Teleporting Information

[Kaylia]

I was already aware that you held this way of thinking, but if you don't know what i was talking about earlier then i'll explain. A positivist-empiricist believes that philosophy and science should be separate and considers philosophy worthless as a pseudo-science, and only empirical experiments are valid and true science, anything that is too theoretical according to a positivist is not really science.

Also, are you aware that the faculty of psychology is located in different departments in varying countries? In PR the faculty of psychology is located in the social science department, in Mexico it is located in the medical department. Other nations have psychology in the natural science departments and others in philosophy.

I never compared philosophy to sciences. What I'm saying is that a philosophical argument follow logic, even if it have a premise has no weigth in a scientific argument. However, as long you keep that in mind in your conclusion, the arguement is still valid in the event this premise is true.


There is no clear line between social and natural sciences. What is important is how the science is studied.

[Neosutra]

So what are we arguing about?

[thestalkmore]

How fucking retarded this argument is?

[Max™]

If biological models of the brain work perfectly... and consciousness is fully understood in all it's intricacy, where are our artificially sentient programs and beings?

I'm not saying top down (for this, though I do say it for physics, but that's a different matter entirely) is the right way.

I'm saying there are levels of complexity and structure and interaction below the biochemical which could have something to do with this weird and wondrous thing we call awareness, omitting them when the entire picture is not properly understood strikes me as folly.

Hey, what do I know though, I deal with spacetime metrics and tensors and oscillators, not dendrites and neurones and synapses (of which there are an estimated 100 trillion in the average adult brain, btw, to correct the earlier quoted 10 trillion) and shit, dawg.

[meson]

If biological models of the brain work perfectly... and consciousness is fully understood in all it's intricacy, where are our artificially sentient programs and beings?

I'm not saying top down (for this, though I do say it for physics, but that's a different matter entirely) is the right way.

I'm saying there are levels of complexity and structure and interaction below the biochemical which could have something to do with this weird and wondrous thing we call awareness, omitting them when the entire picture is not properly understood strikes me as folly.

Hey, what do I know though, I deal with spacetime metrics and tensors and oscillators, not dendrites and neurones and synapses (of which there are an estimated 100 trillion in the average adult brain, btw, to correct the earlier quoted 10 trillion) and shit, dawg.

As a good scientist, I'll be the first to submit there is a possibility that what youre saying has merit. This premise, after all, is required to learn anything new.
That being said...
Quantum physics is most certain real and applicable to everything. Everything, after all, is made of atoms and therefore quanta, etc. If you are attributing the phenomenon of awareness to quantum effects, in part or in whole, then you would have to give the awareness attribute to everything since everything is made of quanta. Does the 302 neuron Nematode Worm have awareness? If you say no, then I don't see how you claim that quantum effects lead to awareness since surely the neurons of the Nematode make use of the same quantum effects that our neurons do.
Does photosynthesis require quantum effect to work? No, but it does make it much more efficient. Do neurons require quantum effect to work? Considering we have been able to generate a substantial picture of how neurons behave without resorting to quantum physics, my guess would be no. Is it possible that neurons do, in a yet unknown way, take advantage of quantum effect to more efficiently do what they do, sure why not. This is about as much leeway as I'm willing to give you in this regard.

ps, I typed 100 trillion, at least I thought I did, so I'll assume you're correcting someone else.

[Alarial]

If biological models of the brain work perfectly... and consciousness is fully understood in all it's intricacy, where are our artificially sentient programs and beings?

I'm not saying top down (for this, though I do say it for physics, but that's a different matter entirely) is the right way.

I'm saying there are levels of complexity and structure and interaction below the biochemical which could have something to do with this weird and wondrous thing we call awareness, omitting them when the entire picture is not properly understood strikes me as folly.

Hey, what do I know though, I deal with spacetime metrics and tensors and oscillators, not dendrites and neurones and synapses (of which there are an estimated 100 trillion in the average adult brain, btw, to correct the earlier quoted 10 trillion) and shit, dawg.

Meson covered a good portion of the answer, but just because we have an understanding of how neural signals are stored/transmitted, doesnt mean we have a perfect understanding of how these architectures develop into higher thinking. It becomes then an exhaustive study of how a net of billions of neurons can tediously develop into cognitive ability through years and years of repetitive stimuli.

Attempting to cloud the study with unjustified theories of "quantum biocomputing" doesnt really help the argument. There just isnt any evidence to support this on any level.

[Max™]

I actually do think most animals have what I recall hearing described as "the remembered now" form of awareness.

We have that, and our reflective, introspective awareness on top of it.... as I understand it.

My cat is definitely aware that I am here, he has a ritual every day where he comes in and loves on me and my girlfriend in the morning... I just think his... spark, if you will, isn't capable of considering itself. Mine is.

[Neosutra]

Because you are trivializing awareness as an on off switch instead of a varying lvl of cognitive development.

[Tristam]

You recognize the concept of homosexuality, do you not? What is your interpretation of it? How does your understanding of the concept of homosexuality relate to your mechanicist method of viewing cognition?

It may very well happen in the brain, there is simply, currently, as you put it, no way to know where in the brain this concept of homosexuality is, and how it manifests exactly into the way you perceive it, or perhaps i should say interpret, though they may mean the same thing if we get into semantics.

But the concept is there, in the brain. Just because we do not have a local map that says "ah, here are the homosexuality perception neurons" does not mean that this perception is generated outside the brain. As you say, the perception is influenced by the brain, and past learned concepts, so homosexuality may be a delocalized perception that requires inputs from parts of the brain relating to sexuality, learned social issues, and many other things. Maybe some people incorporate different parts of the brain into their perception of homosexuality? Not saying it's simple, but so far nothing makes me think this is non-biological.

[Max™]

Because you are trivializing awareness as an on off switch instead of a varying lvl of cognitive development.

No, I am saying awareness is more like a dimmer switch that has a setting which makes it ponder it's navel, which could be described as a varying level of cognitive development.

[Kuya]

But the concept is there, in the brain. Just because we do not have a local map that says "ah, here are the homosexuality perception neurons" does not mean that this perception is generated outside the brain. As you say, the perception is influenced by the brain, and past learned concepts, so homosexuality may be a delocalized perception that requires inputs from parts of the brain relating to sexuality, learned social issues, and many other things. Maybe some people incorporate different parts of the brain into their perception of homosexuality? Not saying it's simple, but so far nothing makes me think this is non-biological.

Excellent. Now, what do you think is a better way to understand what a person understands as homosexuality and why? Studying via historiography the roots of the concept that is homosexuality, as well as the social groups that influence the individual's understanding of the concept? Or trying to find where the concept homosexuality is in the brain?

Once you understand what i'm asking, you realize that every root in psychology has a different goal, and that focuses on a specific epistemology doesn't answer all the questions you have.

[Neosutra]

@ Max: And by setting you mean lvl of cognitive development, and not some mysterious added phenomina.

[Tristam]

Excellent. Now, what do you think is a better way to understand what a person understands as homosexuality and why? Studying via historiography the roots of the concept that is homosexuality, as well as the social groups that influence the individual's understanding of the concept? Or trying to find where the concept homosexuality is in the brain?

I guess it depends on what you mean by understand, you can understand it on multiple levels, either at the level of social groups and civilization, or at a more fundamental biological level. I think that understanding the root biological causes of thought and perception can only add to what one learns from studying thoughts and perceptions at a social or conceptual level. All of the influences (from society/history/civilization etc) on perception of a concept are the result of learned memories and past perceptions that are themselves the result of neuronal activity stored/potentiated via biological interaction. None of this changes what a "thought" is on a biological level, which is what most people are arguing about.

I mean, you're not saying a person can be influenced by society without experiencing something of that society right?

[Max™]

@ Max: And by setting you mean lvl of cognitive development, and not some mysterious added phenomina.

I'm not saying it is an added phenomena, I am saying it seems weird that nature wouldn't exploit an avenue of possible development.

[Neosutra]

Because there isn't a need for the added complexity.

[Kuya]

I guess it depends on what you mean by understand, you can understand it on multiple levels, either at the level of social groups and civilization, or at a more fundamental biological level. I think that understanding the root biological causes of thought and perception can only add to what one learns from studying thoughts and perceptions at a social or conceptual level. All of the influences (from society/history/civilization etc) on perception of a concept are the result of learned memories and past perceptions that are themselves the result of neuronal activity stored/potentiated via biological interaction. None of this changes what a "thought" is on a biological level, which is what most people are arguing about.

I mean, you're not saying a person can be influenced by society without experiencing something of that society right?

And thus the argument gets nowhere as i explained about six times before. Biological basis, i get it, you're more interested in that, and that is pretty much what this all comes down to, nothing more nothing less. Anyone who has studied psychology already knows these arguments to heart, and knows full well that reason and logic, no matter how much of it all sides may have for their epistemology, will never convince anyone.

One side will argue that theirs is more important, the other will do the same, one side says theirs solves this but the other side's does not, and the other side does the same. Nothing ever changes.