption, to be "true " that the universe or reality are exclusively material ? Absolutely not , never , everOf course not; the 'materialist belief assumption' is not verifiable or falsifiable. If the immaterial is undetectable to science, it is immaterial to science, which can deal only with the observable; and if you can observe something it's not immaterial - is it?
Did science ever prove the "fact ", or rather the materialist belief assumption, to be "true " that the universe or reality are exclusively material ? Absolutely not , never , ever
Quote... how can science ever go beyond its material realm for that matter, science's material realm that's not what all there is out there , obviously .Agreed. Science is limited to the material realm, and I'm fine with that. We'll just carry on observing, learning, and explaining how palpable reality works, just as always. You're welcome to ponder the impalpable & immaterial in peace.
... how can science ever go beyond its material realm for that matter, science's material realm that's not what all there is out there , obviously .
QuoteAll beliefs , the secular and the religious ones alike , should be kept outside of science ,and outside of the jurisdiction of science ...Is that so difficult to understand ? I completely agree. Science should continue to observe, make testable hypotheses, test the hypotheses, learn. It need only concern itself with the observable.
All beliefs , the secular and the religious ones alike , should be kept outside of science ,and outside of the jurisdiction of science ...Is that so difficult to understand ?
I hadn't realised we agree on so much!
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/10/2013 19:28:12Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe inSo your beliefs are material but your wants are existential. You've mixed up your frames of reference. No wonder you're confused.
Quote from: grizelda on 19/10/2013 19:03:35You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.Welcome , even though we have enough materialist magicians here already haha What , on earth , are you talking about ?Materialism and existeialism are just philosophies , world views , beliefs ....they do not belong in science , as all beliefs for that matter do not , obviously , either the religious or the secular beliefs ...P.S.: We are trying here to talk ...science , pure science : the first thing to do is : purify science by distillating it haha , by rejecting the unscientific materialist belief assumptions in science that have been dominating science for so long now :Worse : those unscientific materialist belief assumptions or the materialist dogmatic belief system have been presented and sold to the people as ...science , ironically enough .P.S.: All beliefs , either religious or secular , should be kept outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction , science whose realm is just the material side of reality , the immaterial side of reality is thus a matter of ...beliefs , not a matter of science , obviously :Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in , as long as all beliefs are kept outside of science and outside of the jurisdiction of science as well, including materialism existentialism and all the rest of those beliefs and "isms " ...
In other words, the conscious self is less a controller than an (apparently) integrated representative and spokesman for the underlying composite of processes.
Are any beliefs for that matter material ? Where are they then ? can you touch them, see them....capture them for us ...put them under the microscope , scanner ...can you measure them, observe them , test them , verify falsify them, reproduce them ... put them in the lab ...?When you do , tell me then ...
There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 19/10/2013 19:28:12Quote from: grizelda on 19/10/2013 19:03:35You could say that there are four frames of reference, say, reason, materialism, existentialism and empiricism. Because they are frames of reference, they don't overlap. So you can't use your existentialist poetry to criticize materialism and materialism has no business belittling your existentialist poetry. Mixing frames of reference is probably a major cause of misunderstanding.Welcome , even though we have enough materialist magicians here already haha What , on earth , are you talking about ?Materialism and existeialism are just philosophies , world views , beliefs ....they do not belong in science , as all beliefs for that matter do not , obviously , either the religious or the secular beliefs ...P.S.: We are trying here to talk ...science , pure science : the first thing to do is : purify science by distillating it haha , by rejecting the unscientific materialist belief assumptions in science that have been dominating science for so long now :Worse : those unscientific materialist belief assumptions or the materialist dogmatic belief system have been presented and sold to the people as ...science , ironically enough .P.S.: All beliefs , either religious or secular , should be kept outside of science and outside of science's jurisdiction , science whose realm is just the material side of reality , the immaterial side of reality is thus a matter of ...beliefs , not a matter of science , obviously :Anyone is entitled to believe in anything one wants to believe in , as long as all beliefs are kept outside of science and outside of the jurisdiction of science as well, including materialism existentialism and all the rest of those beliefs and "isms " ...No need to be rude. Anyway, Grizelda is right, and actually agreeing with you in a way. If something is, as you say, outside of the realm of science, then it's pointless to try to have a scientific discussion about it. It is like trying to prove scientifically that John Updike's last novel was better than Alice Munroe's. It is like attempting to write a business proposal in haiku poetry (although that might be amusing). But you can't have it both ways - You can't say that something is outside the realm of science but also inside the realm of science.
The honest scientific answer to many questions is "I don't know - yet." Compare that with the dishonest religious answers "You can't possibly know" or "It was all done by a man with a beard in the sky, who you can't see but I know exists, for reasons that only he can comprehend. But because I know he exists, I have authority over your behaviour" and you will see why I have a deep disdain for mysticism, faith, and all that crap.
A scientist named Marder isolated the entire pattern of the network of every single neuron in the lobster gut, and all of the neurotransmitters of every synapse. In theory that should tell you everything you need to predict what happens in a spiny lobster gut. The interesting thing is in her small system there are 20 million possible network combinations. There are 100,000 to 200,00 different ways to get the exact same behavior, which seems wildly redundant. In talking about the brain it is easy to lose sight of the huge numbers involved, the same way people forget about the vast amounts of time in evolution. More is sometimes different.
The whole is not the sum of its parts , silly :
DQ: you clearly didn't read or understand what I wrote, so I'll quote it againQuoteThe honest scientific answer to many questions is "I don't know - yet." Compare that with the dishonest religious answers "You can't possibly know" or "It was all done by a man with a beard in the sky, who you can't see but I know exists, for reasons that only he can comprehend. But because I know he exists, I have authority over your behaviour" and you will see why I have a deep disdain for mysticism, faith, and all that crap. If you had understood it, you wouldn't have wasted your time typing out a load of mysticism in response.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/10/2013 18:02:42The whole is not the sum of its parts , silly :yeah, that's the point.
Quote from: dlorde on 19/10/2013 13:26:49 In other words, the conscious self is less a controller than an (apparently) integrated representative and spokesman for the underlying composite of processes. The idea of consciousness as more of a spokesperson than an initiator is an interesting one, and seems more compatible with fMRI experiments that show activity in the brain before some one is aware of their decision to act. It also is compatible with confabulation in split brain patients, in which they make up stories to explain movements or choices made by the other half of the brain that is no longer sharing information. There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.