|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 12/16/2009 : 18:26:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
Yes, semantics is a stumbling block. It is hard to encode mind or machine language into English - actually the language is not sufficient to convey much of the concept - and you have to comprehend ALL of it before you can understand the component ideas. |
I don't know of any other human endeavor for which this is true, so what makes your ideas so special?
You also wrote:| You have posited that consciousness and sense of self must be due to emergent properties... |
Did I? Did I write or imply the word "must?"| ...else it can only be that a single particle within the structure is actually 'aware'. |
I'm not sure I buy into that dichotomy.This, I believe, is the essense of our differences. Having discussed the matter in this and other forums, I have made changes and clarifications to my writings:www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm
"Emergent properties obviously do occur. Composites can exhibit behaviors that cannot readily be explained by the 'sum of their properties', but pundits who apply this phenomenon to explain consciousness and sense of self claim this inexplicability is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts rather than confess that there may be attributes among the parts whose properties are not known or fully understood. They would have you believe they know everything there is to know about the elements in question and expect you to agree with them that collections generate a supervening entity - a temporary or 'virtual' existence with a single awareness and identity - in effect 1+1 must equal 3 (in fact, their jobs often depend upon it). Crowds provide an excellent example of emergent properties. Individuals exhibit group behaviors that they would not exhibit alone. But that doesn't mean the participants suddenly mind-merge or evolve into a single identity. Two independent elements cannot share their existence or experience a common identity any more than they could simultaneously occupy the same space." |
|
I assume that you made the changes because you think they make the paragraph "better" in some way, but I can't detect any fundamental differences. You're still battling strawmen with your rejection of emergent properties as the source of mind, and puffing yourself up with your arrogance of ignorance. I mean, I can only guess that when you say "pundits," you really mean "cognitive neuroscientists," except that you don't address any of their actual claims, just your strawmen.| I have, in fact, found my discussions with YOU specifically to be extremely helpful in adding to and editing the thesis because once I wade through the vitriolic denigration, you do occasionally point out specific valid points of contention. PLEASE...a little more logical explanation of your objections and a little less vitriol. |
This is pure hypocrisy coming from someone who has very few logical explanations (and much vitriol) on his Web pages.
|
Didn't find any useful counterargument here. C'mon, you can do better than that. How do you expect me to 'teach calculus to a cow' unless it tells me where it disagrees or what specific points it doesn't understand? Might you wish to entertain us with a little "if A then B" logical discourse or are you becoming utterly useless to me? |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 12/16/2009 18:45:32 |
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 18:42:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by THoR
Most of the (meta)physics I spout cannot be empirically proven because our technology is not sufficiently advanced. |
What specific technological advancements are necessary before your theory can be tested? Do you have specific tests of your theory in mind? Or just vague hopes of future confirmation? |
Particle physicists haven't even discovered their FIRST certifiably 'fundamental' particle. It appears they are looking for something structureless and homogeneous and if that is the case, they are looking in the wrong direction. But my budget is somewhat limited and I have no access to CERN. They have me at a disadvantage.
|
What specific technological advancements are necessary before your theory can be tested? Are you saying CERN is adequate to test your theory? What are the predicted characteristics of the particle your are proposing apart from it being "fundamental?" |
Do you mean apart from it being the impetus for all life on Earth?
And why are you mentioning scientists? I didn't ask about them. Can you speak in terms of your theory without constantly casting aspersions on practicing scientists? Apparently not. You do realize this is classic crackpot behavior, right?
|
I've asked my sanitation engineer (garbage man) if he's detected any life evolving from the dump - it being a much richer source of the amino acids from which a primordial soup might produce emergent properties - and he said that so far he hasn't noticed anything. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 20:25:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Didn't find any useful counterargument here. C'mon, you can do better than that. How do you expect me to 'teach calculus to a cow' unless it tells me where it disagrees or what specific points it doesn't understand? Might you wish to entertain us with a little "if A then B" logical discourse or are you becoming utterly useless to me? |
I asked you questions which you are apparently refusing to answer, and pointed out your rank hypocrisy. Was I supposed to mount a counter-argument? Why should I? The burden of proof is on you to support your ideas, not for me to disprove them. If you can't offer anything better than what you've offered so far (bad analogies, logical fallacies, undefined words, insults and wild speculation), then you are utterly useless to me.
If you don't want to teach, then don't. But don't blame the student when he doesn't understand you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 08:05:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
Didn't find any useful counterargument here. C'mon, you can do better than that. How do you expect me to 'teach calculus to a cow' unless it tells me where it disagrees or what specific points it doesn't understand? Might you wish to entertain us with a little "if A then B" logical discourse or are you becoming utterly useless to me? |
I asked you questions which you are apparently refusing to answer, and pointed out your rank hypocrisy. Was I supposed to mount a counter-argument? Why should I? The burden of proof is on you to support your ideas, not for me to disprove them. If you can't offer anything better than what you've offered so far (bad analogies, logical fallacies, undefined words, insults and wild speculation), then you are utterly useless to me.
If you don't want to teach, then don't. But don't blame the student when he doesn't understand you.
|
Jeeeezus...you are an enigma. I expected you to go ballistic and interpret the 'calculus to a cow' as an ad-hominem denigration. I must reconsider my assessment of your intelligence and level of perception.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
Yes, semantics is a stumbling block. It is hard to encode mind or machine language into English - actually the language is not sufficient to convey much of the concept - and you have to comprehend ALL of it before you can understand the component ideas. |
I don't know of any other human endeavor for which this is true, so what makes your ideas so special? |
Have you ever tried to explain the color 'yellow' to someone who has been blind from birth?
You also wrote:
| You have posited that consciousness and sense of self must be due to emergent properties... |
Did I? Did I write or imply the word "must?" |
Yes - else please clarify.
Hypocracy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
My contentions are not hypocritical - unconventional, yes. Unsupported by empirical data, - not necessarily: not contradicted by whatever contemporary data that may exist, just a different interpretation thereof. There is nothing in my thesis - other than interpretation - that disagrees with the empirical data. I think that is what you find most threatening.
Our point of contention:
Given: A stimulus applied to a composite must produce as many reactions as there are elements in the composite.
Your argument: The corporal composite may 'perceive' not 8X1027 reactions, but a single experience.
My argument: That is magical thinking (refer to the Given). Even the scientifically accepted concept of emergent properties does not claim to mind-meld a plethora of existences into a single existence with a unique identity and independent sense of self.
'EP' is a demonstrably legitimate phenominon, but it has also become an esoteric term spouted by scholars to put off those who don't have the curiosity, education or intelligence to question it as they apply it to thought, consciousness and sense of self. Under scrutiny, it has no clothes in that regard. It does not explain how a composite has a single identity. It does not explain how a composite has a single sense of self. To believe that it actually DOES explain those phenomena is to accept it as a matter of faith rather than reason. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 12/19/2009 08:22:49 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 08:11:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Was I supposed to mount a counter-argument? |
Yes |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 08:37:20 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.
Tks again. I have added excerpts from my last post into my website. It clarifies the concept immeasurably. I am heartily and publically grateful for your input.
You are absolutely correct:
| If you don't want to teach, then don't. But don't blame the student when he doesn't understand you. |
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 09:38:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't know of any other human endeavor for which this is true, so what makes your ideas so special? |
Have you ever tried to explain the color 'yellow' to someone who has been blind from birth? |
Are you now claiming to possess additional sensory perceptions than the rest of us? If not, then it can't be anything like explaining colors to a blind person. If you can't walk people through the logical steps that led you to your current understanding, then the odds are that you don't actually possess the understanding that you think you do. Have you ever tried to explain to a schizophrenic that televisions can't listen to your thoughts?
| My contentions are not hypocritical - unconventional, yes. Unsupported by empirical data, - not necessarily: |
They are unsupported by current empirical data. You keep making appeals to some hoped for future empirical data not in existence yet as if this somehow bolsters your case.
| not contradicted by whatever contemporary data that may exist, just a different interpretation thereof. |
An infinite number of unfalsifiable assertions don't contradict the known data, making your hypothesis indistinguishable any other conceivable fiction. The notion that consciousness is imparted by a 12 dimensional talking horse doesn't contradict the known data either, there's just no evidence to support it--exactly like your hypothesis of reciprocity.
| There is nothing in my thesis - other than interpretation - that disagrees with the empirical data. I think that is what you find most threatening. |
If you had even a rudimentary understanding of how science worked you would realized how utterly nonthreatening your uneducated musings are. Your assertions don't even border on the plausible.
| Even the scientifically accepted concept of emergent properties does not claim to mind-meld a plethora of existences into a single existence with a unique identity and independent sense of self. |
No, that's what your hypothesis asserts.
| 'EP' is a demonstrably legitimate phenominon, but it has also become an esoteric term spouted by scholars to put off those who don't have the curiosity, education or intelligence to question it as they apply it to thought, consciousness and sense of self. Under scrutiny, it has no clothes in that regard. It does not explain how a composite has a single identity. It does not explain how a composite has a single sense of self. |
But your hypothesis doesn't explain these things either. If minute fundamental particles are responsible for consciousness, then all matter should be conscious. But matter is made up of many particles. How do those individually conscious particles form a composite with a single identity? Your hypothesis doesn't say. And of course most importantly you have no explanation for how fundamental particles may be conscious. You have no mechanism to explain consciousness other to assert that it's some magical property inherent to the most basic fundamental particle in existence, a particle which is itself totally unevidenced.
THoR, as intellectually satisfying and fruitful explanations go, your hypothesis totally sucks.
| To believe that it actually DOES explain those phenomena is to accept it as a matter of faith rather than reason. |
You really don't get it, do you? No one claims to have consciousness completely explained, so there is no existing explanation one needs to have faith in. But however unsatisfying you find the current direction of research, you need to support your conjectures with more than mere sneering at other people's ideas. Your ego is not evidence.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/19/2009 09:40:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 18:28:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Jeeeezus...you are an enigma. I expected you to go ballistic and interpret the 'calculus to a cow' as an ad-hominem denigration. I must reconsider my assessment of your intelligence and level of perception. |
[Shrug] It's clear that you intend to continue to level insults at others while asking that I stop insulting you. I figured that the moral high-ground involves allowing you to display your hypocrisy without confounding input from me.| Have you ever tried to explain the color 'yellow' to someone who has been blind from birth? |
You failed to answer the question, and did so with an example which plainly contradicts your position. We can explain yellow to the blind with as much knowledge as the sighted have, quite easily. We don't even need to explain "ALL" of the sight system before a blind person can understand some of the "component parts" (like neuronal firing).
Besides, you seem fond of the word "explain" without really grasping what it entails. Have you ever tried to explain yellow to yourself? What it is about yellow which evokes particular emotions and/or associations? If you can explain that, there are a bunch of neuroscientists who'd like to make your acquaintance.| Did I? Did I write or imply the word "must?" |
Yes - else please clarify. |
Where? Please quote me suggesting that consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon.Hypocracy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
My contentions are not hypocritical - unconventional, yes. |
Nice deflection, there. I wasn't talking about your "contentions," I was talking about your behavior.| Unsupported by empirical data, - not necessarily... |
Then provide some. I've been asking you for empirical data which supports your ideas, and you have yet to provide any.| ...not contradicted by whatever contemporary data that may exist, just a different interpretation thereof. |
H. is right: there are a bazillion ideas that aren't contradicted by data, but that doesn't make any of them correct.| There is nothing in my thesis - other than interpretation - that disagrees with the empirical data. |
So what? Where is the empirical data which must exist if your thesis is correct?| I think that is what you find most threatening. |
Ah, yes, the old "you disagree with me, therefore you find me threatening" canard. No, I find you threatening because your arrogance, bred from your ignorance, is extremely dangerous to society as a whole. You are displaying the symptoms of a rather nasty cultural disease, and nobody yet has found a cure.Our point of contention:
Given: A stimulus applied to a composite must produce as many reactions as there are elements in the composite. |
Who in the world would ever agree to that premise? I certainly would not.| Your argument: The corporal composite may 'perceive' not 8X1027 reactions, but a single experience. |
That is nothing at all like my argument. You have created yet another strawman.| My argument: That is magical thinking (refer to the Given). Even the scientifically accepted concept of emergent properties does not claim to mind-meld a plethora of existences into a single existence with a unique identity and independent sense of self. |
But you have presented no positive argument in favor of your position. You have simply nay-sayed an opposing argument. Plus, I already told you that I don't accept the dichotomy, so demolishing one explanation doesn't provide support for another, because there is more than one other. And since the opposing position is one of your own creation, and not one proposed by me or anyone else here, you are doing nothing more than talking to yourself.
Where is the positive evidence for your thesis? Evidence which isn't created solely through attempts to disprove other theses? Any good theory can stand on its own, independent of all other theories. Is yours a good theory?| 'EP' is a demonstrably legitimate phenominon, but it has also become an esoteric term spouted by scholars to put off those who don't have the curiosity, education or intelligence to question it as they apply it to thought, consciousness and sense of self. Under scrutiny, it has no clothes in that regard. It does not explain how a composite has a single identity. It does not explain how a composite has a single sense of self. To believe that it actually DOES explain those phenomena is to accept it as a matter of faith rather than reason. |
Please quote anyone - anyone - in any relevant field of science claiming that emergent phenomena are the explanation for consciousness. Of course, since this is another one of your strawmen (one that you simply cannot let go of), my request is purely rhetorical.
You also wrote:Originally posted by Dave W.
Was I supposed to mount a counter-argument? |
Yes |
Why? So far as I can see, you haven't put forth any valid arguments at all. I've already pointed out that your premises are invalid, and I have explained why. You have done nothing to repair your premises, so there's no need for me to present any sort of counter-argument at all.
You also wrote:| Tks again. I have added excerpts from my last post into my website. It clarifies the concept immeasurably. I am heartily and publically grateful for your input. |
You added excerpts from "Yes" to your website to clarify something?
Seriously, I'm not going to waste my time playing that particular game. If you want me to see your new, improved text, then post it here. I'm not going to go hunting for it. Besides, if the excerpts are from your attempt to pass off a completely unreasonable premise as a "given," and then try to build an argument from burning strawmen, then you already know my opinion: that it clarifies nothing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2009 : 22:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR:
There is nothing in my thesis - other than interpretation - that disagrees with the empirical data. |
There are noises coming from my attic. My hypothesis is that the noises are created by gremlins bowling. There is nothing in my hypothesis that disagrees with the empirical data. In fact, the existence of gremlins bowling in my attic makes it really likely that I should have noises coming from up there. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 15:23:28 [Permalink]
|
The more I think on THoR's wacky ideas, the more inclined I am to believe he's a theist intent on rejecting materialism while desperately trying to make a case for the existence of souls. Oh, I know he claimed that his ideas weren't religious in nature, but then again so do the IDers, and he began this conversation by presented his theory as an argument for intelligent design. I mean in the first article he linked to he quickly segued from discussing an "ethereal" "fundamental element" to just flat out calling them souls. I think he thinks that if he can relabel souls magical "particles" then his ideas cease to be religious in nature, because particles are so very sciency sounding. Even atheists believe in the existence of particles!
It's time to write THoR off as just another confused creationist trying to stop the march of scientific discovery which makes him uncomfortable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/21/2009 15:23:55 |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 02:45:48 [Permalink]
|
What, are you now totally reversing your position and admitting that complete, living, physical brains are required for consciousness? Because that would be the opposite of the dualistic idea you've been peddling, that consciousness exists outside the brain as some fundamental force, essence or particle.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2009 : 07:19:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
It does not explain how a composite has a single identity. It does not explain how a composite has a single sense of self. |
Since the brain is a composite which is made up of many parts: If THoR suffer from multiple personality disorder (or schizophrenic), then his proposition of each part of a composit having single selves will explain the many voices inside his head.
Suddenly this make sense to me. 
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 12:20:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Different Thor, H.
|
 So it is! My apologies. In that case, thank you ThorGoLucky for your contribution to this discussion. I hope THoR sees it and understands its implications.
(Too many damn Norse gods around here. grumble grumble) |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution vs. ID: 6 Bones of Contention
