Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You bet I will do just that. I would much rather hear information from highly educated experts on the subject vs. listening to laymen or non-experts trying to explain it, and which is almost always laced with their misinterpretations.
You bet I will do just that. I would much rather hear information from highly educated experts on the subject vs. listening to laymen or non-experts trying to explain it, and which is almost always laced with their misinterpretations.
yup, cut and paste away. its all some have. They can't come up with conclusions on their own. so they mix and match other people stuff, without really understanding it. It forms a worldview based on nothing.
Green's stuff supports the claim that the conclusion of "we are part of, in a, living system" as far more valid than the claiming a non living system. in fact, it so much more valid trans and the deny, hide, and minimize everything have to run away from it.
Green stuff is also the exact opposite of deny everything because one is afraid of the answers. anti-religion is not a valid excuse to cover up valid science interpretations for personal needs.
Both electromagnetism and gravity, similar to his E = mc2 equation, which shows energy and mass are one in the same thing...i.e. that anything having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa. The Unified Field Equations...were designed to show that electromagnetism and gravity as being one and the same.
OMG...Transponder: I think I might finally have a way to bridge the gap between us. I'm flabbergasted that I have not already tried this. I'm going to assume that you are perfectly comfortable with the above reference. This is very old news, of course. But what I want to focus on is the "dual-aspect" nature of mass and energy. Mass and energy are distinctly different "intrinsic ways of being understood" for the fundamental "stuff" that, according to physicalism, constitutes the essence of Reality. In philosophical terms, one could think of this approach as a "neutral monism" - with the "monism" in this case referring to "the fundamental nature of physical stuff" and the "neutral" referring to the fundamentally different aspects of this "stuff" that is neither "just" energy, for "just" mass. It is, rather, one stuff with both aspects. You can approach this same "dual-aspect" idea with the "particle/wave" duality of QM. My proposal simply implies an additional "dual-aspect" - namely "objective" and "subjective", which has to do with the epistemological "laws" of reality - more specifically, the "point-of-view" or "perspectival" nature of conscious awareness. To put a few meat on these conceptual bones, I'd like to offer a neuroscience journal article (linked below) as "Exhibit A".
I'm going to predict that, if I were to remove just one sentence from this article, you could read the whole thing carefully and find nothing to complain about in relation to the debate that has been on-going between us. I suspect you would find this to be a fine example of a perfectly materialist article. And, indeed, I would say the same thing. But I would point out that the underlying epistemological assumption is dual-aspect physicalism - just exactly the sort of thing that I've been trying to explain in these threads. My point here is not so much to say "you're wrong" but, rather, to say that you are basically right when you say that you, as a materialist, your see "nothing to fear" from my epistemological claim that qualia cannot, even in principle, be fully reduced to the quantitative terms of current physics. I still think that you don't quite "get" what I'm saying or why I'm saying it, but with the help of this article, I going to see if I can show why my views on qualia don't have to pose any real threat to your "materialist" view (at least insofar as you care about it).
The article is a bit long and technical compared to C-D posts, but you don't really have to read the whole thing. I will highlight a few of the key points:
The title is: Information and the Origin of Qualia
And here are a handful of key quotes:
The article argues that an input pattern of firing is identified by a network as an information message, and that the output pattern of firing generated is a representation of that message.
...there is no theoretical account that shows a direct mechanism whereby certain neural activities should lead to a phenomenal outcome. This article is one attempt to link the purely physical with the phenomenal...
...this article tries to more directly explore the relationships between purely physical information and semantic information that is at the heart of qualia. It aims to show that, in certain circumstances, the processing of information in local cortical networks should lead to qualia.
Semantic information is the meaning associated with physical information. It is the message that is embodied in, and communicated by, the physical information.
How does the physical information of neuronal firings relate to the semantic information of the meanings of our inner world?
There are two clear transformations. The first of these is that information structures, in some way, represent information messages.
In order to examine the way that qualia are generated, one key task is an analysis of this representational process.
The second relationship between information structures and messages is that messages result from the recognition and identification of information structures.
The input information is a structure. If the network recognizes and identifies that input structure then it will generate an output information structure. That output structure represents the information message, the identity, of the input structure to the network. So within a basic cortical network, it is possible to define more closely the relationship between information structures and information messages. The output structure represents the message obtained when the network identifies its input structure. There is a transformation from structure to message to structure again.
Earlier I mentioned that "if I were to remove just one sentence from the article, you would see the whole article as perfectly inline with you view. Here is that sentence:
Chalmers (1996) in his seminal book proposed the fundamental principle that information has both a physical and a phenomenal aspect.
In other words, an underlying assumption of this article is the sort of dual-aspect physicalism I've been advocating. This is not a "woo" article, it is just basic neuroscience. If you are ok with the approach of this article, then you are, by default, actually ok with my dual-aspect approach, even though you might still not entirely get (or care about) the subtle epistemological point that I keep trying to make about epistemological asymmetry and the need for a non-reductive form of physicalism.
We probably still have to wrestle over the role of physics and "intrinsic potentiality" in my theory, but I'm wondering if this article might highlight a bit of common ground between us.
The only thing I posted was videos of experts discussing known facts. I am not here to post pages of science or spoon feed people like you when instead there are plenty of very good short videos that do a great job in under 30 minutes which would take someone hours and pages and pages to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
They can't come up with conclusions on their own.
This is about as obtuse of a comment as it gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
so they mix and match other people stuff, without really understanding it. It forms a worldview based on nothing.
Yup you nailed it spot on with what we see you doing all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Green's stuff supports the claim that the conclusion of "we are part of, in a, living system" as far more valid than the claiming a non living system.
I listened to the entire lecture and he never mentioned any such thing nor could a sensible logical person conclude such a thing with respect to the subject he was discussing. You have a huge hole in your mind processes and are stuck like a broken record on this "living" vs. "non-living" system. I suggest you go learn the basics of all biological sciences so you can fill in the missing gaps you have.
yeah, "the biosphere as life" is a broken record, like stating the wheel is the best thing we got for cars is a broken record. like stating e=mc^2 is valid is a broken record. Lie stating no absolute time frame is a broken record in relation to GPS.
That fact that you out of hand tell me I don't know the science in such basic areas means you don't know what your talikng about. Or, you are being that dishonest.
OMG...Transponder: I think I might finally have a way to bridge the gap between us. I'm flabbergasted that I have not already tried this. I'm going to assume that you are perfectly comfortable with the above reference. This is very old news, of course. But what I want to focus on is the "dual-aspect" nature of mass and energy. Mass and energy are distinctly different "intrinsic ways of being understood" for the fundamental "stuff" that, according to physicalism, constitutes the essence of Reality. In philosophical terms, one could think of this approach as a "neutral monism" - with the "monism" in this case referring to "the fundamental nature of physical stuff" and the "neutral" referring to the fundamentally different aspects of this "stuff" that is neither "just" energy, for "just" mass. It is, rather, one stuff with both aspects. You can approach this same "dual-aspect" idea with the "particle/wave" duality of QM. My proposal simply implies an additional "dual-aspect" - namely "objective" and "subjective", which has to do with the epistemological "laws" of reality - more specifically, the "point-of-view" or "perspectival" nature of conscious awareness. To put a few meat on these conceptual bones, I'd like to offer a neuroscience journal article (linked below) as "Exhibit A".
I'm going to predict that, if I were to remove just one sentence from this article, you could read the whole thing carefully and find nothing to complain about in relation to the debate that has been on-going between us. I suspect you would find this to be a fine example of a perfectly materialist article. And, indeed, I would say the same thing. But I would point out that the underlying epistemological assumption is dual-aspect physicalism - just exactly the sort of thing that I've been trying to explain in these threads. My point here is not so much to say "you're wrong" but, rather, to say that you are basically right when you say that you, as a materialist, your see "nothing to fear" from my epistemological claim that qualia cannot, even in principle, be fully reduced to the quantitative terms of current physics. I still think that you don't quite "get" what I'm saying or why I'm saying it, but with the help of this article, I going to see if I can show why my views on qualia don't have to pose any real threat to your "materialist" view (at least insofar as you care about it).
The article is a bit long and technical compared to C-D posts, but you don't really have to read the whole thing. I will highlight a few of the key points:
The title is: Information and the Origin of Qualia
And here are a handful of key quotes:
The article argues that an input pattern of firing is identified by a network as an information message, and that the output pattern of firing generated is a representation of that message.
...there is no theoretical account that shows a direct mechanism whereby certain neural activities should lead to a phenomenal outcome. This article is one attempt to link the purely physical with the phenomenal...
...this article tries to more directly explore the relationships between purely physical information and semantic information that is at the heart of qualia. It aims to show that, in certain circumstances, the processing of information in local cortical networks should lead to qualia.
Semantic information is the meaning associated with physical information. It is the message that is embodied in, and communicated by, the physical information.
How does the physical information of neuronal firings relate to the semantic information of the meanings of our inner world?
There are two clear transformations. The first of these is that information structures, in some way, represent information messages.
In order to examine the way that qualia are generated, one key task is an analysis of this representational process.
The second relationship between information structures and messages is that messages result from the recognition and identification of information structures.
The input information is a structure. If the network recognizes and identifies that input structure then it will generate an output information structure. That output structure represents the information message, the identity, of the input structure to the network. So within a basic cortical network, it is possible to define more closely the relationship between information structures and information messages. The output structure represents the message obtained when the network identifies its input structure. There is a transformation from structure to message to structure again.
Earlier I mentioned that "if I were to remove just one sentence from the article, you would see the whole article as perfectly inline with you view. Here is that sentence:
Chalmers (1996) in his seminal book proposed the fundamental principle that information has both a physical and a phenomenal aspect.
In other words, an underlying assumption of this article is the sort of dual-aspect physicalism I've been advocating. This is not a "woo" article, it is just basic neuroscience. If you are ok with the approach of this article, then you are, by default, actually ok with my dual-aspect approach, even though you might still not entirely get (or care about) the subtle epistemological point that I keep trying to make about epistemological asymmetry and the need for a non-reductive form of physicalism.
We probably still have to wrestle over the role of physics and "intrinsic potentiality" in my theory, but I'm wondering if this article might highlight a bit of common ground between us.
there is a ton of common ground between us. the main difference is the weights you assign to not knowing, you say we can never know. I say, we can make predictions on people knowing the state of their machine. that means, by default, we know something about their "qualia".
yes, there is a dual aspect to people. we call it logical and emotional. The more emotional, the more of a qualia look it takes on. yes, the software and the hardware work together. there is no computer without either. if either is broken, the other is affected. we get that. In fact, we say that.
the simple fact is we can change the chemical makeup and the "qualia" of the person changes too.
there is a ton of common ground between us. the main difference is the weights you assign to not knowing, you say we can never know. I say, we can make predictions on people knowing the state of their machine. that means, by default, we know something about their "qualia".
yes, there is a dual aspect to people. we call it logical and emotional. The more emotional, the more of a qualia look it takes on. yes, the software and the hardware work together. there is no computer without either. if either is broken, the other is affected. we get that. In fact, we say that.
the simple fact is we can change the chemical makeup and the "qualia" of the person changes too.
that's a pretty heavy observation to over come.
it works the other way too.
change the thoughts / feelings / emotions / beliefs of the person, and their chemical and physical makeup changes as well.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-05-2018 at 10:32 PM..
OMG...Transponder: I think I might finally have a way to bridge the gap between us. I'm flabbergasted that I have not already tried this. I'm going to assume that you are perfectly comfortable with the above reference. This is very old news, of course. But what I want to focus on is the "dual-aspect" nature of mass and energy. Mass and energy are distinctly different "intrinsic ways of being understood" for the fundamental "stuff" that, according to physicalism, constitutes the essence of Reality. In philosophical terms, one could think of this approach as a "neutral monism" - with the "monism" in this case referring to "the fundamental nature of physical stuff" and the "neutral" referring to the fundamentally different aspects of this "stuff" that is neither "just" energy, for "just" mass. It is, rather, one stuff with both aspects. You can approach this same "dual-aspect" idea with the "particle/wave" duality of QM. My proposal simply implies an additional "dual-aspect" - namely "objective" and "subjective", which has to do with the epistemological "laws" of reality - more specifically, the "point-of-view" or "perspectival" nature of conscious awareness. To put a few meat on these conceptual bones, I'd like to offer a neuroscience journal article (linked below) as "Exhibit A".
I'm going to predict that, if I were to remove just one sentence from this article, you could read the whole thing carefully and find nothing to complain about in relation to the debate that has been on-going between us. I suspect you would find this to be a fine example of a perfectly materialist article. And, indeed, I would say the same thing. But I would point out that the underlying epistemological assumption is dual-aspect physicalism - just exactly the sort of thing that I've been trying to explain in these threads. My point here is not so much to say "you're wrong" but, rather, to say that you are basically right when you say that you, as a materialist, your see "nothing to fear" from my epistemological claim that qualia cannot, even in principle, be fully reduced to the quantitative terms of current physics. I still think that you don't quite "get" what I'm saying or why I'm saying it, but with the help of this article, I going to see if I can show why my views on qualia don't have to pose any real threat to your "materialist" view (at least insofar as you care about it).
The article is a bit long and technical compared to C-D posts, but you don't really have to read the whole thing. I will highlight a few of the key points:
The title is: Information and the Origin of Qualia
And here are a handful of key quotes:
The article argues that an input pattern of firing is identified by a network as an information message, and that the output pattern of firing generated is a representation of that message.
...there is no theoretical account that shows a direct mechanism whereby certain neural activities should lead to a phenomenal outcome. This article is one attempt to link the purely physical with the phenomenal...
...this article tries to more directly explore the relationships between purely physical information and semantic information that is at the heart of qualia. It aims to show that, in certain circumstances, the processing of information in local cortical networks should lead to qualia.
Semantic information is the meaning associated with physical information. It is the message that is embodied in, and communicated by, the physical information.
How does the physical information of neuronal firings relate to the semantic information of the meanings of our inner world?
There are two clear transformations. The first of these is that information structures, in some way, represent information messages.
In order to examine the way that qualia are generated, one key task is an analysis of this representational process.
The second relationship between information structures and messages is that messages result from the recognition and identification of information structures.
The input information is a structure. If the network recognizes and identifies that input structure then it will generate an output information structure. That output structure represents the information message, the identity, of the input structure to the network. So within a basic cortical network, it is possible to define more closely the relationship between information structures and information messages. The output structure represents the message obtained when the network identifies its input structure. There is a transformation from structure to message to structure again.
Earlier I mentioned that "if I were to remove just one sentence from the article, you would see the whole article as perfectly inline with you view. Here is that sentence:
Chalmers (1996) in his seminal book proposed the fundamental principle that information has both a physical and a phenomenal aspect.
In other words, an underlying assumption of this article is the sort of dual-aspect physicalism I've been advocating. This is not a "woo" article, it is just basic neuroscience. If you are ok with the approach of this article, then you are, by default, actually ok with my dual-aspect approach, even though you might still not entirely get (or care about) the subtle epistemological point that I keep trying to make about epistemological asymmetry and the need for a non-reductive form of physicalism.
We probably still have to wrestle over the role of physics and "intrinsic potentiality" in my theory, but I'm wondering if this article might highlight a bit of common ground between us.
I'll try to get time to look at tit but the thoughts off the top of my head is that matter and energy are just particles, one doing more stuff than the other, or you could say energy is the result of particles doing more than 'matter' particles.
As to the material and phenomenal, the latter is what we think about it, the understanding of what it is doing or it means (if we talk of information). it's like the error of the mechanics of lightning and out seeing it. One is the mechanics of the lightning and the other our perception of it. They are not the same thing, but that's obvious - or it should have been but apparently wasn't. or rather it wasn't obvious that it wasn't a problem for materialism.
I'll try to get time to look at tit but the thoughts off the top of my head is that matter and energy are just particles, one doing more stuff than the other, or you could say energy is the result of particles doing more than 'matter' particles.
As to the material and phenomenal, the latter is what we think about it, the understanding of what it is doing or it means (if we talk of information). it's like the error of the mechanics of lightning and out seeing it. One is the mechanics of the lightning and the other our perception of it. They are not the same thing, but that's obvious - or it should have been but apparently wasn't. or rather it wasn't obvious that it wasn't a problem for materialism.
You have it backwards. The particles are a result of the energy. The average energy transformations (doing "work") is what we call the particle. watch "how small is it #5". put our differences aside and watch it, pretty please. Its the energy doing more than just the particle. Just like proton, neutrons, and electrons do what we call Iron if they are present in the correct rations. proton, electrons, and electrons, can do "carbon" also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
anti-religion is not a valid excuse to cover up valid science interpretations for personal needs.