Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gee]

...specie...

It's strange, the things that jog the memory. Have I asked you about your unusual singularization of the word "species" before? I remember asking another person, and commenting to them that there was one other person here who also used it.

viewtopic.php?p=184762#p184762

I think that I picked up that usage while posting in the science forums, as someone else told me that I was misusing the word by making it plural, but I did not stop to confirm it at that time.

This time I checked and confirmed the information, and want to thank you for the correction.

Gee

[Consul]

In reality, science has discovered that plants are aware, conscious, of themselves, their environment, and others of their specie. They do not have brains.

The so-called awareness or consciousness of plants has nothing to do with phenomenal consciousness aka subjective experience, because it's nothing but a nonpsychological, purely physiological sensitiveness or responsiveness to physical or chemical stimuli or signals. Brains are unnecessary for that, but they are necessary for phenomenal consciousness/subjective experience.

[Sy Borg]

No, all processes are related to others. If we follow your point to its logical conclusion then there can be no classification of species, types or categories, and so no science is possible.

The way that there are species, etc. is something you quoted above:

"Considering numerically distinct things the same, or the same kind is only a mental abstraction--it's a fiction of sorts, gained by glossing over details and pretending that two or more unique things are instead two instances of just one thing."

Types are abstractions. Abstractions are mental events (and particular mental events at that.)

In nature, reality is layered in loose fractals,

Oy vey. And the evidence for this is?

Do you believe that absorption only exists via intestines? Is all filtering limited to kidneys? Is flowing unique to water?

Different things don't have the same properties just because you've formulated an abstraction that considers them the same.

You do not even try to understand what is being said. No point wasting time.

[Terrapin Station]

The way that there are species, etc. is something you quoted above:

"Considering numerically distinct things the same, or the same kind is only a mental abstraction--it's a fiction of sorts, gained by glossing over details and pretending that two or more unique things are instead two instances of just one thing."

Types are abstractions. Abstractions are mental events (and particular mental events at that.)



Oy vey. And the evidence for this is?



Different things don't have the same properties just because you've formulated an abstraction that considers them the same.

You do not even try to understand what is being said. Waste someone else's time.

What do you think I'm misunderstanding? (Rather than simply disagreeing with.)

[Sy Borg]

Not misunderstanding, not even trying to understand what was being said. And thus instantly dismissive.I see no learning or increased understanding happening between us if you are even leery of something as obvious as the fractal layers of nature and the relevance to this topic.

[Terrapin Station]

Not misunderstanding, not even trying to understand what was being said. And thus instantly dismissive.I see no learning or increased understanding happening between us if you are even leery of something as obvious as the fractal layers of nature and the relevance to this topic.

Re "learning" you're presenting ideas I've been familiar with for decades. So there's nothing there for me to learn. I've been doing this stuff for a long time--I first became interested in philosophy in late 1973/early 1974.

I don't agree with those ideas. I think they're mistaken. I'm explaining why.

Re "fractal layers of nature," I don't buy anything at all close to mathematical realism. And that's part of my broader rejection of real abstracts as a nominalist.

[Sculptor1]

No plant life is conscious.

My sincere apologies. I did not realize you were religious.

Gee

Don't bother to communicate with me again, thanks.

[Sy Borg]

Not misunderstanding, not even trying to understand what was being said. And thus instantly dismissive.I see no learning or increased understanding happening between us if you are even leery of something as obvious as the fractal layers of nature and the relevance to this topic.

Re "learning" you're presenting ideas I've been familiar with for decades. So there's nothing there for me to learn. I've been doing this stuff for a long time--I first became interested in philosophy in late 1973/early 1974.

I don't agree with those ideas. I think they're mistaken. I'm explaining why.

Re "fractal layers of nature," I don't buy anything at all close to mathematical realism. And that's part of my broader rejection of real abstracts as a nominalist.

You have been at this for so long that there is apparently nothing left for you to say, just regurgitation of the very most basic and orthodox version of materialism and caustic attacks on sny variation.

I don't understand why those who have made up their minds even bother with philosophy boards. Unbending theists would do better with the Bible, since that is all that they will ever believe, and anti-theists should just read up science papers, since that is all they will ever believe.

Philosophy is for those who wonder at the nature of reality, not those who have already made up their minds.

[Terrapin Station]

Re "learning" you're presenting ideas I've been familiar with for decades. So there's nothing there for me to learn. I've been doing this stuff for a long time--I first became interested in philosophy in late 1973/early 1974.

I don't agree with those ideas. I think they're mistaken. I'm explaining why.

Re "fractal layers of nature," I don't buy anything at all close to mathematical realism. And that's part of my broader rejection of real abstracts as a nominalist.

You have been at this for so long that there is apparently nothing left for you to say, just regurgitation of the very most basic and orthodox version of materialism and caustic attacks on sny variation.

I don't understand why those who have made up their minds even bother with philosophy boards. Unbending theists would do better with the Bible, since that is all that they will ever believe, and anti-theists should just read up science papers, since that is all they will ever believe.

Philosophy is for those who wonder at the nature of reality, not those who have already made up their minds.

Don't you read many philosophy texts--books, papers? Most texts consist of someone arguing for a view contra other views, where they've reached a conclusion about what is correct.

[psyreporter]

A recent study suggests that all identical particles in the Universe are entangled by their identical nature.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

What, specifically, in that article do you take to be a support for the claim (rather than just an assumption that the claim is coherent and is the case) that there are numerically distinct but somehow identical particles?

If all particles of the same kind in the Universe are entangled by their "identical nature" that implies that the quality non-uniqueness is inherent to all particles in the Universe.

It could be evidence that the Universe is infinite.

If Neutrino's are the origin of consciousness that could imply that at some level, there is a universal (non-unique) element involved while the result of the interaction by which purpose is manifested, can be considered truly unique. In that sense, the spirit or soul or purpose that is the result of the interaction by Neutrino's could be 'actual unique' while the origin of consciousness itself (if that were to be Neutrino particles) is not.

The non-uniqueness introduced by identical nature entanglement would be relative to infinity, thus it is a special type of non-uniqueness. Uniqueness of consciousness as manifestation would be evident from it being an observer: an observer cannot observe the observing while observing. As manifestation of purpose per se there is a subjective element involved. The observer (as manifestation of consciousness) is the origin of the absolute first moment in time by which empirical methodology could even consider to start a measurement. Therefor, external observation cannot measure or explain observing per se or consciousness as manifestation.

The argument by Faustus5 that the only data available is subjective experience is thereby explained. But as can be considered evident, it cannot provide an explanation or theory for the substance consciousness itself.

But when you are trying to compose a scientifically and philosophically sound THEORY of consciousness, descriptions from subjects and measurements of what goes on in their bodies is literally all you have for data. And all you need to do (as if that was ever easy, ha!) is trace the causal chains between what is happening in their bodies and what leads then to make motor responses about their subjective experiences.

Absolute uniqueness may be the reason why consciousness cannot be explained using empirical science.

The following question may be relevant: can empirical science study and explain purpose per se? If not, that may imply that the quest into consciousness will need to be continued by philosophy.

[psyreporter]

What don't you agree with? That a guy that lost 90% of his white matter is one point away from being a moron? It was your article that pointed that out. What is newsworthy about a guy with only 10% of his brain being in the bottom 7% of standardized measures of intelligence? Your post supports the notion that brains are necessary for intelligence. Not proof but definitely not in support of the counter argument.

IQ score may not be all that matters. What is important is to consider that the French man was married, became a father of two children and held a job. He performed relatively normal in life. It is a great achievement with merely 10% brain tissue.

Further, the study by professor John Lorber showed that of 60 cases of people with merely 5% brain tissue, 50% had an IQ higher than 100. In one case, a student had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honors degree in mathematics.

those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.

I agree that brain tissue certainly isn't there for nothing but the cases indicate that intelligence may not arise out of the brain itself but instead out of "how" the brain is used.

[psyreporter]

No, he seems to have been a controversial specialist (he died in 1996):

QUOTE>
"Before his death in 1996, Lorber, who had a reputation for being deliberately controversial, conceded that he had perhaps over dramatised his evidence, arguing that this needed to be done in order to get people to listen. He believed that far too often results that don’t fit existing explanations are marginalised as ‘anomalous’ results (Lewin, 1980)."

(Rolls, Geoff. Classic Case Studies in Psychology. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2015. p. 273)
<QUOTE

Thank you for the source, it is interesting.

It does raise some questions. For example: what/who is the source of the information that professor Lorber confessed before he died that he exaggerated his evidence?

It appears that the folklore that humans use only 10% of their brain may originate from professor Lorber's research. I remember as a child to have learned that humans use only 10% of their brain and I always wondered what the origin of that idea had been.

It may explain something about how the results of professor Lorber's research have been perceived and accepted by humanity's view on reality. For such to be possible, at that time science must not have been able to debunk the results.

It would also imply that professor Lorber had to endure a special (paparazzi like) type of scrutiny which increases the risks that his words are taken out of context.

What I note from the information in your source is that

1) professor Lorber has exaggerated the title in his publication: (1980) Is your brain really necessary? for which he had taken a public facing position to apologize. If the paparazzi like scrutiny has evolved around that aspect, that may indicate something about further (potentially unfounded) claims with regard to exaggeration.

2) the source denoted professor Lorber as a "tactician" which could indicate a bias with the author of the study.

The CAT-scan using outdated technology argument that could imply that "a millimetre" of brain tissue has been missed, may be considered irrelevant because it is evident that the amount of brain tissue has been measured in grams. The exact makeup of the brain tissue, although it could be relevant from a neurological perspective, would not make a difference with regard to the amount of brain tissue, despite that in some cases that were published it was an estimate based on a CAT scan. If the total amount proved to be 11%, would that make a difference?

I see no evidence in your source that professor Lorber has intentionally published false information. If such were to be the case, some of his 210 published studies would likely have been retracted, which is not the case.

Therefor, it appears that there could be a chance that professor Lorber has merely mentioned that he exaggerated the title of his publication in 1980 in which he stated that people can live with "no brain" while in reality, humans need some brain tissue.

I have seen no evidence that professor Lorber may have lied about the case of the student with an IQ of 126.

[Faustus5]

If Neutrino's are the origin of consciousness. . .

No coherent or serious theory of consciousness that anyone has ever proposed would even remotely suggest such a thing.

The argument by Faustus5 that the only data available is subjective experience is thereby explained.

That is not my argument.

[Steve3007]

If Neutrino's are the origin of consciousness. . .

The neutrino conversation is next door. Straight out the door. Turn left, then left again.

[Sy Borg]

You have been at this for so long that there is apparently nothing left for you to say, just regurgitation of the very most basic and orthodox version of materialism and caustic attacks on any variation.

I don't understand why those who have made up their minds even bother with philosophy boards. Unbending theists would do better with the Bible, since that is all that they will ever believe, and anti-theists should just read up science papers, since that is all they will ever believe.

Philosophy is for those who wonder at the nature of reality, not those who have already made up their minds.

Don't you read many philosophy texts--books, papers? Most texts consist of someone arguing for a view contra other views, where they've reached a conclusion about what is correct.

Since these are not a philosophy books or papers, but conversations, we have the luxury of dispensing with tedious formalities and try to read others' thoughts with a sense of understanding the essence of what's the writers are trying to say, rather than picking at non-critical technicalities.

It should be said that plenty of philosophers sprout views with certainty that are not shared by scientists working in related fields. I'm not a fan of ontic certainty, as opposed to commonsense certainty for practical means and purposes. When we know what energy is and how it came to be, when we know how the big bang occurred and understand the nature of time, and know what energy actually is, not to mention dark energy and dark matter, when we know how relativity reconciles with QM, how a sense of experience is generated (or if it is generated), how to create life from scratch etc, then I will feel more comfortable with certainty in contentious areas.