 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 373 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
a well designed experiment attempts to approach pure objectivity. you can't be purely objective, but you can design an experiment or series of experiments such that any paradigm is negligible. This is the whole point of blind and double blind experiments, using large sample groups and control groups, and making experiments repeatable etc etc... Research that cannot remain objective enough is not accepted into peer reviewed journals, or if it manages to get in, it is subject to the scrutiny of fellow researchers. but yes, pure objectivity is impossible. That doesn't mean it's necessarily strong evidence against the research though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's a kind of mythical certainty that yokels expect from science, like a philosopher's stone that turns whatever it touches into truth, and when con men manage to convince the yokels that that certainty isn't really there (which of course it isn't and no one in science ever claimed it was), they can lead them down whatever path of fancy they may. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i claim it all the time though. "my science is absolute truth! so gimme a free soda with my burger!" stuff like that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
All that high fructose corn syrup will kill you. Thus will God's justice prevail even over the unbeliever! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As i was browsing through this.... i wonder how many other threads on this board exsist with the exact same members saying basically the exact same thing. That is not a diss to anyone but i always get that "deja vu" feeling when going through these. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think the fact that got AIDS proves that you can only get it from bumsex. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, right up to and including you stepping in and clucking your tongue like a displeased granny. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
touche! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Who cares about the fucking universe anyway? What a load of old bollocks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I care. I care about the universe. Awwwww. It's cute! :scratches universe under its chin: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The universe is just some really big dark blue thing with stars and elements in it. Big deal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean only to say that temper the perception that we are necessarily uncloaking objective truths. maybe to some it's obvious, as i said i participate in research. at virginpusher's displeasure i repeat myself by saying that in the future science and religion are fused into one discipline. repetition is sexy rock'n'roll!!! i know we're never going to get anywhere yakking about it on a messageboard, but maybe in ten years some xltron will be visited by a beam of pink light that will reveal the wisdom of the one true source and that xltron will exclaim "that dipshit plaidzebra was right all along!!!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If somebody discovered the Unified Field Theory or whatever tomorrow it would make fuck all difference in my life. I really don't feel like it's my role in life to understand these things. What difference does it make to me? It's not gonna pay the rent or get me laid, so fuck it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sociobiology is the biggest load of crap ever and you know it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i got ya. people beg us for answers. then they get mad when they don't like the answers they wanted. scientists are all evil and maniacal until you're sick and want pain killers and penicillin or bleeding and you need stitches that won't leave a scar. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, they'll be able to mimick a thought; a thought produced by invoking the same physical processes the tought itself invokes isn't the same as someone thinking the thought; when the thought is thought it's not random act performed by random. They would also not be able to produce a completely new and previously unidentified thought due to the fact that they can't look at the brain and know what thought a brain state corresponds to unless they ask the person or have already identified the thought beforehand. The only new thoughts I see that they could ever possibly do would be, not completely new, but some sort of synthesis of previously identified thoughts. I find it highly improbably that any externally invoked thought would really make any sense to the person it was done to, btw. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, and I forgot "Because of previous physical states in his brain." is not a proper anser to a why question about someones actions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, yeah, but it's amusing. I also made a great blueberry pie! I'll send you a slice! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"not a proper answer" = does not conform to your belief in such myths as self and free will |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Qualia such as pain are epiphenomena of neurology. The self is an illusion. Do some meditation, buddy. " I'd like you to go into more detail about the first sentence. I'd like you to explain how you can believe in the second sentence while mataining that you have free will. As for the third, well that's why I start these theads in the first place! "Also, note that supporting the proposal that consciousness is fundamentally different than other processes and therefore inexplicable paradoxically requires the very explanation of consciousness you say we're lacking. How else could you justify that it's fundamentally different and inexplicable? It's a self-defeating position. Either admit that you don't understand it well enough to make sweeping statements like that, or cough up the explanation you'd like to avoid." And there, IMHO, is your problem. How do you put conciousness in the catagory of physical, observed processes when ALL physical, observed processes are the SUBJECT of conciousness? They are conceptually at two diffirent ends of a line. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't believe in free will. Consciousness is a process, no different from any other. It is our vanity that makes us think otherwise. And that vanity itself is there for sociobiological reasons, not because we "want" it - a creature that didn't fancy itself important would hardly survive and reproduce very well, would it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, it means that you, if you think you understand why upon recieving that answer, are just confused. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is a process very different from others in that it is an interpreting process. it is also a process that is linked to the world around it, but without a causal chain. no other physical processes interpret anything around them. it has also been shown that man is capable of acting in ways way beyond anything any sociobiological evolution theory can ever accomodate (suicide, self-sacrifice, martriachical societies, vegetarianism, gluttony and self-neglect, sexual relations within family, necrophilia, different neurosis, etc). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's some damn fine prejudicial language, boy. Too bad about the lack of content. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Maybe you don't quite understand that your mind is part of the world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
where the hell did all the psychology shit come from anyway? i though we were moaning about intelligent design |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, I believe in externalism the thing is that when we study the brain to learn about the mind, we already know about the mind, but not the brain, and we don't have any objective ways of telling which brain states we are observing correspond to which mind states if we only used neuroscience; a neuroscientist that doesn't ask or know (how can he know before having studied if it's only brain states and how can he not be able to know even when having studied?) what his subject is thinking is left with data about electricity and chemicals, not anything related to the mind. remember also that this isn't only about humans, and the problem is actually even worse with animals, 'cause we can't ask them. so if we study the brain of a doplhin we wouldn't be able to link any brain state to any concrete thought. oh, and just in case you thought so.. I'm not a dualist... I'm more towards functionalism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
evolution |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
After careful monitoring of this thread I think it is time to introduce something funny: Imagine a cross between sneakattack and frankenstein in the year 2100. Apt on creating some funk'd-out AI, our mad prof starts tinkering with his fancy computers, developing some virtual version of a neural network of sorts. I have no clue what im talking about but please lemme add on to this thread. Data goes in, the network processes it backed up by a load of knowledge it has been fed, and data comes out. At first, the program is well capable of amazing things such as adding 1+1. I think we can all agree that this is 'part of the world'. Now the complexity increases, and of course i could have gotten to this point using only a quarter of the space i am using now, but all of a sudden the machine becomes conscious, able to operate identical to a human mind! Is this purely a physical process, where adding more complexity to said unspecified 'network' ultimately generates consciousness, or did we create something 'outside' of the world? I'd hate to say it but i think its the former case. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i do not see how psychology is not physical. you can see brain activity patterns etc. that relate to emotions and thoughts, so thought/intelligence/emotion/whatever occurs in the brain. therefore it must relate the the brains chemistry, its just that its way too complex for [current] biochemistry to fully understand |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Neuroscience studies the signals. Psychology studies the symbols which are comprised of signals. Psychology is like a metaphor for something that is actually physical. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that isn't uncompatible with the mind not being reduceable to the brain. I don't believe in "true" AI, btw. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, no.. if you're trying to reduce the mind to the brain, you have to presuppose the mind, use the mind to identify which mind states the brain states correspond to and then discard the mind as something that doesn't exist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
otherwise you're left with something that doesn't accurately describe the mind.. you'd have, as I said earlier "how do you feel?" "chemicals and neurons firing." note that I'm not denying that the brain has anything to do with the mind, though; the mind is a function of the brain, but not reduceable to any state in it; you can't separate the mind and have it fly off on its own, but you can't say that "this thought is located here" neither. you can, using neuroscience, identify brain states, but you wouldn't know what the brain state is without consulting the mind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and 'purpose'. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? a Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network The space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So we are getting better at corolating physical brain states to concious experience. But the fact remains that it's still corolation, not equivilance. It's still two catagories. Besides, observation itself is mental in nature. Are you saying that the observation of brain states is causes by brain states themselves? If so then you're advocating self-determinancy which is fine by me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What you call 'observation' is a CONSTRUCTION which alsways generates a blind spot. The last obeserver is god |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
good experimental design takes into account your "blind spot" rendering it negligible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, and just in case you thought so.. I'm not a dualist... I'm more towards functionalism. Ah, OK, I understand what you're on about now. Interesting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Shit. Misuse of html tags makes my brain be having a bad state. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we've got radiation at a particular frequency and wavelength. we've got an electrochemical system to detect the presence of this wavelength, and a system to process/interpret the presence of this wavelength. and we have greenness, which is not the radiation, nor the systems that detect the radiation or interpret the presence of this wavelength of radiation. what i want to know is who makes the grass green. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Green is a process, not a property or a thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha, yeah it's not as "bad" as you thought then I guess. oh, and I have a question for you since you're reductionistic.. do you still adhere to that vocabulary distinction (that we at least would need two vocabularies; one for explaining the physical part and one for explaining the mental part) or are you a churchland sociopath? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So then, what is a process and from where does that definition originate? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is bullshit, you can not see what you dont see |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that process looks very good on you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ive always wondered if other people see the same green as me. everyone might have a completely different set of colours that their brain associates with different wavelengths of light, since colours are presumably just the brain's interpretation of the wavelengths. another person might see things in what would to me seem inverted or with the coloures moved around. but there is absolutely no way in testing this, so its just idle crap. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ive always wondered if other people around me really exist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If your experience of color and sight is completely diffrent from my experience of color and sight. How is it that I am able to respond to your message? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
