Teleporting Information

[Kuya]

Let me sum this up as best as i can, though it will obviously be ineffective on most of you, it will at least bring me peace of mind. The psychologies that use the brain as the object of study or the processing of information using computers as frames of reference are but two of many different focuses of psychology to try and understand what we like to call "mind" in all its dimensions. Saying that thought = brain in as flippant manner as possible ignores every other method of studying the same phenomenon which often provide us with different products, both practical and theoretical. Anyone who claims that the brain as we currently understand it encompasses every aspect of of cognition is simply wrong.

What else do you propose is at work?

Trying to explain what thought is within a biological frame of reference is not my focus of attention, but rather cognition and social construction.

Optimization is a mathematical problem. Our body is trying to maximize the situation where we feel good, and take the most efficient path to reach it using euristic based on your memory.

In programming, we would be talking about a recursive search algorithm in a environment that evolve.

Tired of going through this.

I don't understand why a biologist would be against this (can you show me an articles of someone who is against this). There is many proof of the opposite (ie: dyslexia)

It's an example of an assumption made from one concept to another.

I'm calling social scientists ignorant, because many of them refuse to see the big picture, and seem to believe there is one big line between social science and natural science that can't be crossed.

You are clearly the ignorant one if you don't understand the very important difference between natural sciences and social sciences, and this ignorance is only further aggravated by the impudence you've demonstrated in this thread. The object of study of social science is the human, not as a biological being, but a social being and all the social constructs it has created. Forming laws out of something that is inherently relative is nearly impossible, not to mention that said social constructs change with time and space. In psychology, it is well understood that what humans think always changes, so we have to deal with that change, and lastly, social issues involve a certain uncertainty where you can hardly ever have accurate information as there are far too many factors affecting both social constructs and human thinking to ever have stable answers.

[meson]

Kuya, I wasn't being serious about getting back to transporting souls...
But seriously, use less pronouns. What are you claiming has little empirical evidence? What are you claiming has only correlational evidence that has been mistaken for proof of causality?

[Kuya]

The example that two people thinking the same thing (as if that were empirical) and having the same parts of the brain light up is a correlation, not proof that all thought can be reduced to the neurons themselves (unless some of you continue to claim that we will someday, as if that justified the idea right now), and by reduced to neurons i mean finding the very content of thought, the processes, the beliefs inside the neurons.

[Kaylia]

Tired of going through this.

You didn't go through this once. You just avoid the comment. The brain has a finite number of neurons working in a physical network, and because of this, it can be understood. It's not a "belief", it's a fact.

Not everything is understood perfectly, but there is no room left to say our biological understanding of the brain is wrong. We won't discover secret "black box" anywhere inside it.

You are clearly the ignorant one if you don't understand the very important difference between natural sciences and social sciences, and this ignorance is only further aggravated by the impudence you've demonstrated in this thread. The object of study of social science is the human, not as a biological being, but a social being and all the social constructs it has created. Forming laws out of something that is inherently relative is nearly impossible, not to mention that said social constructs change with time and space. In psychology, it is well understood that what humans think always changes, so we have to deal with that change.

Am I the only one who find ironic that psychologist refuse to look at the brain from a biological perspective? For people who should try their best to understand human nature, they sure limit themselves to a small domain.

Believe what you want, but mathematics give us the tools to analyze scenario that involves large domains of answer. Statistic study is one for example. I'm not saying you need to apply mathematical formalism, but saying "social science" are disconected from "natural science" and mathematics is ridiculous. As long you're a part of this world, there will be a link between both.

The object of study of social science is the human, not as a biological being, but a social being and all the social constructs it has created.

I fucking know that, and I've said it in nearly every post one way or the other

"Because every brain works similarly, you will be able to observe patterns between individual, and you can build a science (psychology) around it. If every brains were fundamentally differents, doing something like this would be impossible."

Those patterns is what you call "behavior", "personality", "emotion",etc... They exists, and that's what allow you to understand what's going on inside someone's head.


I don't think you understand psychology yourself, because you can't seem to understand where the fuzzyness come from. Not being able to understand the limit of your domain is a huge weakness when you're trying to study it

[Tristam]

The example that two people thinking the same thing (as if that were empirical) and having the same parts of the brain light up is a correlation, not proof that all thought can be reduced to the neurons themselves (unless some of you continue to claim that we will someday, as if that justified the idea right now), and by reduced to neurons i mean finding the very content of thought, the processes, the beliefs inside the neurons.

What would you consider proof?

[Kaylia]

At this point, I'm starting to believe psychology is the name of a sect, and that human brains is their God.

[Kuya]

You didn't go through this once. You just avoid the comment. The brain has a finite number of neurons working in a physical network, and because of this, it can be understood. It's not a "belief", it's a fact.

An assumption.

Am I the only one who find ironic that psychologist refuse to look at the brain from a biological perspective? For people who should try their best to understand human nature, they sure limit themselves to a small domain.

Neuropsychologists.

but mathematics give us the tools to analyze scenario that involves large domains of answer.

A priori.

but saying "social science" are disconected from "natural science" and mathematics is ridiculous.

They are connected, they are not the same thing. And math is used in both, but there's little point in using math when trying to understand why Americans have individualistic tendencies in their behaviours, while other cultures do not (generalization).

"Because every brain works similarly, you will be able to observe patterns between individual, and you can build a science (psychology) around it. If every brains were fundamentally differents, doing something like this would be impossible."

Applies to specific cases but not all cases nor even most of the cases. Psychology isn't built on simply the study of the brain, but if you knew what you were talking about, you'd probably already know something so elemental.

Those patterns is what you call "behavior", "personality", "emotion"

Except when the patterns have nothing to do with the composition of the brain, but with experience.

I don't think you understand psychology yourself, because you're not even able to understand where the fuzzyness come from.

Apparently i don't, because i've never heard of the phrase fuzzyness used in psychology, but i'm sure someone such as yourself that knows next to nothing about it, is not impudent and assuming he knows more than me about psychology in general. I suppose ignorance is not limited to social sciences.

Saying social sciences are innacurate because they are social sciences is redundant.

They are inaccurate because human behaviour varies a lot and the factors that modify it are many, but don't let that stop you from assuming you know more about this than me. Remember when i told you that this argument was pointless, for all the amazing reasons i outlined? Are you fascinated how i was able to predict your hardheadedness?

[Kuya]

What would you consider proof?

The proof would be in inventing these amazing tools you guys are predicting to appear someday that reveals all the experiences and knowledge an individual possess by examining the neurons some more.

At this point, I'm starting to believe psychologist is the name of a sect, and that human brains is their God.

Don't blame me that you insisted on a problem that has existed for two thousand years, but you insisted on arguing with because math is power.

[Kuya]

Do you want me to mention that you're emphasizing one epistemological point of view in psychology some more? Or has that not sunk in yet?

[Tristam]

The proof would be in inventing these amazing tools you guys are predicting to appear someday that reveals all the experiences and knowledge an individual possess by examining the neurons some more. Don't blame me that you insisted on a problem that has existed for two thousand years, but you insisted on arguing with because math is power.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the phenomenon you study has a biological basis that can be also studied in a reductionist manner? A psycologist so adamantly refusing to look at neurobiology would worry me.

[Kuya]

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the phenomenon you study has a biological basis that can be also studied in a reductionist manner? A psycologist so adamantly refusing to look at neurobiology would worry me.

I sometimes think the problem is that:

A- we're not understanding eachother

B- people are arguing different things against me at the same time

C- all of the above.

I know that one of the studies of psychology includes the monist point of view that the brain and the mind are the same thing, and therefore uses a reductionist method of going about psychology, and that's fine and legitimate in on itself. However, it is no more right than any other epistemological point of view within psychology, which has been my sole point thus far. The fact that it has a biological basis is obvious and something i not once questioned, but, naturally, a biological basis is not the same thing as saying that the true nature of the psychological construct is monistic.

[Kuya]

In other words, you believe something somewhat different than Kaylia and Meson but you take my replies to their specific claims as contentions against whatever it is you believe. You take my replies out of context.

[meson]

If you want to describe consciousness from a top-down perspective, more power to you. But if, at the same time, you say that a bottom-up approach (i.e. biological) is flawed because there is a lack of proof and understanding to build a proper Theory then I, along with countless biologists, psychologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, ad ignaseum, will be laughing at you while we continue to gain insight on how the brain and ergo the mind work.

P.S. If you're saying that it is only an assumption that there is a finite number of neurons in the brain, is it then your assumption that there is an infinite amount?

[Kuya]

If you want to describe consciousness from a top-down perspective, more power to you. But if, at the same time, you say that a bottom-up approach (i.e. biological) is flawed because there is a lack of proof and understanding to build a proper Theory

There are problems and limitations with any epistemological point you take, therefore my point has, and i repeat, to denounce the idea that the monist point of view is the right one, because there's no justification for that, and the uses each segment of psychology has being different is yet another face of the coin. Of course, this could be difficult to understand for someone who likes to argue with insults, such as Kaylia and how social scientists are ignorant (but he isn't!)

P.S. If you're saying that it is only an assumption that there is a finite number of neurons in the brain, is it then your assumption that there is an infinite amount?

Assumption that the neurons are the same thing as the "mind". The latter not being understood.

[Tristam]

I sometimes think the problem is that:

A- we're not understanding eachother

B- people are arguing different things against me at the same time

C- all of the above.

I know that one of the studies of psychology includes the monist point of view that the brain and the mind are the same thing, and therefore uses a reductionist method of going about psychology, and that's fine and legitimate in on itself. However, it is no more right than any other epistemological point of view within psychology, which has been my sole point thus far.

I guess from what I've read, it really seems to me like you want to draw a line between psycology and neurobiology, but I don't think that serves anyone atall. If you're trying to separate psycology from the brain, I guess that's ok but I don't understand how one goes about it, perhaps you could have explained that in more detail.

However, psycology as it relates to the brain is in no small part biological in as far as all of the senses are concerned. If you agree with that, then at least considering all the knowledge that neurobiologists, physiologists, etc. have accumulated should convince you that the process of thinking and sensation are directly correlated with predictable brain activity and one does not need to have a catalogue of the entire range of human emotion to know this. Noone is saying that neurobiology trumps psycology, it's simply a more basic biological way to understand a phenomenon that manifests itself on the organismal scale in a much more complicated way (this is where psycology is MORE helpful than biology). I don't think that adding complexity via trillions of integrating neurons necessitates a complete disconnect between biology and psycology.

[Kuya]

I guess from what I've read, it really seems to me like you want to draw a line between psycology and neurobiology

I don't and they are connected.

I don't think that adding complexity via trillions of integrating neurons necessitates a complete disconnect between biology and psycology.

Neuropsychology. There is no disconnect, and as i've said DOZENS OF TIMES NOW, there are a multitude of epistemological points of view in an attempt to define what the "mind", all linked to a long tradition throughout history. None of them have been able to absolutely prove that the others are wrong, but they all study different aspects of the same thing, that is the "mind". They have been justified in their existences as separate but linked to a root because most have proven to have different practical uses.

[Kaylia]

An assumption.

No, it's a fact. It's a fact that we can build accurate models of something that is working on the molecular level in a limited environment.

Neuropsychologists.

They aren't doing social science, they are doing natural science.

They are connected, they are not the same thing. And math is used in both, but there's little point in using math when trying to understand why Americans have individualistic tendencies in their behaviours, while other cultures do not (generalization).

Being able to understand the concept behind mathematics and biology can only help you write something meaningful and structured. Scientific method need to be applied to everything if you want to reduce the amount of crap proposed.

You can't study a domain under the assumption it can't be understood.

Applies to specific cases but not all cases nor even most of the cases. Psychology isn't built on simply the study of the brain, but if you knew what you were talking about, you'd probably already know something so elemental.

Yes, I forgot something else was taking decision for us. My bad.

Except when the patterns have nothing to do with the composition of the brain, but with experience.

Because those experiences are imprinted in your brain (memories), they are also a part of the brain.

Apparently i don't, because i've never heard of the phrase fuzzyness used in psychology, but i'm sure someone such as yourself that knows next to nothing about it, is not impudent and assuming he knows more than me about psychology in general. I suppose ignorance is not limited to social sciences.

Fuziness mean what it means. It's just an other word for innacurate

They are inaccurate because human behaviour varies a lot and the factors that modify it are many, but don't let that stop you from assuming you know more about this than me. Remember when i told you that this argument was pointless, for all the amazing reasons i outlined? Are you fascinated how i was able to predict your hardheadedness?

Congratulation. You predicted that 2 forum posters that argue in almost every thread will have a long arguments. I will remind you that you're probably as hardheaded as I am.

[Kuya]

No, it's a fact. It's a fact that we can build accurate models of something that is working on the molecular level in a limited environment.

But it's not a fact that the model is the same exact thing as cognition.(in its entirety)

They aren't doing social science, they are doing natural science.

It's a shame what they're studying is mixed within social interaction. I guess you think that a neurobiologist and neuropsychologist is the same thing, but what i do know, i study psychology lol.

Being able to understand the concept behind mathematics and biology can only help you write something meaningful and structured

Holistic characteristic.

Scientific method need to be applied to everything if you want to reduce the amount of crap proposed.

Positivist, but not without merit.

You can't study a domain under the assumption it can't be understood.

So in order to study, you assume it can.

Yes, I forgot something else was taking decision for us. My bad.

According to your poorly worded posts, my brain takes the decisions for me.

Because those experiences are imprinted in your brain (memories), they are also a part of the brain.

Posteriori.

Congratulation. You predicted that 2 forum posters that argue in almost every thread will have a long arguments.

Neverending arguments.

I will remind you that you're probably as hardheaded as I am.

I also predicted that, but you also ignored it.

[Kaylia]

Don't blame me that you insisted on a problem that has existed for two thousand years, but you insisted on arguing with because math is power.

Which problem are you talking about?

And logical thinking is power indeed.

sometimes think the problem is that:

A- we're not understanding eachother

B- people are arguing different things against me at the same time

C- all of the above.

I know that one of the studies of psychology includes the monist point of view that the brain and the mind are the same thing, and therefore uses a reductionist method of going about psychology, and that's fine and legitimate in on itself. However, it is no more right than any other epistemological point of view within psychology, which has been my sole point thus far. The fact that it has a biological basis is obvious and something i not once questioned, but, naturally, a biological basis is not the same thing as saying that the true nature of the psychological construct is monistic.

Sorry, but you can't simply turn down something established by sciences without a solid argument.

There are problems and limitations with any epistemological point you take, therefore my point has, and i repeat, to denounce the idea that the monist point of view is the right one, because there's no justification for that, and the uses each segment of psychology has being different is yet another face of the coin. Of course, this could be difficult to understand for someone who likes to argue with insults, such as Kaylia and how social scientists are ignorant (but he isn't!)

Technically, Alleya started this by implying science nerd's understanding was narrow and wrong.

If you want to describe consciousness from a top-down perspective, more power to you. But if, at the same time, you say that a bottom-up approach (i.e. biological) is flawed because there is a lack of proof and understanding to build a proper Theory then I, along with countless biologists, psychologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, ad ignaseum, will be laughing at you while we continue to gain insight on how the brain and ergo the mind work.

I agree with this 100%.

The way they ignore the bottom-up approach completely is what annoy me the most, because there is some insight to get it from it.

[Kaylia]

Assumption that the neurons are the same thing as the "mind". The latter not being understood.

Ok, where do you think the mind is located? Seriously.