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.
it works the other way too.
change the thoughts / feelings / emotions / beliefs of the person, and their chemical and physical makeup changes as well.
yes, we have said its a feedback loop. psychology is based on it feedback from "qualia" to the structure of the brain.
basically, smiling, even when sad, will feedback the structure of happy to help the "qualia" happy take hold. Or think happy qualia and the happy structures take shape in the brain.
I get it, Tzaph. You hate me because my views make yours untenable scientifically and you think I am an arrogant intellectual who looks down on people less intelligent than I. People who are less intelligent will always tend to think that people more intelligent are looking down on them. That does NOT make it true! My intelligence IS extremely high and I make no apologies for knowing it but I look down on no one. I get frustrated at MY inability to convey my views intelligibly to those who are less intellectually adept. It is something I would expect to be fully able to do. My failures are no small point of irritation to me. I have admitted to my communication inadequacies but I have no animosity toward anyone nor any inability to listen to other views. The fact that I am probably intellectually superior to the vast majority of people is NOT setting myself up. It is just a fact that is documented and documentable. I cannot be responsible for any feelings of inferiority generated in those I deal with intellectually.
You really don't have a clue how this sounds do you?
You really don't have a clue how this sounds do you?
its sounds bad, but the fact remains we are all not created equally. i can make predictions on how you will behave given a fairly short period of time knowing you. i will be right 8-10 times. well, at least that has been my prediction rate.
I have been watching westworld. Its the same ol' story, but it fits as a real life example. the matrix did the same thing, but I never could get past such advanced machines inability to clean the atmosphere easily.
we are all a series of loops. the interactions between the loops gives us this qualia thing-a-ma-gig. Illusions, buddhas narvarnia, spiritual awaking, feeling the woo, lucid dreaming, are all tricks of a mind trying to fool itself that its something else with more control than it has.
You have to understand traz, some of us understand exactly what people are saying. Some of us have the ability to narrow these loops down very easily. Only some of the loops themselves never understand a thing outside of their personal, pre programmed, loop.
like the anti-religious loop. they don't much care about anything but opening that safe. A safe that has absolutely noting in it. But they will kill, mane, and imprison anything that gets in their way.
You don't have to like it, or not like it, but it is how the universe works.
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.
Your resistance to even the most scientifically respected forms of duality is stronger than I thought. No wonder I've been having trouble with the objective/subjective duality.
Quote:
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.
Yes, the mechanics of lightning and our perception of lightning are not the same thing. Now instead of lightning let's suppose the object of our scientific investigation is someone's brain. Here again the mechanics of the brain are not the same as my perception of the other person's brain. Due to the objective requirements of scientific data, the object of current science must always be someone else's brain. There will always have to be this distinction between mechanism and 3rd-person perception of the mechanism. Using some real fancy technology I might even be able to study the processes of my own brain from a third-person perspective. But even in this case there would be as this tension between the mechanism and my perception of the mechanism. But in this case, as physicalists, you and I agree that the mechanism is the perception, and the perception is the mechanism. That is an ontological identity claim that we agree on. But my concern is with the perception itself, which you seem to agree is different, in some sense, than the mechanism. The "in some sense" is critical here. My claim is that this is the epistemological asymmetry that gives rise to what I'm calling the logic of subjectivity. The difference here is being the mechanism versus observing the mechanism from a third person point of view. The "being" part simply cannot be fully reduced to the types of concepts available to third person communication.
If you are trying to explain to Mary the qualitatve experience of seeing red, then at some point Mary will need to reflect upon her own qualitative experience of seeing red in order to fully understand you're explanation. But if she has never experienced red for herself, then no amount of explanation on your part will convey the full qualitative experience of seeing red. The information that is always, by logical necessity, missing from the third person communication is the aspect that I'm trying to focus on.
Since you seem to accept the distinction between the mechanism and perceiving the mechanism, I'm having a really hard time understanding how you cannot see the duality between the subjective and objective forms of information. This is exactly the duality referred to by the neuroscientist in the article that I posted previously.
You and I both agree that science can deal with this. I'm simply trying to explain where the rubber hits the road when it comes to science dealing with this. Phenomenological methods are required. This is not a super big problem with psychology or even biology, but getting down to the level of chemistry or physics is a different matter. This is where the need for a paradigm shift becomes apparent. Somehow we need to think a little bit differently about physics itself.
Somehow we need to explicate the logical conditions for the possibility of the emergence of first person qualitative information from what, in current physics, are understood as fully quantifiable subatomic entities. Future physics will somehow have to build these conditions for possibility into our conceptions of the fundamental entities.
its sounds bad, but the fact remains we are all not created equally. i can make predictions on how you will behave given a fairly short period of time knowing you. i will be right 8-10 times. well, at least that has been my prediction rate.
I have been watching westworld. Its the same ol' story, but it fits as a real life example. the matrix did the same thing, but I never could get past such advanced machines inability to clean the atmosphere easily.
we are all a series of loops. the interactions between the loops gives us this qualia thing-a-ma-gig. Illusions, buddhas narvarnia, spiritual awaking, feeling the woo, lucid dreaming, are all tricks of a mind trying to fool itself that its something else with more control than it has.
You have to understand traz, some of us understand exactly what people are saying. Some of us have the ability to narrow these loops down very easily. Only some of the loops themselves never understand a thing outside of their personal, pre programmed, loop.
an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions
You don't have to like it, or not like it, but it is how the universe works.
The fact remains that those who think they are better than others, are not. That someone who tells others how smart he is, is demonstrating succinctly that he is not.
Note: this is talking about a behavior not any individual person. Someone who can't recognize and address problematic behaviors and attitudes (such as arrogance) is not smart and lacks rational thinking.
arrogant
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud:
characterized by a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement:
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-06-2018 at 09:16 AM..
The fact remains that those who think they are better than others, are not. That someone who tells others how smart he is, is demonstrating succinctly that he is not.
Note: this is talking about a behavior not any individual person. Someone who can't recognize and address problematic behaviors and attitudes (such as arrogance) is not smart and lacks rational thinking.
arrogant
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud:
characterized by a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement:
Spoken like a true communist, or member of the Borg Collective.
I am smarter than most people. I can throw a baseball better than most people. I can catch fish better than most people. I can write better than most people.
Most people are more organized than I am. Most people are handier with tools than I will ever be. Most people can follow written directions for assembling products better than I can. Most guitarists play better than I can.
I am better than no one overall. And no one is better than me. But to assume that some people are not more gifted in some areas than others, is patently absurd.
The fact remains that those who think they are better than others, are not. That someone who tells others how smart he is, is demonstrating succinctly that he is not.
Note: this is talking about a behavior not any individual person. Someone who can't recognize and address problematic behaviors and attitudes (such as arrogance) is not smart and lacks rational thinking...
I don't think anyone is talking about being "better than" in a general sense. The issue is knowledge of certain topics. Someone who studies cell biology for decades knows more about cell biology and other people. And it is not arrogance for the cell biologist to admit "I know more about cell biology than other people." What would be the point of studying a topic for years if after all of that study you had no more knowledge of the topic than the average person who did not spend that time studying?
Simply believing that one knows more about X than most people is not arrogance if, in fact, the person does knows more about X than the average person. What is more likely to be arrogant is someone who has never studied X accusing someone who has studied X of being arrogant and irrational just because they think they see a way in which their knowledge of X applied to other topics.
Your resistance to even the most scientifically respected forms of duality is stronger than I thought. No wonder I've been having trouble with the objective/subjective duality.
Yes, the mechanics of lightning and our perception of lightning are not the same thing. Now instead of lightning let's suppose the object of our scientific investigation is someone's brain. Here again the mechanics of the brain are not the same as my perception of the other person's brain. Due to the objective requirements of scientific data, the object of current science must always be someone else's brain. There will always have to be this distinction between mechanism and 3rd-person perception of the mechanism. Using some real fancy technology I might even be able to study the processes of my own brain from a third-person perspective. But even in this case there would be as this tension between the mechanism and my perception of the mechanism. But in this case, as physicalists, you and I agree that the mechanism is the perception, and the perception is the mechanism. That is an ontological identity claim that we agree on. But my concern is with the perception itself, which you seem to agree is different, in some sense, than the mechanism. The "in some sense" is critical here. My claim is that this is the epistemological asymmetry that gives rise to what I'm calling the logic of subjectivity. The difference here is being the mechanism versus observing the mechanism from a third person point of view. The "being" part simply cannot be fully reduced to the types of concepts available to third person communication.
If you are trying to explain to Mary the qualitatve experience of seeing red, then at some point Mary will need to reflect upon her own qualitative experience of seeing red in order to fully understand you're explanation. But if she has never experienced red for herself, then no amount of explanation on your part will convey the full qualitative experience of seeing red. The information that is always, by logical necessity, missing from the third person communication is the aspect that I'm trying to focus on.
Since you seem to accept the distinction between the mechanism and perceiving the mechanism, I'm having a really hard time understanding how you cannot see the duality between the subjective and objective forms of information. This is exactly the duality referred to by the neuroscientist in the article that I posted previously.
You and I both agree that science can deal with this. I'm simply trying to explain where the rubber hits the road when it comes to science dealing with this. Phenomenological methods are required. This is not a super big problem with psychology or even biology, but getting down to the level of chemistry or physics is a different matter. This is where the need for a paradigm shift becomes apparent. Somehow we need to think a little bit differently about physics itself.
Somehow we need to explicate the logical conditions for the possibility of the emergence of first person qualitative information from what, in current physics, are understood as fully quantifiable subatomic entities. Future physics will somehow have to build these conditions for possibility into our conceptions of the fundamental entities.
I perceive it fine. The principle is the same in some ways. Even if materialist science can explain the mechanism of their perception of lightning or red or taste, I cannot experience what they are experiencing. If that is 'subjectivity' and 'dualism' that is obviously true, but saying that is a problem for materialism is like saying it is impossible for materialism to explain why my dog is not my television. Can you not see that this is not only not a problem, but a red herring?
One may argue that we cannot prove that my perceptions are not the same sort of thing as yours or Mary's. My 'Red' may not be hers. But again this is not a question of the mechanism of qualia even my Blue is not the same perceived colour as hers. We can't prove Abiogenesis either, and perhaps never will be able to, but the circumstantial evidence (descriptions of colours and indeed the common genetically designed bodily mechanics) suggests that (unless something is wrong) the result out to be the same and that is the preferred hypothesis. You will probably see that the 'zombie' analogy supports this hypothesis rather than debunks it.
I don't think anyone is talking about being "better than" in a general sense. The issue is knowledge of certain topics. Someone who studies cell biology for decades knows more about cell biology and other people. And it is not arrogance for the cell biologist to admit "I know more about cell biology than other people." What would be the point of studying a topic for years if after all of that study you had no more knowledge of the topic than the average person who did not spend that time studying?
Simply believing that one knows more about X than most people is not arrogance if, in fact, the person does knows more about X than the average person. What is more likely to be arrogant is someone who has never studied X accusing someone who has studied X of being arrogant and irrational just because they think they see a way in which their knowledge of X applied to other topics.
these phrases (for example) most certainly are talking about being "better than" in a general sense.
"people less intelligent than I"
"my intelligence IS extremely high and I make no apologies for knowing it"
"those who are less intellectually adept"
"more intelligent"
"intellectually superior to the vast majority of people"
"It is just a fact that is documented and documentable."
they do not reference specialized knowledge in any way shape or form (such as "cell biology" or "absurdist existentialism.") they make no mention of subject matter.
i am also pointing out that while they [= generic, those exhibiting arrogant attitudes and behavior] insist on their own expertise being recognized, they routinely do not recognize other people's expertise. for instance expertise in the area of Chinese medicine is dismissed as "vacuous" or "nonsense" or "woo" or "superstition." Professional expertise by subject matter experts in the field of mental health such as counselors, therapists, addiction recovery, and psychology are likewise dismissed. Theological views that differ are belittled constantly. One person posting came right out and said "there is no such thing as expertise in theology it does not exist."
that is another signpost for recognizing the behavior and attitude of arrogance. insistence on their own "superiority" and "better than" and yet unwillingness to credit others for subject matter expertise in areas that they are not familiar with, or do not understand, or lack the knowledge base to comprehend.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-06-2018 at 11:27 AM..
So "More capable of understanding abstract thought" equals "better?" Well, yes, better at grasping concepts like the idea that education in and facility for a particular subject gives more complete and accurate information. (You know, the point being made by the part of the quote that you dimmed}
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.
reposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, laughable, risible, idiotic, stupid, foolish, silly, inane, imbecilic, insane, harebrained, cockamamie; Moreunreasonable, irrational, illogical, nonsensical, incongruous, pointless, senseless; 