Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
March 7, 2019 at 10:10 pm (This post was last modified: March 8, 2019 at 1:48 pm by Shell B.
Edit Reason: Mod edit to fix quotes
)
(March 7, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: I cannot live with this shame.
I shall commit seppuku at sunset.
I also did not know my "it's and itses" until hoc and Girly taught me my "it's and itses" on TTA.
So much for prep school and the Ivy League.
It's very important to know your it's and itses.
I have never done penance for this ignorance either ... so I'll throw that onto the fire of my fake seppuku this evening, also.
There is not a shred of evidence for "mind", and invoking it is nothing but woo.
No. A reductio ad absurdum argument.
Every single day in almost every medical center in the entire world, people come in with catastrophic brain injuries, ischemic strokes and various bleeds (aneurysmal, hypertensive) and trauma, and are declared brain dead. They really are dead. Totally brain. They have NO ability to experience anything, and before they are compassionately extubated or made "comfort measures only" they are TESTED for brain death. Their bodies are alive, their brains function IN NO WAY, and there is NOTHING they experience.
This guy knows NOTHING about how humans LEARN, what memory is, how it is formed, and how it is referenced when a human "has an experience".
No, no, and no.
It does not work that way AT ALL. And the fact it would be asked that way demonstrates he knows nothing about the subject.
First a human has to learn (normally as a child), by trial and error what "parallel lines'' mean, and that his sensation of that pattern matches what others call "parallel lines", and that memory is laid down. Later when the complex systems of sensory input, (in this case photons excite the cells at the back of the eye, if they are healthy), and the sensory input is referenced to the learned memory, and "organized" by the brain so recognition occurs, "Oh those are parallel lines". It's a complex series of chemical/physical events. Science KNOWS what that COMPLEX SERIES is. Obviously he doesn't. http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-brain-recog...jects-1005
Quote:I'm trying to be civil with you, but I'm finding it difficult.
I could care less how you treat me.
Quote:Saying that we are ignorant of something does not constitute an argument from ignorance.
No shit Sherlock. In this case it does., and that IS what your implied.
Quote:I'm saying that given the brain, and only the brain, is the mechanism of human consciousness, we still don't know on what level of organization the most elemental essence of consciousness occurs. If you disagree with this, and you seem very much to want to, you can clear up the mystery by answering this question: on what level of organization does the most elemental essence of consciousness occur?
And asking the question in that way belies your utter ignorance of neuro-science ... and in fact, I just showed you how asking that question in that way DOES NOT produce an answer.
Quote:This is a non-trivial question, because the brain is a layering of very many systems of organization, from fully-integrated brain parts, right down to QM wave functions. Some of those systems of organization are unique to the human brain, and some are not.
It IS a trivial question, because without a brain, there IS NOT ONE example of consciousness, and you have none. You are DESPERATE to leave room for some sort of woo.
Quote:We can all agree that the unique flavor of experience that is human being depends on a functioning human brain. But that's not the question-- the question is on what level the simplest elements of subjective experience supervene. What's required that minimal flash-in-the-darkness? At what level of complexity can it be said, "There was no mind, but now there is?"
That may be YOUR question, and it may be important to you. It's not to anyone I know, and YOU don't get to tell science what is important.
I do get you are also desperate to maintain the last vestige of hope for your possible god-in-a-box. I don't care.
Quote:It seems to me that there's no cut-line, no critical mass of processing at which this can be said. Rather, as you keep simplifying the processing system, you'll get something less and less human, then less and less recognizable as conscious by our standard. Eventually, we'll say: "Yeah. . . I for sure wouldn't call that system conscious any more." But so long as the system is capable of accepting inputs and producing outputs, it is in fact processing its environment. And that basic functionality extends right down into the quantum world.
No. Take a class in neuro-science. "Processing the environment" is nowhere even near a definition of consciousness. The most simple one-celled organism "processes" its environment, but no one would say an amoeba is conscious. It has chemical reflexes. Your analogy is false and your reasoning totally stupid and irrelevant.
Quote:Now, it may be that there IS some point at which there's nothing remotely like mind, but I don't know where that is. . . and neither do you.
You really are a patronizing arrogant ass hole. There IS NOTHING that can be referred to as MIND, and you have no evidence of any, AND guess what fuckwad ?
YOU don't get to tell ANYONE how or what they think.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
March 7, 2019 at 10:29 pm (This post was last modified: March 7, 2019 at 10:38 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 7, 2019 at 10:10 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(March 7, 2019 at 8:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I could care less how you treat me.
No shit Sherlock. In this case it does., and that IS what your implied.
Quote:I'm saying that given the brain, and only the brain, is the mechanism of human consciousness, we still don't know on what level of organization the most elemental essence of consciousness occurs. If you disagree with this, and you seem very much to want to, you can clear up the mystery by answering this question: on what level of organization does the most elemental essence of consciousness occur?
And asking the question in that way belies your utter ignorance of neuro-science ... and in fact, I just showed you how asking that question in that way DOES NOT produce an answer.
Quote:This is a non-trivial question, because the brain is a layering of very many systems of organization, from fully-integrated brain parts, right down to QM wave functions. Some of those systems of organization are unique to the human brain, and some are not.
It IS a trivial question, because without a brain, there IS NOT ONE example of consciousness, and you have none. You are DESPERATE to leave room for some sort of woo.
Quote:We can all agree that the unique flavor of experience that is human being depends on a functioning human brain. But that's not the question-- the question is on what level the simplest elements of subjective experience supervene. What's required that minimal flash-in-the-darkness? At what level of complexity can it be said, "There was no mind, but now there is?"
That may be YOUR question, and it may be important to you. It's not to anyone I know, and YOU don't get to tell science what is important.
I do get you are also desperate to maintain the last vestige of hope for your possible god-in-a-box. I don't care.
Quote:It seems to me that there's no cut-line, no critical mass of processing at which this can be said. Rather, as you keep simplifying the processing system, you'll get something less and less human, then less and less recognizable as conscious by our standard. Eventually, we'll say: "Yeah. . . I for sure wouldn't call that system conscious any more." But so long as the system is capable of accepting inputs and producing outputs, it is in fact processing its environment. And that basic functionality extends right down into the quantum world.
No. Take a class in neuro-science. "Processing the environment" is nowhere even near a definition of consciousness. The most simple one-celled organism "processes" its environment, but no one would say an amoeba is conscious. It has chemical reflexes. Your analogy is false and your reasoning totally stupid and irrelevant.
Quote:Now, it may be that there IS some point at which there's nothing remotely like mind, but I don't know where that is. . . and neither do you.
You really are a patronizing arrogant ass hole. There IS NOTHING that can be referred to as MIND, and you have no evidence of any, AND guess what fuckwad ?
YOU don't get to tell ANYONE how or what they think.
Dude, it's like Tourette's, but you're typing. I'm not sure what your deal is, but there's not enough intellectual or academic interest here for me to carry on with you. I'd recommend you walk away for a bit and relax, maybe take a Valium or have a drink, or possibly do a lot of both.
As for me, I'm gonna go see what's on TV. Maybe I can go watch the Real Housewives of New Jersey and try to figure out which one is you.
March 7, 2019 at 10:49 pm (This post was last modified: March 7, 2019 at 11:00 pm by Bucky Ball.)
(March 7, 2019 at 10:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(March 7, 2019 at 10:10 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:
And asking the question in that way belies your utter ignorance of neuro-science ... and in fact, I just showed you how asking that question in that way DOES NOT produce an answer.
It IS a trivial question, because without a brain, there IS NOT ONE example of consciousness, and you have none. You are DESPERATE to leave room for some sort of woo.
That may be YOUR question, and it may be important to you. It's not to anyone I know, and YOU don't get to tell science what is important.
I do get you are also desperate to maintain the last vestige of hope for your possible god-in-a-box. I don't care.
No. Take a class in neuro-science. "Processing the environment" is nowhere even near a definition of consciousness. The most simple one-celled organism "processes" its environment, but no one would say an amoeba is conscious. It has chemical reflexes. Your analogy is false and your reasoning totally stupid and irrelevant.
You really are a patronizing arrogant ass hole. There IS NOTHING that can be referred to as MIND, and you have no evidence of any, AND guess what fuckwad ?
YOU don't get to tell ANYONE how or what they think.
Dude, it's like Tourette's, but you're typing. I'm not sure what your deal is, but there's not enough intellectual or academic interest here for me to carry on with you. I'd recommend you walk away for a bit and relax, maybe take a Valium or have a drink, or possibly do a lot of both.
As for me, I'm gonna go see what's on TV. Maybe I can go watch the Real Housewives of New Jersey and try to figure out which one is you.
Oh really.
There seems to be enough interest for you to tell me how and what I'm thinking, and jump up and down and insist your wooo (mind) is true.
You are so convinced you're just so superior.
You do a very transparent job of always trying to deflect when your betters enlighten you about how ignorant you are about science. LOL.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
March 7, 2019 at 11:23 pm (This post was last modified: March 7, 2019 at 11:25 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 7, 2019 at 10:49 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Oh really.
There seems to be enough interest for you to tell me how and what I'm thinking, and jump up and down and insist your wooo (mind) is true.
Yeah, none of that ever happened. I didn't tell you what you think. . . I told you what I think you don't know-- which is on what level of organization mind supervenes. As for mind itself being woo-- well, good luck with that. But for a guy who doesn't believe mind is real, you sure have a lot to say about it, and a lot of emotional investment in talking about it.
Quote:You are so convinced you're just so superior.
You do a very transparent job of always trying to deflect when your betters enlighten you about how ignorant you are about science. LOL.
I've never claimed to be superior to anyone. I might, in fact, be inferior, because my position is that I lack knowledge, and you claim to have it. Imagine my disappointment that you know how and why mind exists, and have not yet been able to explain it in terms that can be understood by my inferior little mind.
March 7, 2019 at 11:34 pm (This post was last modified: March 7, 2019 at 11:37 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 7, 2019 at 9:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I am mind and mind is me.
This is an explicit invocation of belief in mind. By reference to this, you simply cannot be an a-mindist even if you describe yourself as such..which you did.. The same is true of god beliefs, but in reverse. You may not call yourself an atheist but you irreconcilably describe yourself as such.
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!
(March 7, 2019 at 11:23 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, none of that ever happened. I told you what you don't know-- which is on what level of organization mind supervenes. As for mind itself being woo-- well, good luck with that. But for a guy who doesn't believe mind is a thing, you sure have a lot to say about mind.
Yeah you told me what your unsupported meaningless opinion is about your woo mind, and then you said I shared it, and I knew it. That was a lie.
You told me nothing. You tried to say there is a "mind". You have no evidence for that woo.
Quote:So far, you haven't said anything about the science of mind that I can't find in a grade 8 science book; it doesn't reveal any understanding at all of why there is subjective experience rather than not. If you think you are my "better," then surely you will be able to answer the question I can't-- what about the brain allows for subjective experience?
That's funny since you asked questions which demonstrate you didn't even know what was in a 6th Grade science book.
You have no clue how brains work, how memory works, or what actually constitutes a subjective experience, or how they arise.
I already told you how subjective experiences arise. It's actually very simple. If you knew ANYTHING about how brains work, it would be obvious.
There is no 'science of mind". There is no such thing as "mind". It's an ancient out-dated term, and is meaningless, except for old philoso-babble types who aren't really atheists or agnostics, but need to hide their gods in a box so they can lie to themselves about what they really are.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
March 8, 2019 at 10:19 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2019 at 10:50 am by bennyboy.)
(March 7, 2019 at 11:37 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Yeah you told me what your unsupported meaningless opinion is about your woo mind, and then you said I shared it, and I knew it.
I don't think that happened. Quote me doing that, please.
Quote:I already told you how subjective experiences arise. It's actually very simple.
That for sure never happened. What you did is wave toward the brain and mumble about evolutionary advantages. You seem to have trouble with the meaning of the word "how."
Quote:There is no 'science of mind".
Yes, there is. It's called "psychology."
Quote:There is no such thing as "mind".
Sure there is. It's the subjective experience of ideas and sensory information.
Quote: It's an ancient out-dated term, and is meaningless, except for old philoso-babble types who aren't really atheists or agnostics, but need to hide their gods in a box so they can lie to themselves about what they really are.
Hmmmmmm. . . if there's no mind, then the many thousands of psychologists, including neurologists, are really wasting their time. They should consult you as soon as possible!
Now, you keep ALL-CAPS-ing about how little I know about the brain. Would you like to put this to the test? I have a Psychology degree (B.A. only, I'm not bragging), a dictionary, an internet connection, and a pretty fair mind. I'm willing to pit those against whatever you think you can bring, any day of the week. Therefore, I hereby challenge you to a formal 1:1 debate: the winner-takes-all, soul-crushing deathmatch that you seem to want. The gauntlet has been thrown, and I look forward to mortal combat.
Bring it, big mouth. Let's see what you've really got!
March 8, 2019 at 1:45 pm (This post was last modified: March 8, 2019 at 1:48 pm by Bucky Ball.)
Quote:Now, it may be that there IS some point at which there's nothing remotely like mind, but I don't know where that is. . . and neither do you
That was you doing what you then lied about.
Quote:That for sure never happened. What you did is wave toward the brain and mumble about evolutionary advantages. You seem to have trouble with the meaning of the word "how."
Actually I did. You just did not want to recognize what you were reading. I told you exactly how. It's right there. Go find it.
Quote:Sure there is. It's the subjective experience of ideas and sensory information.
No. The study of how the human brain functions is FAR more inclusive than your pathetic limited little wrong definition.
Quote:Hmmmmmm. . . if there's no mind, then the many thousands of psychologists, including neurologists, are really wasting their time. They should consult you as soon as possible!
No dear. They study brains and how they work. They don't write papers on "minds" these days. Maybe you could pray to your god-in-a-box, and he would enlighten you about science in the last 100 years.
Sorry patronizing asshole. I never do one on one debates, and with ancient people like you whose science degrees are LONG outdated, it would be a waste of time.
You didn't even know enough to know how the brain recognized or at what levels parallel lines were recognized, or the process that recognition takes.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
March 8, 2019 at 4:37 pm (This post was last modified: March 8, 2019 at 5:43 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 8, 2019 at 1:45 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Sorry patronizing asshole. I never do one on one debates, and with ancient people like you whose science degrees are LONG outdated, it would be a waste of time.
Yeah. I didn't think so. Come at me, bruh. *bumps chest victoriously and strides cockily around own bedroom, enjoying absolute internet victory but causing dog to wonder about sanity*
If at any point you have an original idea of your own worth reading or thinking about, or if you develop the ability to identify the essence of an argument and actually respond to it, let me know, and I might be interested in anything you might say.
Until then, since you claim to know how subjective experience works, then you should at least be able to answer the question: how does it work? Share with us your Nobel-prize winning insight, because I'm waiting with bated breath!
*Your expected response. Everyone's allowed to read it except you, cuz I want to see if you say it:*
"It's not bated, you fool. It's baited. BAIT-ED. And while I know super-duper much about how experience works, I wouldn't share it with you, because you would never even be able to understand it. You don't know ANYTHING about BRAIN FUNCTION or LEARNING and you are too ANCIENT to understand your BETTERS"
(March 8, 2019 at 1:48 pm)Shell B Wrote:
(March 7, 2019 at 10:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Dude, it's like Tourette's, but you're typing.
Please don't say that. It's not remotely like Tourette's.
--edit--
I was 100% wrong to use that term to describe what I thought of Bucky's way of expressing himself. Thank you for calling me out, because I deserved to be.
