While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 09:25 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  So essentially, he's saying that we don't know what we don't know.

I fail to see how a tautology indicts the whole of physical science. Consciousness is an effect of matter and energy... an emergent property that we have yet to understand.

Philosophers are no closer to the answer to that question than hard scientists and that's fine, because it isn't the philosopher's goal to explain how consciousness works.

What exactly is your point with this, IandI? Are you asserting that the hard sciences are ineffectual because they haven't explained the most elusive phenomenon known to life?

The author of the book (a scientist) actucally comes closer to explaining what consciousness is than most scientists. He uses models of molecular biology as allegories of how consciousness evolves. The scientific part of his explanation is one that I haven't heard before, the philosophical one is not so new but still very valid. Constraints that are self referential are what gives the appearance of order in the biological world. The philosophical side would take longer to explain. The scientific part he goes through in detail in the video I posted. Certain cells are constrained in certain ways to give rise to a shape and form and we would call "order" Even in DNA, what makes each person different is not what DNA you do have it's what DNA in your body gets turned off/ constrained. How consciousness mirrors this process is a whole other long explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 10:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 09:25 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  So essentially, he's saying that we don't know what we don't know.

I fail to see how a tautology indicts the whole of physical science. Consciousness is an effect of matter and energy... an emergent property that we have yet to understand.

Philosophers are no closer to the answer to that question than hard scientists and that's fine, because it isn't the philosopher's goal to explain how consciousness works.

What exactly is your point with this, IandI? Are you asserting that the hard sciences are ineffectual because they haven't explained the most elusive phenomenon known to life?

The author of the book (a scientist) actucally comes closer to explaining what consciousness is than most scientists. He uses models of molecular biology as allegories of how consciousness evolves. The scientific part of his explanation is one that I haven't heard before, the philosophical one is not so new but still very valid. Constraints that are self referential are what gives the appearance of order in the biological world. The philosophical side would take longer to explain. The scientific part he goes through in detail in the video I posted. Certain cells are constrained in certain ways to give rise to a shape and form and we would call "order" Even in DNA, what makes each person different is not what DNA you do have it's what DNA in your body gets turned off/ constrained. How consciousness mirrors this process is a whole other long explanation.

I didn't ask what the author of the book said. I asked what you're position was. And for the record, I watched the first ten or so minutes of the video.

It's interesting and I'll probably watch the remainder of it later on when I have more time... so I'll refrain from commentary for now.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
A theory of everything would only be a theory which explains the fundamental forces governing the universe. It would only ever be implicitly complete (known forces and known universe), since we don't know what fundamental interactions might be so-far-undetected (we don't know what we don't know - though we do know that we don't know what we don't know!).

Our best theories state that the universe is not deterministic, but probabilistic. In fact, given a sufficiently complex system, operating by fully understood rules, it can still be completely unpredictable. We call such systems chaotic. And yes, we can attempt to simulate chaotic systems, but so far only very simple ones.

Complexity increases with scale. For most types of objects this is true. Consider the increase in complexity from a single atom to a crystal. To a complex organic molecule. To a cell. To a network of cells. To, your example, the human central nervous system... We can describe with almost complete certainty the exact behaviour of the first. We know only the barest details of what happens in the second.

But in principle, there is no reason why some things should be unknowable. In practice, given the exponentially increasing emergent complexity of the world around us... Still, the most useless possible conclusion is that we'll never find a new way to explain things (and that IS a religious attitude). Science is just the belief that the scientific method is our only reliable means for learning more about our universe. No more, no less.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2013 02:36 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 10:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 09:25 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  So essentially, he's saying that we don't know what we don't know.

I fail to see how a tautology indicts the whole of physical science. Consciousness is an effect of matter and energy... an emergent property that we have yet to understand.

Philosophers are no closer to the answer to that question than hard scientists and that's fine, because it isn't the philosopher's goal to explain how consciousness works.

What exactly is your point with this, IandI? Are you asserting that the hard sciences are ineffectual because they haven't explained the most elusive phenomenon known to life?

The author of the book (a scientist) actucally comes closer to explaining what consciousness is than most scientists. He uses models of molecular biology as allegories of how consciousness evolves. The scientific part of his explanation is one that I haven't heard before, the philosophical one is not so new but still very valid. Constraints that are self referential are what gives the appearance of order in the biological world. The philosophical side would take longer to explain. The scientific part he goes through in detail in the video I posted. Certain cells are constrained in certain ways to give rise to a shape and form and we would call "order" Even in DNA, what makes each person different is not what DNA you do have it's what DNA in your body gets turned off/ constrained. How consciousness mirrors this process is a whole other long explanation.

So how is that supposed to effect physics? You're the only one here claiming there is a connection here.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't agree on the things you claimed.

The purpose of the physics theory is to understand matter and energy. With that any arrangement of matter could be modeled accurately, even a brain in theory.

It's not the right tool for that task. It would be an incredibly inefficient way of going about it.


Your book doesn't have any real answers to how consciousness works. You just have a theory that feels right to you...

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
22-05-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 02:17 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 10:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  The author of the book (a scientist) actucally comes closer to explaining what consciousness is than most scientists. He uses models of molecular biology as allegories of how consciousness evolves. The scientific part of his explanation is one that I haven't heard before, the philosophical one is not so new but still very valid. Constraints that are self referential are what gives the appearance of order in the biological world. The philosophical side would take longer to explain. The scientific part he goes through in detail in the video I posted. Certain cells are constrained in certain ways to give rise to a shape and form and we would call "order" Even in DNA, what makes each person different is not what DNA you do have it's what DNA in your body gets turned off/ constrained. How consciousness mirrors this process is a whole other long explanation.

So how is that supposed to effect physics? Your the only one here claiming there is a connection here.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't agree on the things you claimed.

The purpose of the physics theory is to understand matter and energy. With that any arrangement of matter could be modeled accurately, even a brain in theory.

It's not the right tool for that task. It would be an incredibly inefficient way of going about it.


Your book doesn't have any real answers to how consciousness works. You just have a theory that feels right to you...

you're*


Evil_monster

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
22-05-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 02:17 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  So how is that supposed to effect physics? You're the only one here claiming there is a connection here.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't agree on the things you claimed.

The purpose of the physics theory is to understand matter and energy. With that any arrangement of matter could be modeled accurately, even a brain in theory.

It's not the right tool for that task. It would be an incredibly inefficient way of going about it.


Your book doesn't have any real answers to how consciousness works. You just have a theory that feels right to you...

Imagine trying to read a book using information like, the arrangement of the quarks and leptons in the space making up the book. Theoretically possible, not very efficient.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
23-05-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 02:17 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 10:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  The author of the book (a scientist) actucally comes closer to explaining what consciousness is than most scientists. He uses models of molecular biology as allegories of how consciousness evolves. The scientific part of his explanation is one that I haven't heard before, the philosophical one is not so new but still very valid. Constraints that are self referential are what gives the appearance of order in the biological world. The philosophical side would take longer to explain. The scientific part he goes through in detail in the video I posted. Certain cells are constrained in certain ways to give rise to a shape and form and we would call "order" Even in DNA, what makes each person different is not what DNA you do have it's what DNA in your body gets turned off/ constrained. How consciousness mirrors this process is a whole other long explanation.

So how is that supposed to effect physics? You're the only one here claiming there is a connection here.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't agree on the things you claimed.

The purpose of the physics theory is to understand matter and energy. With that any arrangement of matter could be modeled accurately, even a brain in theory.

It's not the right tool for that task. It would be an incredibly inefficient way of going about it.


Your book doesn't have any real answers to how consciousness works. You just have a theory that feels right to you...

what? I haven't even stated what I think about his theory. You don't have any clue what I post, you just think you know based on what feels right to you. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
(22-05-2013 05:01 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 02:17 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  So how is that supposed to effect physics? You're the only one here claiming there is a connection here.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't agree on the things you claimed.

The purpose of the physics theory is to understand matter and energy. With that any arrangement of matter could be modeled accurately, even a brain in theory.

It's not the right tool for that task. It would be an incredibly inefficient way of going about it.


Your book doesn't have any real answers to how consciousness works. You just have a theory that feels right to you...

Imagine trying to read a book using information like, the arrangement of the quarks and leptons in the space making up the book. Theoretically possible, not very efficient.


Do you have any idea what consciousness is at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2013 03:51 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: While I was on my way to the Philosophy forum.....
Making out like you know what it is youself?

You dont know any more than anyone else on this planet, and if you claim you do then you are full of shit.

People can speculate on the subject and intellectually mastubate to their theories all day long. "This theory is is the closest" to orgasm?

It doesn't make it true. It doesn't prove anything. It's just masturbation.

Congrats, now put your junk away and clean up.

Wanker...

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: