Posts: 67317
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 10:56 am
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 11:04 am by The Grand Nudger.)
We don't seem to find thought's floating around separate from brains, do we? That the mind (and the effects thereof) is directly related to the brain has been demonstrated as much as anything could be demonstrated. No one here is blowing smoke up anyone's ass claiming that we can demonstrate exactly how (step by step) a thought is formed or translated, but the place in which this is occurring is very easily observable. If you wish to postulate some other mechanism, something that we have not observed, that's fantastic. Is there any evidence you'd like to present?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 11:07 am
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 11:12 am by StatCrux.)
(September 9, 2011 at 10:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: We don't seem to find thought's floating around separate from brains, do we? That the mind (and the effects thereof) are directly related to the brain has been demonstrated as much as anything could be demonstrated.
So where exactly do you usually "find" thoughts. I can appreciate the correlation between brain activity and perceived thought, but it is another leap of assumption to say that "thought" is physically found in "electrical impulses". Hindu philosophy regards "thought" as the instigator of physical phenomena in total reversal of the western materialist view. Modern understanding in philosophy and quantum theory is questioning the westen materialist viewpoint. (see "On physics and philosophy" Bernard d'Espagnat). The fact of the matter is that at the moment we simply don't understand, either viewpoint requires a leap of faith. "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d'Espagnat
Posts: 765
Threads: 40
Joined: August 8, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 11:46 am
(September 9, 2011 at 11:07 am)StatCrux Wrote: [quote='Rhythm' pid='176725' dateline='1315580186']
So where exactly do you usually "find" thoughts. I can appreciate the correlation between brain activity and perceived thought, but it is another leap of assumption to say that "thought" is physically found in "electrical impulses". Hindu philosophy regards "thought" as the instigator of physical phenomena in total reversal of the western materialist view. Modern understanding in philosophy and quantum theory is questioning the westen materialist viewpoint. (see "On physics and philosophy" Bernard d'Espagnat). The fact of the matter is that at the moment we simply don't understand, either viewpoint requires a leap of faith. "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d'Espagnat In the brain, stored and produced electro-chemically.
I live in India, Hindus are nice people but also very superstitious and prone to believing some really crazy shit.
As for QM some hippy, new age interpretations have reopened the door wrt to some form of dualism. Most interpretations don't however. Let's wait and see. It is true that matter, or specifically the mass of matter, is an intractable problem in physics, hence the hunt for the Higgs boson, but materialism has moved on from being just about stuff, it has to accept that any part of the natural universe is 'material' even empty space. None of this however endorses supernature nor dualism (ESP substance dualism).
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
Posts: 67317
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 11:47 am
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 11:50 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Anytime the word "quantum" comes up in defense of the supernatural you can be almost certain that the issuer has a misunderstanding of the discipline.
http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/sha...HPMP07.pdf
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 12:13 pm by StatCrux.)
(September 9, 2011 at 11:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Anytime the word "quantum" comes up in defense of the supernatural you can be almost certain that the issuer has a misunderstanding of the discipline.
http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/philo/sha...HPMP07.pdf
Firstly my intention was not to offer any "defense of the supernatural" rather to point out the fact that our current understanding of "thought" is still in its infancy and not well understood, in contrast to the assertion made that thought is simply electrical impules. Secondly the term "supernatural" was never mentioned and is not defined in this context, if the physical world can be influenced by human consciousness by some as yet, not fully understood medium, would that be regarded as supernatural? I prefer to keep an open mind on this issue. Are you implying that Bernard d'Espagnat has a misunderstanding of his discipline? I have previously read the review you linked to and it should be remembered that this is just one persons opinion of the book. Perhaps you should read it for yourself and form your own informed opinion..
PS I notice you didn't address the problem of where "thought" is located...
Posts: 67317
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 12:23 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 12:42 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I absolutely did address it. The only place we can point to by observation is the brain. Now could thought be occurring elsewhere? Sure, but I'd love to see some evidence of that before I consider the theory as having some equality with our current understanding of the matter. Sorry If I jumped the gun on you with the supernatural. We get a lot of it round these parts. Now, that thought is "simply" electrical impulse (obviously this ignores the chemical aspect) is perhaps a very narrow way of describing it, but what other evidence do we have? I don't dismiss this or that argument because I do not wish to have my beliefs shaken, I dismiss arguments for which there is insufficient evidence. My mind is open, but it is not open to just anything. As a layperson I generally defer to what could be called the "scientific establishment" because these are people who are much more knowledgeable in any given field, and I understand that the gentlemen you linked is part of that. However, one scientists opinion or conclusions does not constitute a fact. Unless we're willing to postulate conspiracy I'm going to side with whatever currently accepted theory science has to offer. Which in this case is that mind is somehow a product of the brain. The details of which we are obviously still trying to work out (an area where we agree completely).
Now, I don't have any particular compulsion to die on the cross of consciousness, I'm here more to repeat (and repeat and repeat) to Fred that if he wishes to state something as existing, or being a part of reality, he's going to have to show some sort of evidence for it. Fred is here to complain that the requirement of evidence is unfair, and in fact not justifiable. Well, cry me a river.
(the review I linked is one opinion, yes. I may read the entire book, my reading list gets longer by the minute..lol)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 12:50 pm
(September 9, 2011 at 12:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I absolutely did address it. The only place we can point to by observation is the brain.
This is where we should clarify some terms. I will concede that we can observe various chemical and electrical activities within the brain that correlate to speech, memories etc My problem is when it comes to "thought" or what is the primary within the brain so to speak. If we think of the brain as a bunch of electro-chemical reactions giving rise to "thought" we have to concede that our thinking is purely illusory with no real freewill. chemicals and electrical impulses can only react physically from the previous reaction, so all freewill and thinking becomes purely an illusory function of survival. The other otion is that "thought" is the controlling reality that effects the electro-chemical constituents in the brain causing the physical mental phenomena observed, this would explain the correlation between brain activity and observed speech, memory etc. The problem is that we have no way of distinguishing between thought and electro-chemical activity. Bernard d'Espagnat talks of a "veiled reality" we never will be able to access this reality because we function within our limited aspect of the total reality.
Posts: 67317
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 12:57 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
"We will never" is not something that I'd hang my hat on. I'm a big-time provisional certainty guy. The list of things "we will never" explain is fairly vast, and many of them also appear in the list of things we have explained.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 815
Threads: 66
Joined: October 8, 2010
Reputation:
11
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 1:08 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2011 at 1:09 pm by little_monkey.)
(September 9, 2011 at 11:07 am)StatCrux Wrote: So where exactly do you usually "find" thoughts. I can appreciate the correlation between brain activity and perceived thought, but it is another leap of assumption to say that "thought" is physically found in "electrical impulses".
Some of the best computers have beaten the best world chess players in the world. If a bunch of wires and electric circuits can perform such a feat, imagine what the neuron evolving over a billion years with a complexity of a gazillion order of magnitude of any computer can do!
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: A question regarding proof
September 9, 2011 at 1:13 pm
(September 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "We will never" is not something that I'd hang my hat on. I'm a big-time provisional certainty guy. The list of things "we will never" explain is fairly vast, and many of them also appear in the list of things we have explained.
I would agree with that to a certain extent, I think we will in time have a better understanding of mind, but I believe the materialist view will be jettisoned as our understanding of reality grows, I agree with the famous quote "scientists finally reach the top of the mountain to find theologians sitting there saying "what took you so long to get here!""
|
