Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
08-04-2019, 08:23   #106
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Well my point was to make you aware of what
I already am aware of those things and the points you are making which I am getting just fine, though I appreciate your intent all the same! I just do not think it is a distinction that is required to carry the point I was making to the other user. They are both interesting things to discuss, I just see a distinction between them.

I see a distinction between discussing the "stuff" in our head and what it appears to be doing, which I was doing with the user, and discussing what that stuff actually is and how it is doing what it is doing.

The only issue I am pointing out to the user is that when seeking an explanation for why consciousness arises as it does.... or why there is something rather than nothing.... that we should be doing that while also considering the reverse question. Why do we expect it NOT to be that way? Why should there be nothing rather than something? Why should the constituent parts of our universe not produce consciousness.

It is just good to focus a light on the assumptions behind how we question things sometimes, and that is the point of my response to the user.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kneemos View Post
The conscious mind is only a bit of what the mind gets up to.
Even that is not wholly in our control.
Indeed, and in fact some experiments on free will recently are suggesting to us that much of the control we even think we do have.... we actually don't. That many aspects of what we traditionally consider to be free will.... may be illusory. I find myself suspecting that many aspects of what we consider consciousness may be too!
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
Advertisement
08-04-2019, 08:35   #107
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
I already am aware of those things and the points you are making which I am getting just fine
I only learned it in graduate school so tend to assume it is not well known. Did you learn the mathematical formalism with it out of curiosity or just the bare facts? I'd just be interested to know how it is taught in other areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
The only issue I am pointing out to the user is that when seeking an explanation for why consciousness arises as it does.... or why there is something rather than nothing.... that we should be doing that while also considering the reverse question. Why do we expect it NOT to be that way? Why should there be nothing rather than something? Why should the constituent parts of our universe not produce consciousness.
The point though is there are already many known effects that "constituent parts" do not produce and exist only at the "higher level" of the system and not clearly located anywhere or embodied.

Even ignoring that I don't think what you are saying is productive or the normal scientific approach. Little to no neurologists and neurochemists investigate the question "Why shouldn't the physical systems of the brain produce consciousness?" but rather "Why do the physical systems of the brain produce consciousness?" That is everybody actually approaches the question as a meaningful one not as a non-question resulting from incorrect human preconceptions.

I think you have more of a point with the "something rather than nothing" question as opposed to the consciousness one.
Fourier is offline  
Thanks from:
08-04-2019, 08:39   #108
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
^ Most of what I learn in that area is self taught. So I can not tell you how it is taught in other areas to be honest.

Again though the point core to what I am saying to the other user is about the assumptions we hold when we ask some of our questions as humans. Nothing more than that. I think you are making a much different set of points, no less interesting, than the one I am making therefore.

By mentioning neurologists and neuro-chemists you are entirely correct about the scientific approach to the question. So I do not think I have more of a point with one and not the other. It is a valid way of thinking about both. Even if scientists on the ground have no utility to think that way in their day to day work.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
08-04-2019, 08:44   #109
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
By mentioning neurologists and neuro-chemists you are entirely correct about the scientific approach to the question. So I do not think I have more of a point with one and not the other. It is a valid way of thinking about both. Even if scientists on the ground have no utility to think that way in their day to day work.
So you're just making the very general point that the initial way one might intuitively phrase a question might have the wrong focus and not so much on whether that turns out to be the case for any given question?
Fourier is offline  
08-04-2019, 08:56   #110
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
^ Most of what I learn in that area is self taught. So I can not tell you how it is taught in other areas to be honest.
Do you remember the texts? I'd just be interested to see how it is explained without the mathematics, might be handy for teaching purposes. No worries if not.
Fourier is offline  
Advertisement
08-04-2019, 09:00   #111
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
So you're just making the very general point that the initial way one might intuitively phrase a question might have the wrong focus and not so much on whether that turns out to be the case for any given question?
That would be the general point I was focused on yes. That it is useful when questioning how and why the universe, or some aspect of the universe, is the way it is.... it is also useful to question why would it not be so. Why does the contents of our skull produce consciousness? We do not know yet. But also why would or should it not do so? Is it really as remarkable as it seems to us, or is it just as mundane in a sense as any other fact about our universe.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Good question and I hope we answer it! But why would there NOT be something and why do we intuitively expect nothing to be the default in this way? It is a valid assumption? Probably not!
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
08-04-2019, 09:10   #112
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
That would be the general point I was focused on yes. That it is useful when questioning how and why the universe, or some aspect of the universe, is the way it is.... it is also useful to question why would it not be so. Why does the contents of our skull produce consciousness? We do not know yet. But also why would or should it not do so? Is it really as remarkable as it seems to us, or is it just as mundane in a sense as any other fact about our universe.
Okay of course one can make this general point. However to me in most questions it has little to no content and this is more important than just the general observation that one can do it.

For instance take let's say "Why do superfluids flow so easily despite what the main elements composing them are?"

Sure one could say "Well maybe that is just what the stuff of superfluids does", but what real content does that have? It is true in a trivial sense that "the stuff does it", but I'm not sure of the value of that observation.
Fourier is offline  
08-04-2019, 09:17   #113
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Sure one could say "Well maybe that is just what the stuff of superfluids does", but what real content does that have?
From the perspective of a scientist on the ground actually working on answering that question I agree with you 100%. Probably absolutely no useful content at all.

From the perspective of constantly questioning our assumptions as human beings, more philosophical than scientific, I think it is just a useful practice to maintain.

I think as humans we WANT the ultimate explanations for certain things..... stuff existing, consciousness, and morality being the top three that tend to come up in religiously themes threads........ evolution being another common example..... to be as lofty and special as those things are to us. My feeling has always been that the general lay public, especially theists, do not want simple mundane science to answer those topics. Many people do not WANT Evolution Theory to be correct because the lofty hubris of human existence emotionally demands for us something lofty and magical to explain it. Like a god or gods.

People may not WANT consciousness to have some simply explanation about how it is just emergent as a property when neurons reach a certain level of complexity in their structure and interaction. They want "soul" to exist, some consciousness field of which we are only a manifestation, or some godly plan.

But maybe it is as simple as consciousness is just what a universe like ours does. And though it is special and wonderful TO US..... it is as mundane as any other fact about our universe.

But who knows? Our knowledge is incomplete about consciousness, what it is, and how it works. Until that changes we are all, myself included, talking out of our hoops And I am good with that.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
Thanks from:
08-04-2019, 09:33   #114
Fourier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
People may not WANT consciousness to have some simply explanation about how it is just emergent as a property when neurons reach a certain level of complexity in their structure and interaction. They want "soul" to exist, some consciousness field of which we are only a manifestation, or some godly plan.
Okay you're more making the point that things might not have the higher status we intuitively expect them to or more so to at least consider that.

No problem there. I more just want to point out (which doesn't affect that point of yours) that we know there are things that exist at a higher level that do not emerge from anything at a lower level and that might be relevant to the mind.

i.e. there are natural/physical alternatives to both supernaturalism and emergence which tend to be ignored in these kind of discussions.

My point being it is not a dichotomy between things being emergent from lower "stuff" or a "soul".
Fourier is offline  
Advertisement
08-04-2019, 10:48   #115
Grayson
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 14,496
Who wrote the bible leads to a discussion about the nature of consciousness

Only in AH.
Grayson is offline  
(3) thanks from:
26-03-2020, 08:28   #116
rock22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerWolf View Post
Word of mouth... which we all know is prone to being altered by gross exaggeration, and in a time of ignorance people would believe.

Hell, even now people believe what the mass media feeds them right off the bat...
research on Homer and modern Balkan oral material strongly suggest that this is not the case.
rock22 is offline  
26-03-2020, 08:33   #117
Feisar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,568
I more pertinent question would be who edited it.
Feisar is online now  
26-03-2020, 08:49   #118
Badly Drunk Boy
Registered User
 
Badly Drunk Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insect Overlord View Post
Most of it was actually made up of retweets and .gifs from live streams.
It's definitely funnier than most retweets and gifs!
Badly Drunk Boy is offline  
Thanks from:
26-03-2020, 14:55   #119
Zebra3
Registered User
 
Zebra3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,276
And Man Created God.
Zebra3 is online now  
26-03-2020, 17:17   #120
Ipso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,764
Possibly not John.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/everyo...o-new-research
Ipso is online now  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search