Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Sparrow]

Buddy,

 

You sanctimonious old bore. You waffling old windbag. You disingenuous, pompous blowhard!

 

You came to this web site feigning interest in discussion, only to be exposed as the prevaricating, manipulative, pedantic old snake that you are.

 

You’re clearly not in the slightest bit interested in a discussion – of any sort.

 

You coward. You cheat!

 

59 pages of side-stepping. 59 pages of wheedling and whining. 59 pages of waffling and weaselling.

 

Proud of yourself old-boy?

 

If there’s anything worse than believer who doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, it’s a believer who doesn’t have the gumption and intestinal fortitude to admit he’s been beaten.

 

Pretentious, pathetic, conceited, hollow, haughty and stuck-up.

 

Boring old fart!!!

 

Spatz

[Antlerman]

I do not understand how this changes the fact that as far as we know everything is matter/energy. Any sense of meaning is thought and feeling. All of which takes place in the brain....which is made of matter/energy. I do not understand what this has to with the concept of gestalts. The mind is not immaterial. Nothing is immaterial...hehe.

Hi Mankey, sorry I didn't make myself more clear. What I'm talking about is how we understand things like thoughts, feeling and actions. You are absolutely right, the brain is where consciousness resides, and the more we understand how the brain works, the more we understand consciousness. But I think there are practical limits to understanding thoughts and actions through physiology alone, sheer complexity being perhaps the biggest obstacle. So I would say physiology is necessary, but not sufficient for understanding consciousness.

How else, in addition through physiology can it be understood.

There are a number of contexts:

cosmological

evolutionary

genetic

cultural

linguistic

psychological

physiological

physical

 

I don't think we can look at any one particular context and say that it is sufficient to explain consciousness. However, when apologists start talking about the "limits" of science, they typically say something like "according to scientists, appreciation of a sunset is just a release of certain chemicals in the brain." That is certainly a part of the phenomenon, but the fallacy is thinking that it is the complete explanation. My concern is that we don't accept the apologist's strawman caricature of science and start arguing that appreciation of a sunset is indeed nothing more than biochemistry. Hope that makes some sense.

I'm just going to jump in here for a couple thoughts. I agree wholeheartedly that it's a strawman argument from the apologists paint someone with a scientific mind as being unable appreciate the sunset because they reduce everything to it's components. Buddy stated this one to me, which I corrected him on some time ago. I feel that argument comes from those who approach life more emotionally, and when they think about the elements involved, it detracts the experience for them.

 

I would say then that the problem isn't with those who think scientifically, but those who think emotionally and don't know how to appreciate how things work at the same time they are appreciating the aesthetic qualities of it. It's a personal rejection of something they don't know how to incorporate into their experience of life, by projecting its feared negative effect on themselves, to others. As a result of this projecting onto others its negative effect to them, they can justify rejecting it as an "anti-spiritual" thing and excuse themselves from considering it.

 

I've always said that humans are both rational and emotional, and to be truly "spiritual" you have to a complete human, not half a one. Not one who deny the aesthetic in life and goes after the Mr. Spock model to escape the complexity living with the irrational side of our natures. Or the opposite to live in denial of your rational mind because the irrationality of emotions feels safer to you. Neither is living complete as a human. So when they say science "kills" the spirit, to me it's just them talking about what it does for themselves, and how they have something they need to work on in their lives that's making them out-of-balance. Most of the time its a fear of challenging preconceived ideas they've built a framework of coping around.

 

To my thoughts just now on consciousness. I was just thinking that "consciousness" is more a self-referencing program. The "I" the "awareness" is like memes. Memes are like this living, biological-like entity that exists as part of a collection of ideas on the shoulders of people within a society – and it also exists semi-independently of them. It lives, and breathes, and grows, and evolves, and influences its creators for its own sake. Memes live from generation to generation and have long life spans. Yet without humans to keep it alive, it dies.

 

Isn’t consciousness within our own brains like this? Isn’t it a pool of experiences, and thoughts, beliefs, values, emotional knowledge, teachings, chemical influences, etc, that all become “I”? We then look up to this collection and it is its own whole thing, much like the meme. It's almost seperate from us, yet it's us. Is the phenomenon of "consciousness" really more a matter of our perceiving of the collective pool of thought and experience?

 

Isn’t the meme a living social conscious that sustains and guides and influences? Couldn’t our conscious be this on an individual level, where individual experiences are the nurtures of the entity we call our consciousness, like the individual’s collective experiences along with other’s collective experiences nurture the social consciousness, along with teachings, inherited values, etc? “I” am my own internal collective meme.

[alanh]

Isn’t the meme a living social conscious that sustains and guides and influences? Couldn’t our conscious be this on an individual level, where individual experiences are the nurtures of the entity we call our consciousness, like the individual’s collective experiences along with other’s collective experiences nurture the social consciousness, along with teachings, inherited values, etc? “I” am my own internal collective meme.

That reminds me of Jung's Collective unconscious. Orch OR is extremely thought-provoking with its "Platonic information embedded at the Planck scale." The memes you mention could be quantum influences caused by the very structure of the universe.

[BuddyFerris]

There is no unless about it.

...

People who have had near death experiences? Some have been in the same boat but had no stories to tell. Occams razor helps us in having the most rational beliefs on the matter.

...

A little something from the BBC news. Out-Of-Body Experience Recreated, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm

 

One of my uncles got in a motorcycle accident. The brain damage done has reduced his ability to empathize with others ; so much for a divine external standard.

...

There is no room for your superstitious delusion in these matters. All you are doing is trying to find fault with rational methodologies so that there appears to be room for anti-intellectualism. ... Grow up.

We needn't yet posit a soul, however. A mind will do for a beginning.

A description of the brain's functions will serve well for differentiating the conscious and competent from the less fortunate. Among the conscious and competent, such analysis might hint imprecisely at this trait or that, this probability of development or that lack. Will it predict for us which one will be great or good or diligent or thoughtful or fair? Or a criminal? If it could, what would it have said about you? Would it have predicted the young man who was 7th generation poor, ineducable, white trash from south Alabama would become a college graduate and post graduate scholar, a Navy Officer mission commander, and all around opposite of his genetic and cultural heritage? I can't help but wonder if those who insist on such sweeping generalizations from specialized facts didn't flush their ability to reason down that neuroscienctific toilet.

... More twisting on your part. We have no idea what all science may be able to do in the future. Your whining about our ignorance is not building your case for a soul, an afterlife, or an external divine standard. Every time you dodge I will remind you that you are in no way building a case for your superstition and that you are only trying to make circular reasoning and arguement from ignorance seem reasonable. Your idol is just as ridiculous as any other superstitionists idol. Your spiritual beliefs are ridiculous.

Mankey,

Some see green, some don't. Per your reasoning, there is no green nor do people actually see it. Pick a wider view.

 

For your citing of Occam's razor, keep in mind that the premise is 500 years old and subject to many revisions and exceptions by modern science. As an example, classical physics is simpler than subsequent theories but needn't be considered an equal contender because it can be shown to err under certain circumstances; it's demonstrably wrong, even if not to the casual observer or ponderer. Similarly, Occam's razor is not an objective comparison method; more precisely, it is a reflection of the formulator's prior beliefs. One's choice of exactly which razor to use is a derivative of that bias whether with or without awareness of the formulator. Having been slammed by profs for less, I'll encourage you the same way they encouraged me. You're free to use the concept with some flesh attached, but super-titled arguments may not be persuasive. Simply claiming Occam's razor, as though that framework were a good fit for the subject, is unpersuasive by itself. Add some cheese to your w(h)ine.

 

Your proffered BBC article on visual perception is labeled as OBE for the attention the familiar words will garner, but the experimenters were actually rummaging around in the field of mental perception and correlation to visual stimuli. The experiment is an up to date version of what was performed in my presence at the U of Tx in the late 60's. You'll notice that the induced visual and mental reference disconnect requires a conscious, sighted subject. The subject is shown (at goggle-to-eye distance, simulating normal sight) a view of themselves that is unfamiliar. They will for a period of time be inaccurate in their perceptions of location and distances until familiarity sets in. As has been shown elsewhere, it is the same acclimatization that children go through when becoming accustomed to their image in a mirror. Note again that it requires a conscious and sighted subject, a well presented visual view other than the expected, and tactile stimulation both felt and observed in the presented view for the disconnect to occur. Not new. Not remotely similar to what is commonly referred to as OBE in conjunction with near death. You were wise not to overplay the reference, but a little critical reading would have spotted its' lack of relevance to the issues at hand.

 

While your uncle's injury is unfortunate, it's a matter addressed earlier of 'conscious and competent' norms. The detailed description of brain function during distinguishable activities is a useful diagnostic tool; injury and impairment are understood and explained without abandoning the separate concepts of brain and mind. Again, we're not reaching for a soul or God, just the existence of a mind apart from the physiological functioning of the brain. Keep in mind (brain?), if you insist too rigorously that the mind and the brain are the same and indistinguishable, then the physical construct cannot avoid being deterministic; i.e. you have no choices, no imaginings, no dreams, no loves, just brain-machine sparks running their inevitable, unalterable course.

 

Feel free to ignore the above and remind me as you will of your central theme; again, a little critical thinking goes a long way. Your strong objections don't always reflect an understanding of that which you disparage so vigorously. Should you consider and at least attempt to understand your opponents view, at the very least, it will add immeasurably to the content of your counter-argument.

 

Lest you think otherwise, I have enjoyed and been impressed by your posts that show your own more-than-adequate reasoning ability. You may defend and attack as enthusiastically as you feel necessary, but you'll notice that I pose little threat.

Buddy

[alanh]

Isn’t consciousness within our own brains like this? Isn’t it a pool of experiences, and thoughts, beliefs, values, emotional knowledge, teachings, chemical influences, etc, that all become “I”? We then look up to this collection and it is its own whole thing, much like the meme. It's almost seperate from us, yet it's us.

And a whole lot of people think its god?

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy,

 

You sanctimonious old bore. You waffling old windbag. You disingenuous, pompous blowhard!

 

You came to this web site feigning interest in discussion, only to be exposed as the prevaricating, manipulative, pedantic old snake that you are.

 

You’re clearly not in the slightest bit interested in a discussion – of any sort.

 

You coward. You cheat!

 

59 pages of side-stepping. 59 pages of wheedling and whining. 59 pages of waffling and weaselling.

 

Proud of yourself old-boy?

 

If there’s anything worse than believer who doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, it’s a believer who doesn’t have the gumption and intestinal fortitude to admit he’s been beaten.

 

Pretentious, pathetic, conceited, hollow, haughty and stuck-up.

 

Boring old fart!!!

 

Spatz

Wonderful. True to form, grammatically sound, conceptually consistent,, and as always, lacking in useful content. If you're impressed that I lack the courage of my convictions, feel free to challenge them specifically. I'd be interested in your view, less the adjectives.

Buddy

[Legion]

Mind is to brain as life is to organism. - Robert Rosen

 

I think Buddy may be suggesting that there is more to this universe than reductionism can encompass. If so, he’s in good company.

[Grandpa Harley]

I quite liked the analogy of 'where is the film on the DVD, or where is computer program?' the answer is in the interaction of the medium and the I/O hardware.

 

If you damage the hardware, or the medium, then you get an 'imperfect' interaction. It's rather like the character changes one sees in dementia, as the I/O hardware becomes more and more damaged, the processing and repsonses become less and less predictable in terms of past behaviours... what to make of the mind then, if not the complex interaction of I/O and the processor. I tend to disagree with Penrose in so far as the mind is not simulatable by a Turing machine, but that we're looking at a 'tape' that is better represented as a 'surface' or 'gasket' of hard wired (genetically predisposed), learned, and environmentally influenced responses.

[Legion]

Rosen argues that both mind and life cannot be simulated. He argues formally and at length that machines are simple (no matter how complicated) while organisms are complex.

 

I don't know yet personally. I cannot yet grasp all of Rosen's arguments.

[BuddyFerris]

I do not understand how this changes the fact that as far as we know everything is matter/energy. Any sense of meaning is thought and feeling. All of which takes place in the brain....which is made of matter/energy. I do not understand what this has to with the concept of gestalts. The mind is not immaterial. Nothing is immaterial...hehe.

Hi Mankey, sorry I didn't make myself more clear. What I'm talking about is how we understand things like thoughts, feeling and actions. You are absolutely right, the brain is where consciousness resides, and the more we understand how the brain works, the more we understand consciousness. But I think there are practical limits to understanding thoughts and actions through physiology alone, sheer complexity being perhaps the biggest obstacle. So I would say physiology is necessary, but not sufficient for understanding consciousness.

How else, in addition through physiology can it be understood.

There are a number of contexts:

cosmological

evolutionary

genetic

cultural

linguistic

psychological

physiological

physical

 

I don't think we can look at any one particular context and say that it is sufficient to explain consciousness. However, when apologists start talking about the "limits" of science, they typically say something like "according to scientists, appreciation of a sunset is just a release of certain chemicals in the brain." That is certainly a part of the phenomenon, but the fallacy is thinking that it is the complete explanation. My concern is that we don't accept the apologist's strawman caricature of science and start arguing that appreciation of a sunset is indeed nothing more than biochemistry. Hope that makes some sense.

Thank you, Alan. Surprisingly concise and accurate. You do well to point out that science is multifaceted; I'm sure I've been guilty here of presuming some objections here were field-specific; an obvious over-simplification on my part and something for which I've chided others. Now, of course, I'm stuck with inadequate skill in the requisite sciences to support each contention from multiply different perspectives. Keep me honest, of course. I'm quite willing to be corrected. At the same time, I'm reminded that concepts without appeal to common reasonableness are often uncommonly unreasonable. Help me out with the common reasonable versions.

Happy weekend.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Rosen argues that both mind and life cannot be simulated. He argues formally and at length that machines are simple (no matter how complicated) while organisms are complex.

 

I don't know yet personally. I cannot yet grasp all of Rosen's arguments.

I tend to disagree because I think life and mind is a simulation.

 

In my view we are complex machines, and we can only create by our hands simple machines as of now. But I have 5 kids, that I and my wife brought to life, so where does the line go between bringing to life or creating? I didn't design them, but I did make them, and my influence in thought, reasoning and beliefs influenced them and still is (to lesser degree for my teenagers), but yet, the are a modified copy of my genes and memes (including memes from their friends, media and society).

[Legion]

Rosen argues that both mind and life cannot be simulated. He argues formally and at length that machines are simple (no matter how complicated) while organisms are complex.

 

I don't know yet personally. I cannot yet grasp all of Rosen's arguments.

I tend to disagree because I think life and mind is a simulation.

 

In my view we are complex machines, and we can only create by our hands simple machines as of now. But I have 5 kids, that I and my wife brought to life, so where does the line go between bringing to life or creating? I didn't design them, but I did make them, and my influence in thought, reasoning and beliefs influenced them and still is (to lesser degree for my teenagers), but yet, the are a modified copy of my genes and memes (including memes from their friends, media and society).

Well, I sincerely hope that there will come a day when I can effectively refute such assertions Hans. But I am not yet at that point. I don't believe we are machines. But at this point it is merely an ill informed intuition.

[Grandpa Harley]

Rosen argues that both mind and life cannot be simulated. He argues formally and at length that machines are simple (no matter how complicated) while organisms are complex.

 

I don't know yet personally. I cannot yet grasp all of Rosen's arguments.

 

As you know, my reading of Rosen is 'in the stack'

 

Just looking at a 'middle way' between 'Hard AI' where the human mind is a complex Universal Turing machine, and Penrose's quantum effect of a large mass of electrochemical circuits. I tend to like the 'complex n-dimensional fractal gasket' Turing machine, since I thought of it, and it fits pretty much what I've seen in reality and reading the stuff I get from Nature... It also matches stuff like the Creation Machine, that I've posted bout elsewhere, which uses a 'noisy' Turing tape and 'human neurone' models heuristic AIs.

[Legion]

As you know, my reading of Rosen is 'in the stack'

Gramps I am pleased beyond words that you have acquired some of Rosen's work. On the other hand, I wish you would move it to the front of the stack. You have a fine mind in my estimation. I am eager to hear what you have to say about it.

[BuddyFerris]

...

I don't think we can look at any one particular context and say that it is sufficient to explain consciousness. However, when apologists start talking about the "limits" of science, they typically say something like "according to scientists, appreciation of a sunset is just a release of certain chemicals in the brain." That is certainly a part of the phenomenon, but the fallacy is thinking that it is the complete explanation. My concern is that we don't accept the apologist's strawman caricature of science and start arguing that appreciation of a sunset is indeed nothing more than biochemistry. Hope that makes some sense.

I'm just going to jump in here for a couple thoughts. I agree wholeheartedly that it's a strawman argument from the apologists paint someone with a scientific mind as being unable appreciate the sunset because they reduce everything to it's components. Buddy stated this one to me, which I corrected him on some time ago. I feel that argument comes from those who approach life more emotionally, and when they think about the elements involved, it detracts the experience for them.

 

I would say then that the problem isn't with those who think scientifically, but those who think emotionally and don't know how to appreciate how things work at the same time they are appreciating the aesthetic qualities of it. It's a personal rejection of something they don't know how to incorporate into their experience of life, by projecting its feared negative effect on themselves, to others. As a result of this projecting onto others its negative effect to them, they can justify rejecting it as an "anti-spiritual" thing and excuse themselves from considering it.

 

I've always said that humans are both rational and emotional, and to be truly "spiritual" you have to a complete human, not half a one. Not one who deny the aesthetic in life and goes after the Mr. Spock model to escape the complexity living with the irrational side of our natures. Or the opposite to live in denial of your rational mind because the irrationality of emotions feels safer to you. Neither is living complete as a human. So when they say science "kills" the spirit, to me it's just them talking about what it does for themselves, and how they have something they need to work on in their lives that's making them out-of-balance. Most of the time its a fear of challenging preconceived ideas they've built a framework of coping around.

 

To my thoughts just now on consciousness. I was just thinking that "consciousness" is more a self-referencing program. The "I" the "awareness" is like memes. Memes are like this living, biological-like entity that exists as part of a collection of ideas on the shoulders of people within a society – and it also exists semi-independently of them. It lives, and breathes, and grows, and evolves, and influences its creators for its own sake. Memes live from generation to generation and have long life spans. Yet without humans to keep it alive, it dies.

 

Isn’t consciousness within our own brains like this? Isn’t it a pool of experiences, and thoughts, beliefs, values, emotional knowledge, teachings, chemical influences, etc, that all become “I”? We then look up to this collection and it is its own whole thing, much like the meme. It's almost seperate from us, yet it's us. Is the phenomenon of "consciousness" really more a matter of our perceiving of the collective pool of thought and experience?

 

Isn’t the meme a living social conscious that sustains and guides and influences? Couldn’t our conscious be this on an individual level, where individual experiences are the nurtures of the entity we call our consciousness, like the individual’s collective experiences along with other’s collective experiences nurture the social consciousness, along with teachings, inherited values, etc? “I” am my own internal collective meme.

Antlerman,

Thanks for jumping in. If I may jump in as well and think out loud here, let's consider.

 

Perhaps our consciousness can be described in such terms, a self-referencing program. It suits our observation of ourselves, or at least my observation. I'm aware that as the program runs, certain current priorities float to the top of my awareness, certain past experiences rise to inform my awareness, pieces of past learning slip in to contribute to the preparation for decision making, and so on. What does this imply if the description has to carry through to its' logical conclusion, though. If accurate, the description seems to lead to a deterministic conclusion; i.e. each element serves its' purpose without oversight. The machine's conclusion is predetermined (predestined?) by virtue of programming and available stimuli. The process we describe is complex with hundreds of variables, perhaps thousands, including current environment, health, state of digestion, and eye strain on top of the library of experiences which are categorized individually by subject, and collectively by experience segments, and so on. Add the highly complex but equally predictable (less quantum variation, over which we exercise no control) interactions of all other such individuals, and we rise to the 'game theory' level of description. Once the program and all its' available stimuli, resources, and references are considered, the conclusions are determined even before the calculation is run.

 

What then shall we do with our unshakable perception (or conviction) that we're independent agents, free to choose our path according to will and in the face of opposition. We think that we think. We don't think that we compute predictably.

 

This has interesting overtones that the predestinarians would love. Are we without choice? May we not change course? Is our path known? Aaargh!

 

So much for thinking out loud. Bail me out.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

As you know, my reading of Rosen is 'in the stack'

Gramps I am pleased beyond words that you have acquired some of Rosen's work. On the other hand, I wish you would move it to the front of the stack. You have a fine mind in my estimation. I am eager to hear what you have to say about it.

 

 

Flatterer...

 

I'm currently in Hawking ATM... and Penrose's book on the maths for theories of 'everything'

[Grandpa Harley]

Legion... do you follow the basic Universal Turing Machine stuff?

[Legion]

As you know, my reading of Rosen is 'in the stack'

Gramps I am pleased beyond words that you have acquired some of Rosen's work. On the other hand, I wish you would move it to the front of the stack. You have a fine mind in my estimation. I am eager to hear what you have to say about it.

 

 

Flatterer...

 

I'm currently in Hawking ATM... and Penrose's book on the maths for theories of 'everything'

I'm desperate Gramps. I am greedy for understanding. Here I come across some work that shimmers with it. Yet it is just beyond my grasp. So what can I do but call upon minds that may be my equal or better, to help me?

 

I can only hope that Rosen will come after Penrose in your stack. To hell with physics. Biology is where it's at.

[Legion]

Legion... do you follow the basic Universal Turing Machine stuff?

Some of it. Why?

[Grandpa Harley]

Just checking. It's not something well covered outside of computational theory... it's a handy tool to have in any self affinine or positive feed back systems (as well as hardcore data processing) , and I wasn't making the assumption (nor was I attempting to be condescending either... so sorry if that was the impression... I do pompous arse VERY well I'm afraid. People either choose to see it as 'merely charming' or just plain forgive me for it)

[Grandpa Harley]

As you know, my reading of Rosen is 'in the stack'

Gramps I am pleased beyond words that you have acquired some of Rosen's work. On the other hand, I wish you would move it to the front of the stack. You have a fine mind in my estimation. I am eager to hear what you have to say about it.

 

 

Flatterer...

 

I'm currently in Hawking ATM... and Penrose's book on the maths for theories of 'everything'

I'm desperate Gramps. I am greedy for understanding. Here I come across some work that shimmers with it. Yet it is just beyond my grasp. So what can I do but call upon minds that may be my equal or better, to help me?

 

I can only hope that Rosen will come after Penrose in your stack. To hell with physics. Biology is where it's at.

My area of personal interest is ZPF stuff...thus Penrose and Hawking. The Penrose I have me nose in is 'The Road to Reality' (all 1000 pages of it... it makes Lord of the Rings look a 'little light something for the weekend') and Hawking 'The Universe in a Nutshell'... along with some freak show over unity stuff...

[Legion]

Ah Gramps, I am aware that you do pompous arse very well. But I am still convinced that beneath it you are kind and generous.

[Grandpa Harley]

Arrant nonsense... I'm rotten to the core! And proud of it! I just try to keep the gloves on with people who are worth the effort

[Legion]

Arrant nonsense... I'm rotten to the core! And proud of it! I just try to keep the gloves on with people who are worth the effort

You can't fool me Gramps. But I challenge you. I bet you will not be able to understand Rosen. Though he lays it out in fine detail, though he covers the shortcomings of the machine metaphor, though he points out the limitations of recursion, though he is both rigorous and artistic you will not understand it.

[Grandpa Harley]

OK, I sit down with a calc and a piece of paper and sort it out.

 

To quote old Grandpa Sherlock: "What one man can invent, another can discover..."