Jump to content

Luc Turpin

Senior Members
  • Posts

    361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Luc Turpin

  1. 1- Then this is not my defintion of pop-science. 2- Because the new one fit better with the evidence; it extends our knowledge. brain producing mind or brain as a transducer is very similar with only subtle data making the difference. Brain as a transducer is not being taken seriously because of bias and different worldview. Note: not saying that brain is a transducer, but the pathway to it being recognized is not the same as any other theory fiting the worldview
  2. That is exactly what I was implying. It felt as if I was going nowhere with the discussion. No stawman argument nor temper tantum needed. Pop-science in not Michio Kaku, nor Star treck, but science studies that are made available for public viewing. That sounds reasonable. Hope that all new results are treated in the same way. This is not the interpretation of others. If I am reading the second sentence correctly, I am not implying anything; surely not that current subatomic models are getting it wrong. General - I do not even come close to Swansont, Phi for all or CharonY when it comes to the minutia of science. I am a generalist overlooking up high the entire field of science and just maybe-maybe seeing things from my vantage point that others might miss. No grand theory of everything, but tidbits that may make a difference. One can take some of it and consider it or just ignore it. But, I insist in repeating that bias is more of a problem than what is implied. Bias is pernicious; it works at the sub-conscious level.
  3. I reiterate, you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias nor worldview involved in science. Continue on.
  4. Then you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias in science.
  5. Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up. Science as in evidence versus the scientific community as in scientists interpreting the meaning of the evidence Classical physics was replaced by quantum physics not because it was wrong, but because it was insufficient at describing the subatomic world. I am not the one saying that evolutionary biology needs to change, Denis Noble is. As for the mind-brain model, I am not saying that the current model is wrong, but incomplete. One should stop saying that I want to overthrow all of science. This is not the case. But I am also saying that a mental predisposition to a certain worldview is skewing up the way we interpret evidence. I would be very surprised that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this So if the conversation that we are having would not have occurred, would you be acknowledging that the larger context is missing or that you would be aware of the undertone that prevails? We are not as objective as we would like to think we are and the world surrounding us might not even be as objective as we think it is. The only thing that I am trying to say here is that we all forget out of habit that we carry a lot of baggage with us when we do and interpret science. Affirming that science is pure, is fooling ourselves.
  6. In the scientific literature that I read, there is a strong nature undertone. So, not only in popular science. The Dawkins impact on mainstream biology could have been rather muted, but his impact on the science community as whole was significant.
  7. I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time. It is easy to acknowledge the fatality of it all, but when it comes to having at least a bit of regognition of our control over our lifetime destiny, then the talk is less forthcoming. I stongly disagree that Dawkins did not have a significant impact on the scientific community as a whole. It reinforced already prevalent assumptions. Science is shifting rapidly; the scientific community appears to not always be following the current. Models need not be proven wrong to be replaced; better models need only to be found.
  8. That our worldview is not adapting to evidence. We acknowledge that there is change in knowledge, but remain mostly silent on what the implications are for how we live out our lives. Science has real world implications. Dawkins had a sizable impact on western society. And we now find out that science has possibly passed him by, but we still do not make the course correction in our headspaces. You should know me better by now; I have no such pretention. And if I was, you would be right in trivially denying me! No surprise here! I am a mediocre chess player.
  9. Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this. The "major" part of your contention is being questioned by recent evidence. It see more an "interplay" in the litterature. Why bring this up when no one as I know it is doing so.
  10. An interview with Denis Noble. “I think that things must come up to date in evolutionary biology” “Organisms can actually use the chance and using it all the time” “It (the immune system) goes to the nucleus and says please stop the error correction and allow the breaks to occur and then we will select out of those the very few that can grab hold of the virus. I am saying that this is general. It happens in bacteria when they resist antibiotics. It happens in cancers.” “They (cancer cells) hyper-mutate; they use chance to get novelty” “If you can bring this stochastic process under some kind of control, use and do the selection….” Talking about Dawkins “I don’t think the great majority of research biologists are any longer going down that path in the way in which he laid it out. I am sorry to say; I think the ground has shifted quite a long way” “I don’t think that people like Richard yet know that; that things have really moved on rapidly” “There is a shift here; its in principal of enormous proportion ….” It has big implications” Talking about gene sequencing; “from the point of view of what was promised twenty odd years ago in relation to cure for cancer, cures for diabetes…..there was to be cures coming out of the sky ……….what have we found, the association level is quite tiny” Talking about genes “there isn’t a program there” “ There is no such program in the genome” “When are we going to wakeup to the fact that it’s been twenty years now sequencing as many genomes as we can and the output as promised as simply not appeared” “Darwin would have never accepted that natural selection was the only mechanism” “With the same genes you can have a very different behavior” “Gene are influencing, not causal” “We are not determinate like computers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I
  11. Not in it for the winning, but for understanding. As for learning, I have done a lot of this with our exchanges. Also, with what I have posted so far in Science Forums, i believe that there is ground for reasonable doubt on the current-conventional theory of mind. Sent my application to SpaceX; never got a response 😊
  12. There is NASA and SpaceX. I am more like SpaceX, where I shoot rockets in the air and see them blow-up until maybe they fly. Greg Venter also used some kind of shotgun approach to genetics’. It's too late for me to change, because it would take me too much time to back-up and move forward. And I would rather run and fall on my face than walk, again because time is of the essence for me. I will nonetheless begin thinking about building a case. However, knowing me, it will be a haphazard and incongruent endeavour. Through experience and reading, I have come to the conclusion that the conventional mind model is lacking. I am surely wrong, but this is the path that I have chosen to take. And I have also chosen to prove or disprove this by unconventional means; not because my process is better, but because more valid scientific processes are inaccessible to me. I will continue doing what I do in the hope that maybe someday something of me will make sense. Be not disapointed if I continue posting studies; this is the only way that I have of expressing myself. Vive la différence!
  13. Your writing is very clear and concise, and valuable I know that my method of inquiry is unconventional and at times bothersome, but here is an article that I would like for you to comment on! If you do not wish to do so, I would understand. "With a finding that will "rewrite neuroanatomy textbooks," University of Iowa neurologist Aaron Boes, MD, Ph.D., and his colleagues show that the thalamus is not a critical part of the brain pathway involved in keeping humans awake and conscious." "The finding upends decades of medical dogma that placed the thalamus as a critical relay point for the signals originating in the brainstem and ending in the cortex that maintain consciousness (wakefulness). The new study, published online Nov. 12 as a preprint in the Annals of Neurology, provides the first systematic evidence from humans that questions the routing of this critical pathway. The study evaluates patients with strokes of the thalamus and shows that even extensive injury to the thalamus does not severely impair consciousness." https://www.gehealthcare.ca/fr-CA/insights/article/rewriting-the-brain-pathway-for-consciousness https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25377 Furthermore, cephalopods and some other living entities do not have a thalamus per say, but show complex behaviours. I agree with this assessment. I would push the boundary even further by saying that not only higher vertebrates, but also lower life forms have shown "higher levels of thought and planning"
  14. I have been doing a lot of reading over the years on mind and brain, so I learned a bit before leaping. It's my lectures that brought me to the realisation that we may not have it quite right as it relates to the mind-brain connection. During the viewing of the video, I realized that I may know more than I thought and that the presenter seemed to share many of my concerns. Not a bit or bits of brain that does the thinking, but the whole brain upon itslelf. If mind, in various ways, is in all living things, then yes it does make a big difference. It becomes an inherent property of the living and bolsters my case. A none pretentious "we" as in all of us, not as in some of us experts. The "we" would include Geronimo 😊
  15. I watched the video from beginning to end. Are you trying to convince me that I am right? You should watch once again and put yourself in a mindset that the brain is actually a transducer. I did so and a lot of how he says the brain work's, made sense in that perspective. He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer. He briefly states that consciousness is in nature; at least in dogs, which is my position also. He talks about brain size, which is not an indication of higher consciousness, as I did. During the video, he peppers us with many questions about consciousness without answering them, which is again my position that we know very little about the mind brain connection. As for IIT, I can only say that it is a highly-highly controversial theory, with many neuroscientists indicating that it does not even address the really hard problem; e.g. how does a kilogram or so of meat create consciousness. There was also an open letter signed by scientists saying that IIT was pseudoscience. Caution noted! I posted the article not as absolute proof of concept, but that there may be, just may be a link between mind and genes. The jury is still out on this. My point is that just a few years ago, there was not even mention of mind influencing brain, let alone genes. Now, we have some studies indicating that this might be the case. If this bears out, then the whole neuroscience field might be turned upside down. Fron brain creating mind, to mind affecting brain and genes.
  16. Mind over genes? "An international study led by the UGR using artificial intelligence has shown that our personalities alter the expression of our genes. The findings shed new light on the long-standing mystery of how the mind and body interact." "In previous research, we found significant differences in well-being between people in the three personality groups, depending on their level of self-awareness. Specifically, those with greater self-awareness (the creative group) reported greater well-being compared to the organised and unregulated groups. We have now shown that these levels of self-awareness are also strongly associated with the regulation of gene expression in the same order (creative > organised > unregulated). This suggests that a person can improve their health and well-being by cultivating a more self-transcendent and creative outlook on life." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240401142515.htm https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02484-x
  17. Thank you for this! I will continue posting what appears to me interesting findings in the mind-brain thread.
  18. How do you get non-randomness from randomness? I am neither searching for "legitimacy" nor "credibility"! Just trying to understand and to me, at least, something appears off. But, maybe, it's just my imagination running wild.
  19. Thanks DanMP! My journey may also be nearing its end! Randomness is at the heart of science. We owe our existence to chance, random quantum fluctuations, evolution - random mutations and natural selection, molecules bumping into each other, etc. I understand this. However, in my readings of the science literature over many years, I have been amazed at how much complexity, organisation and structure that appears to come out of nothing. And I have read many articles that seem to edge their bets toward non-randomness events. This is what I think has not been properly addressed in science. Take my numerous posts in the mind-brain thread. They are replete with studies and statements hinting at maybe something more, but this is mostly ignored by the general science community. The foundation of science is that everything occurs by chance and I am saying that my modest readings seem to tell me differently. Is science being too dogmatic about randomness and chance events? you tell me! Your quote is helpful! I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.
  20. I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes. DNA mutations are not random as previously thought Findings change our understanding of evolution https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6 Now, on to mind-brain. Layers upon layers of "unexpected" complexity was added in the last few years to genetics and science as a whole. Again, on to mind-brain.
  21. It would take me a few days to go back and find all of the studies that had the words "unexpected findings" written into study abstracts. I have no inclination in doing so; Therefore, your right, I have nothing to offer in the way of evidence. If possible, I would like to come back to the topic of mind-brain as I know a bit more than genetics. I have enough of a battle on my hands with mind-brain that taking on another challenge is not warranted for now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.