brain/mind

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is a cultural social POV, the theory of gravity has great predictive outcome and therefore has objective validity. So in that case i would say that it is a valid approximation of reality. An invisible monkey that is pulling you down at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared also has the same observational validity. Bot it has some really non-valid aspects to it as well.

I was afraid it smacked of postmodernism. The fact of gravity is not equally true and equally false. It is a fact. The theory of gravity appears to be what you are calling equally true and equally false. Unfortunately, an invisible monkey would exhibit additional attributes, such as uttering "ooh, ooh" while pulling me down. I don't think gravity is explained by an invisible monkey, so at least two theories (standard vs. monkey) are not equally true and equally false, or equally valid and equally invalid, or equally explanatory and equally non-explanatory.

Could be i just substitute the phrase observational validity for what scientists will likely call truth.

That doesn't help. There is more observational validity to the current theory of gravity than there is to the intelligent falling theory or the pulling monkey theory. Even if they were equally explanatory, Occam would suggest that the monkey be eliminated.

~~ Paul

 

[Slimething]

Originally Posted by Complexity
It appears that something named 'maatorc' joined while I was taking a break. It needn't have bothered. I'm not impressed. A sidekick named Invidious? Less impressive than its master.

It appears that something named Complexity joined while I was taking a break. It needn't have bothered. I'm not impressed. An obnoxious sidekick named Articulett? Equally as invidious as its master?


I see we're finally reverting to schoolyard tactics of debate. Perhaps Moochie was right in wanting to see you explain the notion of god to first graders. From present evidence, you'd fit in better there than here.

 

[Slimething]

1... Everyone here knows you are a woo masquerading as a skeptic.

I don't. I've read a lot of articulett's posts and haven't detected any woo. You, on the other hand, are a different story. You make wild claims but won't or can't produce supportive evidence. Now, that's woo!

2... It is interesting how you keep on describing yourself everytime you get on your self-righteous high horse. No-one here is being deceived by your childish antics.

Also known as the "So is your grandfather!" line of debate. Where and how did you become so illiterate?

 

[Slimething]

Because only those who believe in the Ivory Tower will be able to enter, you must believe in the popcorn bar before you can enter the wonderful hot tub, I say to you , you must have faith in rationalism, you must beleeeeve in science and It's Prophets Darwin, Randi and Dawkins. So place your hands in the air and SHOW ME THAT YOU ARE BRIGHT!

You're losing me here. You seem to be describing a school of philosophy, not a "clubhouse". In my mind, the term clubhouse insinuates a social pretext for entry but a school of philosophy is open to any adherent regardless of superficial or historical traits. Maybe we should define "clubhouse" but that's my take anyway.

BTW, I agree that it is unwise for anyone to label themselves a "bright" for the same reason no one should label themselves a "winner". First, it's an exaggerated label that impugns the status of others, some even more deserving of the title. Additionally, personal circumstances change and the ride downhill is not a pleasant one ("Be nice to people on the way up as you will see them again on the way down").

It is not by experiment that man shall come to understanding, nooo, it is not by observation that man will come to truth, nooo, it is not by peer review that you will be saved BUT ONLY by belief in the Goodness of Science... that and a donation to the JREF.

Mock all you want but why don't you post an alternative method at understanding the universe? Even you have to admit that science's track record is pretty damned good or at least better than religion or woo.

BTW, science is not a goddess as science must be questioned and tested to work properly.

 

[Dancing David]

I was afraid it smacked of postmodernism. The fact of gravity is not equally true and equally false. It is a fact. The theory of gravity appears to be what you are calling equally true and equally false. Unfortunately, an invisible monkey would exhibit additional attributes, such as uttering "ooh, ooh" while pulling me down. I don't think gravity is explained by an invisible monkey, so at least two theories (standard vs. monkey) are not equally true and equally false, or equally valid and equally invalid, or equally explanatory and equally non-explanatory.


That doesn't help. There is more observational validity to the current theory of gravity than there is to the intelligent falling theory or the pulling monkey theory. Even if they were equally explanatory, Occam would suggest that the monkey be eliminated.

~~ Paul

I completely agree, the fact of the observation of the law of attraction between masses is true.

I still argue (for myself and no one else has to agree) that the words used to describe the observed fact have no inherent truth in and of themselves. themselves, they are true because they match the observations and the model of objective knowledge as defined in science.

Please note the following:

An invisible monkey that is pulling you down at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared also has the same observational validity. Bot it has some really non-valid aspects to it as well.

But it has some non-valid aspects as well, so it (to me) is not as good as newton's law or the current theories of gravitation.

My nihilism is a personal viewpoint and I don't expect others to agree with it, 'truth' is a very dangerous word in many applications.

 

[davidsmith73]

So while non-physical entities may exist, i see no reason that they would have a higher observational validity that the materilsit assumption of ontology.

I think non-physical existence does have a higher observational validity, as you put it. This is because no inference is needed for the truth of its existence. It's existence is directly experiential.

If you have data which is observationaly valid that gebnerates a better approxiamtion of observed reality than the materialist model then by all means please present it.

Non-physical, qualitative reality is not an approximation of some "external" reality. It can never be. Qualities are direct truths of themselves. So when you ask for data or predictions that would demonstrate non-physical reality, you are asking a question that is impossible to answer. That's the way I see it anyway

 

[Dancing David]

You're losing me here. You seem to be describing a school of philosophy, not a "clubhouse". In my mind, the term clubhouse insinuates a social pretext for entry but a school of philosophy is open to any adherent regardless of superficial or historical traits. Maybe we should define "clubhouse" but that's my take anyway.

BTW, I agree that it is unwise for anyone to label themselves a "bright" for the same reason no one should label themselves a "winner". First, it's an exaggerated label that impugns the status of others, some even more deserving of the title. Additionally, personal circumstances change and the ride downhill is not a pleasant one ("Be nice to people on the way up as you will see them again on the way down").



Mock all you want but why don't you post an alternative method at understanding the universe? Even you have to admit that science's track record is pretty damned good or at least better than religion or woo.

BTW, science is not a goddess as science must be questioned and tested to work properly.

I am well aware of that my post was mainly a mockery of the way the 'science is a religion' people act. I am a hard knock materialist who has extensive spiritual undertakings but i believe that all experience is contained within the confines of a brain. I am known in the occult community as a galloping sceptic. I believe that there is only matter/energy and no spirit or soul.

It was meant to be amusing not a mockery of the JREF but of the 'science is religion' thing. the Ivory Tower was the creation of Lifegazer and some of us ran with it for a while.

Science rules, faith drools.

 

[Slimething]

I completely agree, the fact of the observation of the law of attraction between masses is true.

I still argue (for myself and no one else has to agree) that the words used to describe the observed fact have no inherent truth in and of themselves. themselves, they are true because they match the observations and the model of objective knowledge as defined in science.

DD, I am a scientist and cannot contradict you. Science uses mathematics to describe observation of real-world behavior. All of the mathematical rules you find in science can be seen as models of reality that have been or need to be validated. The mathematical models dealing with gravitation have been rigorously tested so we know that they are pretty damned good in describing and predicting. Still, only because a mathematical equation works does not indicate that our concepts of that phenomenon are correct. Gravitation is a case in point because the nature of gravity is still not understood. With each new revelation, the math behind the phenomenon is reviewed and corrected as necessary.

Sorry to be so long-winded but I wanted you to know you are not wrong ro off in left field. Science tries to understand the universe and models are presented and tested for validity. That's the process. Anyone who tells you that science has without a doubt locked onto a natural phenomenon with irrefutable accuracy and precision is not aware that new discoveries are made every day that either refute or confirm what science has theorized.

I am well aware of that my post was mainly a mockery of the way the 'science is a religion' people act.

I'm sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.

 

[davidsmith73]

You have to prove that a model can not be qualatative,

We may be using the word qualitative differently here. I was using it as a synonym for non-physical, just so that as many people recognise what it is we're talking about.

Non-physical reality is directly demonstrated because it is experiential. That is its pure nature. Realisation that this reality is not physical comes by comparison of direct, experiential reality with the concept of physical reality. Physical reality is relational by definition and qualitative experience is directly known so the two are not compatable.

Models describe the physical world and are a construct formed by relationships so they cannot be non-physical (qualitative).

 

[articulett]

I

Science rules, faith drools.

Faith goes to Jupiter to get stupider...
Science goes to Mars to get candy bars...

(or was it boys go to Jupiter...)?

Anyhow, do I have to get "jumped-in" to visit the clubhouse?
_______________________________________________

And slimething--thanks for support.

Don't you just love maatorc's little idiosynchratic numbering system? When the only person who understands you happens to be you, then I guess it helps to number things to keep them straight.

I believe there is one reality that is objectively the same for all--the earth isn't just a sphere for some of us, and the truth stays the truth even if no single human knows about it...but maatorc also proves that some people "create their own reality" and these folks seem to hold conversations in their reality that makes no sense to those mistaking the blather for attempts at dialogue --It's like the guy talking out loud in a conversation whom you interpret to be crazy, until you notice has one of those cell phone ear pieces in his ear.

I have no clue as to who maatorc is talking to, but I think it's whimsical the way he thinks everyone agrees with him. I also have no idea what he's talking about, but who can understand woo except another woo for whom the first woo speaks the true woo? (say that 5 times fast).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How does something non-physical interact (have causation on) things physical?

Also, is it just a coincidence that in all observable cases mind is related to brain function? (For example, sleep, intoxication, seizure, death, brain damage, etc.) If mind was something independent of the physical body, then we would expect it to be unperturbed by these things.

 

[davidsmith73]

Perhaps because you made the claim, and addressing the claim required a discussion of proof and evidence.

That doesn't answer my question as to why proof and evidence is needed to know about the existence of non-physical reality. You are taking it as read that proof and evidence are needed. I'm very interested in why you think they are necessary.

A lot of people find it a waste of time to believe in non-physical things. If you choose to do that, where do you draw the line? Do you believe that the entire universe resides inside the eyeball of a giant (non-physical, of course) goldfish swimming through the (non-physical) ether? If not, then why not?

No you can't believe that! Because, the way you have phrased it, you are making a physical claim. "Resides", "eyeball" and "giant" are all references to physical things. Unless someone believes that they experience those things (what you would call a hallucination), in which case it doesn't make any difference to physical models or beliefs about the physical world.

So to answer your question, you draw the line at making claims that refer to physical reality.

 

[davidsmith73]

How does something non-physical interact (have causation on) things physical?

Good question. Perhaps we should agree on what causation means first. I suspect that your question needs re-phrasing. I mean, can we truly separate causation and physical things?

 

[davidsmith73]

No, I am merely pointing out the fact that the concept of something having a 'quality' can only come from the physical - it cannot stand alone.

Why not?

 

[davidsmith73]

Sure, no problem. I thought it was obvious from the context of the thread. I am trying to explain why the mind is a physical process of the brain, and nothing supernatural or universal.

I meant that as a youngster I was indoctrinated with the concept of a ‘soul’ (which included the mind) that was somehow supernatural. But finding absolutely no evidence for that I read a lot on cognitive science and neuroscience. These fields provide lots of evidence, both empirical and theoretical, that the mind is a process of the brain.

A key thing to consider is that once human beings became self-aware, we became aware that we are all going to die. So it makes sense that we evolved the mental facilities to believe in things like a soul or universal mind to keep us from fearing death. Just as we evolve physical characteristics to survive better, we evolve mental characteristics to survive and pass on our genes better, including believing in things like souls and universal minds. But the much simpler explanation is that the mind is a physical process of the brain with no supernatural or unexplainable concepts required.

Erm, I don't see any starting definition, logical argument or conclusion that explains your previous statement?

 

[articulett]

How does something non-physical interact (have causation on) things physical?

Also, is it just a coincidence that in all observable cases mind is related to brain function? (For example, sleep, intoxication, seizure, death, brain damage, etc.) If mind was something independent of the physical body, then we would expect it to be unperturbed by these things.

Love your sig line~

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I still argue (for myself and no one else has to agree) that the words used to describe the observed fact have no inherent truth in and of themselves. themselves, they are true because they match the observations and the model of objective knowledge as defined in science.

Can you describe how a statement could possibly have any "inherent truth in and of itself"? I'm not even sure what that means. Words are used to describe our experiences and that is all. Are you expressing some sort of anti-Platonic philosophy?

~~ Paul

 

[Invidious]

What advantage is there in believing in the non-physical? What's the point? If here on our left we have a sneetch with a regular ol belly, what makes the star-bellied sneetch here on our right better? Or is it a matter of better? What power/understanding/characteristic differentiates your star-bellied sneetch from a regular sneetch with a tattoo on its tummy? How can you differentiate its non-physicalness if any measurable difference must be physical? Or is there some non-physical quality that is missing from our regular sneetches?

 

[Invidious]

Can you describe how a statement could possibly have any "inherent truth in and of itself"? I'm not even sure what that means. Words are used to describe our experiences and that is all. Are you expressing some sort of anti-Platonic philosophy?

~~ Paul

Ugh, it's like a miniaturized version of the physical/non-physical debate. How can a word be true if the word true is a word and words are both true and false?

Ugh.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How does something non-physical interact (have causation on) things physical?

Good question. Perhaps we should agree on what causation means first. I suspect that your question needs re-phrasing. I mean, can we truly separate causation and physical things?

Do you really think the definition of causation is the problem here? I'm arguing against the "ghost in the machine" stuff--against the notion that the mind is some non-physical entity (as opposed to the conventional view that the mind is an emergent phenomenon of higher levels of organization of neurons, hormones, etc.).

For instance, we know that when you will your limbs to move in certain ways that activity of the motor cortex goes out afferent nerves and stimulates muscles to contract. Seems to me there's no need to look for another cause for what we call "will".

And if you propose that such other cause is something non-material, you actually introduce more unknowns than what you explain. How does the non-physical interact with the physical? (Does this ghost in the machine somehow cause neural activity? How?) Where does this other cause come from? Why does state of mind correlate so neatly to all sorts of physical things?