D'Juhn Keep on 21/4/2008 at 09:10
Quote Posted by catbarf
What do you mean?
Studies (ZOMG, Science!) show that people who know or think they are being prayed for do worse on testing, which makes you an ass.
he was joking
catbarf on 21/4/2008 at 10:23
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
he was joking
Oh. Sorry, my sarcasm meter isn't very effective late at night.
Ben Gunn on 21/4/2008 at 21:53
Fair enough. It's a first draft so if it looks like Im nitpicking- it's not, I just wanna help you make it clearer. So Ill ask the petty questions before even touching the topics for which we have all gathered here, but I have to say that it looks like you are expanding on, and mapping what is known as (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) Emeregence.
I dont want to discuss it yet- I just want to know if I can its terms so correct me if Im wrong.
Quote:
There's a metaphysical version and a descriptive version: The metaphysical version says a functional state is actually what thought is; a functionally equivalent silicon brain would be cns exactly like we are. The descriptive version says that a functional state is just the best way to describe/explain how thought works, without worrying about what it actually is. Most philosophers care about the first question; most scientists are probably content with the second.
For me, as a layman and not a professional scientist, the metaphysical version is what's interesting- it's not that Im implying Im a professional philosopher but simpley put- I care more about the truth (if it can be known- but thats another debate) than whether a certain way of looking at things is more prolific and profitable. At least for the sake of this discussion.
And for this discussion's sake I also want to know what's your stance- do you take the metaphysical version or only the descriptive.
Quote:
... it's causal history (as opposed to a "false" pattern, where the form is noise, and has no necessary connection to its causal history ... like a horoscope.). What makes it interesting is that different patterns can run at multiple levels, and what is information describing a pattern at one level may be noise at another level, and vice versa.
Can a noise affect the level from which it was "originated"? Meaning to say- can it have a reverse causal relation with its "mother" level? Can a real pattern have it?
Quote:
So while chemistry is completely reduceable to particle physics, in practice, such a reduction is incredibly unweildy and is often noise to the higher-level patterns
they care about.
What are "they"?... "Care about"? I started thinking you meant the chemists but you obviously didnt. Need some clearing.
Quote:
"Topography" is an abstract logic term for whatever is "carrying" information at multiple levels. It could be a kind of matrix-variable in a computer program. For science, it is just a term for matter.
What do you mean by "matter"? Are you saying that topography=matter?
Quote:
And then if we ask what these rules might look like ... one might start with trying to capture human behavior in functional, teleological terms: incentives, goals, desires, satisfaction ... it would start to look a lot like one is doing economics.
Are you saying that a different set of rules can emerge each time we go up a level and that's why we can speak in teleological terms in the biological world and the human mind levels?
And what do you mean by the analogy to economics? It seems like you think it's a go-without-saying but I didnt get it.
Quote:
Marr started asking what the function of certain elements were towards the basic goals a vision system should have. While it enabled him to answer a lot of questions that seemed inexplicable to others, it raised the uncomfortable question to some ... where did these goals come from? And the response had to be, where else could they come from? They are encoded in our DNA, which means they were goals established through natural selection, the goals of greater fitness, or something coattailing on it.
Needs some rephrasing. Especially the first sentance which is essential for the entire paragraph but unfortunatly is the vaguest.
Hope I wasnt too petty, elemantry-school-teacher style or anything like that , it's just, as I said,- I only want to understand you better.
demagogue on 28/4/2008 at 04:38
Not at all ... On these issues, I'm not sure any question could be too petty. Until someone really comes out with a slam-dunk theory that does for the mind what General Relativity did for gravity (and it's my humble opinion that such a theory is out there, waiting for us to find it), everybody is sort of groping in the dark with a few clues here and there, not knowing which ones are vital and which ones red herrings; so it's always good to press even the smallest details.
Anyway, I tried to be more careful explaining my thoughts this time, in responding to your questions (starting from the "April 27 Post") ... although it does load on the words: (
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcj39h99_0ckchqdp2) Hope it's enlightening.
Ben Gunn on 29/4/2008 at 19:02
Ok, I read your post and things are getting clearer, though a second read will be in place.
I appreciate your effort but please spare me of remarks such as "think about it slowly". They just sound condescending.
Moving on.
I know this is only a brief overview you gave me- merely a glance- so maybe Im not in a postion to argue, but having said that I must say I dont share your optimism: I dont see how it's going to solve the 2000+ years old riddle.
I can see how the descriptive version is an ingenious way of looking at things but I dont understand how we can make the leap to the metaphysical.
Quote:
For science, [topography] is just a term for matter.
I hoped youll change that sentance. For the theoretical physicst topography will be the space-time fabric and matter will only be an upper level pattern,- warps in the s-t fabric.
So topography is a relative term. It depends on the glasses through which one WANTS to look at the world. A very useful term, but it has no objective absolute existance whatsoever.
The verb you were using the most was "to care about/for". It seem like you cant explain func' without a human mind and the benefiets it derives from using it. All you gave is the descriptive version which I agree with,- but I cant understand why do you think the meta' ver' will be the ultimate answer. (I have to add that I was a bit disappointed- in your initial post you "promised" me the answer now but now you say the theory is not yet here :( )
Quote:
There are other theories out there, but to me the punchline with these sort of failed attempts is a big fat arrow pointing toward some kind of functionalism as a final theory, although there are different versions of that too, but at least it gives us a ballpark to work in.
I cant agree with you more regarding all the failed attempts to explain the psycho-physical relation:- monism, dualism, interactionism, anomalous monism... and the ism's keep getting longer and scarier.
I agree- none of them is doing a good job in solving the problem.
But with your conclusion I cant agree. It's just a plain fallacy to conclude that if A is wrong then B must be right. It doesnt matter how many wrong A's are out there.
Also- func' theory's axiomatic, most basic units are... well.. functional units- and 'functional' being a teleological term- is it really that surprising that it does such an excellent job at explaining teleological systems (levels)? But does it really explains such teleological "things" as will? I think not- it presupposes them. Much like Newton (and he was the first to admit it), who didnt explain gravity, only showed how it works.
One last thing- at the start you said that causality was not the right category to describe supervenience, the relation between distinct levels but rather a pattern in itslef. But in the omitted section you said -
Quote:
in pattern theory, pattern-casuality is a principle of pattern-maintenence through time ... and since patterns are defined by signal/noise ratios, you can have partial causation that can break down
So Im a little confused.
demagogue on 29/4/2008 at 22:28
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
I appreciate your effort but please spare me of remarks such as "think about it slowly". They just sound condescending.
Just really quick to cover this ... oh no, I was literally talking to myself there ... I meant "let me think about this slowly" because it was really confusing me too, and I'm still not sure I thought about it all the way through or got it right. I feel there's more footnotes to make there.
I do that a lot when I get confused and I'm trying to be careful; I'll say, "ok, slow down now...", "think about this carefully" ... It's not supposed to be some sort of holier-than-thou command on high, but like a knee-jerk mantra or admonition I say to myself, especially when it gets confusing and I don't know the answer, just to make sure I'm not skipping over something or getting too easy an answer. ... I say it to myself, too, and mean it constructively. I don't want it to be interpreted condescendingly! It probably sounds better face to face, because then you'd see the really worried look on my face and really struggling to think through something.
Ben Gunn on 29/4/2008 at 23:57
Cool.
:)
Ben Gunn on 7/5/2008 at 01:33
I saw you updated your doc a week ago or so. I want to answer but Im not sure if you've finished your reply (or this conversation...)
demagogue on 7/5/2008 at 07:39
I went on vacation to San Francisco. :D
I'm back now.
Yeah, I started to write stuff out before I left. It's cool if you want to respond to the unfinished ideas ... whatever keeps ideas flowing is a good thing; I'm not writing a formal article or anything. But I'll try to finish that post soon, though, since I see I left some of the best stuff hanging. So you can wait for that.
I'm also looking at how Google-docs handles editorial comments ... that doc has sort of taken a life of its own. Then again, it's still cleaner using forum posts and keeping one foot in the TTLG world. I also like the idea that anyone can come into the discussion and add their own thoughts ...
Ben Gunn on 7/5/2008 at 17:53
You what!?! You took vacation from tah WEB?!? Why do you pretend?? You are an addict like the rest of us! :mad:
;)
Ok, Ill let you finish before I reply but to avoid unnecessary blunders Ill just tell you my stand, where Im coming from- maybe I should've done it from the start.
When Im saying that the psycho-physical relation/corellation is an unsolvable mystery I dont mean to say that there is some kind of dark, beautiful, profound truth behind it or any of those romantic/mystical/religious notions. Maybe I shouldnt even use the word 'mystery' as it's already imbued with all those notions but I feel that words like 'riddle' or 'problem' are not doing it justice- it's a biggy. The psycho-physical "unity" is a given. It's a very mundane, daily fact for us. You can say IT IS US. Maybe that's what makes it so hard for us, unreligious folks, to even accept that there's a problem. And if we accept that- it's even harder to accept that science (and philosophy) will never be able to crack that most mundane and, allegedly, most simple nut.
The problem is unsolvable because we can't even phrase the question in scientific terms.
It's not me that saying that- Im merely stating opinions of others, much much smarter than me, who said it in different forms:
"... the feeling that the gap between the conciousness and the process of the brain is unbridgable..."
Wittgenstein (mind you- thats the man who showed that most of the metaphysical problems are pseudo-problems and only emerges from our language structure- and us being trapped in it)
"...the complete inability of contemporary science to give a satisfactory picture of any kind of mental activity. "
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Adrian%2C_1st_Baron_Adrian) Lord Adrian
"We must accept the fact that in Nature there are just stark correlations which can never be made intelligable.... The correlations between observations of electrical phenomena in the brain and observations of colours and tastes and smell look as if they are just such ultimate stark unintelligible correlations."
(
http://www.questia.com/read/61632939?title=British%20Philosophy%20in%20the%20Mid-Century%3a%20A%20Cambridge%20Symposium) C.A. Mace
These are all dead guys, I know, and hence- not aware of contemporary theories and developments in science. But that's what they were saying- even if science will come up with a sound brain theory (and (
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/125) this guy believes it will happen soon) and each and every mental state will have been rightly mapped to its correlated neurons proecess- even then, the problem will not be solved.
There are still many contemporary philosophers who holds to that view.
Please remember, this is not my answer to your post- Im just stating my belief. When I was 12 or so I thumbed through a book of quotes and one of them caught my eyes and made me think about it for a long while:
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible Albert Einstein
I could vaguely sense there was some big truth behind this catchy phrase but it was only when I got much older and learned about the psycho-physical problem that I could put it in context and really understand what it meant.
