Posted on 11/22/2017 12:40:40 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
“And anybody thinking that mind makes the matter smokes too much damn dope and needs to dry out.”
I’ve never used illegal drugs.
You just keep getting nuttier and nuttier.
You seem to think that “it’s obvious” constitutes a scientific argument.
Again, you sound like the global warming settled science group.
Stop pretending to know something about science. You can’t even distinguish the difference between a philosophical argument and a scientific one.
And that would be OK if you weren’t so arrogantly dismissive of something you’ve already admitted you didn’t even look at.
You stated plainly you did not bother to look at the link I posted. You proceeded to rant against it as unscientific. Yet you have provided not one single piece of evidence that your view is supported scientifically.
Your view is an assumption. Nothing more. It is “obvious” and simply a “fact” in your mind. That does not constitute science.
And I never argued that the idea of “mind over matter” is factually true, nor that your claim that mind being an emergent property of matter is false. I stated that there is some scientific evidence to support the prior, and not the latter.
Stating that it is obvious is not science any more than claiming the earth is flat is obvious makes being a flat-earther scientific.
Hoffman conscious agents hypothesis has been peer reviewed. When you can show a similar testable hypothesis that has been peer reviewed, rather than link to articles that are nothing more than juvenile philosophical rants, then get back to me.
“And anybody thinking that mind makes the matter smokes too much damn dope and needs to dry out.”
I’ve never used illegal drugs.
You just keep getting nuttier and nuttier.
You seem to think that “it’s obvious” constitutes a scientific argument.
Again, you sound like the global warming settled science group.
Stop pretending to know something about science. You can’t even distinguish the difference between a philosophical argument and a scientific one.
And that would be OK if you weren’t so arrogantly dismissive of something you’ve already admitted you didn’t even look at.
You stated plainly you did not bother to look at the link I posted. You proceeded to rant against it as unscientific. Yet you have provided not one single piece of evidence that your view is supported scientifically.
Your view is an assumption. Nothing more. It is “obvious” and simply a “fact” in your mind. That does not constitute science.
And I never argued that the idea of “mind over matter” is factually true, nor that your claim that mind being an emergent property of matter is false. I stated that there is some scientific evidence to support the prior, and not the latter.
Stating that it is obvious is not science any more than claiming the earth is flat is obvious makes being a flat-earther scientific.
Hoffman conscious agents hypothesis has been peer reviewed. When you can show a similar testable hypothesis that has been peer reviewed, rather than link to articles that are nothing more than juvenile philosophical rants, then get back to me.
Read:
https://www.google.com/search?q=CTE+symptoms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab
Other suspected symptoms may include:
Irritability.
Aggression.
Speech and language difficulties.
Motor impairment, such as difficulty walking, tremor, loss of muscle movement, weakness or rigidity.
Trouble swallowing (dysphagia)
Vision and focusing problems.
Trouble with sense of smell (olfactory abnormalities)
Dementia.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=gsoZWvq4LqiN0wKU6b24Cg&q=psychotropic+medications&oq=psychotro&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l8j0i10k1j0.76522.78624.0.82240.9.9.0.0.0.0.164.1055.1j8.9.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.1049...0i67k1j0i131k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0i20i264k1j0i20i263i264k1.0.C1hIWR-FV2c
Psychotropic medication: Any medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior. Some medications such as lithium, which may be used to treat depression, are psychotropic. Also called a psychodynamic medication. From the Greek psycho-, the mind + trop, a turning = (capable of) turning the mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=1coZWp6dO8qY0gKrhLnoCA&q=lobotmy&oq=lobotmy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i10k1l10.20219.21985.0.22728.7.7.0.0.0.0.127.773.0j7.7.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.770...0j46j35i39k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i20i264k1j0i46k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i20i263k1.0.CGDCmykf5hI
The modern lobotomy originated in the 1930s, when doctors realized that by severing fiber tracts connected to the frontal lobe, they could help patients overcome certain psychiatric problems, such as intractable depression and anxiety. ... By the 1980s, lobotomies had fallen out of fashion.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&ei=7coZWrb3HsKN0gKfh46wCg&q=brain+damage+symptoms&oq=brain+dama&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i20i264k1j0i20i263i264k1j0l8.26099.27530.0.30758.10.10.0.0.0.0.206.1348.2j7j1.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.1346...35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i10k1.0.nohNT1JQ0Ww
Loss of consciousness for a few seconds to a few minutes.
No loss of consciousness, but a state of being dazed, confused or disoriented.
Headache.
Nausea or vomiting.
Fatigue or drowsiness.
Difficulty sleeping.
Sleeping more than usual.
Dizziness or loss of balance
These are all MATTER making the MIND. Those are the FACTS. Anyone that tries to tell you otherwise is a CHARLATAN. And if you insist on believing them you are a FOOL.
“These are all MATTER making the MIND. Those are the FACTS. Anyone that tries to tell you otherwise is a CHARLATAN. And if you insist on believing them you are a FOOL.”
Your examples are answered in this introduction to the science behind conscious realism. This is a peer-reviewed, scientific theory. This abstract goes into detail and cites many sources, so I will merely link to the abstract document.
Excerpted:
Despite substantial efforts by many researchers, we still have no scientific theory of how brain activity can create, or be, conscious experience. This is troubling, since we have a large body of correlations between brain activity and consciousness, correlations normally assumed to entail that brain activity creates conscious experience...
Conscious realism states that the objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences; these can be mathematically modeled and empirically explored in the normal scientific manner...
What is the relationship between consciousness and biology ? This question, a version of the classic mind-body problem, has in some form troubled philosophers at least since the time of Plato, and now troubles scientists. Indeed, a list of the top 125 open questions in Science puts the mind-body problem at number two, just behind the question (Miller 2005): What is the universe made of ? The mind-body problem, as Science formulates it, is the question: What is the biological basis of consciousness? One reason for this formulation is the large body of empirical correlations between consciousness and brain activity...
Such correlations, and many more not mentioned here, persuade most researchers that brain activity causes, or is somehow the basis for, consciousness. As Edelman (2004, p. 5) puts it: “There is now a vast amount of empirical evidence to support the idea that consciousness emerges from the organization and operation of the brain.” Similarly, Koch (2004, pp. 1–2) argues...
Following the demise of behaviorism in the 1950s, there have been many philosophical theories. Type physicalist theories assert that mental state types are numerically identical to certain neural state types (Place 1956, Smart 1959); token physicalist theories assert instead that each mental state token is numerically identical to some neural state token (Fodor 1974). Reductive functionalist theories assert that the type identity conditions for mental states refer only to relations, typically causal relations, between inputs, outputs, and each other (Block and Fodor 1972). Non-reductive functionalist theories make the weaker claim that functional relations between inputs, outputs and internal system states give rise to mental states but are not identical with such states (Chalmers 1996). Representationalist theories (e.g., Tye 1996, 2000) identify conscious experiences with certain tracking relationships, i.e., with certain causal covariations, between brain states and states of the physical world. The “biological naturalism” theory of Searle (1992, 2004) claims that consciousness can be causally reduced to neural processes, but cannot be eliminated and replaced by neural processes. This brief overview does not, of course, begin to explore these theories, and it omits important positions, such as the emergentism of Broad (1925), the anomalous monism of Davidson (1970), and the supervenience theory of Kim (1993). However it is adequate to make one obvious point. The philosophical theories of the mind-body problem are, as they advertise, philosophical and not scientific. They explore the conceptual possibilities where one might eventually formulate a scientific theory, but they do not themselves formulate scientific theories...
This brief overview does not begin to explore these theories and, for brevity, omits some. But the pattern that emerges is clear. The theories so far proposed by scientists are, at best, hints about where to look for a genuine scientific theory. None of them remotely approaches the minimal explanatory power, quantitative precision, and novel predictive capacity expected from a genuine scientific theory. We would expect, for instance, that such a theory could explain, in principle, the difference in experience between, e.g., the smell of a rose and the taste of garlic. How, precisely, is the smell of a rose generated by a 40 Hz oscillation, a reentrant thalamocortical circuit, information integration, a global workspace entry, the quantum state of microtubules, or the collapse of evolving templates? What precise changes in these would transform experience from the smell of a rose to the taste of garlic ? What quantitative principles account for such transformations ? We are not asking about advanced features of consciousness, such as self consciousness, that are perhaps available to few species. We are asking about an elementary feature available, presumably, to a rat. But no current theory has tools to answer these questions and none gives guidance to build such tools. None begins to dispel the mystery of conscious experience. As Pinker (1997, p. 564) points out, “. . . how a red-sensitive neuron gives rise to the subjective feel of redness is not a whit less mysterious than how the whole brain gives rise to the entire stream of consciousness...”
In short, the scientific study of consciousness is in the embarrassing position of having no scientific theory of consciousness...
Pinker (1997) agrees. After asking how conscious experience arises from physical systems he answers (Pinker 1997, pp. 146–147): “Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else. The computational theory of mind offers no insight; neither does any finding in neuroscience, once you clear up the usual confusion of sentience with access and self-knowledge...”
Conscious realism is a proposed answer to the question of what the universe is made of. Conscious realism asserts that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents. Conscious realism is a non-physicalist monism. What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields...
What one gives up in this framework of thinking is the belief that physical objects and their properties exist independently of the conscious agents that perceive them. Piaget claimed that children, at about nine months of age, acquire object permanence, the belief that physical objects exist even when they are not observed (Piaget 1954; but see Baillargeon 1987). Conscious realism claims that object permanence is an illusion.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7622/25390c0878d37f9e7014f270d16008c5f591.pdf
“These are all MATTER making the MIND. Those are the FACTS. Anyone that tries to tell you otherwise is a CHARLATAN. And if you insist on believing them you are a FOOL.”
Your examples are answered in this introduction to the science behind conscious realism. This is a peer-reviewed, scientific theory. This abstract goes into detail and cites many sources, so I will merely link to the abstract document.
Excerpted:
Despite substantial efforts by many researchers, we still have no scientific theory of how brain activity can create, or be, conscious experience. This is troubling, since we have a large body of correlations between brain activity and consciousness, correlations normally assumed to entail that brain activity creates conscious experience...
Conscious realism states that the objective world consists of conscious agents and their experiences; these can be mathematically modeled and empirically explored in the normal scientific manner...
What is the relationship between consciousness and biology ? This question, a version of the classic mind-body problem, has in some form troubled philosophers at least since the time of Plato, and now troubles scientists. Indeed, a list of the top 125 open questions in Science puts the mind-body problem at number two, just behind the question (Miller 2005): What is the universe made of ? The mind-body problem, as Science formulates it, is the question: What is the biological basis of consciousness? One reason for this formulation is the large body of empirical correlations between consciousness and brain activity...
Such correlations, and many more not mentioned here, persuade most researchers that brain activity causes, or is somehow the basis for, consciousness. As Edelman (2004, p. 5) puts it: “There is now a vast amount of empirical evidence to support the idea that consciousness emerges from the organization and operation of the brain.” Similarly, Koch (2004, pp. 1–2) argues...
Following the demise of behaviorism in the 1950s, there have been many philosophical theories. Type physicalist theories assert that mental state types are numerically identical to certain neural state types (Place 1956, Smart 1959); token physicalist theories assert instead that each mental state token is numerically identical to some neural state token (Fodor 1974). Reductive functionalist theories assert that the type identity conditions for mental states refer only to relations, typically causal relations, between inputs, outputs, and each other (Block and Fodor 1972). Non-reductive functionalist theories make the weaker claim that functional relations between inputs, outputs and internal system states give rise to mental states but are not identical with such states (Chalmers 1996). Representationalist theories (e.g., Tye 1996, 2000) identify conscious experiences with certain tracking relationships, i.e., with certain causal covariations, between brain states and states of the physical world. The “biological naturalism” theory of Searle (1992, 2004) claims that consciousness can be causally reduced to neural processes, but cannot be eliminated and replaced by neural processes. This brief overview does not, of course, begin to explore these theories, and it omits important positions, such as the emergentism of Broad (1925), the anomalous monism of Davidson (1970), and the supervenience theory of Kim (1993). However it is adequate to make one obvious point. The philosophical theories of the mind-body problem are, as they advertise, philosophical and not scientific. They explore the conceptual possibilities where one might eventually formulate a scientific theory, but they do not themselves formulate scientific theories...
This brief overview does not begin to explore these theories and, for brevity, omits some. But the pattern that emerges is clear. The theories so far proposed by scientists are, at best, hints about where to look for a genuine scientific theory. None of them remotely approaches the minimal explanatory power, quantitative precision, and novel predictive capacity expected from a genuine scientific theory. We would expect, for instance, that such a theory could explain, in principle, the difference in experience between, e.g., the smell of a rose and the taste of garlic. How, precisely, is the smell of a rose generated by a 40 Hz oscillation, a reentrant thalamocortical circuit, information integration, a global workspace entry, the quantum state of microtubules, or the collapse of evolving templates? What precise changes in these would transform experience from the smell of a rose to the taste of garlic ? What quantitative principles account for such transformations ? We are not asking about advanced features of consciousness, such as self consciousness, that are perhaps available to few species. We are asking about an elementary feature available, presumably, to a rat. But no current theory has tools to answer these questions and none gives guidance to build such tools. None begins to dispel the mystery of conscious experience. As Pinker (1997, p. 564) points out, “. . . how a red-sensitive neuron gives rise to the subjective feel of redness is not a whit less mysterious than how the whole brain gives rise to the entire stream of consciousness...”
In short, the scientific study of consciousness is in the embarrassing position of having no scientific theory of consciousness...
Pinker (1997) agrees. After asking how conscious experience arises from physical systems he answers (Pinker 1997, pp. 146–147): “Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else. The computational theory of mind offers no insight; neither does any finding in neuroscience, once you clear up the usual confusion of sentience with access and self-knowledge...”
Conscious realism is a proposed answer to the question of what the universe is made of. Conscious realism asserts that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents. Conscious realism is a non-physicalist monism. What exists in the objective world, independent of my perceptions, is a world of conscious agents, not a world of unconscious particles and fields...
What one gives up in this framework of thinking is the belief that physical objects and their properties exist independently of the conscious agents that perceive them. Piaget claimed that children, at about nine months of age, acquire object permanence, the belief that physical objects exist even when they are not observed (Piaget 1954; but see Baillargeon 1987). Conscious realism claims that object permanence is an illusion.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7622/25390c0878d37f9e7014f270d16008c5f591.pdf
BWAQHAHAHAHAHAHA
That is hands down the stupidest thing ever.
I’ll give them credit for saving their funniest punchline for the end: “Conscious realism claims that object permanence is an illusion.” Anybody that’s ever gone through old boxes and found stuff they forgot they ever owned know object permanence is real.
I finally clicked that youtube link of yours. While he was droning on stupid crap I scrolled down and found a lively flat earth discussion... well not discussion really they were mostly backslapping each other for being too smart to believe in orbital mechanics. Which really tells you everything you need to know about people who believe in this stuff: THEY’RE MORONS.
Which proves you can’t tell the difference between science and your own biased opinions.
You’re really no different than the man-made global warming crowd.
So it makes sense that you find the flat earth discussions interesting. You fit right in.
You can not even begin to make a dent in finding a flaw with this theory. Not even a scratch.
But I’m starting to realize the real reason you respond with mockery. It is obvious you can not even comprehend the science and math conceptually, so you just pretend it is all beneath you.
You are the embodiment of being “not even wrong.”
I have yet to see even one scientific argument against “conscious realism.” Perhaps there are some. But it will not come from you.
Conscious realism might be proven false. But it has not been so far. If it becomes well-supported, it will be a discovery on the level of Relativity. It essentially answers two of the biggest unanswered questions in science:
1. What is the universe made of?
2. What is the biological basis of consciousness?
Stop being a con man trying to pretend to know something about science. Everything you’ve said on this subject proves otherwise.
No it proves you’re a flipping idiot who just can’t let go of your stupid teenage thought experiments.
GET OVER YOURSELF.
I respond with mockery because that’s all you deserve. When an annoying moron with stupid ideas just won’t get the freaking clue and go the hell away you mock them.
There’s plenty of scientific arguments against conscious realism, not the least of which being it’s just stupid. Every single time some cache of old stuff that nobody has known existed for decades or even centuries gets found it proves conscious realism is false. It answers ZERO questions. It can’t answer what the universe is made up because the universe is too big for a theory that revolves around people thinking about it, especially people on a young planet in a young galaxy. As for the biological basis of consciousness take one of MANY MANY links:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111444/
Stop being an asshole that pretends he knows how to tie his shoes. You’re an idiot. Your pet theories are stupid. You’re a waste of flesh.
Have the last word, I will not read it, because really you’ve taken too much of my time already with your offensive level of stupidity.
Are you angry? I’m having fun goading you over your foolhardy, bull-in-a-China-shop approach to discussing something scientific.
But you should be angry. At yourself. You are so hard headed, but the only one you are hurting is yourself.
“I respond with mockery because that’s all you deserve.”
You respond with mockery because you can’t tell the difference between rational thought and your juvenile petulance.
“It answers ZERO questions.”
Rather it is your adherence to reductionism that has no answers. There is a difference between correlation and causality, description and explanation.
Conscious realism is a possible solution to two of the biggest unanswered questions of science. That you pretend they are answered just further confirms that you’re, again, “not even wrong.” You’re not even in the same ballpark yet. You’re trying to shoot hoops in a football stadium wearing cleats.
There is a general consensus that the two questions I mentioned earlier are among the top ones unanswered by science:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science
“It can’t answer what the universe is made up because the universe is too big for a theory that revolves around people thinking about it.”
You continue to make a fool of yourself with straw man arguments. Conscious realism does not require people. Conscious agents are the fundamental, not people.
“I will not read it.”
Nothing new. You’ve been responding without listening from the start. Why should I expect anything else?
From your link:
“It should be added that consciousness itself is not causal (Velmans, 1993; Kim, 2000). It is the neural structures underlying conscious experience that are causal. The conscious individual can therefore be described as responding to a causal illusion, one that is an entailed evolutionary outcome of selection for animals able to make plans involving multiple discriminations.”
So, you apparently believe that choice is an illusion. I guess that gives you the best excuse in the world for your foolishness: you couldn’t help yourself.
Also from your article:
“The truly hard problem is to provide a biologically based mechanistic account of how, at molecular, cellular, and systemic levels, the brain actually functions to entail consciousness. We propose that core reentry provides the general mechanism for unifying the contents of the Global Workspace, but we are also aware that many important details still remain to be specified. Given the complexity of the underlying anatomy and physiology, it is not surprising that research on the detailed causal bases of consciousness has trailed far behind evidence for ‘neural correlates’ of consciousness. One approach might mitigate this constraint: namely, building a conscious artifact.”
In other words, they still think the mind is emergent from the brain but can not demonstrate a rigorous scientific theory of consciousness. No such formal theory has been proposed so far.
But you and they have some strong hunches.
“Have the last word, I will not read it, because really you’ve taken too much of my time already with your offensive level of stupidity.”
By the way, don’t act like you are doing anyone some sort of favor by allowing them to “have the last word.”
It’s the height of conceit to act as if you are automatically supposed to have the first word, last word, and every word in between.
I love this forum because it is possible to have discussions with many people, with many backgrounds of varying expertise, and on many varieties of subjects.
But a discussion is a two-way street. It does not just involve speaking. It also involves listening. When a person, such as yourself, fails to even make a rudimentary effort to listen, it undermines the entire point of discussion.
And incompetence and arrogance do not form a flattering combination of character qualities. These, along with strong evidences of narcissism (”you’ve taken too much of my time”), warrant seeking of help rather than a soapbox.
Good day to you.
well, please keep posting here. We don’t have to agree on everything, and I value your input.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.