Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[smcder]

So that if we don't perceive reality as is how can we trust a theory that says we don't perceive R as it is? If it's true, then we can't trust the perceptions that lead to it.

Not sure how to articulate it but it feels like you're kind of theory like other ideas you've liked in the past.

 

[Soupie]

So that if we don't perceive reality as is how can we trust a theory that says we don't perceive R as it is? If it's true, then we can't trust the perceptions that lead to it.

Not sure how to articulate it but it feels like you're kind of theory like other ideas you've liked in the past.

We aren't just limited to perceptual ways of "knowing" reality. (Nor affectual.) We have mathematical and conceptual ways as well. Thankfully.

If the brain is an adaptive kludge, then it follows that the perceptions it produces are an adaptive kludge.

But, correct, we can't trust the "perceptions" that lead to it, but I don't think it's perceptions that lead to the theory of critical realism, it's "conceptions." (Yes, conceptions that are based on perceptions.)

And of course, our current understanding/models of what-is are most certainly incorrect. The hp is just one indicator of that. The inability to unite QM and classical physics is another indicator.

We are missing large pieces of the puzzle for sure.

Whatever else CR might mean, to me it explains why searching for physical mechanisms that cause consciousness is a red herring. The features of the physical world are in actuality features of our perceptual system. Consciousness doesn't supervene on the features of our perceptual system, it supervenes on processes that occur on a level below the features of the perceptual system.

 

[smcder]

We aren't just limited to perceptual ways of "knowing" reality. (Nor affectual.) We have mathematical and conceptual ways as well. Thankfully.

If the brain is an adaptive kludge, then it follows that the perceptions it produces are an adaptive kludge.

But, correct, we can't trust the "perceptions" that lead to it, but I don't think it's perceptions that lead to the theory of critical realism, it's "conceptions." (Yes, conceptions that are based on perceptions.)

And of course, our current understanding/models of what-is are most certainly incorrect. The hp is just one indicator of that. The inability to unite QM and classical physics is another indicator.

We are missing large pieces of the puzzle for sure.

Whatever else CR might mean, to me it explains why searching for physical mechanisms that cause consciousness is a red herring. The features of the physical world are in actuality features of our perceptual system. Consciousness doesn't supervene on the features of our perceptual system, it supervenes on processes that occur on a level below the features of the perceptual system.

That last bit is Kant. See I told you learning a little philosophy would help!

 

[smcder]

We aren't just limited to perceptual ways of "knowing" reality. (Nor affectual.) We have mathematical and conceptual ways as well. Thankfully.

If the brain is an adaptive kludge, then it follows that the perceptions it produces are an adaptive kludge.

But, correct, we can't trust the "perceptions" that lead to it, but I don't think it's perceptions that lead to the theory of critical realism, it's "conceptions." (Yes, conceptions that are based on perceptions.)

And of course, our current understanding/models of what-is are most certainly incorrect. The hp is just one indicator of that. The inability to unite QM and classical physics is another indicator.

We are missing large pieces of the puzzle for sure.

Whatever else CR might mean, to me it explains why searching for physical mechanisms that cause consciousness is a red herring. The features of the physical world are in actuality features of our perceptual system. Consciousness doesn't supervene on the features of our perceptual system, it supervenes on processes that occur on a level below the features of the perceptual system.

You assume that what is is scrutable but there's no law that says reality is intelligible.

 

[smcder]

We don't see an "inability" to know why there's something and not nothing as evidence that there's something wrong with our abilities. Similarly the HP and some problems in physics may simply be brute facts. We accept matter and energy and time and space as fundamental.

 

[smcder]

Or there may be limits to the kinds of minds that can exist. If intelligence is substrate dependent then it could be there's a limit to how smart any possible brain can be. This doesn't mean what we see isn't real.

Even a squirrel knows about acorns. (and knows stuff about acorns we don't! Right, Mary?)

 

[Soupie]

You assume that what is is scrutable but there's no law that says reality is intelligible.

No, I'm actually arguing that it may not be scrutable. That our perceptions of what-is are adaptive approximations, not veridical.

 

[smcder]

No, I'm actually arguing that it may not be scrutable. That our perceptions of what-is are adaptive approximations, not veridical.

Not exactly what I'm saying.

Let me try another approach:



WRONG!

 

[smcder]

"And of course, our current understanding/models of what-is are most certainly incorrect. The hp is just one indicator of that. The inability to unite QM and classical physics is another indicator."

These would not be indicators.

"We are missing large pieces of the puzzle for sure."

There wouldn't be more pieces ... Just a puzzle. See my new book:

"No Pieces, Just a Puzzle" - writing under the pen name Stefan Betruger.

 

[Soupie]

Are best mathematical models of what-is capture it via a mathematical wave function.

Our best conceptual models of what-is say it's a stochastic, evolving, field of fields.

Are next best models involve point particles, which should not be conceived of as billiard balls but which invariably are.

In the we have the "models" produced by our vary own perceptual system which includes features such as color, texture, smell, sound, taste, etc.

All of those models are contained within consciousness.

 

[smcder]

Are best mathematical models of what-is capture it via a mathematical wave function.

Our best conceptual models of what-is say it's a stochastic, evolving, field of fields.

Are next best models involve point particles, which should not be conceived of as billiard balls but which invariably are.

In the we have the "models" produced by our vary own perceptual system which includes features such as color, texture, smell, sound, taste, etc.

All of those models are contained within consciousness.

More philosophy by proclamation!

Tell me what a wave function is.

 

[smcder]

A mathematical wave function.

 

[Soupie]

A mathematical wave function.

See the end half of this post in a different threadical.

The UFO Stimulus

 

[smcder]

See the end half of this post in a different threadical.

The UFO Stimulus

I dont want a wall of txt I want your words off the top of your head. If you don't have that level of command of the concepts you shouldn't use it in a post. I'm very cautious about the lay invocation of QM.

 

[Soupie]

The wave function is a mathematical formula calculating the probability of future measurements based off of current measurements.

 

[Soupie]

I could be convinced that brains evolve against/in response to consciousness according to the needs of the organism the way that muscle and bone does gravity.... Which means there might be far more to be done with cs than that which merely meets the organisms needs

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

"Of course, such a simple maturational perspective on readiness fails to take into account the
process of development itself. Self-regulation is developing from infancy onward and shaped by
the context in which development is occurring. Variation in self-regulation is present in individual
characteristics and in contextual factors as well as in in the interaction between them (Blair 2014).
At the genetic level (see Figure 1) are individual differences in genes that code for the sensitivity
of neural receptors to catecholamines and glucocorticoids. Variation at this level will influence
physiological, emotional, attentional, and executive control responses to stimulation; individual
differences at each of these levels feed forward to influence activity at higher levels. Increased
emotional reactivity influences the demand on the control of attention, and the control of attention
influences the demand on executive functions. Activity at each level, however, also feeds back
on the level below. Executive functions can help to focus attention, and through attention enable
the regulation of emotion and stress physiology. Through stress physiology, the feedback system
extends to the genetic level to influence gene expression (Meaney 2010, van IJzendoorn et al.
2011)."

 

[smcder]

The wave function is a mathematical formula calculating the probability of future measurements based off of current measurements.

"A wave function in quantum mechanics is a description of the quantum state of a system. The wave function is a complex-valuedprobability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi).

The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state."

 

[smcder]

"Of course, such a simple maturational perspective on readiness fails to take into account the
process of development itself. Self-regulation is developing from infancy onward and shaped by
the context in which development is occurring. Variation in self-regulation is present in individual
characteristics and in contextual factors as well as in in the interaction between them (Blair 2014).
At the genetic level (see Figure 1) are individual differences in genes that code for the sensitivity
of neural receptors to catecholamines and glucocorticoids. Variation at this level will influence
physiological, emotional, attentional, and executive control responses to stimulation; individual
differences at each of these levels feed forward to influence activity at higher levels. Increased
emotional reactivity influences the demand on the control of attention, and the control of attention
influences the demand on executive functions. Activity at each level, however, also feeds back
on the level below. Executive functions can help to focus attention, and through attention enable
the regulation of emotion and stress physiology. Through stress physiology, the feedback system
extends to the genetic level to influence gene expression (Meaney 2010, van IJzendoorn et al.
2011)."

 

[Soupie]

"A wave function in quantum mechanics is a description of the quantum state of a system. The wave function is a complex-valuedprobability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi).

The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state."

Ok?

And this is interesting:

Wave function collapse - Wikipedia

 

[Soupie]

"A wave function in quantum mechanics is a description of the quantum state of a system. The wave function is a complex-valuedprobability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi).

The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state."

So in your opinion does this tradict or contradict critical realism?

Our perception of reality is an approximation of the quantum state of a system.

Why see a cloud of vibrating point particles when seeing a red wheel barrow takes less energy?