On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 3:10:07 AM UTC-4, martin...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:52:11 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
> >After rereading the thread, then this message and Burkhards comments, I understand the disconnect. The point I was trying to make is the statement from the discovery institute page
> You said earlier that you didn't bother with the Mind Matters article
> because it's from the discovery institute which means by definition
> they're getting it wrong [a sentiment I agree with, which is why I
> went to the original article], but you did read the Discover article;
> now you say you were referring to the Mind Matters article. If you'll
> forgive the pun, I wish you'd make your mind up.
Try thinking for a change, Martin. I didn't read need to the Mind Matters article. The reference was posted in the OP.
Just to help you out since it seems as if _you_ haven't had your coffee, Glenn listed the following quote:
"A microphone, for example, is a transducer that converts sound waves to electrical current. Your eye is a transducer that converts light to vision"
My response to that was:
"the analogy fails in that a transducer is a device that converts one form of energy into another. Better analogies would be a how a microphone or imaging device turns light or sound into electrical energy. Eyes and ears convert light and sound into electrical impulses which are then processed by the brain, in the same way that a computer can be used to process the electrical signals from microphones or imaging devices. This excludes the brain from the 'transducer' category. "
I read the Discover article and found that Epstein made no such analogies. Epstein referred to a microphone as _part_ of the entire process of how his voice makes it to someone's radio, and very specifically notes the correct usage of transduction, even with his statement:
" Our sense organs — eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin —transduce distinctive properties of electromagnetic radiation, air pressure waves, airborne chemicals, liquid-borne chemicals, textures, pressure, and temperature into distinctive patterns of electrical and chemical activity in the brain."
He then goes on the parse it further, epstein writes:
"If you never teach that scientist about transduction, he or she might never unravel the mysteries of that phone."
Because transduction is _part_ of the process, not _the_ process. So the mind matters article quote of "Your eye is a transducer that converts light to vision" is a bad analogy based on the basic definition of a transducer. It's another example of how the discovery institute gets things wrong.
> > I did miss your comment "It has nothing to offer in as to how electrical impulses from our sensory organs are turned into impressions, emotions,
> > and reactions". I blame typing before my coffee has cooled enough to drink.
> I take that as a begrudging admission that you were wrong in the
> attack you made on me.
First off, your first response to me was to accuse me of pedantry*. My response of 'stick to theology' was because your very clearly don't see the bad analogy in the mind matters article. Secondly, it was an admission that I inadvertently missed a comment you made since you accused me of deliberately ignoring it. If you recall, I also wrote that I disagree with it.
> It would have been nicer if you had taken me
> out of the bucket you put me into with Glenn but apparently that would
> be too much to hope for.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't put you in, or any where near the bucket with Glenn. With very few exceptions, most of the posters in this forum have agreed with one or more positions held by others that they usually disagree with. Peter, Freon Bob, and Glenn have all made statements I agree with. That doesn't put me in the same bucket as them.
> >There are thousands of research projects into characterizing emotion and consciousness without reaching into metaphysics. Christof Koch and
> >Francis Crick (yes, _that_ Crick) worked 30 years ago in the field of neural correlates of consciousness
). While Chalmers may opine that
> >such research can't answer his 'hard problem', for you to claim "science has produced nothing of value here" even
> > within the more narrowed context is at best hyperbolic.
> Yet you cannot give a single example of how any of that research
> explains qualia.
And this is why I said you should stick to theology. Here's an analogy that might help: Spooky Entanglement had been theorized for decades. For most of that time, quantum physicists weren't even sure how it could be tested. Electron Spin turned out to be the key. When Electron spin was discovered, it wasn't done in the context of Spooky Entanglement. It was an "aha" moment that some researchers had when they observed spin correlations at a distance.
This brings us to Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Since you're making it more obvious that your mother used to do your homework for you, here's just one research paper (that conveniently references Crick and Koch):
from the abstract:
"Neuroimaging confirms major activations in regions of the basal brain during primordial emotions in humans. The behaviour of decorticate humans and animals is discussed in relation to the possible existence of primitive awareness."......"There is contemporaneous rapid disappearance of particular regions of brain activation which suggests they may be part of the jointly sufficient and severally necessary activations and deactivations which correlate with consciousness "
Hmmmm, research into the physics of the brain in the context of explaining awareness and consciousness? Ya think that just _might_ have applications in helping to understand how humans interpret their environment? .....nah.
That's just one of the thousands of research papers and books written by people approaching the idea from hard science. Koch has written or co-authored over 300 papers and books himself.
> > Bringing this back around to Epstein, the attempt to explain the transition of states of consciousness via Transduction is a
> > misappropriation of the term and concept. To your point "science has produced nothing of value here", even Epstein refers to specific
> > scientific research on the claustrum in his article.*
> > Who knows, I could be wrong and the concept of transduction may turn out to be widely accepted in the field of consciousness,
> > but for me, Epsteins theory is still firmly panted in the realm of metaphysics, not hard science.
> Epstein recognises that science is currently making little or no real
> progress in regard to qualia
I think he's being dismissive. He make several dubious claims in that article, such as "the brain is not a storage device": He writes:
"piano virtuoso and conductor Daniel Barenboim memorized all thirty-two of Beethoven’s sonatas by the time he was 17, and he has since memorized hundreds of other major piano works, as well as dozens of entire symphony scores — tens of millions of notes and symbols."
"Do you think all this content is somehow stored in Barenboim’s ever-changing, ever-shrinking, ever-decaying brain? Sorry, but if you study his brain for a hundred years, you will never find a single note, a single musical score, a single instruction for how to move his fingers — not even a “representation” of any of those things. The brain is simply not a storage device. It is an extraordinary entity for sure, but not because it stores or processes information. "
To state someone has memorized a vast amount of information , then write that the brain is not a staorage device seems to me to be a pretty serious congitive disconnect. Then he goes on to write several paragraphs denigrating hard scientific research in paranormal activity.
Wait, So the brain doesn't store or process information - it 'transduces' from some other unknown medium, but these scientists doing research into telepathy are quacks. Sure.
> so he is suggesting going back to first
> principles to see if we can identify different paths that science
> might fruitfully research and find explanations. You tried to make out
> that I was rejecting work on this for theological reasons.
No, I suggested that someone with such a hard bent towards the supernatural (your belief in god) usually has a hard time with someone that says things like consciousness and humanity can be characterized by the scientific process. (the fact that epstein seems to be talking out both sides of his mouth at one not withstanding)
> The exact
> opposite applies - I thoroughly welcome the exploration of new ideas
> and approaches. You are the one who seems hung up on theology and
> afraid to open the door to any research that might in any way give
> even a hint of support for any form of dualism;
Not at all. My hang-up is with how epstein seems dismissive of the vast amount of hard science being done in the field of consciousness, then very vociferously denigrates hard science into para-normality, then suggest the brain does not store of process information but simply channels ('transduces') from the ether. Yet to you, this is not a hard turn into pure metaphysics.
> I regard that sort of
> attitude as far more harmful to scientific progress than either
> Creationism or ID.
* From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic
"Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter."
"A pedantic person may do lots of annoying things, such as point out minor errors, correct people who make small mistakes, and brag about their own knowledge and expertise."