Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 201 to 206 of 206

Thread: Pantheism and panpsychism

  1. Top | #201
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,343
    Rep Power
    23
    Saying 'sing what it is the result of is not saying what it is' is pure semantics.

    It is omfug. It is blahbah. It is whatever you choose to call it. That is the nature of philosophy. After Natural Science became modern science away from philosophy, philosophy was left with debating meaning.
    you call a rock does not change what a rock is. It IS a collection of atoms.

    You are on the endless quest of finding a philosophical meaning to science.

    Consciousness IS biological processes in the brain.

    You could try assigning attributes to a definition if consciousness, however yu will end up using more illdefined subjective terms, human perceptions.

    Consciousness is awareness, and awareness is consciousness. Circular and self referential.

    Philosophically consciousness is anything you want it to be. Witness all the net videos each with a different take. Scientifically it is a physical process.

    Poetically consciousness is as a fart in the wind, you smell it but you can't find it or touch it.

    It s like a bird chirping in the forest, when you think you are getting close it seems to be somewhere else.

    Try reading a basic text on cognitive psychology instead of videos.

  2. Top | #202
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    84
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    468
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Saying 'sing what it is the result of is not saying what it is' is pure semantics.

    It is omfug. It is blahbah. It is whatever you choose to call it. That is the nature of philosophy. After Natural Science became modern science away from philosophy, philosophy was left with debating meaning.
    you call a rock does not change what a rock is. It IS a collection of atoms.

    You are on the endless quest of finding a philosophical meaning to science.

    Consciousness IS biological processes in the brain.

    You could try assigning attributes to a definition if consciousness, however yu will end up using more illdefined subjective terms, human perceptions.

    Consciousness is awareness, and awareness is consciousness. Circular and self referential.

    Philosophically consciousness is anything you want it to be. Witness all the net videos each with a different take. Scientifically it is a physical process.

    Poetically consciousness is as a fart in the wind, you smell it but you can't find it or touch it.

    It s like a bird chirping in the forest, when you think you are getting close it seems to be somewhere else.

    Try reading a basic text on cognitive psychology instead of videos.
    Biological processes. So not for example the electrical processes in the computer of a self driving car? Because that car has also awareness in a sense.
    Does that mean the car has consciousness? From your reasoning, yes.

    "Try reading a basic text on cognitive psychology instead of videos."
    What I dislike is how quickly people become arrogant in internet discussions. You really think I've never read a basic text on cognitive psychology?
    I've read lots of books, listened to lots of lectures on cognitive psychology. Easy to belittle someone by saying that, however you don't come across as more educated, only arrogant.

  3. Top | #203
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,343
    Rep Power
    23
    This discussion is more about epistemology and meaning of words. The word mind itself is amorphous and we use it without any real definition assuming we all know what it means.

    If you want to answer ‘what is mind’, how do you arrive at the information needed to define it?

    Saying physics leads to what mind is is meaningless. Mind is invoked much as theists invoke god which is nevber defined.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
    Debates in epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:[2][3][4]

    The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification
    Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
    The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs
    Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether skepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute skeptical arguments
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology

    Etymology (/ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/)[1] is the study of the history of words.[1] By extension, the etymology of a word means its origin and development throughout history.[2]
    For languages with a long written history, etymologists make use of texts, and texts about the language, to gather knowledge about how words were used during earlier periods, how they developed in meaning and form, or when and how they entered the language. Etymologists also apply the methods of comparative linguistics to reconstruct information about forms that are too old for any direct information to be available.
    What is a rock?

    A rock is made of atoms which are experimentally demonstared. A rock is atoms.

    I know that, but that does not tell me what a rock ‘is’.

    Anything beyond the scientific definition is subjective meaning. Etymology.

    To define consciousness, what are the descriptive attributes? How do you derive attributes? Are the attributes subjective or objective?



    Philosophy 101. Define your terms.

    Arrogant? Not really, just grounded in basic undergrad physics. Reading a book and developing comprehesion requires more work and time than watching a short video and drawing a conclusion.

    The question of mind and consciousness is now under areas experimental psychology which can draw on nuro scince.

    Seriously get an undergrad text in cognitive psychology, unless you are afraid of where it will lead you. draw on neuro science.

    If not pick a view and go with it. There are ,any.

  4. Top | #204
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,343
    Rep Power
    23
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...1112472030382X

    Just watched a PBS show on a Monkey Theory Of Mind.

    Two people have a grape on a plate. They put it down on the ground. One turns around. The Rhesus monkey deliberates and then always grabs the grape behind the person who is turned around. Does this exhibit a conscious awareness and risk analysis?

    Are Rhesus monkeys possessing consciousness? I would say yes. Based in neurons in a brain as with us humans.

    Atributes of consiousness?

    Risk analysis.
    Decision making
    Problem solving
    A sense of self apart from oters in the group.

    Monkeys are opportunists. They will exploit weaker monkeys stealing food. In anoter expeiment two monkeys are in a separte cage. One is given a gape a preferred food. The other given something else. That monkey will get angry until given a grape as well.

    Self awareness.

    If you want to grasp hitman consciousness study primates, which is what scientists do.

  5. Top | #205
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    84
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    468
    Rep Power
    53
    Look, I'm with you all the way on how the neuroscience works, how neuro nets creates algorithms and behaviors.
    But it's exactly from that knowledge I go further to ask what key aspects of that system that creates an inner subjective experience.

    It's easy to imagine a robot that has an equally complex brain that can sense the outer world and analyze its own inner processes, yet do all this automatically without consciousness.
    That leads to the question, how come our brains aren't just doing all its behaviors without an inner experience of it.

    A computer algorithm can do everything you listed. Risk analysis, decision making, problem solving, separating itself from others in a group. However it has an inner experience of it is a totally other question.

    Could you build a mega brain that mimicked our brain exactly, but it was slower and made out of apples. Imagine though that the apples transferred information in that huge apple brain in the exact same way as our brains.
    You think this system would be conscious? Another example, is a simulated brain / neural network in the computer conscious?

    And about the scientific definitions. What would you define red as? A specific wave length of electromagnetic radiation, fair enough.
    But consider this. How can you explain why the qualia of red in your mind looks the way it does, and not like blue? Can you come anywhere close to answer if your red looks the same as my red?
    Can you explain how red can appear inside of consciousness without that specific wave length, namely in a dream or in a hallucination?
    I hope you start to see how it's a bit of a harder problem than you're admitting.

    Are you only susceptible to documentaries or can I send you an episode of Sam Harris podcast?
    An episode where they discuss the hard problem of consciousness.
    Because he's a neuroscientists, who knows exactly what goes on in the brain, yet he understands the question fully and is equally speculative about it.

    One of the theorists behind the theory I shared before is a medical doctor, who is also fully educated on how brains work.

    So it doesn't help that you think I should read a basic paper on cognitive psychology even though I've already read multiple books on it.
    These people have PhDs in it and are still mystified by the question.

    And that comes back to this.
    You're discussing the easy problem of consciousness, not the hard problem of consciousness. So lets agree on this, we can't continue the discussion if one of us is discussing the easy problem and the other is discussing the hard problem.

    I'll share this summary at least.




  6. Top | #206
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,343
    Rep Power
    23
    All aspects of the functions and perceptions of the brain are based in chemistry and brain wiring.

    Emotions are a function of brain chemistry, A map of the actual interconnections and network that creates emotions is unknown at this poin as far as I know..

    The how you ask about is in neuroscience not metaphysics. . I have a general overview but no detailed knowledge. If you start a thread on science on neuroscience there nay be some here who know something about it. I don't think metaphysics is going to answer the question for you. You can try more dedicated science forums where there may be knowledgeable people..

    If you asked how does AI work I would first discuss coding and algorithms, then drill down to the actual circuits and logic in a computer. Same idea wiith the brain.

    For a video you might check the MIT Open Courseware site. Extensive videos of classroom lectures on most topics. I have used it several times.

    There should be video from the major universities.

Similar Threads

  1. Pantheism Theosophy Rosicrucians Unitarians
    By steve_bank in forum General Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-10-2018, 10:54 AM
  2. Replies: 62
    Last Post: 10-23-2017, 05:54 PM
  3. I like the idea of Pantheism
    By NobleSavage in forum General Religion
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 12:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •