tar

Marat, And the fact that the lathe he had touched was probably a different style than the one in the museum. (Lower case lathe.) And sometimes,(to turn the table on the question), you hear a sound behind you, and can not identify it, without turning around and seeing what is making the sound. Perhaps the 52 year old would not have to turn around to know what just made the sound. Regards, TAR2

abnormally? Thinker_jeff, Abnormally, but maybe not "incorrectly". I am assuming that since the blind person understood geometry, they "knew" what a circle was, and a square, and what a straight line was, and so forth. Not unlikely they could hold a ball in their hands, and move their hands around it and tell you it was a sphere. Or walk in a straight line. The world we internalize is already correct, and stays correct, regardless of which aspects of it we discover and add to our model of it. Presumably the blind person we are talking about still had the senses of taste, smell, touch, and hearing, and could explore the world, and be told about the world, and internalize many of the characteristics of the world, enough to build a sensible model of it, that fit together, the way the model of a "normal" person's would. Not surprising that a brain deprived of one of the senses it had evolved to work with, would develop "abnormally", but much of the apparatus evolution bestowed upon that blind person, in terms of the functioning of memory and the ability to sense their own body, and its position within the space and time it found itself in, remained intact. Perhaps, given the way that persons brain rewired and repurposed functional units of the brain, their brain developed "normally" exactly the way it could, under the circumstances. But you are right. I have no studies. Regards, TAR2

Marat, Interesting to me is the statement that the blind person with the repaired optic nerve did not recognize the geometric shape when FIRST shown it. I assume that this means they soon fit together the auditory perceptions with the new visual ones, as they moved and looked and heard around. Thus updating their model of the world, with their new insights. For instance, perhaps certain soft objects that they had never touched, looked bigger than they had heard, and certain hard objects smaller, or farther away than they had imagined from their echoes. Regards, TAR2

RobotTemplar and SMF, Nice discussion. Thank you. My interest in neuroscience is an attempt at understanding the physical structure of our brains and body, in relation to language. That is, I have an interest in understanding the meaning behind words. And given the fact that we communicate the best with other humans, I jump to the conclusion that that is because we come with the same equipment, and hence "already know" something about the other mind we are communicating with. So in learning what has been discovered about how we are put together, I learn a lot about what it is we share, meaningwise, when we communicate. Along the lines of this thread however, I do have a thought, and a question. The "plasticity" that was mentioned, I take means that one "setup" in the system, might be repurposed, if need be, and I was wondering if this ability was an important thing to understand, in the evolution of our system, in the growth of our system and in the functioning of our system. For instance, given a set of sensory neurons, located in a particular location of the body, say a finger, and a set of motor neurons that can fire and move that finger, and a brain that can remember what is sensed as a result of a particular firing order and timing, there is a certain amount of "learning" that goes on. I heard we have a "predictive motor simulator" that rehearses the firing order and timing "before" actually firing the motor neurons that will activate various muscles resulting in coordinated motion. So my question is, how plastic IS the system? For instance, if you took some "close point" area of skin surface and attached a device that could deliver variable pressure and heat to each "point", and controlled the heat and pressure based on the frequency and intensity of focused light hitting the device(which would have a sensor system layed out with a one to one correspondence with the skin "points"), could you learn to "see" your environment as you pointed the device around, and "learned" the patterns of sensation? Regards, TAR2

michel123456, Who are the other 11? Regards, TAR2 P.S. I am not really in the committee. Posted on the older science forum regularly a while back, but moved on when religious discussion was outlawed. It looks like this ownership allows discussion as long as you try to not get personal, and you keep it civil. Anyway, perhaps Marat and I mind melded sometime in the past. My memory is not that good, to know.

Marat, My computer locked up and I lost a post. I HATE that. What I had said, was that I had not considered profound empathy in regards to my definition, but the distinction I would make is in the level of involvement. With empathy, I imagine, you are putting yourself in the other entity's shoes, but only temporarily. With profound empathy, you are getting pretty close to considering the other entities shoes, your shoes. Once you commit yourself to residing in the same shoes, I would consider that including the other entity in your feeling of self. Said it better, the first time, but this will have to do. (I do HATE losing good posts. I can never reproduce them correctly.) Regards, TAR2 John, What is the opposite of Thursday? What is the opposite of wall? Why do you suppose that love has an opposite? Some time in the late afternoon on Sunday. Open window. Its the way we think. Regards, TAR2

Hypercube, While I would agree that hate is the obvious opposite of love in many regards, I fully understand the opposite nature of indifference to love. A while back, I proposed a definition of love. "Love is when you include another entity in your feeling of self." I think it is true, and it is probably also true that "Hate is when you exclude another entity from your feeling of self." But, while hate seems to be an active attempt at exclusion, there are a great many entities that are NOT included in your feeling of self, that you just don't know or care about, that you are indifferent to. In this sense, the opposite of loving something/someone, is not associating yourself with it/them at all. You are indifferent. Regards, TAR

mathsgiup, I read the first page of this thread, and the last. Don't know what came up in between, but in addition to the very large numbers that one can come up with for possible brain states, I would like to add the thought, that we are not probably dealing so much with a binary situation, as we are with an analog one. Hence the large numbers are only proof that our brains have the capacity to reflect, or "model", or "remember" the analog universe, we find ourselves in. Each of us aware of "here" and "now", and our relationship to the rest, in terms of space (that which we are in, and that which is within), and in terms of time (that which has led up to now, and that which we predict will happen next.) If it is the case that our "brain state" contains a certain amount of "information", I would argue that that information can not be helpfully considered as a "number" of bits. As an early poster in this thread pointed out, it is the "relationship" between the bits that counts. And that relationship counts a mighty lot. Especially if you consider the amount of information contained in a sunset, or in your mate's embrace, or in your muse as you gaze into a starry sky. Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs, Thanks for the board. Looks like good idea. Probably see you there. Regards, TAR

iNow, On the contrary, I respect your approach, and have too often taken this enjoyable and informative thread off topic. My muses are not the kind of investigation you are interested in, and I do think we are sufficiently of like mind, that I need not argue my points with you. Regards, TAR

iNow, Thanks. I said my peice. I'll let the thread get back to the hard reality. Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedP.S. Hope you and yours had a nice holiday season, and will enjoy a good New Year.

iNow, I really didn't think I was too far off topic. After all, we all have neurocortical mechanisms that predepose us to relegious beliefs. Whether an atheist as you and me are, or a reglious zealate, a human has these mechanisms. That they can vary widely in their content, is obviously evident from the wide and varied nature of religious beliefs around the world and for that matter, throughout our history. Rather odd to think that one person has been able to hone in exactly on the right set of beliefs and everybody else has missed the mark. So what is it, in general that our neurocortical mechanisms are pointing us toward? Truth? Objective Reality? Belonging? Being and reality greater than our individual selves? That atheists and scientists in general, hold great value and assess great importance in objective truth, suggests to me, that the same set of neurocortical mechanisms is being hijacked for this belief, as is being employed in the belief in God. One cannot imagine the universe, without taking a "God's eye" view. Unconstrained by the speed of light, which would cause each piece of the universe to arrive at a subjective viewer at a different time. Our brains allow us to imagine this unrealistic god like view. Is this mechanism not valuable? And then the question becomes, to me, from a scientific point of view, why some people, yourself (iNow) included, hold such value in objective truth, but decry any suggestion that there is an objective reality greater than a human's individual ability to concieve of it. In other words, it seems to me that people are very solid in their impression, that they get it, and everybody else does not quite see it correctly. This predisposition is somehow tied up in the neurocortical mechanisms that we are talking about. I think it crucial that we give the others neurocortical mechanisms some respect. After all, they are most likely of a very similar nature to our own, and the beliefs we all hold are probably due to a very similar set of happenings in very similar physical structures within our very similar brains. This, put together with the history of thought, and philosophy and actual happenings in the world, that we all share rather closely, given the advances in communication in the last 100 years, tie us all together like we never have been before. So, my current suggestion is that atheists and religious people, are both still people, with the same predispositions. And as clearly as some residue from inappropriate and ignorant thinking is detrimental to world peace and prosperity, a large amount of the feeling of a "common good" come from the actions of the same set of neurocortical mechanisms, and can not be discounted, willy nilly. A great deal of the sharing and caring that goes on in this world, is done by religious groups. The common neurocortical mechanisms, being harnessed by mutual consent for the good of all. Nothing different from what a group of Humanists would do. The language used, for God, for Nature, for the Earth, for Humanity, for life, for truth, makes little difference in the end. Same neurocortical mechanisms are being engaged. That is my take. Regards, TAR

Adewas, You unfortunately cannot call a "do over". We have to do from here. Regards, TAR

iNow, Listened to the Nicholas Wade interview. Struck a lot of chords that I have been mulling over in the last several months. Left the forum alone for a while, basically because of the view held by many here that religion is silly, untrue stuff, that gets in the way of human progress... I think it is much, much more than that. The interview with Dr. Wade (I assume he has a doctrate, he seems very learned) he points out the survival value of commonly held beliefs and rituals. This is not to be underrated, and non-believers, no matter what they think, have found commonly held beliefs and rituals to take the place of beliefs they know are scientifically unfounded. No matter what, we are all faced with the same existential crisis. The resolutions to our existential questions, are usually not found by an individual. We look to others, for common understanding of our situation. That we make stuff up, is, in my estimation, taken for granted. As long as we agree to act as if a certain thing is true, it becomes true, for us. For instance, there is no physical border that runs from the great lakes to the Pacific, that separates Canada and the U.S.. Some fences some places, but not all. Birds ignore it, fish ignore it, ants and beavers have no way of knowing its there. Its humans that accept its reality. Canadians and U.S. citizens both. Such it is with religion. The universe and reality are huge and longlived, beyond our comprehension. We can build a model, but none that do reality any kind of justice. And any god we construct can easily be disproved and outdone. Reality is just too immense to be contained in any one construct of human making. So your and my vision of the God that can not be is not the God that people worship. It is the "all of it" that people most likely are referring to. And the "all of it" is anything but dead. Anything but understandable, and anything but silly. We as humans have the right to envision the purposes of our lives, anyway we agree on. If Dawkins wishes to call the rituals and values that humans have developed unscientific, then perhaps he can suggest a replacement construct. I do believe there is some value however in that which we have, together, managed to construct. I personally tend to a Humanistic viewpoint, but it has its limitations, and is somewhat brazen in its attitude. I do think that reality is somewhat more overpowering than an individual, or even a billion humans for a million years, can get the upper hand on. We are of and in reality. It belongs to us, and us to it. I have no objections to somebody putting themselves in its hands. There is no way to do otherwise. Regards, TAR

Thanks, that is a fun quiz. I know the first half by heart, cause I've done it about 10 times getting to one I haven't figured out yet. I have not given up. No hints please...I will try again.

If you had an exact double somewhere in the universe and you pointed at him/her, wouldn't the two of you have to point in different directions?

There are principles involved in the way a human percieves and categorizes reality. This is augmented greatly by our history, and the work done by many to classify, define, stucture, outline and such. That is not primarily what this topic is looking to explore. If the organisations we have established and maintained were not around, there would still be life on this planet. It is the organizing principles which allowed for the establishment of life, which I am asking about. And further, the organizing principles which exist in this universe, and in our galaxy, and solar system, and planet, which would exist, or did exist, before life on this planet emerged. For instance, there is a subtantial similarity between an aerial view of a hurricane, and an artists depiction of the Milky Way galaxy. Why? Such a similarity on such different scales of size and duration? Patterns repeat. What are the principles involved? Regards, TAR Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is an overview of a 2002 study talking about motifs. http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/genes_neurons_internet_found_to_have_organizing_principles-some_identical Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI suppose I am talking about metaphysics, but from a mechanists point of view. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/377923/metaphysics/15820/The-organizing-principles-of-nature There is, in my estimation, no thing supernatural. Everything we are, everything we see, is a result of the interplay of the organizing principles, that guide the universe. That we have become conscious of our position in the universe, and have ways to transcend our mechanistic form and structure, does not negate the fact that we are of and in the universe. And since no magic is involved, the organizing principles, inherent in the universe, are important to recognize and investigate. The distinction between a mechanism and an organism is an important one, because an organism is alive and purposeful. This distinction is not however enough to raise an organism to a position outside of reality. What is in our imaginations, is images and manufactured combinations of real patterns, that are themselves generated by the positionings and firings of very real neurons and chemical combinations. And humans have established and maintained imagined patterns, transforming materials, using the organisations of reality, into benefical structures, machines, records and instruments. And patterns we have agreed upon to maintain, are real to all of us, they are now part of reality, at least for the time being. But to hold this view, that everything, even an organism, is mechanical in nature, there is required a set of organising principles, by which life itself could emerge. Very complex, no doubt, and in some ways fleeting, and in some ways very time consuming, with many steps involved, but each step was taken in the context of reality, and thus principles of organisation, that the universe possesses, had to be present along the way, in order for organisation to have occurred. Regards, TAR

Adrenaline makes us better at affecting the arrangement of our environment. We can move bigger rocks, chase down fast prey, fight more effectively, and of course get our bodies out of harms way faster. It is in some ways just an amplifier of our "normal" abilities to have effect on the world. We are talking about violence, but in some ways violence is amplified action. Finding a way to get people to not act on the world would be very hard, and very unwise. Finding ways for people to act on the world in only ways beneficial to everybody else around, is what culture and societies, and religions, and philosophies have been successfully trying to accomplish for a very long time. Regards, TAR

Mr. Skeptic, I'm getting a little ahead of ourselves here, but what you said about faithful servants, made me wonder about AI rights. If indeed we are able to develop a being that is "alive" in important ways, and is conscious of the fact, and this being is on paar with us in very many ways, and perhaps in some ways superior to us... would we let it vote? marry? own property? Would we consider it a lifeform? What is our relationship with it to be? A servant? A lord? A child? A competitor? What responsibility would we have for it? If it commited a crime, would we punish it, or its inventor? Bringing something into the world, has its real consequences. I wonder if we wouldn't find ourselves with the same kind of conflicts we currently have, for the control of resources. Only this time, with a bunch of superAI, we can't handle. Regards, TAR

ydoaPs, The way I am taking it, is that technological advances are happening at an exponentially growing, rapid rate. This will allow people with access to the advancing technology, and the resources, to develop machines that are smarter than we are. This advance will potentially put aspects of our lives in the hands of the people in control of the machines that are so smart, that they could fool the vast majority of us regular humans if they had a mind to. That the machines or the people in control of the machines would have a great advantage on us, in the thinking department, and could control us, in ways we wouldn't even be aware of. Relinquishing control of our lives, is not something we normally look for ways to do. When we give up some of our rights and pleasures to an assembly of humans (freinds, organisations, churches, governments and such,) we usually do it with the knowledge that the others in the group are giving up their rights and pleasures for our benefit. Human to human arrangements like this are understandable, we can figure out the calculus involved. We know the other humans involved are human, with the same kind of needs, wants, desires, feelings and mind that we ourselves have. Relinquishing control, however, to a non-human, would be another sort of thing. Sounds dangerous, scary, and unnatural to me. I think that kind of danger, is one of the dangers we are talking about here. The other kind, is the idea of great power being in the hands of a few, especially if the few do not have my or your best interests in mind. Regards, TAR

RyanJ, We do seem to go in cycles. High prices cure high prices and such. Though we might be headed toward a technological singularity of sorts, it could probably be viewed as a parabolic increase on a continuing stochastic chart. History has shown us that charts don't end. A local peak is reached, a correction follows, and then the dominant trend continues. We will figure out, what works and what does not. Regards, TAR

dstebbins, I don't know that you can separate out adrenaline from the other chemicals that are released in complex situations. For instance, there are, I would imagine "reward" chemicals that are released in our brain, when we are "successful". Otherwise, why do humans enjoy completing things, winning, controlling the situation, gaining knowledge, leveling the picture frame hanging on the wall, and such. Personally, I do not like the feeling of Adrenaline. I usually seek to "avoid" its production. To me, it is my body's way of getting me ready for trouble and getting me out of danger more successfully. This summer, I went on a carnival ride with my wife, where we sat in a two person swing suspended by chains, that lifted us up 30 feet in the air, and swung us around the center post. I sat motionless, checking that my momentum was properly checked against the seat, telling myself I was safe, and "it would be over" and no action on my part was required or wise. I fought my adrenline, did not enjoy it, and waited for it to subside and felt very good to be slowed, and lowered back to the safety of the ground. My wife on the other hand was "woooing" and smiling and enjoying the "rush". My daughter, after witnessing my "heroics", and knowing I do not enjoy such rides, asked me why I went on it. Don't really remember exactly how I responded to that question, but it was obvious I was not going to put myself in a similar situation, on purpose, any time soon. We laughed at me a bit, and proceeded to enjoy the sights and sounds and smells of the carnival. There is to me, an equally important investigation we should make into the chemicals that are rewarding us, during a "controlled" adrenaline rush. Nervousness and excitement are probably closely related chemically, the "fear" component is most likely present in both. The control of our fear is probably involved in why certain people enjoy the rush of adrenaline. But I like to advocate against us trying to control other's minds with chemicals. Sure it can be done, but it is complex, and what shuts down or accelerates one chemical chain, will disturb its role in both the intended brain function, and all the other brain functions that chain is involved in. And so, if adrenaline is involved in human's interaction with the world, so be it. We would not be us, without it. We have developed ways to control it, and use it to our advantage. Both on a personal and interpersonal, societal level. Consider how our "drives" have been channeled when we engage in sports. We compete against a foe, fully engaging our bodies and brains, and all the associated chemicals, and nobody dies (if all goes according to plan.) I would not be surprised to hear somebody who has just skydived, say "I never felt so alive!) Regards, TAR

Martin, I read the article and thought it was good. I must have taken something wrong though, because I thought Vaas was more or less arguing that Smolin’s CNS was enough to explain almost everything, and CAS MIGHT be able to explain those things that CNS didn't. However both seem to go pretty far afield, and certainly the title of the article suggested "Hitchhiker's guide" and CAS itself is rather "Matrix" like. Flights of fancy, to be sure. I personally don't find it required or even possible to take a point of view that is outside our universe. If it is pertinent to this universe, then it is IN this universe, and we can find evidence of it, or infer it, or deduce it, or figure it out in some way. If it is not in our universe then not only won't we ever know of it, but it doesn't matter to us. It can not, and will not effect us. Regards, TAR P.S. Still possible is that we figure out the conditions required for the Big Bang to have occurred, and from that we might learn our universe is more than we thought, and be able to understand a bit more about ourselves from it, but it would still be "our" universe.

Well, perhaps JillSwift is right. The conversation will degrade to debate and the debate will not be scientific in nature. And the other comments about mod oversee needs and trying to hold people to rigor and evidence who are not inclined toward such, probably says that history will repeat itself, and the rules of the forum should stand as they have evolved and not be modified for...let's say, my purposes. So I appreciate the wisdom of the non-hosting of such a forum here. Still, I have personally managed to form a worldview, that is consistent with reality, and scientific measurements of our world, that does not require a stack of turtles, or a greybeard sitting in a throne on planet Zork, to hold. I want to share it. It comes from humanity's experience of our universe. All the writings, all the thoughts, all the philosophy and technology that have filtered down to me, through the literature, culture, establishments, and works of man, that have come before me, and are around me. I am in and of this universe. The reality of this fact is not questioned by anyone. Everyone, every human that we know of, is in the same position. Religious or not. Happy or sad. Content or miserable. It is the explainations that differ. And many of them are absurd. In fact, all of them are, for one reason or another when you get to the "we don't know" place in the description. Scientists are content to say "we don't know...yet". Others need an intentional agent of some sort to fill the gap. I don't think this is unexpected or foolish, either on the part of the scientist or on the part of a believer. Both are taking on faith, that the gap has a filler. We still have to explain ourselves. Regards, TAR