Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[Malerin]

But this is exactly the point. A conversation about turbulence is "just" a discussion of fluid dynamics in the same way that a conversation about consciousness is "just" a discussion of neurology.

So all your conversations about how you feel about things are neurological discussions? Even when you were a kid and knew how you felt, but had no clue what a brain even was?

 

[joobz]

No, they shouldn't be able to discuss fluid mechanics meaingfully. Two Romans talking about fluid mechanics would be amusing. Two Romans talking about how much stepping on a nail hurts wouldn't be.

This is false. One need not be an expert to see a difference between a calm river and a rapid.

Subjectivity is part of the chaotic nature that results from the emergent behavior.

Huh?

The exact trajectory that a particle takes in a turbulent flow will be subject to the exact initial conditions the particle was introduced at and the state of the system upon being introduced. As a result, turbulent flow results in subjective experiences. I agree it makes quantitative values hard to come by, but that doesn't make the overall behavior undefinable or magically derived.

Whenever there's turbulent flow, there are subjective experiences?

[/quote]
the nature of a system that has emergent properties are so complex that tracking the exact trend difficult/impossible. My analogy works surprisingly well here, but I guess I wasn't clear about it.

A subjective experience is one that is internally felt. It is true to you, but others experiencing the same thing may have a different conclusion or idea as a result. What music one enjoys is a classic example of the subjective experience.

The analogy to the turbulent flow is this: If you were to put a small sphere in a turbulent river, the path it takes (whether it moves up/down, left right, gets caught in an eddie, gets pushed to the river bed) will be dependent upon so many factors that you couldn't predict exactly it's path.. Even if you started particles at the same location each and every time. Now you would be able to predict the probability of where particles may end up, but we wouldn't be able to tell exactly if this particle would fit the average or be an outlier.

The exact path that the particle took as a result of the stream is the subjective experience of that particle.

 

[Nonpareil]

So all your conversations about how you feel about things are neurological discussions? Even when you were a kid and knew how you felt, but had no clue what a brain even was?

You're still missing the point of the analogy. Consciousness is "just" a description of neurological interactions in the same way that turbulence is "just" a description of fluid dynamics.

 

[Malerin]

This is false. One need not be an expert to see a difference between a calm river and a rapid.

True, but two people talking about how different parts of a river look aren't really doing fluid dynamics, are they? That's like saying I'm doing meteorology when I when I say how nice the breeze feels.

OTOH, two people could talk, in depth, about their conscious experiences and never reference neurology.

Another way to think of it: can a toddler give you a pretty good idea of how he feels? Sure. Can he give you a pretty good idea of fluid dynamics?

 

[joobz]

True, but two people talking about how different parts of a river look aren't really doing fluid dynamics, are they? That's like saying I'm doing meteorology when I when I say how nice the breeze feels.

OTOH, two people could talk, in depth, about their conscious experiences and never reference neurology.

This is where I think we disagree. One can speak of the frothiness of the foam, the swelling of the river, the quickness of the eddy compared to the streamline of the water moving past. One could have an extremely in depth conversation about the behavior of river flows without ever referencing the Navier stokes equation.

Same thing about the conscious experiences.

Another way to think of it: can a toddler give you a pretty good idea of how he feels? Sure. Can he give you a pretty good idea of fluid dynamics?

Yes, Toddler who notices when he pees in the water, the water doesn't splash up as much as when he pees on the rim IS having a pretty good idea of fluid mechanics.

 

[Mashuna]

True, but two people talking about how different parts of a river look aren't really doing fluid dynamics, are they? That's like saying I'm doing meteorology when I when I say how nice the breeze feels.

OTOH, two people could talk, in depth, about their conscious experiences and never reference neurology.

I'm confused by your point here. It looks like you're saying that people can talk about a the behaviour of a river without referencing fluid dynamics, and that people can talk about their feelings/experiences without referencing neurology.

 

[Malerin]

This is where I think we disagree. One can speak of the frothiness of the foam, the swelling of the river, the quickness of the eddy compared to the streamline of the water moving past. One could have an extremely in depth conversation about the behavior of river flows without ever referencing the Navier stokes equation.

One could do all those things wihout having any knowledge of math, let alone a particular equation. How far do you get in fluid dynamics without knowing math?

Yes, Toddler who notices when he pees in the water, the water doesn't splash up as much as when he pees on the rim IS having a pretty good idea of fluid mechanics.

Does a kid who notices the straw looks bent in the water but not in the air have a "good idea" of light refraction? Or when the fire truck roars past it dounds different. Is that a good idea of Doppler Effect?

There are two things going on: the experience of the phenemona, which anyone can have and relate, and the reason the phenomena is happening, which takes a bit of study.

The "conciousness is just a neural description" misses the first part. Conscious experience, first and foremost, is a description of how we feel. It's only recently that we've started to correlate certain brain states to conscious states.

In fact, this is probably true of all disciplines: fluid dynamics is not JUST a descirption of molecules in an air or liquid. It has to take into account our subjective experience of things like turbulence, waves, etc. First, there is the experience of the phenomena, and then an attempt to explain it.

 

[joobz]

One could do all those things wihout having any knowledge of math, let alone a particular equation. How far do you get in fluid dynamics without knowing math?




Does a kid who notices the straw looks bent in the water but not in the air have a "good idea" of light refraction? Or when the fire truck roars past it dounds different. Is that a good idea of Doppler Effect?

There are two things going on: the experience of the phenemona, which anyone can have and relate, and the reason the phenomena is happening, which takes a bit of study.

The "conciousness is just a neural description" misses the first part. Conscious experience, first and foremost, is a description of how we feel. It's only recently that we've started to correlate certain brain states to conscious states.

In fact, this is probably true of all disciplines: fluid dynamics is not JUST a descirption of molecules in an air or liquid. It has to take into account our subjective experience of things like turbulence, waves, etc. First, there is the experience of the phenomena, and then an attempt to explain it.

I don't see how any of this contradicts my point? Of course, all this is true. There are strong parallels between consciousness and turbulence.

Turbulence is an emergent property of fluid mechanics, one that is difficult to explicitly model and likely will never be.
Consciousness is an emergent property of a cognitive network, one that is difficult to explicitly model and likely will never be.

We see emergent behaviors in many aspects of the natural world. None of these behaviors require the addition of a magical element. Why should we expect consciousness to be any different.


BTW, thank you for the excellent discussion. I always enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Malerin]

I'm confused by your point here. It looks like you're saying that people can talk about a the behaviour of a river without referencing fluid dynamics, and that people can talk about their feelings/experiences without referencing neurology.

Yes, because I now think most terms, easpecially scientific ones, are referring to two things: the subjective experience of the thing being talked about (feeling the water rush by), and the reasoning why the phenomena is happening. So consciousness isn't just a description of nerual processes. That ignores the fact that we can talk about conscious experience without talking about neurobiology. But then fluid dynamics isn't just a description of molecules in liquid. There is the subjective experience that can also be talked about.

I have a problem with the word "just". The subjective experience of the phenomena cannot be divorced from an explanation of why the phenomena is happening.

 

[Malerin]

I don't see how any of this contradicts my point? Of course, all this is true. There are strong parallels between consciousness and turbulence.

Turbulence is an emergent property of fluid mechanics, one that is difficult to explicitly model and likely will never be.
Consciousness is an emergent property of a cognitive network, one that is difficult to explicitly model and likely will never be.

We see emergent behaviors in many aspects of the natural world. None of these behaviors require the addition of a magical element. Why should we expect consciousness to be any different.

All other emergent properties can be understood from multiple viewpoints, explicitly modelled, and usually described in mathematical terms. I don't see consciousness being similar in any respect.

There are no conscious equations. We know what other emergent properties are like (the turbulence of two rivers). None of us can know what anyone else's subjective experience is like. It's forever removed from us. Emergent properties can be measured. How do you measure a conscious experience? How do you model a conscious experience?

I think it's qualitatively different than any other emergent property and, strangest of all, arises when a bunch of switches are arranged in the right way with a bit of electricity thrown in.

BTW, thank you for the excellent discussion. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks! I had to refine my beliefs a bit, so a good discussion was had.

 

[tsig]

No, they shouldn't be able to discuss fluid mechanics meaingfully. Two Romans talking about fluid mechanics would be amusing. Two Romans talking about how much stepping on a nail hurts wouldn't be.



Huh?





Whenever there's turbulent flow, there are subjective experiences?

Really? The Romans knew enough about fluid dynamics to build aqueducts.

 

[joobz]

All other emergent properties can be understood from multiple viewpoints, explicitly modelled, and usually described in mathematical terms. I don't see consciousness being similar in any respect.

We have yet to develop the math to do so, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. We have models describing other emergent phenomena (e.g., weather patterns), and these are still horrible but we can do it. Should we still consider lightning strikes a result of Zeus?

There are no conscious equations. We know what other emergent properties are like (the turbulence of two rivers). None of us can know what anyone else's subjective experience is like. It's forever removed from us. Emergent properties can be measured. How do you measure a conscious experience? How do you model a conscious experience?

I agree we don't have the math set up yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen or that it isn't being developed.
Asking simpler question: How do you quantitatively describe ANY level of consciousness? Well, it turns out we can to a weak level.
That's what these papers describe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21383615
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21512777
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21293252
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21160616

It's what Anesthesiologists do all the time. Indeed, people have used this rather simplistic quantification of consciousness to create an artificial anesthesiologist, called McSleepy.
http://io9.com/386691/meet-mcsleepy-the-worlds-first-robot-anesthesiologist

 

[Mashuna]

All other emergent properties can be understood from multiple viewpoints, explicitly modelled, and usually described in mathematical terms. I don't see consciousness being similar in any respect.

There are no conscious equations. We know what other emergent properties are like (the turbulence of two rivers). None of us can know what anyone else's subjective experience is like. It's forever removed from us. Emergent properties can be measured. How do you measure a conscious experience? How do you model a conscious experience?

I think it's qualitatively different than any other emergent property and, strangest of all, arises when a bunch of switches are arranged in the right way with a bit of electricity thrown in.

I think it's harder, because it's self-referential. You can experience turbulence because you're conscious. You experience consciousness because. . .what? You're doing conscious things? I don't know that it's qualitatively different though.

 

[Robin]

The "just" in my quote is important. If consciousness is just a description of neural processing, then two people who know nothing about neural processing should not be able to have a meaningful discussion of consciousness.

That does not seem to follow. If consciousness is a description of neural processing (and I am not saying I agree with the definition) then it follows that, by being conscious we do know something about neural processing.

 

[Dancing David]

We're seperate in that we experience things: pain, sense of self, conscious awareness.

DOC's struggling to make a point that's filled up many a thread in the past: how does consciousness/subjective experience/qualia arise from an electrically charged pile of neurons? Why does it arise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Oh you mean the Problem of Vague Defintion!

 

[Dancing David]

Seems qualiatatively differenent than the HPC.

Not, you do understand the three body problem, don't you?

Same:Same

You just want to put magic words in magic boxes and then promotes some sort of dualism.

If particles are part of some vast consciousness, the exact same problem applies to them as applies to mechanical neurons.

 

[Dancing David]

Pain hurts. It's not just a description of nerves sending messages to the brain. It's this subjective quality of experience that makes consciousness so difficult to decipher.

So where is this 'pain' outside the organic system, in some meta-space? If it is not a product of nerve transmissio and brain function, then why does morphine dull that magical qualia?

Where is pain absent the brain, at the Pain Wave Transmission System for Disembodied Consciousness?

 

[DOC]

I don't run from any post. My time and energy is limited. In case you haven't noticed I am outnumbered by skeptics by a large margin. And some threads just run their course and I move onto something else.

And to prove it I invite you (and only you) to refer me to one post you want answered in any of my threads (that is already posted as of this time) and I will respond to it.

Very well, I pointed out that your assertion that the Northridge earthquake in Southern California was an example of God's wrath, since the porn industry was centered in Sherman Oaks (near Northridge) was utter nonsense. Nobody in the porn industry was killed, and the industry didn't miss a beat. However, a number of destitute veterans at a VA facility were killed. I don't believe you ever answered that. Furthermore, you've abandoned that thread entirely.

Strawman, the title of that thread said "could" the recent disasters be from God, I didn't say it was because I don't know for sure. In that thread I never say this or that disaster is definitely from God. I give some reasons why the places where the disasters occur "could" be from a God punishing sin. For example I point out that Haiti (the location of a devastating quake) is heavy into Vodoo and I mention a saying in Haiti that "the people there are 80% Catholic and 100% into vodoo" (or something like that). Also after the quake 29 (or maybe 39) expected vodoo priests were murdered because some thought they brought on the plague that occurred afterward. It would seem that the God of the Bible would not be too happy at the infestation of Voodoo on that island. Heck, even one of their long term leaders several years ago was into voodoo.

And you also failed to mention important addidtional information about the Northridge quake which is a second strawman. I've noticed many times people are loosey goosey about the facts when they say derogatory things about me.

Now back to this thread.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks, DOC, for that breath-taking display of your logic.
By the way, would you mind replying to the question I posted earlier?

 

[joobz]

Strawman, the title of that thread said "could" the recent disasters be from God, I didn't say it was because I don't know for sure. In that thread I never say this or that disaster is definitely from God.

Yes, we know you used weasel words.

I've noticed many times people are loosey goosey about the facts when they say derogatory things about me.

Now back to this thread.

Here's a hard fact. Geisler's argument is bad, just like all of his arguments that you have presented. They have been logically defeated.