|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2010 : 02:11:18 [Permalink]
|
| Unless we start to postulate a realm outside of observed nature, thoughts are simply states of brain matter (and that matters electro chemical features). If we want to start discussing things we can't know about then I say thoughts must be blue faeries riding pink unicorns through green aether. I mean, why not...what else could they be? |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2010 : 14:46:53 [Permalink]
|
Dude/Dave/Chfcrsh.....
| Bill is trying to (I think) quantize a thought and seperate it from the act somehow as a distinct entity. I'm not sure such a thing is possible. |
Is it your opinion that animals, particularly the primates, are capable of thought?
Until we figure out what "thought" is, that question is unanswerable. |
| Unless we start to postulate a realm outside of observed nature, thoughts are simply states of brain matter |
What is "Light"?
Light is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (in a range from about 380 or 400 nanometres to about 760 or 780 nm).[1] In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[2][3]
Five primary properties of light are intensity, frequency or wavelength, polarization, phase and orbital angular momentum.
Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the waveparticle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics. |
What is "thought"?
Representative reactions towards stimuli from internal chemical reactions or external environmental factors (this definition precludes the notion that anything inorganic could ever be made to "think": An idea contested by such computer scientists as Alan Turing (see Computing Machinery and Intelligence). The word comes from Old English žoht, gežoht, from stem of žencan "to conceive of in the mind, consider".[2]
In common language, the word thinking covers numerous diverse psychological activities. It is sometimes a synonym for "tending to believe," especially with less than full confidence ("I think that it will rain, but I am not sure"). At other times it denotes the degree of attentiveness ("I did it without thinking") or whatever is in consciousness, especially if it refers to something outside the immediate environment ("It made me think of my grandmother"). |
Do any of you see a qualitative difference in these two Wiki definitions? {"Qualitative" in the sense that the "light" definition makes clear reference to explanations involving particle physics directly involving the notions of "matter" and "energy" (the only components of the Universe); whilst the "thought" definition stops with a short, generalized explanation of neuron activity, later in the "thought" article}
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2010 : 16:28:37 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Do any of you see a qualitative difference in these two Wiki definitions? |
If, by "qualitative", you mean "have no possible bearing on or relation to one another", then no, there is no "qualitative" difference. They are clearly not related to one another in any way, rendering them exactly the same in that regard, so no qualitative difference at all.
I'm beginning to think I'm really not understanding you here Bill. How about trying to explain what you are suggesting without the use of allusion, allegory, or analogy?
Previously you had said:
| I understand that you see an identity between "process" and "thought". In your view, the process itself is the thought. |
and:
I am trying to progress to a point where Thought could be clearly defined as a form of matter or energy, with understandable comparable parameters - such as transformation from one form or expression to another. As from potential energy (a state of mechanical energy) to "Emergent Energy" (a neologism I just coined to describe what such a thing might be called. No woo intended here, this is pure speculation) |
I don't know what to tell you. It seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, physics, and emergent properties. The specific mechanisms of thinking are not understood. That thinking is an ability of your brain is not contested though, damage certain parts of the brain and thinking is impaired or removed. It is a biological process. Your computer processes a bunch of 1s and 0s to deliver this text to you, without the computer all you have is a bunch of 1s and 0s. Just data. Like a computer your brain processes data, that process (in your brain) is what we call thought. The idea that you can render the process down to simple measurements of matter and energy....
(edited) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/01/2010 16:42:02 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 00:40:22 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
I don't know what to tell you. It appears to me that you read my commentary as some sort of definitive proclamation of what Thought is. I don't know how many times I have to repeat in different ways that I DON'T KNOW the answers to the questions that we have been discussing. And I certainly don't think that you or anyone else in the world right now does either.
I have SPECULATED here on many different issues, but certainly have not stated that I believe my speculations are some sort of graven-in-stone Truth, or that there are not many other alternatives to the possiblities I have suggested. I do NOT even represent these ideas as opinions, which I firmly believe are far from declaring "Truth"
| It seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, physics, and emergent properties. |
I have at least as thorough understanding of these subjects in the context we are discussing here as you; as you have not yet written a word to suggest that you even understand that I am in no way denying any biological or physical laws. I very comfortably understand the basic concepts of emergentism and relativism, having recently read in some detail six relevant articles on these philosophies in the wikipedia, as well as re-reading a considerable amount of the source material of John Stuart Mill - (which I hadn't tackled since college.)
I also spent some time absorbing the entire essay, THE SACRED EMERGENCE OF NATURE by Ursula Goodenough and Terrence Deacon, as referenced by one of the wiki articles. I highly recommend it to you.
I am truly sorry that you cannot understand something that I been suggesting that seems to me to be extremely simple. Dave has stated that the entire universe consists of absolutely nothing other than matter (mass, if you prefer) and energy. A little later he suggested that Thought, along with a number of other things, may be emergent properties of something known to be matter, a brain.
Some discussion ensued in which I took the position that perhaps the Universe could be seen as consisting of matter, energy, AND various Emergent Properties - thus somewhat enlarging Dave's definition. Dave sees Thought as an emergent property of the brain, in effect, a neurological and chemical pattern and process.
I have no problem at all with that, and I fully accept such a definition; but I simply suggested that Thought MIGHT be, alternatively, seen as an energy phenomenon, and I attempted to give several analogies to support that suggested explanation.
Now why all that leads you to say that..... | It seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, physics, and emergent properties. |
.....I absolutely cannot comprehend! What is it that I don't understand?
As you and others have repeatedly stated, relatively little is known about the living brain's function in terms of particle physics. I could not agree more! | The specific mechanisms of thinking are not understood. |
Absolutely!!| That thinking is an ability of your brain is not contested though, damage certain parts of the brain and thinking is impaired or removed. |
Totally agreed!| It is a biological process. |
Complete agreement!| Like a computer your brain processes data, that process (in your brain) is what we call thought. |
Of course it is! And a red fruit that allegedly hit Newton on the head is what we call an apple! The particle physicists go into considerably more detail, however!
But why in the bloody hell is it completely unacceptable to you that perhaps all of the above could be perfectly true and also, in addition to that surface explanation, further study might demonstrate that the fine detail of the chemical and neurological processes of the brain could be highly defined in matter and energy terms, in other words the language of particle physics?
And a discovery that thought could be defined in molecular, atomic, and subatomic terms of the positioning and interaction of the particles that comprise the matter of neurons would, in no way, contradict, obviate, or replace the biological and "emergent property" levels of explanation and understanding that we have currently reached?
To me, Thought is something more than simply a language label for certain biological, neurological processes. These processes are undoubtedly correctly described by current neurophysiology. I DO NOT DENY THEM! However, I am looking for the explanation at the next level down, such as in the example of "Light", which I gave in my last post.
Perhaps, Dude, if you feel that you absolutely have to demonstate me to be "wrong" in some sense; if you need to demonstrate that my speculations are contrary to accepted science, you could tell me what is "wrong" in looking for a particle theory of Thought. After all, everything in the Universe consists of particles, i.e. matter/mass and energy. Thought, indeed, must be included! And perhaps the "emergent properties" also, although - if you will look - this concept is indeed controversial. Not much controversy about the particle/mass/energy trinity, however!
| The idea that you can render the process down to simple measurements of matter and energy.... |
This incomplete final sentence, I confess, I really do not understand!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 01:28:57 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Perhaps, Dude, if you feel that you absolutely have to demonstate me to be "wrong" in some sense; if you need to demonstrate that my speculations are contrary to accepted science, you could tell me what is "wrong" in looking for a particle theory of Thought. |
Sure.
You are proceeding in the wrong direction, for one.(which is why I suggest you don't have a good understanding of the biology involved or of emergent properties) You agree that thought is a process, the brain taking input and processing it. That is the result of increasing complexity, not decreasing. Thinking in the brain involves the action of large molecules (neurotransmitters, enzymes, ribozymes, and all the rest of the hundreds of macromolecules needed for cellular function), electrical impulses, and whatever the actual mechanism for memory is, all on a scale of billions of neurons and more billions of associated structural cells and inter/extra cellular matrices. It is also an energy intensive process, requiring more billions of energetic reactions in a second. From this level we have to proceed up to larger levels of structure, like the prefrontal cortex, that govern the activity. Further, these activities require time to happen.
The idea of a particle theory of thought is analogous to trying to come up with a particle theory of cars. In other words- it's contrary to established science, laughably so.
| Dave has stated that the entire universe consists of absolutely nothing other than matter (mass, if you prefer) and energy. |
And Dave_W would be wrong if he said that. I'm sure you can spot the errors in that declarative statement as well, mainly of omission.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 13:35:25 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| And Dave_W would be wrong if he said that. I'm sure you can spot the errors in that declarative statement as well, mainly of omission. |
Well, here is what he wrote....| thoughts are nothing more than an emergent property of brain chemistry and biology, and so wholly material. Suggesting that they're not is to suggest that there's something other than matter and energy in the universe, something for which there is no evidence. |
...so perhaps you would like to take the matter up with Dave? Frankly, I think he has a point. I cannot think of "anything" other than matter (mass) and energy that might be in or of the Universe other than "space", and Dave may just have forgotten that little detail by his use of the preposition "in".
I am curious as to what exactly are the "errors of omission" that Dave has committed? I pointed out that "emergent properties" may be more of an epistemolgical construct than a physical one, but it is a highly controversial idea, both in physics and philosophy. Do you have some other things in mind? Your views of contents of the Universe that are not matter or energy would be interesting to me. Probably also to Dave.
As far as your excellent reiteration of what you have already said several times before on this thread, I understand that you feel I do not even approach your degree of literacy in undertanding biological and physical principles and the esoterica of "emergent properties". I disagree, but what can I say? Perhaps some day we may be able to take a standardized test on college-level hard science and philosophy - and if it is a tie, we'll settle it with a drinking contest. NO SMOKING!
It has been many years since I sat in a classroom, but I try to keep up. I am currently auditing a first year biology course at North Idaho College in order to help my daughter who is enrolled as a freshman and is terrified of the hard sciences. It is really fun! At some point I intend to raise a question to the instructor and the class as to the biological nature of "thought", and if current academics feel that a quantum theory of Thought is a possibility. That is, if I am allowed to put my hand up.
Dude, you and I are from different planets. Yours is obviously Mars, I have been told that mine is Uranus. Someday, we may achieve interplanatary communication, but you will be at an disadvantage because, due to my planetary origin, I can pull things out of more than just one orifice.
If this "Thought" question continues to bother you, I will be happy to carry on about the end of next week. I'm going to Vancouver for an eating and drinking vacation and I going to lumber around in my bumbling ignorance for a week without even looking at a word processor. I have done most of a chapter this week, and my fingers are raw!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 14:32:52 [Permalink]
|
To the last few posts, I can say only one thing:
 |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 15:34:16 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| .so perhaps you would like to take the matter up with Dave? Frankly, I think he has a point. I cannot think of "anything" other than matter (mass) and energy that might be in or of the Universe other than "space", and Dave may just have forgotten that little detail by his use of the preposition "in". |
Spacetime, but maybe you are correct in noticing that "in" may imply it. You should note that your paraphrase omits that implication.
As for the rest.... whatever. If you want to daydream about some ridiculous "particle theory of cars", I won't try to stop you.
| I am currently auditing a first year biology course at North Idaho College in order to help my daughter who is enrolled as a freshman and is terrified of the hard sciences. It is really fun! |
Good! Biology 101 for science majors I hope? Probably subtitled "biological processes"? That's a good primer for some basic knowledge. If you want to be amused (Idaho is a very red state, yes?) pay attention to how the professor skirts around the edge of anything to do with evolution. If he tackles the evolutionary implications for some of those processes you are about to learn (like the metabolic pathway for glycolysis and how highly conserved it is) then you will know you have a good professor.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 17:10:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Good! Biology 101 for science majors I hope? Probably subtitled "biological processes"? That's a good primer for some basic knowledge. If you want to be amused (Idaho is a very red state, yes?) pay attention to how the professor skirts around the edge of anything to do with evolution. |
That kind of thing doesn't make it into university (biology) classrooms all that often, even in red states. (I can attest for a several red state universities first-hand at least.) Why assume such a thing? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 09/02/2010 17:10:36 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2010 : 21:14:09 [Permalink]
|
Dude......
| Good! Biology 101 for science majors I hope? Probably subtitled "biological processes"? That's a good primer for some basic knowledge. |
Oh, thank you! As ignorant, stupid and uninformed as I am of the physical sciences, it is wonderfully encouraging to have your approval of my "primer", and quest for "basic knowledge".
If only I had had highly professional counsel like yours when I attended graduate school years ago, I might have grown up to be literate and educated like you, instead of the bumbling fool that I obviously am. I do intend to go on and on trying, and I earnestly hope someday, in the far distant furure, to earn an associates degree in auditing classes. I might even venture into auditing other science for dummies primer courses like Physics 001, or Chemistry 0.5. That's ambitious, though!
In my late 90's, when I am looking forward to matriculation, I will think of you and invite you to my bar mitzva| (Idaho is a very red state, yes?) pay attention to how the professor skirts around the edge of anything to do with evolution. |
Idaho is quite primitive; intellectually, politically, and culturally. The only blue is in the sky.
The very first day of class, the instructor cautioned the entire class(about 25 teenagers and 6 adults), that if there was anyone present that had an ideological or religious problem with evolutionary science, the teachings of Darwin, biological evolution, or what they might call "Darwinism"; they had better not take the course because these concepts would be heavily discussed and taught; and absolutely no time was going to be wasted on "creationism" or "intelligent design".
No one raised their hand. But the following class meeting two days later, three enrollees were conspicuously absent. We have heard nothing more about their disappearance. Three out of 31 may, or may not mean anything, but NIC is a dead serious educational institution and is secular and basically owned by the state. But it is a college, not a high school!
Your concern about this instructor (not a "professor"), or about NIC in general, is completely unfounded. It is at least as liberal, left-leaning, and open to free thinking as the University of Colorado which I attended many years ago, but still visit frequently when I return to Boulder and Denver.
I'll talk to you next week if I don't get lost in the big city. I have an ID tag, and my wife usually leashes me in metroplitan areas so I don't run off! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2010 : 07:20:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dude
Good! Biology 101 for science majors I hope? Probably subtitled "biological processes"? That's a good primer for some basic knowledge. If you want to be amused (Idaho is a very red state, yes?) pay attention to how the professor skirts around the edge of anything to do with evolution. |
That kind of thing doesn't make it into university (biology) classrooms all that often, even in red states. (I can attest for a several red state universities first-hand at least.) Why assume such a thing?
|
It does in some, mostly in the deep red states. Not that they would go so far as to bother taking time to address ID or creationism, just that the topic of evolution is (rarely, I acknowledge) treated with kid gloves out in the deep red parts.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2010 : 07:38:23 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| If only I had had highly professional counsel like yours when I attended graduate school years ago, |
I'm not commenting on your previous education, I don't doubt it was thorough. But was your graduate work in biology, chemistry, or physics? I seem to recall you previously mentioning something about philosophy.... and something about a very successful career in business.
With the changes in the field of biology since you may have last participated in a biology class of any level it isn't wrong to say that a biology 101 type class is a primer. It is the lowest level biology (for science majors) class you can take. That isn't a negative thing, just an observation. I know that when I restarted my own education a few years back I very much enjoyed repeating (the first time I took it I was 17, that'd be about 23 years ago now, just before I signed up with the military...., scraped by with a C-) biology 101.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheist/Agnostic
