S
smcder
Guest
That is funny!
At every turn, I ask myself:
WWBLP What would Bruce Lee post?
bonus points
What would happen if Bruce Lee met the Buddha on the road?
What would happen if Chuck Norris met the Buddha on the road?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 5
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
That is funny!
At every turn, I ask myself:
WWBLP What would Bruce Lee post?
bonus points
What would happen if Bruce Lee met the Buddha on the road?
What would happen if Chuck Norris met the Buddha on the road?
S
smcder
Guest
What does he get wrong?
In recent years, a number of scientists and philosophers have suggested that the psychological and neural sciences provide support for, and are committed to, reductive physicalism – the view that all aspects of the mental are best explained by the physical processes of the brain.
reductive physicalism
A doctrine stating that everything in the world can be reduced down to its fundamental physical, or material, basis.
S
smcder
Guest
http://tonyjack.org/files/2013 Jack A scientific case for conceptual dualism (1).pdf
smcder sounds familiar
my view is that our social cognitive machinery creates a virtual world of experiences and persons which we imbue with meaning
From the impersonal pov of the physical stance, this virtual world only exists as a figment of our imagination, and its coherence between individuals is only partial.
To us, on the other hand, this virtual world is often more ‘real’, in the sense of being genuinely important and meaningful, than anything else.
The only way to explore this virtual world is to adopt the phenomenal stance, for example using the first and second person approaches initially developed by the Introspectionists (Jack and Roepstorff,2002). We can’t properly explore this world using objective measures, because when we come to interpret the data using either the physical or the intentional stance the very act of scientific interpretation moves us away from providing a description of experience, and blinds us to its nuances11
contra Dennett’s heterophenomological approach, objective measures cannot directly speak to the world of experience, and gainsay our introspective enquiries. Similarly, introspective enquires fail to provide direct evidence concerning the mechanical structure of the mind
No account of our neural workings will ever tell us what it is like to be in love or see red. But they can tell us what is happening in someone that makes them have the experience of being in love or seeing red. If we want to offer such enlightening scientific accounts, we must not only develop our accounts of mechanism but also more nuanced accounts of experience. For instance, “being in love” is surely too broad and crude a description of experience to find traction with a sophisticated scientific account of the processes involved inhuman romantic attachment.
*There is simply no substitute for introspective methods for improving our accounts of experiential phenomena, yet systematic explorations (e.g. Hurlburt etal., 1994) are extremely rare.
smcder everybody's talking about introspection - but ain't nobody doin' it!
Without making use of these methods, our understanding ofexperience will be too crude to be worthy of our scientific efforts, and the scientific accounts we generate won’t be able to indirectly inform the alternate non-physical reality that we can only directly perceive through the phenomenal stance: a world constituted by irreducible persons, experiences and moral truths. Some psychologists have vehemently resisted the rise of cognitive neuroscience, arguing the workings of the brain are irrelevant to understanding the mind. These authors have sought to privilege a conceptual framework which emerges from the intentional stance over one that derives from the physical stance. I have often felt embarrassed (28) on behalf of these authors. They fail to realize that their writings are little more than manifestos which promulgate their prejudiced belief in a highly limited conception of the mind
We can make actual progress by carefully establishing convergence between subjective measures which speak to experience and objective measures which speak to mechanism (Jack & Shallice, 2001).12 The error here is analogous to imagining that the structure of the filing system apparent from your computer’suser interface is informative about how your files are physically encoded on the hard drive, and vice versa. Just as with experiential and physical perspectives on the mind, the two can be related, but it takes a lot of work to make the link. Is the filing structure you know from everyday experience ‘real’? In one sense no, in another it is much more real and certainly more useful than knowledge of the physical encoding.
28 embarrassment seems an appropriate emotion, since this prejudice has been in the minority andcontinues to erode. However, there is another prejudice which still remains in the majority. In scientific psychology, there remains a strong inclination to dismiss an experiential perspective on the mind, acquired through introspective methods. This dismissal of the insights that psychology can glean from the phenomenal stance is a more troubling concern. Like other prejudices whose effect is to demean or ignore the humanity of others, the emotion it triggers in those who recognize it is not embarrassment but outrage (Jack, in press). I have written about this issue, and how we might resolve it, in the past (Jack and Shallice, 2001, Jack and Roepstorff, 2002, 2003,Jack, 2011). However, I have come to understand that the main barrier to progress has been that most psychologists, and some philosophers, simply have not seen the problem (Greene, 2011). I hope this essay helps to make it more apparent13.
smcder sounds familiar
my view is that our social cognitive machinery creates a virtual world of experiences and persons which we imbue with meaning
From the impersonal pov of the physical stance, this virtual world only exists as a figment of our imagination, and its coherence between individuals is only partial.
To us, on the other hand, this virtual world is often more ‘real’, in the sense of being genuinely important and meaningful, than anything else.
The only way to explore this virtual world is to adopt the phenomenal stance, for example using the first and second person approaches initially developed by the Introspectionists (Jack and Roepstorff,2002). We can’t properly explore this world using objective measures, because when we come to interpret the data using either the physical or the intentional stance the very act of scientific interpretation moves us away from providing a description of experience, and blinds us to its nuances11
contra Dennett’s heterophenomological approach, objective measures cannot directly speak to the world of experience, and gainsay our introspective enquiries. Similarly, introspective enquires fail to provide direct evidence concerning the mechanical structure of the mind
- these two incommensurable perspectives can be partially reconciled by adopting a more removed perspective that bridges between the personal world of experience and the impersonal world of mechanism.
No account of our neural workings will ever tell us what it is like to be in love or see red. But they can tell us what is happening in someone that makes them have the experience of being in love or seeing red. If we want to offer such enlightening scientific accounts, we must not only develop our accounts of mechanism but also more nuanced accounts of experience. For instance, “being in love” is surely too broad and crude a description of experience to find traction with a sophisticated scientific account of the processes involved inhuman romantic attachment.
*There is simply no substitute for introspective methods for improving our accounts of experiential phenomena, yet systematic explorations (e.g. Hurlburt etal., 1994) are extremely rare.
smcder everybody's talking about introspection - but ain't nobody doin' it!
Without making use of these methods, our understanding ofexperience will be too crude to be worthy of our scientific efforts, and the scientific accounts we generate won’t be able to indirectly inform the alternate non-physical reality that we can only directly perceive through the phenomenal stance: a world constituted by irreducible persons, experiences and moral truths. Some psychologists have vehemently resisted the rise of cognitive neuroscience, arguing the workings of the brain are irrelevant to understanding the mind. These authors have sought to privilege a conceptual framework which emerges from the intentional stance over one that derives from the physical stance. I have often felt embarrassed (28) on behalf of these authors. They fail to realize that their writings are little more than manifestos which promulgate their prejudiced belief in a highly limited conception of the mind
- the history of failed equations between objective measures and subjective states is long and has generated much controversy.
- I suggest the solution is to concede that the notion of an ‘objective measure of awareness’ is an oxymoron.
We can make actual progress by carefully establishing convergence between subjective measures which speak to experience and objective measures which speak to mechanism (Jack & Shallice, 2001).12 The error here is analogous to imagining that the structure of the filing system apparent from your computer’suser interface is informative about how your files are physically encoded on the hard drive, and vice versa. Just as with experiential and physical perspectives on the mind, the two can be related, but it takes a lot of work to make the link. Is the filing structure you know from everyday experience ‘real’? In one sense no, in another it is much more real and certainly more useful than knowledge of the physical encoding.
28 embarrassment seems an appropriate emotion, since this prejudice has been in the minority andcontinues to erode. However, there is another prejudice which still remains in the majority. In scientific psychology, there remains a strong inclination to dismiss an experiential perspective on the mind, acquired through introspective methods. This dismissal of the insights that psychology can glean from the phenomenal stance is a more troubling concern. Like other prejudices whose effect is to demean or ignore the humanity of others, the emotion it triggers in those who recognize it is not embarrassment but outrage (Jack, in press). I have written about this issue, and how we might resolve it, in the past (Jack and Shallice, 2001, Jack and Roepstorff, 2002, 2003,Jack, 2011). However, I have come to understand that the main barrier to progress has been that most psychologists, and some philosophers, simply have not seen the problem (Greene, 2011). I hope this essay helps to make it more apparent13.
S
smcder
Guest
Here is his statement, which is qualified:
In recent years, a number of scientists and philosophers have suggested that the psychological and neural sciences provide support for, and are committed to, reductive physicalism – the view that all aspects of the mental are best explained by the physical processes of the brain.
Within the limits of those qualifications and the context of the paper, what is it that he gets wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
An interesting paper; glad you found and posted it. Love this quotation from Leibniz on the first page:
"Moreover, we must confess that the perception, and that which depends on it, is inexplicable in terms of mechanical reasons, that is, through shapes and motions. If we imagine that there is a machine whose structure makes it think, sense, and have perceptions, we could conceive it enlarged, keeping the same proportions, so that we could enter into it, as one enters into a mill. Assuming that, when inspecting its interior, we will only find parts that push one another, and we will never find anything to explain a perception. (Leibniz, 1714)"
. . . especially this phrase: "perception, and that which depends on it."
That which depends on perception is, of course, be-ing -- including the be-ing of the physical world of nature -- as first experienced and subsequently cognized once life and consciousness become present in the world to accomplish this understanding of the resulting nature of 'reality'. The object-oriented school of recent philosophical vintage will deny that the world's being is raised to the level of understanding, even if only in the temporal existence of conscious beings here or anywhere in the universe. What do you think?
Also, do you think that being as we experience it in ourselves and recognize it in physical nature is a 'virtual being'? Has AI Jack read enough phenomenological philosophy to understand the import of the question? I'll read the paper in an attempt to find out.
Last edited:
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
I think the paper looks interesting as well. Sigh. I've got such a queue of papers to read! A good problem to have tho.
I like this quote as well. I was unfamiliar with the mind-body/Hard problem when I first entered this discussion.
I saw the following short video yesterday and thought of the Hard Problem. No matter how advanced our technologies become, we will never look inside someone's brain and see their consciousness.
reddit: the front page of the internet
Kinesin (a motor protein) pulling a vesicle along cytoskeletal filament.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0754638588/?tag=rockoids-20
Being As Communion: A Metaphysics of Information
"For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things. If this is so, then the problem of being receives a straightforward resolution: to be is to be in communion. So the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to underwrite all other sciences, is a theory of communication. Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated particles but the information that passes between entities. In Being as Communion philosopher and mathematician William Dembski provides a non-technical overview of his work on information. Dembski attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, and others that information is poised to replace matter as the primary stuff of reality. With profound implications for theology and metaphysics, Being as Communion develops a relational ontology that is at once congenial to science and open to teleology in nature. All those interested in the intersections of theology, philosophy and science should read this book."
Dembski is a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Being As Communion: A Metaphysics of Information
"For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things. If this is so, then the problem of being receives a straightforward resolution: to be is to be in communion. So the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to underwrite all other sciences, is a theory of communication. Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated particles but the information that passes between entities. In Being as Communion philosopher and mathematician William Dembski provides a non-technical overview of his work on information. Dembski attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, and others that information is poised to replace matter as the primary stuff of reality. With profound implications for theology and metaphysics, Being as Communion develops a relational ontology that is at once congenial to science and open to teleology in nature. All those interested in the intersections of theology, philosophy and science should read this book."
Dembski is a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
I just had an interesting exchange with the author of Einstein's Intuition, Thad Roberts.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0996394214/?tag=rockoids-20
"Presented in clear and accessible language with wonderfully supportive graphics, Roberts offers the reader a voyage through the stages of human knowledge. He then examines the outstanding mysteries of modern physics, the phenomena that lie outside the boarders of our current understanding (dark energy, dark matter, the Big Bang, wave-particle duality, quantum tunneling, state vector reduction, etc.) and suggests that the next step in our intellectual journey is to treat the vacuum of space as a superfluid—modeling it as being composed of interactive quanta, which, in a self-similar way, are composed of subquanta, and so on. With this proposition Roberts imbues the vacuum with fractal geometry, and opens the door to explaining the outstanding mysteries of physics geometrically. Roberts’ model, called quantum space theory, has been praised for how it offers an intuitively accessible picture of eleven dimensions and for powerfully extending the insight of general relativity, eloquently translating the four forces into unique kinds of geometric distortions, while offering us access to the underlying deterministic dynamics that give rise to quantum mechanics. That remarkably simple picture explains the mysteries of modern physics is a way that is fully commensurate with Einstein’s Intuition. It is a refreshingly unique perspective that generates several testable predictions."
I asked him if quantum space theory (superfluid vacuum) suggested an approach to the Mind-Body problem. Here is his answer:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0996394214/?tag=rockoids-20
"Presented in clear and accessible language with wonderfully supportive graphics, Roberts offers the reader a voyage through the stages of human knowledge. He then examines the outstanding mysteries of modern physics, the phenomena that lie outside the boarders of our current understanding (dark energy, dark matter, the Big Bang, wave-particle duality, quantum tunneling, state vector reduction, etc.) and suggests that the next step in our intellectual journey is to treat the vacuum of space as a superfluid—modeling it as being composed of interactive quanta, which, in a self-similar way, are composed of subquanta, and so on. With this proposition Roberts imbues the vacuum with fractal geometry, and opens the door to explaining the outstanding mysteries of physics geometrically. Roberts’ model, called quantum space theory, has been praised for how it offers an intuitively accessible picture of eleven dimensions and for powerfully extending the insight of general relativity, eloquently translating the four forces into unique kinds of geometric distortions, while offering us access to the underlying deterministic dynamics that give rise to quantum mechanics. That remarkably simple picture explains the mysteries of modern physics is a way that is fully commensurate with Einstein’s Intuition. It is a refreshingly unique perspective that generates several testable predictions."
I asked him if quantum space theory (superfluid vacuum) suggested an approach to the Mind-Body problem. Here is his answer:
I was going to read the book anyhow because I like the theory, but since he delves into Phil of Mind, I went ahead and got the iBooks version.
Last edited:
Pharoah
Paranormal Adept
Nice one soupie! Be interesting to hear what you have to say about the book when you have looked it over.
Soupie
Paranormal Adept
A Google search for Hierarchical Monism led to this article:
The Evolution of Agency
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00025317.pdf
This would appear to be a must read for you @Pharoah.
The Evolution of Agency
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00025317.pdf
This would appear to be a must read for you @Pharoah.
Yes, the Chad Roberts book sounds fascinating. Here are the reviewer comments quoted at amazon:
Review
1."Interweaving personal anecdotes and contemplations on theoretical physics, Thad Roberts takes the reader on a rambunctious adventure as he explores the development of new physics. It’s a captivating read.”" Garrett Lisi, Ph.D. Director of the Pacific Science Institute Surfer & Physicist, E8 theory
2."Thad Roberts has taken the cutting edge of science out of the dark caverns reserved for mathematical geniuses, and put it back on the street. This book will change the way we see the universe, ourselves as individuals, and society as a whole.”" Richard Hitchings
3.“"Presented in clear and accessible language with wonderfully supportive graphics, this book offers the lay reader a voyage through the infinitely small and the macroscopically large. Thad’s geometric postulation enables derivation of hypothesizes that will drive the next generation of experimentation in search of empirical verification. By bringing the lay reader to the forefront of theoretical physics, Einstein’s Intuition is indeed a rare gift.”" Philip Emmi, Ph.D.
4."When I explored Thad’s quantum space theory I was amazed to see that it truly offered an understandable way to visualize his proposed model, which, if proven, eliminates the current discontinuity between our fundamental theories. More importantly it defines a grander vision of reality from which our universe naturally arises and evolves, and provides explanations for the great mysteries that currently lie beyond our reach. Furthermore, unlike string theory, qst offers testable predictions. I recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the grand scope of reality.”" Wayne Eskridge
5."Philosophically intriguing, visually stimulating, and best of all a joy to read.”" Marie Green, Ph.D.
6."This book stirs new hope that the innermost workings of our universe can be thoroughly knowable. It offers a perspective that has the potential to rock the entire physics community, unlocking secrets that could bring forth radical improvement to our daily lives, and establishing Thad Roberts among the rarest of genius.”" Chris Tuason
7.“"With carefully chosen and precisely assembled prose, Roberts opens the door to the next age of human perception by proposing a theory of everything that offers real, intuitive explanations for gravity, dark energy, dark matter, quantum tunneling, entanglement, black holes, the Big Bang, and more.”" Craig Joiner
8."'Einstein’'s Intuition' will open your eyes and expand your mind to the wonders of the universe. Thad shares his life, his love and his mind, and pours them all into his writing.”" Paul Brennan
9."Incredibly lucid. This book made it easy for me to understand scientific ideas I have been coping with all my life. Roberts' thinking is so vivid and so accessible, that you cannot help but conclude that he has almost certainly uncovered truths about the universe that most of us have never dreamed of.”" Bruce Penney
10."Thad’s quantum space theory is a natural idea and has as much to offer the next big leap in our global understanding of who we are and our place in the universe as the idea of the atom did for explaining chemicals and DNA. This work is mathematically beautiful and scientifically priceless, and the kicker is that it comes with a vivid and satisfying picture.”" Chris J. Wilshaw"
It's encouraging that Garrett Lisi finds it promising. {Have y'all seen his magnificent diagrams?} I wonder if Rovelli was asked for a review. I think he will find this book interesting. What do you think, @Pharoah?
I too look forward to your comments while and after reading it, @Soupie.
Review
1."Interweaving personal anecdotes and contemplations on theoretical physics, Thad Roberts takes the reader on a rambunctious adventure as he explores the development of new physics. It’s a captivating read.”" Garrett Lisi, Ph.D. Director of the Pacific Science Institute Surfer & Physicist, E8 theory
2."Thad Roberts has taken the cutting edge of science out of the dark caverns reserved for mathematical geniuses, and put it back on the street. This book will change the way we see the universe, ourselves as individuals, and society as a whole.”" Richard Hitchings
3.“"Presented in clear and accessible language with wonderfully supportive graphics, this book offers the lay reader a voyage through the infinitely small and the macroscopically large. Thad’s geometric postulation enables derivation of hypothesizes that will drive the next generation of experimentation in search of empirical verification. By bringing the lay reader to the forefront of theoretical physics, Einstein’s Intuition is indeed a rare gift.”" Philip Emmi, Ph.D.
4."When I explored Thad’s quantum space theory I was amazed to see that it truly offered an understandable way to visualize his proposed model, which, if proven, eliminates the current discontinuity between our fundamental theories. More importantly it defines a grander vision of reality from which our universe naturally arises and evolves, and provides explanations for the great mysteries that currently lie beyond our reach. Furthermore, unlike string theory, qst offers testable predictions. I recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the grand scope of reality.”" Wayne Eskridge
5."Philosophically intriguing, visually stimulating, and best of all a joy to read.”" Marie Green, Ph.D.
6."This book stirs new hope that the innermost workings of our universe can be thoroughly knowable. It offers a perspective that has the potential to rock the entire physics community, unlocking secrets that could bring forth radical improvement to our daily lives, and establishing Thad Roberts among the rarest of genius.”" Chris Tuason
7.“"With carefully chosen and precisely assembled prose, Roberts opens the door to the next age of human perception by proposing a theory of everything that offers real, intuitive explanations for gravity, dark energy, dark matter, quantum tunneling, entanglement, black holes, the Big Bang, and more.”" Craig Joiner
8."'Einstein’'s Intuition' will open your eyes and expand your mind to the wonders of the universe. Thad shares his life, his love and his mind, and pours them all into his writing.”" Paul Brennan
9."Incredibly lucid. This book made it easy for me to understand scientific ideas I have been coping with all my life. Roberts' thinking is so vivid and so accessible, that you cannot help but conclude that he has almost certainly uncovered truths about the universe that most of us have never dreamed of.”" Bruce Penney
10."Thad’s quantum space theory is a natural idea and has as much to offer the next big leap in our global understanding of who we are and our place in the universe as the idea of the atom did for explaining chemicals and DNA. This work is mathematically beautiful and scientifically priceless, and the kicker is that it comes with a vivid and satisfying picture.”" Chris J. Wilshaw"
It's encouraging that Garrett Lisi finds it promising. {Have y'all seen his magnificent diagrams?} I wonder if Rovelli was asked for a review. I think he will find this book interesting. What do you think, @Pharoah?
I too look forward to your comments while and after reading it, @Soupie.
Pharoah
Paranormal Adept
How exciting. Kim Sterlny, its aulthor, was the editor of B&P who suggested I submit to PQ or Nous
Big bibliography with links of papers on animal consciousness:
MindPapers: 8.4b. Animal Consciousness
MindPapers: 8.4b. Animal Consciousness
S
smcder
Guest
Hats off to Chalmers for pulling MindPapers together.
S
smcder
Guest
What AI Jack (Anthony I Jack) is getting at in his talk is that we have two networks in the brain, the analytic and the empathic. The one sees matter and understands it, the other sees minds and understands them. He says the explanatory gap is in our heads - literally - because when one network fires up - the other dampens down, so he argues we won't be able to merge these two views and close the gap.
He claims his studies support the idea of these two networks and his experimental work confirms what he says about the networks not being able to work together.
The first question after his talk is to ask him to compare his theory with McGilchrist and he says for McGilchrist the gap is out there, in nature, for him it is in our brains, in the gap between the two networks.
@Constance you ask:
1. The object-oriented school of recent philosophical vintage will deny that the world's being is raised to the level of understanding, even if only in the temporal existence of conscious beings here or anywhere in the universe. What do you think?
The way I understand OOO is that everything is an object and no object has a privileged status - our relationship to other objects is no more important or special than any other object interaction - and that they wanted to get back to a world beyond man and his perceptions - and away from our idea that we are only relating to a construction in our heads, not the world as it is.
To me, it seems right that we look at the world beyond us spatially and temporally and ourselves in it - and that we should question the idea that we are only relating to a model in our heads, to me it doesn't seem like that would work - there has to be an out there, out there that we respond to - the mind is externalized in that sense, but it also makes sense that we don't see or know everything of course, although I don't think we only see what is strictly necessary to our survival based on our genes and evolutionary history - we are capable of noticing new things and doing novel things and we aren't the only species, this may well be a characteristic of life itself - that's where I questioned @Pharoah's division of individuated responses.
2. Also, do you think that being as we experience it in ourselves and recognize it in physical nature is a 'virtual being'? Has AI Jack read enough phenomenological philosophy to understand the import of the question? I'll read the paper in an attempt to find out
You may well know more about Anthony Jack by now than I do! I'm not sure what "virtual being" is or how it could have meaning without there being a real being?
S
smcder
Guest
I remember now that Thad Roberts has been brought up on the thread before:, did a search and found these references:
Consciousness and the Paranormal
Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 3
S
smcder
Guest
Roberts seems pretty sketchy ... he doesn't come out well on Quora.com or physics stack exchange, I also did various searches with his name and phrases about legitimacy, scientific standing, how viewed, publications, etc.
You all we want to do your own research - and of course read his materials, but it looks like there are some red flags.
Fair Coin Toss blog
faircointoss.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/thad/
Thad
You all we want to do your own research - and of course read his materials, but it looks like there are some red flags.
Fair Coin Toss blog
faircointoss.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/thad/
Thad
- Status