|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2009 : 13:12:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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)
|
 
I recommend QualiaSoup's other videos too. They are most excellent.  |
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 08:06:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
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? |
A blind man has his capacity to see blocked by some physical (or emotional in some cases) limitation. He still has the same number of senses but one of them doesn't work. What I am trying to convey is a perspective.
| 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. |
What I call the 'id' (animated fundamental particle about which life develops, 'secular' soul or whatever you want to call it) has not been isolated - which comes as no surprise. Particle physicists haven't claimed that any of the fundamental elements they have discovered may not be composites of even smaller components.
| 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. |
Theoretical physics is just that - theoretical. Ockham's razor implies the simplest explanation that satisfies all the variables is likely correct.
| 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. |
I still don't see any logical counter argument to the contentions:
1) You exist and you experience a single identity
2) Each existence has a single identity
3) Fundamental particles are single existences
4) Composites are not single existences
5) Composites do not have a single identity
6) Bodies are composites
Conclusion: That which is 'YOU' and experiences a single identity must be a component within the body.
If you disagree with the conclusion then you obviously have trouble with #5, and I must presume you believe that emergent properties account for the fact that you experience a single identity and consciousness. This is magical thinking. EP is a simply a phenomenon in which the properties of a composite are not readily explained by the properties of the individual components. Elements grouped together behave differently than they do when they are isolated. This doesn't mean a composite creates a supervening existence in addition to the elements that comprise it. Taking that stance, however, does allow pundits with alphabet soup after their names to publish and gain tenure...publish or perish.
| 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.
|
The nature of inanimate particles is vastly different from that of an 'id' (animated fundamental particle) - whether it is alive or dead. Consciousness is self awareness - specifically awareness while in a living state (occupying a viable corpse). Having never been anything but an 'id', I cannot tell you if inanimate particles experience any form awareness, but certainly all forms of existence act and react to both external and internal stimulus.
THoR, as intellectually satisfying and fruitful explanations go, your hypothesis totally sucks. |
Thank you for your opinion; however, opinions are like arse-holes - everybody has at least one and they most resemble that orifice whenver someone is incapable of engaging in civil, logical discourse.
| 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. |
Cudda fooled me -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
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.
|
To have a different perspective is not ego. Nor is pointing out where the conventional wisdom diverges from logic. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 08:36:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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. |
Not at all. I was just anticipating your usual mis-interpretation.
| 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. |
The 'id' premise indicates that filtered through my body via the ocular nerve (with all the attendant electro-chemical actions and reactions) the stimulus 'yellow' creates a change of condition within the subqualities my being; hence, I experience the quality 'yellow'. 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.
|
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12381&whichpage=3#172210
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. |
1) You exist and you experience a single identity
2) Each existence has a single identity
3) Fundamental particles are single existences
4) Composites are not single existences
5) Composites do not have a single identity
6) Bodies are composites
Conclusion: That which is 'YOU' and experiences a single identity must be a component within the body.
In the absence of claiming emergent properties, please indicate which of the above you dispute.
| ...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. |
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
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 have 'declared' them invalid. You have not given any indication how or why.
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.
|
Know your opinion? Hardly. It is difficult to argue with someone who doesn't believe in the basic axiom of identity when they can't articlulate their point of contention. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 12/27/2009 08:44:29 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 08:54:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
I still don't see any logical counter argument to the contentions:
1) You exist and you experience a single identity
2) Each existence has a single identity
3) Fundamental particles are single existences
4) Composites are not single existences
5) Composites do not have a single identity
6) Bodies are composites
Conclusion: That which is 'YOU' and experiences a single identity must be a component within the body.
|
What fundamental particle makes a car a car? Is it something sitting inside that carbon atom inside the tire? Is it something inside that aluminium atom in the chassis? Is the entire car a fundamental particle?
Remove one atom at a time from a car (you may do so quickly).
At what stage does the car stop being a car?
| Thank you for your opinion; however, opinions are like arse-holes - everybody has at least one and they most resemble that orifice whenver someone is incapable of engaging in civil, logical discourse. |
What fundamental particle makes an arse-hole an arse-hole? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 10:05:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
What I call the 'id' (animated fundamental particle about which life develops, 'secular' soul or whatever you want to call it) has not been isolated - which comes as no surprise. |
Of course it's no surprise, since its existence isn't predicted from any current theory of mind, so nobody would bother to go looking for it.| Ockham's razor implies the simplest explanation that satisfies all the variables is likely correct. |
Until you actually explain your 'id' particles, you have no basis upon which to invoke Ockham. Shifting the point at which you claim ignorance of a phenomenon doesn't make your explanation any simpler. And given that your ideas come complete with a rather large amount of things which you seem to refuse to explain (or do so with false analogies), it seems to me that your ideas are actually much more complex, anyway.I still don't see any logical counter argument to the contentions:
1) You exist and you experience a single identity |
Given your definition of "exist," this premise is not known to be true, so your argument fails to be sound, period. You have failed to address this problem in any constructive way, only saying that you "have a problem with" the idea that human consciousness is a composite, but never stating what that problem is.2) Each existence has a single identity
3) Fundamental particles are single existences
4) Composites are not single existences
5) Composites do not have a single identity |
Perhaps this is your problem: you are equating having a "single identity" with experiencing one (in premise 1). Is there any logical or empirical basis for doing so?6) Bodies are composites
Conclusion: That which is 'YOU' and experiences a single identity must be a component within the body.
If you disagree with the conclusion then you obviously have trouble with #5... |
Given your definitions, the biggest logical problem you have is with demonstrating your first premise to be true. There's little need to examine premise 5, really.| ...and I must presume you believe that emergent properties account for the fact that you experience a single identity and consciousness. This is magical thinking. |
So, it seems, is your idea that a single undetected and unpredicted particle is responsible for all of consciousness.| EP is a simply a phenomenon in which the properties of a composite are not readily explained by the properties of the individual components. |
This definition of EP assumes that the properties of the individual components that create what appear to be EP are simply not yet known, but there is no logical or empirical support for such a position. In fact, the SEP article you link to suggests that such contentions are unsatisfactory because they are argument from ignorance.| Elements grouped together behave differently than they do when they are isolated. |
This conflicts with your earlier assertion that fundamental particles have independent histories.| This doesn't mean a composite creates a supervening existence in addition to the elements that comprise it. |
With your unique definition of "existence," such a thing would be simply impossible. But I see no reason to accept your definition.| Taking that stance, however, does allow pundits with alphabet soup after their names to publish and gain tenure...publish or perish. |
You just cannot lay off the insults, can you? You can't even come up with new ones, you're just repeating yourself.| Thank you for your opinion; however, opinions are like arse-holes - everybody has at least one and they most resemble that orifice whenver someone is incapable of engaging in civil, logical discourse. |
Way to deflect from the point.Apparently, it has fooled you. You've linked to a philosophical discussion of emergent phenomena, one in which nobody presents EP as an explanation for anything. And there isn't even a hint of a clue in that article that anyone claims to have "consciousness completely explained." Saying that consciousness is an EP doesn't explain consciousness. No more than saying that grass is green explains photosynthesis.| Your ego is not evidence. |
To have a different perspective is not ego. |
No, but expecting your pronouncements to be taken as fact only because you say so is.| Nor is pointing out where the conventional wisdom diverges from logic. |
Except that you haven't done so without using your own, unique definitions for words which nobody else seems to accept as useful or justified. And some of your attempts (like redshift) are simply ludicrous demonstrations of your failure to comprehend the facts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 10:28:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Not at all. I was just anticipating your usual mis-interpretation. |
Without a single example of my alleged "mis-interpretation," this is just another insult.| The 'id' premise indicates that filtered through my body via the ocular nerve (with all the attendant electro-chemical actions and reactions) the stimulus 'yellow' creates a change of condition within the subqualities my being; hence, I experience the quality 'yellow'. |
That you think this is an explanation only supports my contention that you don't know what the word "explanation" means. What you have provided is a description of a phenomenon, not an explanation of it.
So because I said that we cannot rule out the idea of consciousness being an EP, you think that I have stated or implied that consciousness must be an EP? You really must stop using your own, private definitions for words.| Then provide some. I've been asking you for empirical data which supports your ideas, and you have yet to provide any. |
1) You exist and you experience a single identity
2) Each existence has a single identity
3) Fundamental particles are single existences
4) Composites are not single existences
5) Composites do not have a single identity
6) Bodies are composites
Conclusion: That which is 'YOU' and experiences a single identity must be a component within the body.
In the absence of claiming emergent properties, please indicate which of the above you dispute. |
I asked for empirical data, and you provide me with a syllogism? Once again, you should stop using your own definitions for words. It makes it impossible for you to communicate your ideas.| 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. |
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ |
A link is not a quote. You can't provide a quote from that page, anyway, because nobody in that article claims that EP are the explanation for consciousness.| You have 'declared' them invalid. You have not given any indication how or why. |
Yes, I have. Multiple times. Your insistence that you exist (given your definition of "exist") is unsupported by any evidence or argument. That one premise of unknown veracity means that your conclusion cannot be known to be true.| Know your opinion? Hardly. It is difficult to argue with someone who doesn't believe in the basic axiom of identity when they can't articlulate their point of contention. |
I've repeated myself several times, and you have done nothing but express incredulity. The fact that you "have a problem with" a critique of your alleged logic does nothing to demonstrate that the critique is actually wrong. It only demonstrates your irrational, emotional attachment to your hypothesis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution vs. ID: 6 Bones of Contention
