|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 24 days
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid] 1
#14445883 - 05/13/11 02:41 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks, Poid!
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: MushroomTrip]
#14446015 - 05/13/11 03:12 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Hmmm, can you maybe exemplify what it is that you're talking about? It seems that you said that, keeping record of the most subjective experiences, without actually materially measuring them, can, at one point, turn into science, as in something objectively perceived? How would that happen?
I'm saying that the physical sciences emerged from the mystical sciences through the rigorous practice of record-keeping. Astrology, alchemy, theology, and theoretical mathematics interhybridize to become astronomy, chemistry, psychology, and physics. All of this is made possible through open record-keeping and interdisciplinary communication.
Physical sciences are a mystical art in themselves - has anyone ever seen an electron up close? For a long time it was an imaginary particle there to help us describe and predict physical phenomena. Only more recently have we conclusively determined that it is, in fact, a "real thing." I know when I was a kid in school, chemistry classes described electrons differently than they do now, because we have discovered in the intervening period that electrons are better represented as "clouds" than as little discrete balls orbiting the nucleus. That doesn't invalidate the discoveries that were made using the older model, but it does (IMO) point to the idea that science is every bit as much a creative process as is any form of mysticism.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
Edited by Tchan909 (05/13/11 03:24 PM)
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
#14446204 - 05/13/11 03:50 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: By the way, happy birthday MushroomTrip!
Quote:
DieCommie said: So you are basically just equating physical to empirically observable? Seems weird to me, but I think the mind is empirically observable.
Not directly, which is the crucial distinction. We can look at an fMRI scan of someone's brain and see neurons firing, but we can't observe the person's mental feeling of pain... only they can experience that.
And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical. Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not. Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.
Quote:
millzy said: in any case, cognitive neuroscience cannot offer any explanation as to how consciousness arises nor what exactly it is. you would be hard pressed to find anyone with extensive education on the subject who would assert that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.
Bingo.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
Edited by deCypher (05/13/11 03:57 PM)
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14446256 - 05/13/11 03:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: So you are basically just equating physical to empirically observable? Seems weird to me, but I think the mind is empirically observable.
Not directly, which is the crucial distinction. We can look at an fMRI scan of someone's brain and see neurons firing, but we can't observe the person's mental feeling of pain... only they can experience that.
You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain? Sure you can, everybody can. Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you. That is an empirical observation of the phenomenon of the mind known as pain. In the same sense, an MRI scan is an empirical observation of different phenomenon.
I think you are making the same mistake that Tchan is making - you are giving to much credit to neuroscience and the hard sciences.
You dont need to actually experience something to observe it. Not in the case of the mind, and not in the case of the brain.
Quote:
cognitive neuroscience cannot offer any explanation as to how consciousness arises nor what exactly it is.
The same is true for the basic constituents of absolutely everything investigated by science. Consciousness is no different from a photon in this regard. They are each described by a set of observations, but of course we can never know how it fundamentally arises nor can we know what exactly it is. In the end, 'what exactly something is' is merely the sum of many observations.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446264 - 05/13/11 04:00 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain? Sure you can, everybody can. Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.
And in those examples you'd be observing their facial expression, body language, and listening to what they tell you, which are responses TO the pain and not the feeling of pain itself. Again, we cannot directly observe the feeling of pain.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446272 - 05/13/11 04:01 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think this is the first time someone on PS&S has EVER accused me of giving too much credit to the hard sciences
There's nothing empirical about making an assessment of how much pain somebody is by observing their reflexes. Different people have different pain tolerances. That's something you can't measure BTW, you can only account for it statistically.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14446297 - 05/13/11 04:04 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain? Sure you can, everybody can. Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.
And in those examples you'd be observing their facial expression, body language, and listening to what they tell you, which are responses TO the pain and not the feeling of pain itself. Again, we cannot directly observe the feeling of pain.
So what? You dont need to directly observe it to empirically observe it and quantify it. What do you claim we can directly observe? Nothing. All things are inferred in this manner. That is how all science works.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: I think this is the first time someone on PS&S has EVER accused me of giving too much credit to the hard sciences
There's nothing empirical about making an assessment of how much pain somebody is by observing their reflexes. Different people have different pain tolerances. That's something you can't measure BTW, you can only account for it statistically.
Of course such an assessment is empirical. Thats what empirical means - its information you gain by observing. Facial expressions are empirical observations, reflexes are another and self reporting is yet another. You can measure all of those observations in many ways, however you see fit.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14446308 - 05/13/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical. Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.
It's up to you to show me why you believe that definition doesn't support the assertion that everything in reality is physical; providing a definition of your own will suffice.
Quote:
deCypher said: Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.
It exists, just like every other physical property; it's possible that it has some physical properties that have yet to be discovered.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446322 - 05/13/11 04:08 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Do you have some way of empirically determining whether these posts were constructed within my mind or within the circuitry of a supercomputer?Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
Tchan909 said: I think this is the first time someone on PS&S has EVER accused me of giving too much credit to the hard sciences
There's nothing empirical about making an assessment of how much pain somebody is by observing their reflexes. Different people have different pain tolerances. That's something you can't measure BTW, you can only account for it statistically.
Of course such an assessment is empirical. Thats what empirical means - its information you gain by observing. Facial expressions are empirical observations, reflexes are another and self reporting is yet another. You can measure all of those observations in many ways, however you see fit.
This still hearkens back to the point I made using the lie detector. You can show empirically that certain neurological activity is associated with lying, but the lie detector is not 100% accurate and furthermore the question of whether somebody is lying or not is a much simpler one to answer than, "What is the subjective experience of the color green?" or something along those lines.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Do you have some way of empirically determining whether these posts were constructed within my mind or within the circuitry of a supercomputer?
I could easily come up with a model that I can plug observations into and get a prediction. What of it?
Quote:
This still hearkens back to the point I made using the lie detector. You can show empirically that certain neurological activity is associated with lying, but the lie detector is not 100% accurate and furthermore the question of whether somebody is lying or not is a much simpler one to answer than, "What is the subjective experience of the color green?" or something along those lines.
What point are you making here? Simply that psychological models and theories have less accuracy than models and theories in physics? You do realize that neither are ever 100% right?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
#14446345 - 05/13/11 04:13 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
DieCommie said: You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain? Sure you can, everybody can. Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.
And in those examples you'd be observing their facial expression, body language, and listening to what they tell you, which are responses TO the pain and not the feeling of pain itself. Again, we cannot directly observe the feeling of pain.
So what? You dont need to directly observe it to empirically observe it and quantify it. What do you claim we can directly observe? Nothing. All things are inferred in this manner. That is how all science works.
I'm using directly synonymously with empirically here: I can directly observe a car crossing the street in front of me. I can directly observe someone's moaning on the ground after getting hit, leading me to infer that they are in pain. I cannot directly observe their feeling of pain. It's a pretty simple distinction, really.
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said: And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical. Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.
It's up to you to show me why you believe that definition doesn't support the assertion that everything in reality is physical; providing a definition of your own will suffice.
You're referring to the definition "Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves", right? Nowhere in this do I see support for the idea that everything in reality is physical. Nature and the universe in the sense that that sentence uses them are referring to everything physical; nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said: Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.
It exists, just like every other physical property; it's possible that it has some physical properties that have yet to be discovered.
It's possible that God exists too... based on the available evidence I conclude that God does not and that the mind has no physical properties.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446371 - 05/13/11 04:18 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to deflate your reductionism. What we don't know about the mind far outweighs what we do know. We have no way to comprehensively explain how the mind and the brain are related without invoking assumptions, subjective descriptions, and other unempirical concepts.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14446384 - 05/13/11 04:20 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm using directly synonymously with empirically here: I can directly observe a car crossing the street in front of me. I can directly observe someone's moaning on the ground after getting hit, leading me to infer that they are in pain. I cannot directly observe their feeling of pain. It's a pretty simple distinction, really
That is a simple distinction, but I believe you made up.
When you think you are observing somebody on the ground, you are really just observing a pattern of colors and sounds that you then infer that they relate to a person on the ground. You cannot directly observe them on the ground, you have to infer it. All scientific observations are done this way - all of them.
Furthermore, empirically is not synonymous with directly. Empirically is synonymous with observed externally. Observing somebody on the ground moaning leads to me infer that they are in pain. That is an empirical observation with an inference, and that is how all 'physical' things are observed.
Edited by DieCommie (05/13/11 04:25 PM)
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to deflate your reductionism. What we don't know about the mind far outweighs what we do know. We have no way to comprehensively explain how the mind and the brain are related without invoking assumptions, subjective descriptions, and other unempirical concepts.
Im not a reductionist, nor am I advocating it. I think you are misusing the term here. I never claimed that the mind can be reduced to its basic constituents. I claim that it can be empirically observed and is thus physical. The fact that we cannot comprehensively explain how the mind relates to the brain is irrelevant to the fact that we can empirical observe it.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14446436 - 05/13/11 04:29 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said: And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical. Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.
It's up to you to show me why you believe that definition doesn't support the assertion that everything in reality is physical; providing a definition of your own will suffice.
You're referring to the definition "Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves", right? Nowhere in this do I see support for the idea that everything in reality is physical. Nature and the universe in the sense that that sentence uses them are referring to everything physical...
How do you know that? So basically, you're saying that physics is the general analysis of everything physical, conducted in order to understand how everything physical behaves?
Quote:
deCypher said: ...nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.
If physics is the study of how the universe/nature behaves, and if the mind is part of nature, then the mind is physical..I never claimed that that definition says something about the existence or non-existence of something physical, I claimed that, according to it, the mind is physical.
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said: Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.
It exists, just like every other physical property; it's possible that it has some physical properties that have yet to be discovered.
It's possible that God exists too... based on the available evidence I conclude that God does not and that the mind has no physical properties.
By available evidence, you're referring to your comment that no physical property has been found to exist in the mind, right?
How do you know that our minds do not have a location (a physical property)? Color is a physical property, are you saying that visual perceptions (a type of qualia) don't have the property of color?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446441 - 05/13/11 04:30 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Understood. I think I made an incorrect assumption about your premise based on an older debate we'd had.
I agree that the mind is empirically observable, but to describe the mind using only empirical data is (at this point in time) like making a 50x50 pixel reproduction of the Mona Lisa.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: Understood. I think I made an incorrect assumption about your premise based on an older debate we'd had.
I agree that the mind is empirically observable, but to describe the mind using only empirical data is (at this point in time) like making a 50x50 pixel reproduction of the Mona Lisa.
Nobody claims that science produces perfect models. This is why I accused you of putting too much faith in the hard sciences... Its as though you think hard sciences are able to perfectly reproduce the 'mona lisa'. They are not. We are not even privy to the truth of the mona lisa, so we can never even know how close our models are to reproducing it. It doesn't matter if we are modeling an electron, an acidic solution, a predator/prey relationship or individual thoughts. They are all observed empirically and modeled as well as we can.
(I still dont like the use of the word 'physical' in this context, and have resorted to using it interchangeably with empirical in lieu of a more clear cut definition.)
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446488 - 05/13/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Fair!
I think the framework of discussion created by this thread has brought us into an imagined state of mutual opposition.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
#14446926 - 05/13/11 06:07 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said: you're saying that physics is the general analysis of everything physical, conducted in order to understand how everything physical behaves?
Precisely... that's why it's called physics. If you want to study something that is non-physical or beyond the physical, you must look elsewhere: metaphysics, for example.
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
deCypher said: ...nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.
If physics is the study of how the universe/nature behaves, and if the mind is part of nature, then the mind is physical.
Physics is the study of the physical Universe... since we're debating whether or not the mind is physical then you cannot (well, should not ) beg the question by assuming that the mind is in the physical Universe/Nature.
Quote:
Poid said: How do you know that our minds do not have a location (a physical property)? Color is a physical property, are you saying that visual perceptions (a type of qualia) don't have the property of color?
I'd say minds do not have a location; brains do but it doesn't make sense IMO to talk about a mind that is 3 ft by whatever dimension, for example. As far as visual perceptions go, we say that the object we are seeing has the property of being red or green, not the visual perception itself.
Quote:
DieCommie said: When you think you are observing somebody on the ground, you are really just observing a pattern of colors and sounds that you then infer that they relate to a person on the ground. You cannot directly observe them on the ground, you have to infer it. All scientific observations are done this way - all of them.
I'm aware of this, and technically you are correct. I was using direct observation in an informal way, similar to how the layman will say that he sees a car in front of him rather than the more precise statement that he is experiencing a regular series of sights and sounds that leads him to infer that there is a car in front of him. I probably should not have used the words in such an imprecise fashion.
Quote:
DieCommie said: Furthermore, empirically is not synonymous with directly. Empirically is synonymous with observed externally. Observing somebody on the ground moaning leads to me infer that they are in pain. That is an empirical observation with an inference, and that is how all 'physical' things are observed.
You're right... my terminology was muddled. But it still boggles my mind to conceive of thoughts/feelings/the mind as being physical: they do not behave like physical matter because they cannot be broken down into component particles and they do not behave like physical energy because they do not attract or repulse other objects. I can possibly see some motivation to call the mind physical out of a wish for sheer ontological simplicity, but they behave so differently from any other physical thing we know that IMO they need another linguistic category to contain them.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
|