[split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2017, 03:59 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Childishness and vulgarity??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 04:03 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 03:54 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  Mathilda and EK,

I've put both of you on ignore for your childishness and vulgarity.

If there's someone here who can teach me what I need to know in language that grown-ups use, or give me a proper link to read, I will do so.

Hahaha, the ones giving you the answers you don't like! Color me not surprised! Laugh out load

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-10-2017, 04:05 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 03:59 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Childishness and vulgarity??

Either he's the internet's littlest snowflake, or (and far more likely) it's a purposeful defection mechanism. He doesn't like what we have to say, so it's far easier to brandish us 'vulgar' and dismiss us out of hand, rather than face up to his own purposeful ignorance.

I mean, I wasn't aware that posting a TedTalk video on how the behavior of a school of fish is emergent was so offensive to his delicate sensibilities! Laugh out load

Still isn't going to stop me from posting for the benefit of the audience. He's not the first to put me on ignore, but he's easily the most full of shit about it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-10-2017, 04:16 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 04:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Still isn't going to stop me from posting for the benefit of the audience. He's not the first to put me on ignore, but he's easily the most full of shit about it.

Yep. Good idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
27-10-2017, 04:34 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
There is no god!

As a scientist it's fine to explore theories, scientists do it all the time. However, they still need some sort of supporting evidence to justify persuing it.

The god theory is like flogging a dead horse. Religions have had thousands of years to come up with one single piece of credible compelling evidence to back up their god theory and have come up with diddly squat. In the meantime every single scientific theory in their old book has been discredited while the evidence for evolution just keeps on piling up every single day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 04:57 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 03:32 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(27-10-2017 03:29 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  "brute facts"

Please explain the mechanism by which any emergent property emerges.

It has been explained to you already with many examples, different examples, with links etc., yet you still refuse to understand and blame the people who try to help you understand by accusing them of childishness and rudeness.

If i could i would give you some 3 more neg rep points.

But instead i will try to give you the most simple examples possible, in the hope you either are going to understand, learn and understand or put me on ignore and leave me alone.

All (even the most simple) games involving playing cards, Chess, Go or Tetris have emergent properties (as EK already just explained), complex structures and situations emerging from a large number of very simple rules. I hope you at least start to understand that there is no *mechanism* connecting a deck of cards for emergent properties to appear.

If you fail to understand the basic concept of this then there is no hope you will ever understand why the brain has the same properties: lots ( and i mean L.O.T.S.) of simple interactions of synapses and an emerging property.

Your problem is not a lack of *mechanism* that needs to be provided to you, but a misunderstanding of the very concept of emergence. Please take that as the best advice possible and consider CONSIDERING this, before you accuse me too of your failure to understand.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
27-10-2017, 05:46 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2017 07:26 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 11:35 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(26-10-2017 07:50 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  You should let us know what you find inadequate about our hypotheses.

So far no one has typed a hypothesis. Only assertions.

The consensus on this thread (though not necessarily in the rest of the world) is that electrochemical synaptic events just ARE abstract concepts. To me, a synapse firing is not the same as the concept of justice. They are ontologically different. One is measurable with material means, and the other isn't.

No, it is the sum, the collection, pattern of electrochemical impulses that emerges as mind.

Quote:The assertion, so far, such as it is, is that the concept of justice is an emergent property. But that explains nothing at all. The term "emergent property" seems to be a catch-all for things that arise that we can't explain. Even if we could explain the crystalline structure of salt (how salt gets it from two non-crystalline precursors) there is no reason to think that it would tell us anything about the supposedly emergent property of consciousness. They are different things.

Tell me how saltiness is not an emergent property of NaCl. If not, what is it?

Quote:But all I've been told so far is "It's just that way!!!"

That is not all you've been told; I suggest you go back and reread people's responses.

Quote:As usual, people are apparently assuming that I'm some kind of secret agent for Ken Ham, working to smuggle in horrible theist ideas. And as usual, this is wrong. I do not posit a ghost in the machine, or a Cartesian homunculus, though Dennett's theory seems to rest on such an idea. Like Aristotle and Aquinas, I reject the idea of a separate "soul stuff" or any non-bodily faculty.

I have made no assumptions about you. Are you always this defensive? Consider

Quote:I don't want to settle for the assertion of a brute fact, and I find people who claim that "emergent property" is a sufficient explanation to be easily pleased and incurious. I insist that "we really have no idea how it happens" is more honest.

I don't think anyone asserted it was a complete or sufficient explanation. I bring it up because it is in direct opposition to your assertion that there are no good theories of mind. This is one aspect of such a theory.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-10-2017, 05:56 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 03:54 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  Mathilda and EK,

I've put both of you on ignore for your childishness and vulgarity.

If there's someone here who can teach me what I need to know in language that grown-ups use, or give me a proper link to read, I will do so.

Now you are being truly childish. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-10-2017, 06:12 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 06:25 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 05:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is the sum, the collection, pattern of electrochemical impulses that emerges as mind.

That's what everybody keeps saying. And when I ask how, they say it's an emerget property. And when I say that's really no more of an explanation than saying it's magic, they get kind of miffed.

(27-10-2017 05:46 AM)Chas pod='1260025 Wrote:Tell me how saltiness is not an emergent property of NaCl. If not, what is it?

I assume that it is an emergent property.

Are you curious about how emergent properties emerge, or do we just have to stop with "that's just the way it is!"?

(27-10-2017 05:46 AM)Chas pod='1260025 Wrote:I don't think anyone asserted is was a complete or sufficient explanation. I bring it up because it is in direct opposition to your assertion that there are no good theories of mind. This is one aspect of such a theory.

I'm glad to hear that you don't find it a complete or sufficient explanation. It appeared that some people think it is.

And I'm glad that this is one aspect of a good theory. I didn't find it to be a complete theory on its own.

I've read some different theories of mind, but none has seemed persuasive concerning the function by which electrochemical events are perceived by the experiencing subject as something other than electrochemical events. The answers so far on this thread haven't been helpful.

If you would recommend a link or a book, I'd be happy to give it serious attention.

And I very much appreciate the fact that you can write a paragraph with no obscenity, vulgarity, or personal insult. It's a rare talent these days.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: