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

[Terrapin Station]

It appears that you are saying we need someone to put everyone on the right path.

???

You suggested that the gist of philosophy is fence-sitting. I explained that that isn't the case. You said that we're not doing philosophy in the vein of writing papers, etc. here. I said that it would be nice if we could interact with that sort of quality. You said "It takes two to tango," and I explained that yes, it takes more than one person to step up and engage in that sort of quality philosophizing. It's not going to work if just one person does it and everyone else pretends that they have no view, no knowledge, no familiarity with the same arguments that they should have encountered hundreds or thousands of times before.

[Terrapin Station]

haha--real abstracts such as?

Like all the "properties" you worship?

If you think that I'm saying that real properties are abstracts you either sure aren't paying attention or you're sure not understanding what you're reading.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure. So we need more than one person who isn't on the fence about everything, who doesn't defer to others about everything, who isn't going "Gee I don't know" as if they're just discovering various ideas about an issue for the first time and they haven't had time to think about them yet.

Do you have lots of different people in mind when describing this character? Is the person that you most have in mind the one that you talk to the most? The one that says he doesn't believe anything, that other people need to ask him clarifying questions, that everybody always assumes that he means something different from what he actually means, that words have no unambiguous meanings, that nobody needs money, that world peace is easy to achieve, that thee[sic] truth is simple and easy to those with a childlike mind, etc, etc? Do you still have hope that the nature of those conversations will change (improve?) in some way? I guess so, or you wouldn't still be having them.

lol--he's a great example for wishing I could see folks I'm interacting with here in person instead. It's hard to imagine how any real person could have a personality like that.

[Steve3007]

lol--he's a great example for wishing I could see folks I'm interacting with here in person instead. It's hard to imagine how any real person could have a personality like that.

Yes, you've mentioned before that you suspect some people put on what you've referred to as an "Aspie" persona when talking online. I'm also often very curious to know how a conversation with some of the people here would go if it were face-to-face. Some of the more unusual ones.

[Terrapin Station]

lol--he's a great example for wishing I could see folks I'm interacting with here in person instead. It's hard to imagine how any real person could have a personality like that.

Yes, you've mentioned before that you suspect some people put on what you've referred to as an "Aspie" persona when talking online. I'm also often very curious to know how a conversation with some of the people here would go if it were face-to-face. Some of the more unusual ones.

Right. And it would be interesting just to see what they look like, how they dress, how they carry themselves, any mannerism or speech quirks they might have, etc. All of that stuff provides a lot of information we don't get online.

[Steve3007]

You could try asking creation/evolution where he lives and see if he wants to meet for a drink and a chat. (Or at least you could have done that up to about 2 months ago!). It's hard to even tell which country he lives in, although his idioms and spelling conventions suggest the US. You never know, he might live in NYC. Might live next door!

[Faustus5]

When one looks at the origin of consciousness, one looks at the origin of a manifestation. The mentioned properties such as cognition, perception and memory are manifestations. At question would be: why do those manifestations exist? What is the cause or origin?

And to answer those questions you will address only biological phenomena at large scales where neutrino's never enter into the discussion. If you want to know anything about the origins of consciousness, you will be looking at the evolution of the organs making up nervous systems. You will not be doing physics.

(2018) The role of Quantum Mechanics in Nature
The brain could use quantum mechanical neutrino interactions between existing atomic nuclei (Goodman 2015) to create the mind where a ‘global’ communication and mental experience (consciousness) could take place.

The only way this guy's "theory" (I'm being overly generous by even calling it a theory) makes any sense at all is if it is understood to be addressing a specific process in the brain that shapes memory, perception, or cognition. Talk of quantum mechanical processes just "creating the mind" without those specifics is hopelessly vague to the point of meaninglessness.

For instance, one of the big hurdles any working theory of consciousness has to address is the so-called "binding problem". If it were discovered that processes involving quantum physics and neutrino's were occurring in the brain to cause binding between different modules, that would be a successful contribution of physics to understanding just one of the processes that produce consciousness. But it would NOT be a theory of consciousness, merely a component of one.

Again, any talk of quantum physics or subatomic particles that does not directly address specific processes involved in memory, perception, or cognition has absolutely to do with consciousness.

And if the "theory" mentions consciousness without discussing any of those subjects in a substantial manner, it doesn't even rise to the occasion of being legitimately scientific.

[Atla]

Like all the "properties" you worship?

There's a real fashion for people telling other people that they worship things. From Einstein to Atheism, it seems that the pithiest "ya-boo" anyone can fling at anyone else is "You worship X". A while ago, the person to whom you directed this particular one told me that I worship Richard Feynman!

All good knock-about stuff, I suppose.

It was more like sarcasm. Your commentaries on the bickering of others can be kinda off.
Well TS's reply shows that not even going this basic did get the message across, not that I actually try to communicate with him anymore.

As for worshipping Richard Feynman, that's different, anyone who doesn't worship that savant is a bit suspect imo.

[Steve3007]

I only worship the bongo playing, not the insights into physics.

[LuckyR]

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.

Perhaps you missed the part about him slowly losing his brain tissue over time. He definitely had more brain tissue when he formed his personality as a child (likely it was close to 100% as a child), went to school, got married etc than he had when the CT scan was taken.

[Atla]

I'll put it as simply as I can. Denying the Hard problem is not a choice or philosophical option or whatever, but a form of insanity.
Dennett is either mentally ill or dishonest. Making other people insane as well is not good for humanity at larger.

Then either a lot of respected philosophers with solid careers are insane, or a poster on an internet forum is deep in the grip of an ideology and probably hasn't been reading enough from the philosophers he/she disagrees with to understand what they believe and why.

Gee, which is more likely?

You will be surprised to learn that on this matter, a lot of respected philosophers with solid careers are insane. This issue is massive.

[Faustus5]

You will be surprised to learn that on this matter, a lot of respected philosophers with solid careers are insane. This issue is massive.

Nah, they are just deeper, more informed thinkers than you give them credit for.

[psyreporter]

Perhaps you missed the part about him slowly losing his brain tissue over time. He definitely had more brain tissue when he formed his personality as a child (likely it was close to 100% as a child), went to school, got married etc than he had when the CT scan was taken.

It's likely that the man in this case had hydrocephalus from birth, says Feuillet. His medical records show that he was treated with a shunt at the age of 6 months, and again at 14 years old. But without further neurological problems the extent of his condition went un-noticed for decades.
https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716 ... 16-15.html

The man is estimated to have been born in 1963 and was 14 years old in 1976.

CT scan was invented in 1972 and only became widely available in 1980 so that explains that any neurological evidence would have been empirical evidence (neurological exam). The specialists argue that "it is likely" that the man had the condition from birth which implies that they had no brain scan available to confirm it. "no further neurological problems" refers to the man's capacity to function normally.

It cannot be said that the man had a normal brain as a child since he was functioning normally at 44 years age with merely 10% brain tissue.

[Terrapin Station]

If all particles of the same kind in the Universe are entangled by their "identical nature" . . .

To get there--a comment about particles having "identical nature," we need to (i) figure out how it would make sense to say that numerically distinct particles have "identical nature," and then (ii) figure out what would count as evidence of them having "identical nature."

That was what I was asking you about. What, in the article you presented, you take to count as an answer to either (i) or (ii) above.

[psyreporter]

When one looks at the origin of consciousness, one looks at the origin of a manifestation. The mentioned properties such as cognition, perception and memory are manifestations. At question would be: why do those manifestations exist? What is the cause or origin?

And to answer those questions you will address only biological phenomena at large scales where neutrino's never enter into the discussion. If you want to know anything about the origins of consciousness, you will be looking at the evolution of the organs making up nervous systems. You will not be doing physics.

What is the basis for the idea that consciousness can only be explained by biological phenomena?

Biological phenomena require a cause and therefor they cannot be the origin of themselves by which it would be unlikely that they can explain consciousness.

(2018) The role of Quantum Mechanics in Nature
The brain could use quantum mechanical neutrino interactions between existing atomic nuclei (Goodman 2015) to create the mind where a ‘global’ communication and mental experience (consciousness) could take place.

The only way this guy's "theory" (I'm being overly generous by even calling it a theory) makes any sense at all is if it is understood to be addressing a specific process in the brain that shapes memory, perception, or cognition. Talk of quantum mechanical processes just "creating the mind" without those specifics is hopelessly vague to the point of meaninglessness.

For instance, one of the big hurdles any working theory of consciousness has to address is the so-called "binding problem". If it were discovered that processes involving quantum physics and neutrino's were occurring in the brain to cause binding between different modules, that would be a successful contribution of physics to understanding just one of the processes that produce consciousness. But it would NOT be a theory of consciousness, merely a component of one.

Again, any talk of quantum physics or subatomic particles that does not directly address specific processes involved in memory, perception, or cognition has absolutely to do with consciousness.

And if the "theory" mentions consciousness without discussing any of those subjects in a substantial manner, it doesn't even rise to the occasion of being legitimately scientific.

The author, Maurice Goodman, is a researcher at Technological University Dublin and his study was published in Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research which may indicate that a certain level of credibility is applicable.

In my opinion a potential outside origin of consciousness solves some philosophical problems. Therefore, if Neutrino's could potentially play a role then that may be something of interest to investigate further.