Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?

[Pythagorean]

It's evident what matter can do and i have no idea why you need to state the obvious. The question I raised was and still is:

Is mind matter or not?

You've changed your position from stating a "FACT" (you even capitalized it). You are the one claiming to have facts. That is why I "stated the obvious", to counter your claim about this "FACT":

I'd note that the FACT that not everything is reducible to matter and its interactions is puzzling and deserves attention.

I gave you suggestive evidence to the contrary. You still have to prove this as a fact if you want to utilize it in this discussion in such an authoritative manner. Can you even think of an example besides mind that fits this so-called fact? You claim to be just asking a question, but to me it looks like you're answering it.

If you want to make it about pure philosophy, then you should well know that you can't prove a negative since we can't assume to ever have the universal set or... to put it as you quoted from Socrates:

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"

Which leads to the inevitable result of not being able to prove a negative. So a negative statement can never be revered as FACT.

If mind is different from matter, then your implied statement that all is matter does not hold water, i.e. non-dualism(mind/body) doesn't make sense.

Yes, that's the point of this discussion... This is a true statement. If p --> q. My assumption is that p is false. Your assumptions is clearly that p is true, though you haven't proven it, you just keep stating it as if it were proven.

What does this have to do with the claim that matter is not all that exists?

Simply that matter is capable of unpredictable things. You can't predict what matter can't do. I'm still waiting for an example of something that can't be reduced to matter from you. and it can't be mind, because this is what is unknown and what is wished to be discovered. If you want to make a formal proof, assuming your conclusion is an important first step, but you still have to follow through with the proof. Assuming your conclusion alone isn't a proof.

The above is saying that my conscious choices and thoughts are not reducible to the properties of matter that comprises my brain.

I fully understand your claim, but I don't believe it. Prove it to me. Earlier in this thread, I gave plenty of suggestive evidence that the brain (at least) is directly responsible for consciousness. I have not seen anything from dualists even comparable. They do plenty of sitting back and criticizing little details of the more successful theory (the theory that, you know, leads direct medical applications like psychology and neurology) but they haven't offered any useful alternatives yet.

Thus, I stick with the assumption that has been more fruitful in our understanding and manipulation of consciousness. If dualism was to somehow become necessary or helpful in making predictions, I would adapt it... but that sounds pretty contradictory: once we can make predictions and model observables, it is necessarily physical, so being a dualist is unproductive: as time goes on, you lose more and more ground, while the physicalists gain more and more ground. That has been the history so far.

 

[Upisoft]

energy in a slow vibration

Then we will run into problem defining how much slow is enough... You better define a term for each rate of vibration if you go that way, thus dropping dualism in favor of something that is not based on the number 2, but on infinity. (Is there appropriate name for this?)

 

[G037H3]

Then we will run into problem defining how much slow is enough... You better define a term for each rate of vibration if you go that way, thus dropping dualism in favor of something that is not based on the number 2, but on infinity. (Is there appropriate name for this?)

Spinoza :D

 

[Maui]

You've changed your position from stating a "FACT" (you even capitalized it). You are the one claiming to have facts. That is why I "stated the obvious", to counter your claim about this "FACT":

It's FACT that my mind employs unscientific top-down causation and my conscious choices are REAL. The current scientific paradigm cannot explain this FACT, it can only deny it, because it makes NO sense to scientists. But scientists who consider their knowledge in the field final and true arent much better then creationists.

Even though you can't see me, I am now rasing my right hand through top-down causation. It's a FACT proven many billion times per second around the globe.

I gave you suggestive evidence to the contrary. You still have to prove this as a fact if you want to utilize it in this discussion in such an authorhow itative manner.

If your theory contradicts observational evidence, it's plain wrong.

I'm still waiting for an example of something that can't be reduced to matter from you. and it can't be mind, because this is what is unknown and what is wished to be discovered. If you want to make a formal proof, assuming your conclusion is an important first step, but you still have to follow through with the proof. Assuming your conclusion alone isn't a proof.

Observations are and have always been considered authoritive proofs in the sciences.

I fully understand your claim, but I don't believe it. Prove it to me.

If you wish i can make a video of myself raising my hands or legs and upload on youtube.

Earlier in this thread, I gave plenty of suggestive evidence that the brain (at least) is directly responsible for consciousness.

But it's not reducible to the brain. There are genuinely NEW properties that are not reducible to the brain that control my body in a NON-scientific, top-down causation.

I have not seen anything from dualists even comparable. They do plenty of sitting back and criticizing little details of the more successful theory

That "successful" theory posits that I can't raise my hands or that what I experience is an illusion. That theory is born out of the desire to prove that science has discovered almost everything. This is a religious belief probably designed to fill in gaps in our current knowledge.

Thus, I stick with the assumption that has been more fruitful in our understanding and manipulation of consciousness. If dualism was to somehow become necessary or helpful in making predictions, I would adapt it... but that sounds pretty contradictory: once we can make predictions and model observables, it is necessarily physical, so being a dualist is unproductive: as time goes on, you lose more and more ground, while the physicalists gain more and more ground. That has been the history so far.

No ground has been gained so far on the way the mind makes conscious decisions or how conscious experience is born. You should move on, instead of denying the obvious.

 

[Upisoft]

Spinoza :D

I have to read something... Any idea what can be a good start?

 

[Maui]

As for dualism, I don't accept there is a "mind-body' problem" in the same way as physicists don't accept that there is a fundamental problem with physics just because they cannot observe events outside our light cone or inside black holes.

Okay, i won't hold you accountable for what you said, since it wasn't your mind that made the decision to state what you did, but the inveitability.

On a side note, what if not everything is reducible to classical physics? What would it take for you to believe that what you experience is real and actual?

 

[Upisoft]

It's FACT that my mind employs unscientific top-down causation and my conscious choices are REAL.

You feel it that way. Your feelings about the subject are no proof. If your choices were real then your dream world would be a reality.

 

[Upisoft]

On a side note, what if not everything is reducible to classical physics?

Of course not. There is also Quantum mechanics, etc. An there is also a lot that can be known, but we don't know it yet.

 

[Maui]

You feel it that way. Your feelings about the subject are no proof. If your choices were real then your dream world would be a reality.

But there is a very definite difference between dreaming and being awake. It's an assumption after all, but if you don't make it, what do you suggest we do?

Even if i am lucid dreaming everything while i am awake, what benefit does it bring over the situation when i assume that i am not? It's self- and socially destructive to think this way of existence and reality.

 

[Maui]

You feel it that way. Your feelings about the subject are no proof. If your choices were real then your dream world would be a reality.

Observational evidence is proof in science. Whether they are fundamentally wrong is not a scientific question. You should not mix science and philosophy, as sciences do not deal with fundamental truths.

 

[Upisoft]

Observational evidence is proof in science. Whether they are fundamentally wrong is not a scientific question. You should not mix science and philosophy, as sciences do not deal with fundamental truths.

There is no other observer of your feelings. You cannot have objective observational evidence.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Okay, i won't hold you accountable for what you said, since it wasn't your mind that made the decision to state what you did, but the inveitability.

On a side note, what if not everything is reducible to classical physics? What would it take for you to believe that what you experience is real and actual?

I do believe my personal experiences are real. I also believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain function. You agreed that emergent properties are part of nature and do not require a fifth force or some non-physical explanation. This discussion should have ended there. Perhaps you just like to argue.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by top-down causation. There's no doubt that our thoughts and feelings result from our interactions with the environment. Also, I don't doubt that 'mind' is a legitimate concept. You can give someone "a piece of your mind". That's doesn't equate to giving someone a piece of your brain. Brains communicate with each other creating larger emergent structures.

And yes, not everything is reducible to classical physics. We've known that since the 1920's. We also are just beginning to find ways to study emergent phenomenon and complex systems. But they are still part of nature and therefore "physical".

 

[Maui]

There is no other observer of your feelings. You cannot have objective observational evidence.

Then science is dead, since nothing can be considered objective observational evidence. Continuing your line of thought, there could be no other observer than me, since there is no objective way to ascertain the veracity of my feelings and experiences. Do you see how silly this duscussion is becoming when somebody pushes this type of reasoning?

 

[Maui]

I do believe my personal experiences are real. I also believe that consciousness is an emergent property of brain function. You agreed that emergent properties are part of nature and do not require a fifth force or some non-physical explanation. This discussion should have ended there. Perhaps you just like to argue.

If your consciousness/mind is an emergent property, then you are a dualist.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by top-down causation. There's no doubt that our thoughts and feelings result from our interactions with the environment.

Not only. There is no enviropnmental reason why i should sing songs or paint pictures or suffer emotionally for lost relatives. But this is kind of obvious, isn't it?

Also, I don't doubt that 'mind' is a legitimate concept. You can give someone "a piece of your mind". That's doesn't equate to giving someone a piece of your brain. Brains communicate with each other creating larger emergent structures.

Agreed.

And yes, not everything is reducible to classical physics. We've known that since the 1920's. We also are just beginning to find ways to study emergent phenomenon and complex systems. But they are still part of nature and therefore "physical".

Then you must point a way to measure how a mind makes a decision.

 

[Upisoft]

But there is a very definite difference between dreaming and being awake. It's an assumption after all, but if you don't make it, what do you suggest we do?

Even if i am lucid dreaming everything while i am awake, what benefit does it bring over the situation when i assume that i am not? It's self- and socially destructive to think this way of existence and reality.

If there is no difference between dreaming and being awake, then you are correct - your choices are real (or not real - whatever you define the dream you are in).

If there is difference, and that difference being the objective world, then your choices are not real. They are the dreams (a virtual reality that your mind emulates). Some of them become reality if you are able to find way to express them in the real world. There is nothing unscientific in your brain function. It is just unique, and therefore your virtual reality emulated by your brain function differs from the virtual realities of all other people.

Even the animals have brains capable of virtual reality emulation. Yours is just much more complicated, I guess.

 

[Maui]

If there is difference, and that difference being the objective world, then your choices are not real. They are the dreams (a virtual reality that your mind emulates).

My mind is me. There is no evidence that there is a separate me and a mind that i call mine. If my mind emulates something, that means i am emulating something, i.e. i am dreaming, contemplating, etc.

Some of them become reality if you are able to find way to express them in the real world.

Then they are ALL real since i can express them all all the time, any day of the year.

There is nothing unscientific in your brain function. It is just unique, and therefore your virtual reality emulated by your brain function differs from the virtual realities of all other people.

Top-down causation is currently considered unscientific, hence the "paradoxes" about our conscious choices. There are no paradoxes once you learn to accept that reductionism and materialism can ONLY offer a partial explanation of the world.

Anyone who considers the current state of science complete is deeply ignorant of the deep fundamental and conceptual problems that plague physics and biology.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If your consciousness/mind is an emergent property, then you are a dualist.

Why? Is dualism nothing more than admitting we don't know everything? We can't observe or measure what goes on inside black holes. Does that invalidate science?

Not only. There is no enviropnmental reason why i should sing songs or paint pictures or suffer emotionally for lost relatives. But this is kind of obvious, isn't it?

How do you even know you have relatives or that there are such things as songs? As for emotion, that's a personal experience. Others can only observe your behavior. I already addressed this in previous posts. I'm confident there are physical correlates to our thoughts and feelings which can be observed. As for actually getting inside your head and becoming you, that may be a "black hole" of neuroscience, but it hardly invalidates neuroscience any more than real black holes invalidate physics.
.

Then you must point a way to measure how a mind makes a decision.

Why? If you could go back in time, would you expect Isaac Newton to point a way to measure electromagnetic phenomenon (volts, amps, etc)?

 

[Upisoft]

Then they are ALL real since i can express them all all the time, any day of the year.

Then you have never been frustrated. Lucky you.

Top-down causation is currently considered unscientific, hence the "paradoxes" about our conscious choices.

There is no "top-down" causation. There is just causation. It is only one kind. What you are talking about is the illusion(virtual reality) that the brain creates.

Anyone who considers the current state of science complete is deeply ignorant of the deep fundamental and conceptual problems that plague physics and biology.

There is no need to think that the current state of science is complete to complete. No more than there is need to mystify our lack of knowledge and make conclusions based on it.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's FACT that my mind employs unscientific top-down causation and my conscious choices are REAL. The current scientific paradigm cannot explain this FACT, it can only deny it, because it makes NO sense to scientists. But scientists who consider their knowledge in the field final and true arent much better then creationists.

Your whole post pretty much relies on this statement of willpower. Science has actually investigated the matter and the results are somewhat discouraging for the case of willpower. It's fairly easy to find the research on the internet, but if you want links, let me know.

As a starter, if you have a healthy brain, you're not going to be able to stick your hand on a piping hot stove, drown yourself, starve yourself when your know there's food, hold in your digestive function, the list goes on. What's stopping you from doing all these things? The simplified answer is inhibitory neurons that care more about your survival than your intellectual self does.

When a species adapts such that they don't have to work as hard for survival, attention is reflected inward, noise becomes more significant, the random stream of consciousness begins to randomly manifest itself. Every once in a while (in the history of billions of human beings) the random thoughts add up to something significant in the environment that was previously observed, but not understood, and through social mechanisms, the organisms are able to convey the information and hold on to it and teach it to their young. As the young learns new information, it changes their behavior: the experience of pain deters you from repeating painful actions. Temptation towards available pleasure is often irresistible unless the greater consequences are fully realized. Many human actions are nothing more than reactions to emotional experiences which are indicators of survivability. Of course, when an organism is bored (no pleasure available or pain warning of threats to survival) then returns the random noise, based on past observations that we can somehow, by chance, make sense out of. But usually not.

That "successful" theory posits that I can't raise my hands or that what I experience is an illusion. That theory is born out of the desire to prove that science has discovered almost everything. This is a religious belief probably designed to fill in gaps in our current knowledge.

This is completely false. The successful theory does not posit that, nobody has claimed that science has discovered almost everything, nor do most practicing scientists have any desire to prove it, nor is the theory born out of any other desire than that to understand nature.

It's well recognized that answering a question in science leads to more questions. It's also well understood that no one man can hope to understand his whole scientific field (or even a subfield of his field) in a lifetime. Nature is too complex and diverse (in more ways than just life). Much too complex and diverse for you to start guessing what it can't do, especially in the light of such suggestive evidence.

 

[Maui]

Why? Is dualism nothing more than admitting we don't know everything?

If conscious acts are observed, they are fact. Since there is someone WHO observes, there are conscious act and observations. This is an undeniable FACT. Matter does not observe, mind does. Reality is REAL in some way, this is certain and it is certain that i do exist.

We can't observe or measure what goes on inside black holes. Does that invalidate science?

If you posit that black holes do not exist because we don't understand them, then your "science" is in deep trouble.

How do you even know you have relatives or that there are such things as songs?

Through my conscious interactions. Don't my relatives exist? Do songs not exist?

As for emotion, that's a personal experience.

Yes. There is someone that experiences.

Others can only observe your behavior. I already addressed this in previous posts. I'm confident there are physical correlates to our thoughts and feelings which can be observed.

Would you want me to post an EEG for you show the physical correlates?




.

Why? If you could go back in time, would you expect Isaac Newton to point a way to measure electromagnetic phenomenon (volts, amps, etc)?

Then anything goes, right? In time we could hope to prove that the conservation of energy is false, that we can live without breathing, etc. The question is how do we separate the nonsense from the logic in wild speculations?

 

[Pythagorean]

If you posit that black holes do not exist because we don't understand them, then your "science" is in deep trouble.

That wasn't his argument at all. He was stating that the lack of direct observation of black holes doesn't prove they don't exist.

Anyway, I can tell by now that you don't really want to have a discussion. You are already set in your ways.

 

[Maui]

Your whole post pretty much relies on this statement of willpower. Science has actually investigated the matter and the results are somewhat discouraging for the case of willpower. It's fairly easy to find the research on the internet, but if you want links, let me know.

Science is at a dead-end on this question(how subjective experience is born from inanimate matter) and i don't particularly care for some scientist's confused thoughts. For every scientist and paper that claims that free will is an illusion there is one that disagrees.

As a starter, if you have a healthy brain, you're not going to be able to stick your hand on a piping hot stove, drown yourself, starve yourself when your know there's food, hold in your digestive function, the list goes on. What's stopping you from doing all these things? The simplified answer is inhibitory neurons that care more about your survival than your intellectual self does.

When a species adapts such that they don't have to work as hard for survival, attention is reflected inward, noise becomes more significant, the random stream of consciousness begins to randomly manifest itself. Every once in a while (in the history of billions of human beings) the random thoughts add up to something significant in the environment that was previously observed, but not understood, and through social mechanisms, the organisms are able to convey the information and hold on to it and teach it to their young. As the young learns new information, it changes their behavior: the experience of pain deters you from repeating painful actions. Temptation towards available pleasure is often irresistible unless the greater consequences are fully realized. Many human actions are nothing more than reactions to emotional experiences which are indicators of survivability. Of course, when an organism is bored (no pleasure available or pain warning of threats to survival) then returns the random noise, based on past observations that we can somehow, by chance, make sense out of. But usually not.

This is true and there is obviously someone who recognizes these facts. That someone is me(my emergent mind) and you(your emergent mind).

This is completely false. The successful theory does not posit that, nobody has claimed that science has discovered almost everything, nor do most practicing scientists have any desire to prove it, nor is the theory born out of any other desire than that to understand nature. It's well recognized that answering a question in science leads to more questions. It's also well understood that no one man can hope to understand his whole scientific field (or even a subfield of his field) in a lifetime. Nature is too complex and diverse (in more ways than just life). Much too complex and diverse for you to start guessing what it can't do, especially in the light of such suggestive evidence.

As soon as anyone(scientist or not) declares that coscious choices are an illusion, they are transgressing their field of knowledge and entering the void of ignorance with a set of WILD speculations. This isn't science.

 

[Pythagorean]

As soon as anyone(scientist or not) declares that coscious choices are an illusion, they are transgressing their field of knowledge and entering the void of ignorance with a set of WILD speculations. This isn't science.

Replace "coscious choices" with "physical causality" and back 'atchya.

 

[Upisoft]

Many human actions are nothing more than reactions to emotional experiences which are indicators of survivability.

I think that all of our actions are based on emotional experience. Some of them are those you are talking about. Direct reactions of emotional experiences, i.e. impulsive actions. Others contain "rational" component, what we call thought. I say "rational", because even people want to be completely logical, they make logical mistakes. Nevertheless how logical is one's action it always is based on emotional experiences (I include here all autonomic functions and reflexes).

For example, consider the question "Why is life worth to live"? Can anyone give a pure logical reason? I doubt it.

 

[Maui]

That wasn't his argument at all. He was stating that the lack of direct observation of black holes doesn't prove they don't exist.

I didn't perceive that, since i never said or implied that only direct obsevation is valid for the veracity of a statement. His example and motives for it were confusing.

Anyway, I can tell by now that you don't really want to have a discussion. You are already set in your ways.

Yes, i am not particularly fond of arguing with anyone who denies the validity of my obervations or that i exist or that I am able to consciously raise my hand or leg or produce a thought.

If you are not thinking(i.e. there is no one that thinks and makes decisions), what exactly are you doing on a forum that proliferates logic and logical thinking?

 

[Maui]

Replace "coscious choices" with "physical causality" and back 'atchya.

Care to show me the "physical causality" in an EEG or other examination of your choice as to how my choices are born and how they determine my volitional acts?

 

[Upisoft]

If conscious acts are observed, they are fact. Since there is someone WHO observes, there are conscious act and observations. This is an undeniable FACT.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-17/1412563"
Do you observe them different in color?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think that all of our actions are based on emotional experience. Some of them are those you are talking about. Direct reactions of emotional experiences, i.e. impulsive actions. Others contain "rational" component, what we call thought. I say "rational", because even people want to be completely logical, they make logical mistakes. Nevertheless how logical is one's action it always is based on emotional experiences (I include here all autonomic functions and reflexes).

I mostly agree with you, but I think people can be largely disengaged from emotional thinking when they're bored or dissociated. I guess it depends on where you draw the line between emotional and computational. I consider myself adding 2+2 a computational operation. It is ultimately driven by emotion, I guess, though. The excitement of an answer or the prospect of success.

For example, consider the question "Why is life worth to live"? Can anyone give a pure logical reason? I doubt it.

I think it's largely because the question is not logical. It assumes that life is always worth living, which is not necessarily the case. Worth is a measurement of the value of the current situation, which changes depending on a) the situation and b) the state of the human brain. A weak brain in a high-stress situation may easily find life not worth living, but you throw a dog a bone every once in a while and even moderate-stress situations become more palatable. It's a delicate balance of pleasure and pain.

Also, to reproduce =)

 

[Pythagorean]

Care to show me the "physical causality" in an EEG or other examination of your choice as to how my choices are born and how they determine my volitional acts?

If you were willing to watch an experiment about willpower where an fMRI machine is able to predict people's choices before the people have made them based on their neural activity, then maybe you'd actually gain some more understanding of my stance.

But ultimately, An EEG or fMRI won't help you for visually understanding as deep as you'd want too... that's like trying to look at scrambled eggs and tell the yolk from the white. The actual machines are analyzed with statistics with a priori knowledge based on limited knowledge about brain function based on brain damage cases and experiments on animals (and willing human patients).

The brain doesn't nicely compartmentalize in a way that's convenient to understanding it's processing with an EEG alone. You really need to learn the circuits and the functions handled by particular circuits, and there's a lot of them... a really lot. (I'm not claiming to know them, myself, and the scientific community is still establishing them... but they are making progress, they're not dead in the water by any means, you're just not taking advantage of the information that's now available... out of stubbornness!.

In short, "choices" are based on prior information and current situation... basically memory and sensation. People will always try to make what they think are the best choices for their overall health. The more informed they are, the better choices they can (and WILL) make, as long as they are aware of the significance of the information.

 

[Upisoft]

I mostly agree with you, but I think people can be largely disengaged from emotional thinking when they're bored or dissociated. I guess it depends on where you draw the line between emotional and computational. I consider myself adding 2+2 a computational operation. It is ultimately driven by emotion, I guess, though. The excitement of an answer or the prospect of success.

Being bored is emotional state. Negative one. People will tend to go away from that state. Some may go to the local strip bar and some may start searching the answer of the question about Life, Universe and Everything. In any case they have something in common, they are doing something that distracts them from the boredom. Some may even consider adding 2 and 2, but doing so is already success itself, as it helps them to avoid the boredom. Well, boredom is not always the reason to add 2 and 2. You may actually counting sheep or something..

I think it's largely because the question is not logical. It assumes that life is always worth living, which is not necessarily the case. Worth is a measurement of the value of the current situation, which changes depending on a) the situation and b) the state of the human brain. A weak brain in a high-stress situation may easily find life not worth living, but you throw a dog a bone every once in a while and even moderate-stress situations become more palatable. It's a delicate balance of pleasure and pain.

Also, to reproduce =)

I didn't meant to assume that life is worth living. Imagine you do ask this question to people around. Some may actually answer that their life is not worth living. What I'm trying to say is that if you get actual answer to the question, say "Life is worth living because the sky is so beautiful and...", it will always contain non-logical reason. Even if 99% of the reasoning is logical.

There is no logic in reproduction, that's why the nature made sure it is so good.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, i am not particularly fond of arguing with anyone who denies the validity of my obervations or that i exist or that I am able to consciously raise my hand or leg or produce a thought.

nobody's disputing your observation. It's yout interpretation that is being scrutinized.

If you are not thinking(i.e. there is no one that thinks and makes decisions), what exactly are you doing on a forum that proliferates logic and logical thinking?

I never denied that we think. I claim the thinking is a physical process that we experience.

 

[Upisoft]

nobody's disputing your observation. It's yout interpretation that is being scrutinized.

Indeed, that's why I posted the link to the optical illusion. It is amusing to see how the change in the background in the picture can change your "mind" about if the birds have different color. If he is correct, then the background of the image is part of his mind, because it is the only thing changing.

 

[sganesh88]

There is no other observer of your feelings. You cannot have objective observational evidence.

A Consciousness dipped with vengeance towards a race can result in an earth-shattering dictator-Hitler.
A Soul completely in awe towards Truth and non-violence can transform a nation and make the whole world weep when it departs the body-Gandhi
A Self wondering at the orderliness of the universe result in unearthing the mysteries of nature not obvious to the superficial and egoistic eyes. -Einstein

Enough observational evidences? Attributing these awesome abilities of Life to emergent behavior and reductionism just kills the concept of beauty.

 

[G037H3]

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/brain-teasers/optical-illusion-17/1412563"
Do you observe them different in color?

That just takes advantage of averages.

 

[Upisoft]

Enough observational evidences? Attributing these awesome abilities of Life to emergent behavior and reductionism just kills the concept of beauty.

Beauty is not objective concept. Complicating the uniqueness of the subject by adding concepts like mind, soul, spirit, etc. and insisting they are separate entities from the subject is not objective either.

 

[Maui]

I never denied that we think. I claim the thinking is a physical process that we experience.

Where exactly in physics textbooks did you see any mention of properties of matter related to the process of thinking?

 

[Maui]

If you were willing to watch an experiment about willpower where an fMRI machine is able to predict people's choices before the people have made them based on their neural activity, then maybe you'd actually gain some more understanding of my stance.

What do you mean by "before people have made them"? Before they were aware that they would make them?

But ultimately, An EEG or fMRI won't help you for visually understanding as deep as you'd want too... that's like trying to look at scrambled eggs and tell the yolk from the white. The actual machines are analyzed with statistics with a priori knowledge based on limited knowledge about brain function based on brain damage cases and experiments on animals (and willing human patients).

The brain doesn't nicely compartmentalize in a way that's convenient to understanding it's processing with an EEG alone. You really need to learn the circuits and the functions handled by particular circuits, and there's a lot of them... a really lot. (I'm not claiming to know them, myself, and the scientific community is still establishing them... but they are making progress, they're not dead in the water by any means, you're just not taking advantage of the information that's now available... out of stubbornness!.

It's clear to me that if you had ANY links whatsoever about how thinking and perception arise, you'd have posted them by now. All i can see is speculation about circuits in the hope that you'd find a mechanism for personal subjective experience that will confirm your or someone else's thesis.

In short, "choices" are based on prior information and current situation... basically memory and sensation.

...and of course LOGIC! And logic only exists in minds(especially the ability to predict possible outcomes). Surprized?

People will always try to make what they think are the best choices for their overall health. The more informed they are, the better choices they can (and WILL) make, as long as they are aware of the significance of the information.

Making choices is a good indicator of a well functioning mind.

 

[Pythagorean]

Try Neuroscience texts, who's principles are found on physics.

 

[Maui]

Try Neuroscience texts, who's principles are found on physics.

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

 

[Upisoft]

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

What's your point? There are no cooking recipes in the physics textbook either. That does not mean the cake is unphysical...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

Are you aware of the disease schizophrenia? Are you aware that there are drugs such as haloperidol which, although not a cure, can allow many of the afflicted to live reasonably normal lives as long as they take the medication? Schizophrenia is a classic thinking disorder. Moreover you must be aware that there are many drugs (too many) available legally and illegally that affect mood, emotion, the way we sense things. Why do you think people experiment with LSD or Ectascy ? If thinking and consciousness are such ineffable, mysterious non physical qualities, why are they affected by chemicals to such a degree?

It's true we don't know, in a deep sense, exactly how they work, although many receptor systems have been identified. How come something as physical as a chemical have such profound and mostly predictable psychic effects if there wasn't some physical connection?

http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/MdisordADV/AdvSchid.jsp

If you want more detail on the current state of knowledge of the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia:

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Mechanisms_of_Action_of_Second_Generation_Antipsychotic_Drugs_In_Schizophrenia.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

My question was about "thinking". Point me to a source from physics that says that properties of matter are responsible for the process of thinking.

As I've already stated, psychology has well accepted the tenants of neuroscience by now. There's not as much resistance from religious fanatics to exploring the brain-mind problem nowadays. Previously, it would have been sacrilegious to claim that there was no such thing as some nonphysical "soul" and so not much research was done in it: psychology was isolated from neuroscience.

That's not the case anymore, not in the last 20 or 30 years, but especially not in the last 10 years. People are getting over the fact that they're not magical beings, just like they got over the fact that they don't hold the center of the universe in centuries past.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Galois was a dualist and look where it got him. I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except for the OP and I have no intention of wading through it all. However, this quote caught my eye.

Furthermore, any two identical physical states produce the same mental states.

Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

 

[G037H3]

Galois was a dualist and look where it got him. I haven't read any of the posts in this thread except for the OP and I have no intention of wading through it all. However, this quote caught my eye.


Has anyone in this thread pointed out that according to the latest understanding (that is since 1926) two identical physical states don't necessarily produce the same subsequent physical state, let alone the same mental state?

Cute.

Meh, I argue philosophy (which I am already skilled at), not physics (which I am putting off until after my mathematics is solid and far-reaching).

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

Clearly, A and C are not the case when two physical states are identical without the scare quotes. B is Einstein's "Hidden Variables" objection.

 

[G037H3]

Clearly, A and C are not the case when two physical states are identical without the scare quotes. B is Einstein's "Hidden Variables" objection.

what's wrong with C?

for all we know, one of the two things that are the same happen to be bumped by some fleeting random spike in energy, and it causes a chain reaction that results in a non-deterministic change

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

what's wrong with C?

QM has something to say about what can happen to two systems that are in the same state. State includes all bumps.

 

[G037H3]

QM has something to say about what can happen to two systems that are in the same state. State includes all bumps.

Well, I already said that I'm avoiding a physics interpretation, I was just using pure logic.

 

[Upisoft]

If two 'identical' systems diverge in states, either:

A: they aren't actually identical

B: they are 'identical', but only to the level we can measure sameness

C: the divergent states are a result of interaction with other things

Didn't you miss:
D: they are not deterministic
?

 

[G037H3]

Didn't you miss:
D: they are not deterministic
?

I was only discussing a comparison between two things, not universal laws.

I take it that universal laws are much more complex than an endless number of comparisons between things.