0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QM has been showing to us all that it can never be understood without reference to the mind...
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446036#msg446036 date=1417910486]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/12/2014 19:42:30Quoteauthor=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 ?Clearly not you. Colour me unsurprised that you can't say how the non-existent interacts with the existent.
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 ?
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 .
QuoteAs 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 .Perhaps; but if he said that, he was either referring to something else, or referring to the subjective and/or objective abstractions of his metaphysical Worlds 2 & 3. Because, regarding mind and brain, Popper was property dualist, not a substance dualist. So he did not think that the mind is a substance separate from the body: he was an interactionist who thought that mental or psychological properties or aspects of people are distinct from physical ones, but arise from them. His 'Three Worlds' model involved a metaphysical hierarchy of abstraction, World 1 was the physical level of objects, World 2 was the subjective abstract, personal knowledge - arising from World 1, and World 3 was the objective abstract, the sum of human knowledge - arising from World 2. So, rather than supporting your hypothesis, he contradicts it.
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 .
QuoteExplain to me the very origin of maths then : it is a highly abstract non-physical product of the mind .I can't say, I wasn't there; but it presumably originates in observation and interaction with the physical world (e.g. counting). It's not a huge step from keeping a pebble for every sheep to counting, and from counting or token exchange to simple arithmetic.
Explain to me the very origin of maths then : it is a highly abstract non-physical product of the mind .
QuoteThey 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 .Empirical evidence suggests that this is indeed the case. We are pattern-matching systems and our perception of reality is a construct largely based on our expectations.
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 .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2014 19:51:39QM has been showing to us all that it can never be understood without reference to the mind...That's simply wrong. Have you not watched that MIT 'Introduction to QM' video yet?
Popper was referring to the non-physical consciousness interacting with the physical brain .
Quote from: dlorde on 07/12/2014 20:08:09Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2014 19:51:39QM has been showing to us all that it can never be understood without reference to the mind...That's simply wrong. Have you not watched that MIT 'Introduction to QM' video yet?That's just a materialistic approach .
Blind people do not have to see to apply their mindful volitional effort of attention and action to themselves,to their brains and to the rest of the physical reality .Their lost sight capacity gets compensated by other abilities .
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 .As a materialist thus , Ramachandran cannot but a -priori assume that the mind is a product of the brain or just brain activity , and hence volitional effort of attention also is .
You can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.
“Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather hail it as the governor of the realm of matter.”End quote .Chris Carter
dlorde :Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within its specific context :THE DREADED INTERACTION PROBLEM :Quote : "Critics of dualism often question how two fundamentally different properties such as mind and matter could possibly interact (materialist philosopher William Lycan calls this the “dreaded” interaction problem). How can something nonspatial, with no mass, location, or physical dimensions, possibly influence spatially bound matter?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2014 20:28:24Popper was referring to the non-physical consciousness interacting with the physical brain .Evidence? the context of the quote might help. As I said, Popper wasn't a substance dualist; he didn't believe in the non-physical in the sense you do.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2014 20:54:27Quote from: dlorde on 07/12/2014 20:08:09Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2014 19:51:39QM has been showing to us all that it can never be understood without reference to the mind...That's simply wrong. Have you not watched that MIT 'Introduction to QM' video yet?That's just a materialistic approach .It describes what is empirically observed; no more.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446095#msg446095 date=1418003307]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/12/2014 18:52:38Blind people do not have to see to apply their mindful volitional effort of attention and action to themselves,to their brains and to the rest of the physical reality .Their lost sight capacity gets compensated by other abilities .That isn't what blindsight refers to, which you should know if you are so familiar with his work.
Humans have two visual pathways from the eyeballs to the higher centers of the brain. The evolutionarily older pathway, more prominent in some mammals and reptiles, goes to the brain stem, and then gets relayed eventually to the higher centers of the brain. The evolutionarily newer pathway goes from the eyeball through the thalamus to the visual cortex of the brain. In blindsight, the first pathway still works, and some kind of visual information is shared with other parts of the brain, but without the conscious experience of seeing and without the qualia of vision, because the second pathway, or part of the the visual cortex it leads to, doesn’t work. Patients with blindsight can track objects, avoid obstacles, detect position and movement, sometimes even identify color or orientation (vertical or horizontal) and yet they insist categorically they cannot see - to them it feels like a wild guess, even though they are consistently accurate.
There are several reasons why Ramachandran found all of this interesting. One is, that these patients allowed him to compare vision with
consciousness to vision without consciousness & qualia, and see how they differed, or what consciousness added. The evidence from his experiments suggests that without consciousness and qualia, a person cannot use visual information to make choices in which the response to a stimulus is open-ended - that is, when there is a vast variety of responses possible in reaction to stimulus. One biological function of qualia, according to Ramachandran, is it that qualia allows an image to be held in working memory long enough for the executive function to work with it, assign meaning or significance based on a myriad of associated information from other parts of the brain.
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 .As a materialist thus , Ramachandran cannot but a -priori assume that the mind is a product of the brain or just brain activity , and hence volitional effort of attention also is .QuoteYou can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446121#msg446121 date=1418036913]Quote from: cheryl j on 08/12/2014 01:48:27You can criticize Ramachandran for not considering a supernatural or immaterial explanation (while also failing to provide the immaterial mechanism yourself) but his interpretations lead to more testable hypothesizes, more experimental designs, and more information about how things work, etc. Yours lead no where.That was my point about the shaman reference. Your automatic attribution of every mental process and aspect of consciousness to the immaterial prevents any further exploration or insight into the process, and has no explanatory power.The problem for Don is that not only does his hypothesis have no explanatory or predictive power, but it has no supporting evidence; which, of course, is why researchers like Ramachandran don't need to consider it -
they simply follow the evidence they have, finding no need to invoke redundant magical entities.
And, as has already been said, the quantum theory Don has currently latched onto, much like a drunk clinging to a lamp post - more for support than illumination - actually does the opposite, not only providing no support for his idea, but actively contradicting it by illuminating the fields and forces available for everyday interaction with the brain (basically the electromagnetic field alone). Regardless of how he tries to force his preferred interpretation to fit his hypothesis, his hypothesis doesn't have a mechanism because quantum field theory behind the interpretation tells us there is, and can be, no such mechanism... His current response of ignoring or dismissing all 'materialist approaches' is the equivalent of a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting "La la la la la, I can't hear you!".
I can't wait to see what else he'll find to scrape from the bottom of his immaterial barrel!
Here below will you find the specific quote of Popper within its specific context :
MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND:Let's go back to basics , guys :Materialists have been building all their sand castles on their intrinsic fundamental false premise....
Quote : " It follows from this that mind has no causal role in nature but is at most merely a useless by-product produced by the brain...."