brain/mind

[articulett]

I love Ramachandran! He was in my sig for the past two months. I have read both of his books written for the general science audience. I never saw all of his BBC broadcasts, so I guess I will have to spend some time in YouTube this weekend.

Totally worth it--download from www.edge.org
or from youtube (you need a video downloader and an flv. converter or player)
and then you can watch offline.

Steven Pinker is fabulous on the topic of brain/mind too. They both come up with some intriguing questions and experiments (like those you've devised for maatorc)--

 

[Hokulele]

Totally worth it--download from www.edge.org
or from youtube (you need a video downloader and an flv. converter or player)
and then you can watch offline.

Awesome, thanks again.

Steven Pinker is fabulous on the topic of brain/mind too. They both come up with some intriguing questions and experiments (like those you've devised for maatorc)--

I have read some of Pinker's work, and like most of it. Sometimes though I feel he gets too wrapped up in some of the analogies, particularly computer programming and "black box". It almost seems like he starts to suggest the brain actually works like a computer, rather than using the computer programming as an example of how a system could work.

 

[articulett]

Awesome, thanks again.



I have read some of Pinker's work, and like most of it. Sometimes though I feel he gets too wrapped up in some of the analogies, particularly computer programming and "black box". It almost seems like he starts to suggest the brain actually works like a computer, rather than using the computer programming as an example of how a system could work.

He can be hard to read, but much easier to listen to:

Check him out on Stephen Colbert: http://richarddawkins.net/article,743,Interview-with-Steven-Pinker,The-Colbert-Report

and some more recent mp3 downloads. http://www.reitstoen.com/pinker.php

He's a linguist, and can "linguisty" just like dennett can get "philophish"-- but they are very interesting, intelligent, and understand much about the brain and consciousness like Ramachandran.

I'm also looking forward to the release of the TED talks that Randi just got back from--they should post soon.

P.S. I found some Pinker video at youtube too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lGxrw23YEI&mode=related&search=

 

[maatorc]

There is a testable claim, you name the time and i will even give you a shaman name or an 'external' name of my pagan persona that you can use to identitfy me. You will first be sure to write down a series of numbers or other material and mail it to a third party.... etc.

You are talking about what is called astral travel/remote viewing.
I am talking about the principle that the human mind routinely sends and receives thoughts.

 

[maatorc]

it is called behaviorism.

Again, behaviorism merely infers a mental state, without actually experiencing it.

 

[maatorc]

1... I'm confused.
2... First you say the phenomenon can not be demonstrated to another (the modifier "materially" means nothing)
3... and then go on to described how the phenomenon is demonstrated.
4... funny, seems like someone would have noticed this phenomenon over the long course of human history.
5... I'm inclined to believe it is roughly equivalent to yogic flying. If you can demonstrate that the mind is not the brain - do it or shut up about it.
6... If there is any reality to what you are saying, this knowledge would transform our world view, but somehow, it doesn't seem important to all you mystical types to let us all in on the truth. Talk is cheap.

1... Who is not?
2... I mean that your personal experience cannot be proven to another.
3... Yes, to the person experiencing it.
4... It has been and is known to millions.
5... If you CAN demonstrate the mind is the brain - do it or shut up about it.
6... Not atall, those predisposed to reject it will continue doing so, as is the case today.

 

[Slimething]

No problemo, you are a poster whose posts are a touchstone for me.



gnicnaD divaD

Thank you for the kind words, Dancing David! I like your work too. So I was disturbed by what turned out to be your excellent spoof. I just love a good send-up! Please keep them coming!

 

[billydkid]

1... Who is not?
2... I mean that your personal experience cannot be proven to another.
3... Yes, to the person experiencing it.
4... It has been and is known to millions.
5... If you CAN demonstrate the mind is the brain - do it or shut up about it.
6... Not atall, those predisposed to reject it will continue doing so, as is the case today.

Okay, show me a mind without a brain and then I'll shut up about the brain being the source of the mind. There is nothing but evidence that the brain is the source of the mind. There is none suggesting otherwise.

This is so ridiculous. You make claims which, while they could easily be demonstrated if they were so, there is absolutely no evidence in support of and do this in the face of all the evidence available in this regard - all of which indicates the mind is the source of the brain and then expect to be taken seriously. It's absurd.

Look, this is so simple. Every objective measure indicates that the brain is the source of the mind. There is none in support of your position - and yet you cling to it and expect to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with my attitude or yours. It has to do with what the truth is. The truth is one thing or the other - the brain is the source of the mind or it is not. How on earth do you account to yourself for the fact that all the objective evidence indicates that there is no mind outside of the brain and still maintain your position? I'm thinking the cognitive dissonance must be nearly intolerable.

You are making an extraordinary claim - the mind exists independently of the brain - a claim which could easily be demonstrated (not to mention the fact that this "truth" would certainly have revealed itself over the course of human history) if it were so and a claim for which there is zero supporting evidence and for which there is boundless contrary evidence. I just don't know how you function in life if your criteria for believing things is so completely arbitrary and without foundation.

 

[Slimething]

SLIMEthing, you are perfectly named! A freudian slip?

Your attempts at wit are priceless! You are like one of Moochie's theoretical first graders but with a larger vocabulary, only half of which you know how to use correctly. For someone who throws words around and cites the OED, you certainly did not review what a Freudian Slip is.

Go look it up and be amazed. While you're at it, post the definition of "cause". I'm dying to see it equated with "reason" in anything other than a tangential meaning. After, all you've pinned your argument on that, haven't you? Why are you so afraid to pony up the goods?

 

[maatorc]

Okay, show me a mind without a brain and then I'll shut up about the brain being the source of the mind. There is nothing but evidence that the brain is the source of the mind. There is none suggesting otherwise. This is so ridiculous. You make claims which, while they could easily be demonstrated if they were so, there is absolutely no evidence in support of and do this in the face of all the evidence available in this regard - all of which indicates the mind is the source of the brain and then expect to be taken seriously. It's absurd. Look, this is so simple. Every objective measure indicates that the brain is the source of the mind. There is none in support of your position - and yet you cling to it and expect to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with my attitude or yours. It has to do with what the truth is. The truth is one thing or the other - the brain is the source of the mind or it is not. How on earth do you account to yourself for the fact that all the objective evidence indicates that there is no mind outside of the brain and still maintain your position? I'm thinking the cognitive dissonance must be nearly intolerable. You are making an extraordinary claim - the mind exists independently of the brain - a claim which could easily be demonstrated (not to mention the fact that this "truth" would certainly have revealed itself over the course of human history) if it were so and a claim for which there is zero supporting evidence and for which there is boundless contrary evidence. I just don't know how you function in life if your criteria for believing things is so completely arbitrary and without foundation.

This is a lovely 'motherhood' statement without actually saying anything.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, this is starting to help. I have a couple of questions on this. Do you have to learn this from someone (like a language), or can it happen spontaneously? Can you reject a contact if you are otherwise occupied? Can the projector see you (this could be a problem if I am in the bath or somthing)?

The one I am most interested in is what happens if the projector and receiver come from different cultures and speak different languages (since this is described as a "conversation")? Have you practiced this with someone from a completely different culture? I speak a little French and a little Japanese, but am only fluent in English. However, there are some cultural practices and phrases in French that a Japanese person has a hard time understanding and vice versa. For example, for most Asians, it is considered extremely rude to tell someone flat out "No". This is not true for people with an American background. This can lead to all sorts of interesting misunderstandings. Does the type of communication you are talking about supercede these types of culture barriers?

You are talking about what is called astral travel/remote viewing.
I am talking about the principle that the human mind routinely sends and receives thoughts.

Hopeful bump . . .

 

[maatorc]

Freudian Slip..Go look it up and be amazed.

Exactly what I mean. SLIMEthing: Unintentional error that seems to reveal subconscious feelings.

 

[articulett]

Exactly what I mean. SLIMEthing: Unintentional error that seems to reveal subconscious feelings.

Yes, slimething must have erred and unintentionally put the word "slime" in his screen name.

So how exactly does your brilliant self and fellow believers discriminate your amazing experience from delusions or hypnogogic dreams and the like? What do you use for the control group, and how can it be verified beyond an "inner knowingness"--because, let's face it, some people have an "inner knowingness" that they truly were experimented upon by aliens. Schizophrenics have "inner knowingness" about all kinds of wrong things as do the billions of religious people through the eons (they can't all be right--yet they all are sure they are). Mirages look real. Illusions do too. What distinguishes your claims from the above?

 

[Slimething]

Exactly what I mean. SLIMEthing: Unintentional error that seems to reveal subconscious feelings.

So what subconscious feelings would I have that are associated with slime? Hint: I'm not like you.

Now, will you PLEASE give us the OED defintion of "cause" so I can be proven wrong for doubting your logic/honesty? I would find it rather interesting that the editors of the OED would completely omit a synonym in the free online version yet include it in the full market version. Here's the difference between the free online and the full online versions of the OED, according to the publishers:

What's so special about OED Online?

• Unparalleled access to the ‘ultimate authority on the English language’ - The Times
• Search the equivalent of 23 printed volumes of information with speed and ease
• Everything from simple word look-ups to complex proximity searching, using any of the many fields in the Dictionary, is made easy through the online edition's sophisticated yet straightforward search capabilities
• Select how entries are displayed by turning pronunciations, etymologies, variant spellings, and quotations on and off
• Find a term when you know the meaning but have forgotten the word
• Find words that have come into English via a particular language
• Search for quotations from a specified year, or from a particular author and/or work
• Search pronunciations as well as accented and other special characters
• Gain unique online access to 2,500 new and revised words each quarter
• Compare revised entries with entries from the Second Edition to see how language has changed and how new scholarship has increased understanding of our linguistic and cultural heritage
• Keep up to date with exciting developments from the revision of the OED through quarterly online newsletters

I don't see anything in there about different defintions from the free version, do you? So, prove me and them wrong and post the defintion.

 

[Causality]

This is a lovely 'motherhood' statement without actually saying anything.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[AgingYoung]

Dr B,

Thank you for the correction. Allow me to give some context. I was speaking to an extreme geek that I'm related to. We haven't spoken for some time. I just called this 'geek' and it was very intense. As a result of that emotional pressure I suffered from dyslexia.

Again, thanks for the correction. I might add I'm still walking it around the house and so far I don't think I agree.

Actually, the classic quote is the other way around - the mind is what the brain does......

 

[Dancing David]

You are talking about what is called astral travel/remote viewing.
I am talking about the principle that the human mind routinely sends and receives thoughts.

Okay,same principle it is open to being tested, except for one thing. As of yet no one has come up with statistical evidence that it works. And please don't use ganzfeld unless you want to derail the thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Again, behaviorism merely infers a mental state, without actually experiencing it.

Thoughts and feelins are internal behaviors, so they are reported by the person. The validity of the report is another matter. (Just like people using cheese cloth to make ectoplasm)

You might have heard of cognitive behavioral therapy? It deal with those internal behaviors fairly well.

 

[Dancing David]

This is a lovely 'motherhood' statement without actually saying anything.

This statement might cause some to wonder at your behavior.

Just because A. C. Doyle thought he saw photos of fairies does not mean the photos were of fairies.

You seem to be loosing substance and just arguing without a basis for argument other than your personal belief.

I knew an anthroplogist who was attacted by a 'were-jaguar' as well, and he saw talking blue lights in africa. Does that mean it was really a were-jaguar? Or that the blue lights were really talking to him.

How would you decide what is really happening?

 

[Dancing David]

Hopeful bump . . .

I am curious and waiting as well, it is a wonderful point. One of father's friend's son went through a Huichole ceremony when he was sixteen and living in the villiage for three years. His friends all saw things and had hallucinations from taking the mushrooms, he saw nothing.