A Principle Conundrum
Sir Frederick
kevirwin
Sir Frederick wrote:
> A puzzlement :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlate
Gee, I hope Mikey doesn't find this!!!! I'm side-tracked in a
"discussion" with reconciling "materialism" with facets of what I
consider "agnosticism". I view emotions & thoughts as intangibles,
regardless of the physical bio-chemical mechanisms that humans use to
"sense" them. That idea wasn't the "main thrust" of the debate (if a
rational debate is possible with him), but somehow became an issue....
However, **another** good find for you Sir F. Info is a "good thing";
just another thing I need to read.
thanks,
K e v
Sir Frederick
I can't stand my carrying around in my thoughts the puzzlement
of my experience of those very thoughts. Kind of an intimate
absurdity. Real time absurdity. But there it is. And I have no
idea of how to make a machine, I can build, to have similar
"experiences". Yet with me, qualia seem to come as if by magic.
So easily. Most frustrating.
Sphere
The problem with the notion of a neural correlate,
and with materialism is that some sort of
distinction between mind and matter is assumed.
It isn't that specific patterns of neural firings
correlate with specific mental events. They
are one and the same.
More importantly, how thoughts work is just
an example of how everything works. There
is no substance -- and materialism is found
wanting for a subject matter. It is a bit
closer to correct to say that everything is
spirit than to say that everything is matter.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Bill Snyder
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:m105n2tv7fk12kq5b...@4ax.com...
>A puzzlement :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlate
Not certain what the "conundrum" might be. From your reply to kevirwin it
would appear to be the mere fact of self-awareness (i.e., the awareness that
there is thinking and thoughts and sensations going on). Perhaps, it is
associated with the question as to whether consciousness has a "location"
within the brain. I tend to side with those who think that consciousness
arises in and through the total functioning of the central nervous system,
with awareness of awarenesses and thoughts simply being one type of
complexity in that functioning.
BS
Mercy Brown
The result of our taking explanatory descriptions and objects /
particles in 3D-space to be the actual make-up of ontological reality.
Excessive scientific realism that ignores the contingent and incomplete
status of theories and knowledge. The unity found in subjective
experience couldn't even emerge if the world was literally composed of
space-isolated entities (fermions and bosons), and the only
relationships were their interactions that created the appearance of
solid organizations and connections from the perspective of a certain
distance or scale.
>
Craig Franck
> Sir Frederick wrote:
>> I can't stand my carrying around in my thoughts the puzzlement
>> of my experience of those very thoughts. Kind of an intimate
>> absurdity. Real time absurdity. But there it is. And I have no
>> idea of how to make a machine, I can build, to have similar
>> "experiences". Yet with me, qualia seem to come as if by magic.
>> So easily. Most frustrating.
>
> The result of our taking explanatory descriptions and objects /
> particles in 3D-space to be the actual make-up of ontological reality.
> Excessive scientific realism that ignores the contingent and incomplete
> status of theories and knowledge. The unity found in subjective
> experience couldn't even emerge if the world was literally composed of
> space-isolated entities (fermions and bosons), and the only
> relationships were their interactions that created the appearance of
> solid organizations and connections from the perspective of a certain
> distance or scale.
Well, a functionalist would strongly disagree with this assessment.
I believe it is more an issue of nature being deeply counterintuitive
and a human inability to accept things as raw facts that don't admit
to analysis.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
zinnic
Mercy Brown wrote:
> Sir Frederick wrote:
> > On 3 Dec 2006 00:18:05 -0800, "kevirwin" <kevi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Sir Frederick wrote:
> > >> A puzzlement :
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlate
> > >
> > >Gee, I hope Mikey doesn't find this!!!! I'm side-tracked in a
> > >"discussion" with reconciling "materialism" with facets of what I
> > >consider "agnosticism". I view emotions & thoughts as intangibles,
> > >regardless of the physical bio-chemical mechanisms that humans use to
> > >"sense" them. That idea wasn't the "main thrust" of the debate (if a
> > >rational debate is possible with him), but somehow became an issue....
> > >
> > >However, **another** good find for you Sir F. Info is a "good thing";
> > >just another thing I need to read.
> > >
> > >thanks,
> > >K e v
> > I can't stand my carrying around in my thoughts the puzzlement
> > of my experience of those very thoughts. Kind of an intimate
> > absurdity. Real time absurdity. But there it is. And I have no
> > idea of how to make a machine, I can build, to have similar
> > "experiences". Yet with me, qualia seem to come as if by magic.
> > So easily. Most frustrating.
>
> The result of our taking explanatory descriptions and objects /
> particles in 3D-space to be the actual make-up of ontological reality.
None KNOWS the "actual make up of ontological reality". Realists
accept that what science "makes up" is an approximation that allows us
to take 'best' advantage of natural resources.
> Excessive scientific realism that ignores the contingent and incomplete
> status of theories and knowledge. The unity found in subjective
> experience couldn't even emerge if the world was literally composed of
> space-isolated entities (fermions and bosons), and the only
> relationships were their interactions that created the appearance of
> solid organizations and connections from the perspective of a certain
> distance or scale.
>
What do you mean by excessive realism? Do you advocate less realism in
science?
Science does not ignore contingency and incompleteness of knowledge.
The unknown is the "Holy Grail" of scientific effort.
Why do you believe that "unity" cannot emerge in a larger perspective?
Multiple atoms ca emerge as molecules, polymers, heteropolymers,
organelles. Multiple cells emerge as tissues, organs, organisms.
Multiple house emerge as villages, towns, cities, nations.
An "interaction" of "entities'" denies by definition that they are
"space-isolated" so the "unity" found in subjective experience" is
well founded in basic physics (including Quantum mechanics).
As one complex biological structure to another, my imperative is to
wish you the best in so far as it does not negatively affect my genetic
proliferation :-)
Zinnic
Mercy Brown
"A scientific realist holds that (1) science aims to give us, in its
theories, a literally true story of what the world is like, and that
(2) acceptance of a scientific theory involves the belief that it is
true." http://www.soc.iastate.edu/Sapp/phil_sci_lecture17.html
IOW, you were trying to assert that there's only one brand of
scientific realist (SR): the pragmatic type more in vogue today, who
either concedes that revisionism has taken place in the history of
science and this will continue to happen; or who admits that some or
most scientists regard theories as tentative. But there are hard-core
SRs who become quite disgruntled with anyone doubting the existence of
theoretical entities / processes, nomological principles, etc. Ian
Hacking is popular with some evolutionists in "talk-origins" because
he's viewed as one of the few outspoken scientific realists combatting
the antirealist and nonrealist factions in PoS, but who really isn't an
extremist on closer examination.
> > Excessive scientific realism that ignores the contingent and incomplete
> > status of theories and knowledge. The unity found in subjective
> > experience couldn't even emerge if the world was literally composed of
> > space-isolated entities (fermions and bosons), and the only
> > relationships were their interactions that created the appearance of
> > solid organizations and connections from the perspective of a certain
> > distance or scale.
> >
> What do you mean by excessive realism? Do you advocate less realism in
> science?
What I meant was in that very sentence: the hard-core SRs.
> Science does not ignore contingency and incompleteness of knowledge.
I don't recollect starting with "science" or even philosophers of
science; I opened with a broadly global "our", as even laypeople (in
forums like this) can regard themselves as scientific realists varying
from the pragmatic type to the extremist type. This is where one would
hopefully find most advocates of so-called "scientism", although there
probably are those who fancy there being candidates among the
scientists and philosophers.
> The unknown is the "Holy Grail" of scientific effort.
I don't know that applied science would be seeking the "unknown" in the
quite same sense as the astronomy or etc; what's a mystery there is how
they'll ultimately wind-up accomplishing a particular industrial goal.
This seems to be more idealization of something, making it more uniform
and standardized than what it is in practice and history, as faulty
textbooks make science out to be.
> Why do you believe that "unity" cannot emerge in a larger perspective?
> Multiple atoms ca emerge as molecules, polymers, heteropolymers,
> organelles. Multiple cells emerge as tissues, organs, organisms.
> Multiple house emerge as villages, towns, cities, nations.
> An "interaction" of "entities'" denies by definition that they are
> "space-isolated" so the "unity" found in subjective experience" is
> well founded in basic physics (including Quantum mechanics).
I recognize that there are different explanatory approaches for
different camps. The popularized view of the one I was referring to is
simply the one I was referring to; the one that often causes the
problem of people wondering how subjective experience can emerge from
such circumstances. A galaxy might appear to be solid patch of glowing
light without the aid of a powerful telescope. So with atoms (that is,
being irreducible to anything else) until electrons, protons, neutrons
entered the picture. The attractions and repulsions of interacting
objects only create the appearance of the kind of unity found in
subjective experience, depending on distance or scale. Positing that
either observable or theoretical entities are bound by invisible (but
not necessarily undetectable) fields doesn't help if one takes any
virtual particles postulated to be composing those fields as being
literal rather than a convenience (relationships composed of yet more
"things", even if they exist for less than a Plank time unit). That is
again where extremist scientific realism causes this head-scratching
among those who consider "consciousness" to be an enigma forever(?):
taking explanations to be more than practical descriptions, or tracks
left by particles on photographic plates (or whatever) to be the
illustrative of what a "particle" is with certainty.
> As one complex biological structure to another, my imperative is to
> wish you the best in so far as it does not negatively affect my genetic
> proliferation :-)
> Zinnic
I'm not a lesbian, so if you're male, there's no need to fear my
stealing potential mates from you. Although I suppose I could disrupt
proceedings by whispering evaluative advice in their ears at a dining
table. But at any rate ..... best wishes in return. :)
.
Mercy Brown
the result of some sloppy re-editing on my part. Like: "in the quite
same sense as the astronomy". Yuck.
Immortalist
Sir Frederick wrote:
> A puzzlement :
A neural correlate of a content of experience is any bodily component,
such as an electroneurobiological state or the state assumed by some
biophysical subsystem of the brain, whose presence necessarily and
regularly correlates with such a specific content of experience.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlate
REANIMATED: A neural correlate of a content of ongoing experience is
any bodily component, such as a changing electroneurobiological state
or the state assumed by some changing biophysical subsystem of the
brain, whose presence necessarily and regularly correlates with such a
specific content of regular stream of consciousness experience.