RE: Seeing red
January 17, 2016 at 1:44 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2016 at 1:47 pm by emjay.)
@Benny
To be clear, I first learned of the term 'Idealism' (in the sense of consciousness) in that Rational AKD thread, where he was talking about Monistic Idealism. I got the idea from there that you were an Idealist but not a Monistic Idealist, from how you argued in that thread. But you've said that you're not one (or sort of not one), so since it was me that referred to you as one in this thread, I apologise for that mistake.
Now it's clear that you're arguing for a soul, or a homunculous, I have to say that that's not my position at all (as it stands)... so my position is much much more in line with Rhythm's, and thinking in terms neural networks, systems, and computation. I believe that every aspect of personality... every trait and idiosyncrasy... can be accounted for in the neural networks of the brain. Everything that makes one person different from another, makes one person an introvert and another an extrovert, one person afraid and one person courageous etc can be accounted for by learning and habits of thinking... that without memory it would be impossible to have a personality. So in my view if there was a soul that made all experience possible it would have to be a tiny speck and exactly the same in everyone, and with all decision-making and personality taking place in the brain, in the neural networks, it could at most be an observer and nothing more, and thus could not be held accountable in any religious sense. In other words I'm a hard determinist, hence my avatar.
I'm not a neuroscientist but nonetheless I have spent years thinking and theorising about psychology in terms of neural networks. I pay no attention to any psychological theory that I can't relate into neural network terms, so you could say I'm a self-made 'neuropsychologist', using and developing neuropsychological theories to understand myself and the mind, basically because I have a reductionistic/mechanistic need to understand everything. So for instance, the human tendencies of bias and stereotyping can be completely understood in neural network terms... indeed that almost sums up the essence of how a neural network functions. So I did a lot of writing and theorising about that, and addressed many other aspects of personality in the same way. So from my perspective it's not just wishful thinking that leads me to believe that if there were a soul it wouldn't have much to do, but rather that I actually have solid (to me at least) theoretical models of how the brain the could achieve certain aspects of personality. So that's why it makes it all-but-impossible for me to envision a soul with any more responsibility than a simple observer, and why the soul question is essentially closed for me, from a religious standpoint at least of a soul that is held accountable for choices.
I know you're not arguing for a soul in a religious sense, but the same sorts of questions apply as I would ask of any theist (or myself). First of all, do you disagree with my allocation of responsibility for the soul/homunculous that you envision? I.e. do you believe it is more than an observer? And second of all, why have a brain in the first place, that clearly handles at least some (and in my view, all) processing in the mind? If the 'soul' can handle some of it, why not all (this one is more aimed at theists)? In other words, what is your role for the brain, which you say is co-opted or subsumed in your view of reality?
To be clear, I first learned of the term 'Idealism' (in the sense of consciousness) in that Rational AKD thread, where he was talking about Monistic Idealism. I got the idea from there that you were an Idealist but not a Monistic Idealist, from how you argued in that thread. But you've said that you're not one (or sort of not one), so since it was me that referred to you as one in this thread, I apologise for that mistake.
Now it's clear that you're arguing for a soul, or a homunculous, I have to say that that's not my position at all (as it stands)... so my position is much much more in line with Rhythm's, and thinking in terms neural networks, systems, and computation. I believe that every aspect of personality... every trait and idiosyncrasy... can be accounted for in the neural networks of the brain. Everything that makes one person different from another, makes one person an introvert and another an extrovert, one person afraid and one person courageous etc can be accounted for by learning and habits of thinking... that without memory it would be impossible to have a personality. So in my view if there was a soul that made all experience possible it would have to be a tiny speck and exactly the same in everyone, and with all decision-making and personality taking place in the brain, in the neural networks, it could at most be an observer and nothing more, and thus could not be held accountable in any religious sense. In other words I'm a hard determinist, hence my avatar.
I'm not a neuroscientist but nonetheless I have spent years thinking and theorising about psychology in terms of neural networks. I pay no attention to any psychological theory that I can't relate into neural network terms, so you could say I'm a self-made 'neuropsychologist', using and developing neuropsychological theories to understand myself and the mind, basically because I have a reductionistic/mechanistic need to understand everything. So for instance, the human tendencies of bias and stereotyping can be completely understood in neural network terms... indeed that almost sums up the essence of how a neural network functions. So I did a lot of writing and theorising about that, and addressed many other aspects of personality in the same way. So from my perspective it's not just wishful thinking that leads me to believe that if there were a soul it wouldn't have much to do, but rather that I actually have solid (to me at least) theoretical models of how the brain the could achieve certain aspects of personality. So that's why it makes it all-but-impossible for me to envision a soul with any more responsibility than a simple observer, and why the soul question is essentially closed for me, from a religious standpoint at least of a soul that is held accountable for choices.
I know you're not arguing for a soul in a religious sense, but the same sorts of questions apply as I would ask of any theist (or myself). First of all, do you disagree with my allocation of responsibility for the soul/homunculous that you envision? I.e. do you believe it is more than an observer? And second of all, why have a brain in the first place, that clearly handles at least some (and in my view, all) processing in the mind? If the 'soul' can handle some of it, why not all (this one is more aimed at theists)? In other words, what is your role for the brain, which you say is co-opted or subsumed in your view of reality?
