ORN, I AM USING CAPS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ MY REPLY.
“…So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now…” – Isp. Isp, by saying the above (admittedly pulled out of context), do you not presuppose the position of materialism? PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT CONSCIOUNESS REMAINS A MYSTERY FOR MATERIALIST. HOWEVER, I HAVE NEVER HEARD CONSCIOUNESS EXPLAINED IN ANY OTHER TERMS. AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY. “In the case of some materialists, consciousness is denied as being some sort of illusion or explained by untested incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been yet.” – Isp The notion of ‘gaps’ arises for about any area of human conceptualization, no? TRUE, WHEN CONCIOUS CONCEPTULIZATION IS CONSIDERED. BUT IN A GOOD EXPLANTION THE GAPS ARE SMALL AND THE LEAP FROM ONE CONCEPT TO THE NEXT SEEMS, YES SEEMS NOT NECESSARILY IS, INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ALL, OR AT LEAST TO THE PEOPLE WHO STUDY A PARTICULAR FIELD. IN ADDITION THE CONCEPTS THEMSELVES SEEM INTUITIVELY CLEAR OR RELATIVELY CLEAR. FOR EXAMPLE THE CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEM CLEAR TO ME, HOWEVER I CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS IN TERMS OF OTHER CONCEPTS. DEPENDING ON HOW I DEFINE CONCEPT, CONCEPTS THEMSELVES MUST EITHER BE PARTLY CONSCIOUS OR ELSE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WHOLLY UNCONSCIOUS, BUT THEY EXIST IN MIND AND MND EXIST IN WHAT WE CONCEPTULIZE AS MATTER. AT LEAST THAT IS HOW I CONCEPTUALIZE THIS. “…The best of these foundations, in my opinion is the idea that mind exists in matter but is not the same as matter in that mind is about complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet answered the hard question of consciousness, but this approach, in conjunction with materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully about love, meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by itself, was not able to speak about in a meaningful way.” – Isp Isp, how does this approach “allow scientists to speak meaningfully about…”? I don’t quite understand, sorry. And, of course, when the very notion of ‘matter’ is brought up, is not this concept controversial in itself? BY LOOKING AT EMOTIONS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS FUNCTIONALLY (HOW THEY WORK AND WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF) IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE HIGH QUALITY WORKING CONCEPTS FOR THESE THINGS. THIS IS WHERE THE FIELD OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS TAKEN US. THEY ARE NOW WORKING ON MACHINES THAT HAVE FUNCTIONAL EMOTIONS. THAT IS NOW CONSIDERED THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A MACHINE THAT HAS ANY FLEXIBLE INTELIGENCE. LOGIC ONLY MAKES VERY DUMB AND INFLEXIBLE MACHINES THAT CAN BE CHESS PLAYING SAVANTS AND DO OTHER SUCH THINGS BUT CANNOT DO MOST BASIC FUNCTIONS THAT HUMANS CAN DO. THESE EMOTIONS ARE CREATED BY LOGICAL CIRCUITS AND PROGRAMS, BUT THEY LOGIC DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO ACT DIRECTLY ON THE WORLD. FOR A MUCH BETTER EXPLANATION TAKE A LOOK AT MARVIN MINSKY'S THE EMOTION MACHINE. HERE IS A LINK: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/Introduction.html “…In this thinking, these habits are ingrained in subatomic particles, which may in fact be complex enough to have simple minds.” – Isp. Are you talking about stuff like charm? DO YOU MEAN CHARMED QUARKS? I DO NOT MEAN THAT. I AM JUST SPECULATING AND TRYING TO DESCRIBE THE WORLD FROM THE POINT OF VIEW THAT MIND IS THE MOST BASIC THING. I AM ALSO SHOWING THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE THE MOST BASIC MATERIAL BUILDING BLOCKS, JUST AS TRYING TO DESCRIBE MIND FROM MATTER IS ALSO CUMBERSOME AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS MAY NEVER YEILD A GOOD WORKING MODEL. “Minds need not be restricted to biological forms, any machine that uses feedback to self-correct, as evolution does, is in fact acting mindfully.” – Isp. For more information on computers and thinking as well as a lot of other mapping, an old friend of mine has a lot of information. http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/ >From that site, you can arrive at: >http://www.macrovu.com/CCTBackgroundOnPrjct.html I'LL TRY TO CHECK OUT THAT SITE LATER ON. “An electron may use a self-correcting feedback mechanism to keep it on its proper course.” – Isp. I thought we were not sure about the very nature of electrons what with the uncertainty principle and such, no? I AM JUST SPECULATING AND ALSO TRYING TO DESCRIBE MATTER IN TERMS OF MIND. IT IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE MATTER, JUST AS MATTER IN PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE MIND. “Mind is everywhere and in the human mind the idea of matter is born.” – Isp. Interesting. In fact, I do appreciate your post overall Isp. I ask questions mainly to learn and probe deeper. I do agree that ‘mind’ is ‘everywhere’. I also find it to be eternal, in everything, and ultimately, one. I ENJOYED YOUR REPLIES AND I HOPE THAT MINE HELP TO MAKE WHAT I AM THINKING OF CLEARER. [should I call you isp or michael?] On Nov 10, 8:22 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 10, 2:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [should I call you isp or michael?] Michael, Mike, Isp, or Isparklaria will do. On Nov 10, 2:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “…So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now…” – Isp. > > Isp, by saying the above (admittedly pulled out of context), do you > not presuppose the position of materialism? > > “In the case of some materialists, consciousness is denied as being > some sort of illusion or explained by untested > incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may > eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been > yet.” – Isp > > The notion of ‘gaps’ arises for about any area of human > conceptualization, no? > > “…The best of these foundations, in my opinion is the idea that mind > exists in matter but is not the same as matter in that mind is about > complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet answered the hard > question of consciousness, but this approach, in conjunction with > materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully about love, > meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by itself, was > not able to speak about in a meaningful way.” – Isp > > Isp, how does this approach “allow scientists to speak meaningfully > about…”? I don’t quite understand, sorry. > And, of course, when the very notion of ‘matter’ is brought up, is not > this concept controversial in itself? > > “…In this thinking, these habits are ingrained in subatomic particles, > which may in fact be complex enough to have simple minds.” – Isp. > > Are you talking about stuff like charm? > > “Minds need not be restricted to biological forms, any machine that > uses feedback to self-correct, as evolution does, is in fact acting > mindfully.” – Isp. > > For more information on computers and thinking as well as a lot of > other mapping, an old friend of mine has a lot of > information.http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/ > From that site, you can arrive > at:http://www.macrovu.com/CCTBackgroundOnPrjct.html > > “An electron may use a self-correcting feedback mechanism to keep it > on its proper course.” – Isp. > > I thought we were not sure about the very nature of electrons what > with the uncertainty principle and such, no? > > “Mind is everywhere and in the human mind the idea of matter is born.” > – Isp. > > Interesting. In fact, I do appreciate your post overall Isp. I ask > questions mainly to learn and probe deeper. I do agree that ‘mind’ is > ‘everywhere’. I also find it to be eternal, in everything, and > ultimately, one. > > [should I call you isp or michael?] > > On Nov 10, 8:22 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The fact that there are some recognized difficulties with materialism > > is evidence that it has some degree of clarity and is somewhat > > scientific. I do not see mind as a problem for materialism; it is now > > possible, and has been for some time to make machines that act > > mindfully. Consciousness is another matter. There is no scientific > > explanation for it at the present. Even if there is something extra > > involved for consciousness to happen, that something need not be > > supernatural. Religious explanations of mind and consciousness are a > > muddled mess and not based on evidence. > > > That ID movement is trying to use the fact that consciousness has not > > been explained, yet, by materialism, presents another problem. This > > might lead the materialists, who dominate in science, to throw out the > > baby (consciousness) out with the bath water (religious explanations > > of natural phenomeneon). This tendency is already there in some > > materialists, the tendency to deny the existence of anything that > > cannot be explained by their model. In fact there are two problems > > that exists among religionists as well as those who adhere too > > strongly to any worldview. The first is to deny the existence of > > anything that doesn’t fit the particular worldview and the second is > > to make an unsound explanation for the phenomenon from the cherished > > worldview. In the case of Fundamentalist Christianity, evolution is > > denied or else the fossils evidence is explained by theories such as > > Satan trying to trick mankind or God creating a world that has the > > appearance of a past. In the case of some materialists, consciousness > > is denied as being some sort of illusion or explained by untested > > incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may > > eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been > > yet. So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now. However, the fact > > that consciouness cannot yet be explained by materialism is in no way > > positive evidence of intelligent design. It is merely evidence of a > > possible and in my opinion likely limit of materialism. > > > There are other philosophical assumptions that can be made about the > > world that are not materialism and invoke nothing supernatural that > > might lead to a better scientific understanding of many phenomenon, > > such as consciousness, that are not yet answered by a science founded > > on strict materialism. The best of these foundations, in my opinion is > > the idea that mind exists in matter but is not the same as matter in > > that mind is about complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet > > answered the hard question of consciousness, but this approach, in > > conjunction with materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully > > about love, meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by > > itself, was not able to speak about in a meaningful way. > > > By the way, the materialist laws of nature are evidence for ID though > > very far from proof positive. However the sort of designer they might > > indicate is not at all like the God of the Fundamentalist Christians. > > It is also unlikely that materialists would deny the existence of > > these laws, which may in fact only be habits of a universe, which > > requires no creator god. In this thinking, these habits are ingrained > > in subatomic particles, which may in fact be complex enough to have > > simple minds. The universe is then filled with simple minds and > > complex minds, which arise from the interaction of simple minds. Minds > > need not be restricted to biological forms, any machine that uses > > feedback to self-correct, as evolution does, is in fact acting > > mindfully. An electron may use a self-correcting feedback mechanism to > > keep it on its proper course. Mind is everywhere and in the human mind > > the idea of matter is born. > > > On Nov 10, 12:41 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If neruoscience and philosophy of mind cannot agree what the "mind" > > > is, or the question of how does consciouness arise, does that mean > > > there is a God? Specifically, does that mean there is the traditional > > > monotheistic God whose attributes are Omnipotence (all powerful), > > > Omniscience (all knowing), and Omnibenvolent (all loving)? Is it > > > "supernatural"? Something else? Or, is this just an arguement from > > > ignorance? > > > > WHAT SAYS YOU? > > > > stemcell > > > > On Nov 9, 11:13 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-decla... > > > > On Nov 9, 11:11 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Another > > > > tidbit from New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/> > > > > mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html WHAT SAYS> > > > > YOU?stemcellOn Nov 9, 10:45 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > > wrote:> The Intelligent Design folks are attacking the mind/brain> > > > > issue now> that their fight over getting "equal time" in public> > > > > shhools has> proved futile. (Fpr a great background on this see> > > > > "Creationism's> Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intellignet Design" by Dr.> > > > > Barbara> Forrest. www.creationismstrojanhorse.com) In keeping to > > > > the> plans> outlined by the "wedge document", they are trying to> > > > > "overthrow> materialism". In their own words. "The Discovery> > > > > Institute for the> Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less> > > > > than the overthrow> of materialism and it's cultural legacies."> >> > > > > fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the-problem-of-consciousness-meets->> > > > > intelligent-design.html> >http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the- > > > > problem-of-consciousness-m...>> > > > > > - Hide quoted text -> > - > > > > Show quoted text -> > > WHAT SAYS YOU?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
