0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You're real schizophrenics ,guys ,no offense,
Well, the brain usually sends messages to the mind from both the outside physical world as well as from the inner biological one,and gets feedbacks from the mind in return ,or not .OCD is a psychological and biological disorder that occurs thanks to faulty brain "circuitry " that sends false or deceptive messages to the mind that takes them for granted as real and acts upon them .OCD patients can learn about that psychological and biological nature of OCD symptoms , learn how to relabel them for what they are in reality (just disorders ) ,learn how not to attribute them to the self , how to refocus away from them on a regular basis through informed trained effort , by refocusing on healthier thoughts and actions , and learn how to revalue them for what they are (just faulty brain circuitry and psychological disorders without any real reality or power , that can be traced back to certain past events of OCD patients ) .
Furthermore , volitional effort of attention is irreducible to neurophysiological processes .It is a mental force that triggers a physical one through its neuronal correlates. The latter are just the "circuitry " through which the mind works .Brain activity cannot account for volitional effort of attention thus .The latter is irreducible to the former .
Show me a thought then . How does it look like ? How can brain activity produce thoughts ?
Quantitative neuronal correlates can never produce qualitative thoughts ...
When you are hungry , your brain and body are deprived of their energy through food , so, they can't work properly as mediums for the mind ,that's why one can't really think quite well when hungry , because the latter urge is so vital and can overrides the rest .... a matter of self-preservation ,or survival priority .
Show me a thought then . How does it look like ?
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445956#msg445956 date=1417824638]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2014 21:30:42Well, the brain usually sends messages to the mind from both the outside physical world as well as from the inner biological one,and gets feedbacks from the mind in return ,or not .Lol! How can the physical brain 'send messages' outside the physical world? what does that even mean? where's your evidence?
Well, the brain usually sends messages to the mind from both the outside physical world as well as from the inner biological one,and gets feedbacks from the mind in return ,or not .
It's unfalsifiable nonsense.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445960#msg445960 date=1417825316]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2014 21:56:35You're real schizophrenics ,guys ,no offense,Ah, no. We're the ones saying that the brain is an integrated physical whole and the mind is its activity; you're the one invoking a non-physical consciousness that magically interacts with the physical brain.
p.s. have you realised yet that the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation is just billions of years of Many Worlds with eventual conscious interference? The wavefunction of the universe evolves, superposition on superposition, for billions of years (Many Worlds), until consciousness finally evolves and unexplainedly collapses it - quite unnecessarily (evolution of consciousness is a gradual process - at what point did it gain that ability?); far simpler to let the wavefunction continue evolving as it has done for billions of years, including the evolved consciousness in its superpositions - as in Many Worlds. That's why MW is preferred by Ockham's Razor.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg445989#msg445989 date=1417849411]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2014 21:30:42Show me a thought then . How does it look like ? We describe consciousness as an "experience" an event in time and use all sorts of verbs to describe different processes associated with it, like thinking, feeling, believing, reasoning.
I could name any number of physical processes that are not "a thing" you can point to, and most people have no trouble recognizing that they are physically based, despite being events or interactions.
Why do you expect the neural code to physically resemble what it codes for?
QuoteWe have no trouble accepting that computers do not work that way, and language does not work that way, and DNA doesn't work that way, and musical recordings do not work that way. What is about brains that makes people insist that unless there are teeny, tiny replicas of a banana or kangaroo or Jennifer Aniston inside my neurons, then "a thought" has to be immaterial?
We have no trouble accepting that computers do not work that way, and language does not work that way, and DNA doesn't work that way, and musical recordings do not work that way. What is about brains that makes people insist that unless there are teeny, tiny replicas of a banana or kangaroo or Jennifer Aniston inside my neurons, then "a thought" has to be immaterial?
Is it possible that the first time I experience something, it is coded, and when I recall it, I re-experience it by playing back that code?
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg445979#msg445979 date=1417838634]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2014 21:35:16Well, the brain usually sends messages to the mind from both the outside physical world as well as from the inner biological one,and gets feedbacks from the mind in return ,or not .OCD is a psychological and biological disorder that occurs thanks to faulty brain "circuitry " that sends false or deceptive messages to the mind that takes them for granted as real and acts upon them .OCD patients can learn about that psychological and biological nature of OCD symptoms , learn how to relabel them for what they are in reality (just disorders ) ,learn how not to attribute them to the self , how to refocus away from them on a regular basis through informed trained effort , by refocusing on healthier thoughts and actions , and learn how to revalue them for what they are (just faulty brain circuitry and psychological disorders without any real reality or power , that can be traced back to certain past events of OCD patients ) .You would appear to be claiming that some thoughts (the deceptive ones, or the unhealthy ones) are the result of "faulty brain circuity" but other kinds of thoughts are the result of immaterial will. But for the past year you've been saying that no kind of thought, no kind of subjective experience, no experience involving qualia can be generated by the brain. Now suddenly certain kinds can?
QuoteFurthermore , volitional effort of attention is irreducible to neurophysiological processes .It is a mental force that triggers a physical one through its neuronal correlates. The latter are just the "circuitry " through which the mind works .Brain activity cannot account for volitional effort of attention thus .The latter is irreducible to the former .Did you even bother to read the article about the prefrontal cortex that I posted? Any response to it?
QuoteShow me a thought then . How does it look like ? How can brain activity produce thoughts ? Well, evidently, it can, since the OCD thought "I need to wash my hands again", or "I must turn around three times when I walk out the door" wasn't produced by the immaterial will, so it had to be produced by something. How does circuitry itself produce a fully formed thought, irrational or otherwise, if you insist it can't produce thoughts at all? Quote Quantitative neuronal correlates can never produce qualitative thoughts ...You seemed to have painted yourself into a corner.
QuoteWhen you are hungry , your brain and body are deprived of their energy through food , so, they can't work properly as mediums for the mind ,that's why one can't really think quite well when hungry , because the latter urge is so vital and can overrides the rest .... a matter of self-preservation ,or survival priority .Hunger, and the taste of pizza, and pain from a marathon, and the smell of a rose that you mentioned earlier, are all subjective experiences with qualia, which you keep insisting are irreducible to brain activity. Now you're claiming those things are just urges, signals in the brain circuitry representing the body's needs or state, that the immaterial will can ignore. What's your basis now for saying the subjective experience of hunger or pain or "intrusive thoughts" is a material process of circuitry, and other kinds of thoughts are not?
Quoteauthor=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg445956#msg445956 date=1417824638]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2014 21:30:42Well, the brain usually sends messages to the mind from both the outside physical world as well as from the inner biological one,and gets feedbacks from the mind in return ,or not .Lol! How can the physical brain 'send messages' outside the physical world? what does that even mean? where's your evidence?Well, consciousness and the mind are non-local,so.Maybe they work through entanglement with the brain as well , who knows ?
As Popper used to say : physical-physical interaction is not the only kind of interaction .There is nothing that can make us assume that the non-physical cannot interact with the physical, and vice versa .
Explain to me the very origin of maths then : it is a highly abstract non-physical product of the mind .
They used clever reasoning in the sense that our minds tend to see or project regularities everywhere and that our reality is mainly a mental construct ...Long story .
Everybody knows pretty well that thoughts are non-physical , even maths is just a product of the mind
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/12/2014 20:52:11... maths is just a product of the mind ... ... IN SHORT; The reality of math was here long before men ever walked this earth ...
... maths is just a product of the mind ...
You're just using semantics and inappropriate + false computer terminology in relation to the working of the brain that can never 'store or code " for anything at all : the physical brain is just a tool .What does it mean to say that the brains or DNA code for something : nothing , just empty rhetorics or semantics and false materialistic analogies or metaphors : materialistic ignorance on the subject in disguise : materialistic mysticism lol
There may well be great differences between biological systems and computers. I wasn't claiming they were identical in every way. But they do both store information, and there is good evidence of neural coding. We've shown you the experiments. If it's not coded and stored in the brain, how are memories, knowledge, facts, etc stored immaterially, and how does the immaterial send and receive this information?
...I stopped reading it , just after scanning some line of it .That's obviously a biased materialistic stuff that a-priori assumes that the mind is the product of the brain, and hence volitional effort of attention also is .Why continue reading it then ? What for ?
Math is not just an invention of the mind, it was a discovery associated with material physical evidence.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446063#msg446063 date=1417967210]Dlorde made a comment last year that I liked so much I saved:"It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits."
I often wonder what difference would it make if Don wanted to believe that ultimately, at the very end, it is spirits. Would it change his understanding or the knowledge of the world all that much? But he's even more dogmatic than the Shaman, by stubbornly dragging his heels and insisting it's an immaterial process from the outset, making it impossible to discuss any interaction or explanation at another level of order - lower or higher.
And I find he overturns the table just when the discussion is getting interesting. For example, one thing that I do question about the computer/brain comparison is the idea that just because computers don't need or require consciousness to carry out certain processes, biological systems should not either. But perhaps that is the strategy we evolved, in the same way that their are multiple strategies for obtaining energy, locomotion, or reproduction.
Attention, choice, and volition are really fascinating topics, and Ramachandran's investigations, such as blind sight patients, suggest they are tied to the function of consciousness and qualia.
Ok, tell me then how consciousness allegedly evolved or arose from ...matter ? : non-sense .
Quote from: Ethos_ on 07/12/2014 02:02:10Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/12/2014 20:52:11... maths is just a product of the mind ... ... IN SHORT; The reality of math was here long before men ever walked this earth ...e.g. Snails were using "Cellular Automata Rule 30" before human-beings existed ...http://artfail.com/automata/Rule 30 produces a complex-patten which emerges by repeatedly applying simple-rules. But Don does not believe in complex emergent properties , despite them occurring in nature, ( e.g. on the shell above ).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_properties
Quote author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446063#msg446063 date=1417967210]"It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits."(Prior note : that's a misleading and simplistic post from dlorde that cannot be applied to what i was saying
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446063#msg446063 date=1417967210]"It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits."
See my posted short excerpt above about positivism from someone who 's a proponent of MW theory .
An observer, in the sense used here, does not need to be, say “complex”, or even less so “conscious”. An atom interacting with another atom can be considered an observer. Obviously this does not mean that one atom must be capable of storing the information about the other atom, and consciously computing the outcome of its future interaction with it; the point is simply that the history of its past interaction is is principle sufficient information for this computation.
Positivism is an impoverished misleading , false and limited view of the world, philosophy and methodology that goes back all the way to Comte , in the sense that only the observable is real : that's clearly a fundamentally false view of the world and methodology : try to apply it to QM, for example lol
This recalls the conclusion that the late Prof. Peres reached in his analysis of EPR in 2004: “The question raised by EPR ‘Can the quantum–mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?’ has a positive answer. However, reality may be different for different observers”.
There are once again phenomena or processes whose existence can be inferred indirectly from some axioms or empirical evidence : not to mention what Godel proved : there are some true propositions the truth of which cannot be proved from the axioms ... :
Furthermore : as Popper proved : who says that the non-physical cannot interact with the physical, and vice versa ?
Once again , If the mind was just a material process like the rest of them, we wouldn't have had that interpretation problem of QM, in the first place to begin with .Von Neumann even proved, through rigorous maths ,that the only plausible or logical candidate for the collapse of the wave function must be none other than a non-physical and a non-local process at the end of the measurement or observation chain : consciousness .
That's why materialists come up with such absurd paradoxical and unfalsifiable theories (like the hidden variable and the MW theories ) to elude the problem...
The problem with brilliant neuroscientists like Ramachandran from which i have learned a lot , the problem of those kinds of scientists is that they try to make the empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialistic false beliefs or premises , instead of the other way around , instead of following the evidence wherever it might take them( as Von Neumann and many other prominent scientists did/do) , by misinterpreting the empirical evidence materialistically .