BrainMan

So you can imagine all the possible ways a mind can be "wired" ? Can you know ahead of time all the possible ways this modified mind can think ? You are assuming then that our mind is a kind of superset of all possible minds and can explain, decode and understand any other possible mind. I don't think we can assume this. I don't know what happens inside minds wired differently. I know for sure that the number of possible combinations of different minds is mind boggling and if each mind is completely different from ours and actually works in some way, then we actually know almost nothing of reality or the universe.

Worse yet, we don't yet understand all that well how our own minds work- and the history of cognitive science shows that we are notoriously bad at imagining how our minds should work, as we have been wrong about it time and time again. What we are capable of knowing, and how we are capable of knowing, are unresolved scientific questions. To simply presume that we know these things is beyond irresponsible.

Bugger! All those philosophers wasting there time for so many centuries.

I have no idea what you mean by that. What I have suggested is basically a brand of pragmatism, which has recieved a fair amount of play in the philosophical world in the past century. It is not the "end of philosophy", it is the beginning of a philosophy that takes our own epistemic position in the universe seriously instead of just pretending we have absolute knowledge from the start.

Sorry, BrainMan if you are excluding this from the discussion then for me there is no discussion. Thanks.

I'm sorry to hear that. It is a shame that you are proud of your dogmatism.

I don't remember the show exactly (I have seen it though), but I am quite sure that forensics is the major thrust of what they do. That along with good old detective work beyond forensics.

There is no observer. In such a situation is there an objective reality? Yes or No?

This requires an observer to imagine the situation. You cannot imagine a reality independant of observers, you must at least assume a God's eye perspective which you then take to claim that a reality exists.

In your opinion is there a reality that exists independent of observers? Your earlier posts imply that you think not, but I may be misinterpreting what you have said.

I think it is irrelevant whether or not there is a "reality independant of observers". Given we are observers, there is no way to know. The only reality that is important for us is the reality that depends upon our observations and the details of our minds.

Reality for us, based upon our minds, is the only reality we can ever know.

Nameta9 seems unwilling to concede that there maybe an absolute reality. If we only perceive with our senses what he says is correct, but we go so far beyond that today, that his arguments are become meaningless.

Regardless, I'm more than willing to accept the possibility of a perfectly objective reality- and I even set out specific criteria of how it could- in principle- be established. Unfortunately, you fail to even accept the possibility that you are wrong, and you certainly make no strides to establish yourself as correct- you simply assume it. That is a shame.

I don't think you understood the argument if you think the argument is limited to perception- it isn't!

can you give me one situation where 1+1 does not =2

 

even if these creatures saw in different spectrums of light or saw atoms and molecules. they would still find 1+1=2

First you have to specify how it is that the human mind and the developments through history lead us to such a conclusion, and then you need to show exactly what it is about such a process that is inevitable for any intellegent creature. You haven't done that. Sorry, but you don't have an argument here, all you have is an assumption- and a poor one at that! And given the nature of the first post and what is at issue here, your posts amount to nothing more than question-begging.

Try again.

He meant "Seasonal Affective Disorder", I'm sure.

The process by which experience shapes synapses is referred to as "synaptic plasticity."

Boy is that specific. *rolls eyes in duisgust*

But thanks for making my point for me!

I am sorry to completely disagree with you, that is I and several professional researchers and authors. The way many of those changes occur have been extensively studied and published, as well as the results of such changes.

But no specific change falls under the term "synaptic plasticity" and no one agrees upon what it means exactly. Microbiologists almost inevitably use the term very differently from psychologists, for example. If you try to publish a paper and are using the term "synaptic plasticity", Im quite sure reviews will want you to be more specific and say exactly what you mean.

Don't give me that "I and several professional researchers" crap. I'm tied close enough to the area to know what is going on...

I have thought a lot about this as well nameta9. The objectivity of science is objectivity for us- or intersubjectivity. With vastly different minds, there is always the chance that we would have a vastly different science. However, there are a couple of issues here. First, from whose point of view would the sciences be "different"? Given that our minds organize data in very different ways, what exactly would count as "being the same" between the two sciences and how would we ever know if they are (or are not) "the same"? Given it is possible for there to be similarity between sciences, whatever remains invariant with respect to every (possible) transformation between sciences could safely be called objectivity. Sound reasonable?

The important questions are: How different can two intellegent minds (possibly) be? Is there a limit to the possible differences? Must there, of necessity, be strong similarities between any two minds, and must they always be reflected in the science(s)?

As I understand, learning or memory formation is mainly achieved by synaptic plasticity.

The term "synaptic plasticity" doesn't explain anything at all. You would be better off thinking of the term as an advertisement for research than as a scientific term. [it has no agreed upon meaning. It is mostly just a codeword for "changes occur" without any specification of what those chages are, on what level they occur, why they occur, and what they do.]

Very short answer:

The brain uses representations of the world, and representations of the body, in order to select a motor response that is beneficial. We have something very close to a homunculus mapping out our bodies in our brains, and incomming stimuli, the representations of the world, are integrated with the representation of the body which creates a perspective- we do not just experience the world, we experience it from somewhere, with a unique, first person perspective. This information is made available to the brain in such a way that it is useful for the selection of a motor response in any given situation. On top of that, we represent some of our own internal processes which gives us a unique perspective on our own internal thinking process which, when combined with information about our place and relationship with the world (and people) around us, along with a bit of a story-like understanding of our own lives, comes to take on the characteristic of what we call "the self".

No, you wouldn't find such things easily in a SA article. Here is something a bit more thorough:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009

Enjoy!

[Notice the full text is offered below the abstract...]

I posted this some time ago in another thread: http://www.geocities.com/haripaudel/Parallel_Universes.htm

This is a link to Max Tegmark's SA article about multiverses, where he presents his own theory about the level 4 multiverse. The ideas are perfectly testable, according to Tegmark. All the people saying that "it is unprovable" are wrong (so far as "proof" means scientific support, which is the most any scientific theory can hope for).

I suppose it could be used as evidence the physician didn't feel that it would cause death or injury.

Interesting. I didn't really think of that. Even if the experimenter thought it could cause injury or death, he/she would have to believe that the experiment is just so important that the risks (to his/her self) are worth it.

There are a few directions you could go with this. Here are a few things that might get you started:

1) Look up the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (or the Whorfian hypothesis). Should be lots of info on this on the internet.

2) Look up info on "expectancy effects" (aolong with taste), and you might find something useful. ( For example: http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~garberll/effectsoffoodcolor.htm ). Look at the relations of taste and other things, like smell, to get some idea of what it might mean for words to have an effect on taste.

3) As someone else suggested, just play around and experiment. Blindfold people and tell them they have never had the food before. Give the food really strange names or slip in a "this is really good" or "this tastes like dirt" and see how that affects what people say about the food. [You might use normal, everyday food and put it in a blender so people can't tell what it is without taste...]

When you offer unsolicited advice to someone, you are implicitly suggesting that the other person is incompetent or just too stupid to figure it out for themselves.

The Nuremberg Code, #6:

"No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects."

Do any of you agree with this? Disagree? Is it ok to perform deadly experiments given you use yourself as a participant?

I think the loss of blood pressure to the brain would be a serious problem very early on. I doubt the person would remain conscious long enough to know what happened.

One way to increase memory abilities is to make up little stories or songs or poems related to the subject. Consider:

Rap song inspired by "Thinking and deciding"

I woke up and had a revelation

Correlation does not imply causation.

The situation is quite terrible

When you've got a confounding variable.

Another reason to think carefully:

Does B cause A or does A cause B?

 

 

Popper said "I wonder why?

Einstein's theory lived but Freud's has died.

It seems to me the difference is

That Einstein's could be falsified."

 

 

Suppose one day I say to you,

"Hey listen up: 'If p, then q!'"

And then I tell you: "p is true."

Could you be sure that q's true too?

And what if I'd said: "q is true."

Could you conclude that p's true too?"

 

[Not you again!]

That's right! It's me!

Is it "not q" if it's "not p?"

[Please go away!]

One more to do!

Is it "not p" if it's "not q?"

 

Peter Wason is the name

Of a man who liked card games.

But unlike me and unlike you

He played with four, not fifty-two.

 

Letters on the front

Numbers on the back.

"A" and "B" and "2" and "3"

Are all that you can see.

 

A rule has been proposed.

You don't know if it's true.

"A card that has a vowel

Has an even number too."

 

Which cards must you inspect

To verify the rule?

[Why not check them all?]

No, that would not be cool!

 

You've got to check the A

(Don't bother with the B)

The 2 can't give you trouble

But watch out for the 3!

 

Doc Wason's back

He's got more tricks

Here's a game

Called 2-4-6.

 

Your job is to name sets of three

To test different hypotheses.

[3-6-9?]

Yes!

[1-2-3?]

Well that works too.

[i'm smart as you!]

 

[6-8-10?]

Way to go, my friend!

[3-2-1?]

No! Please try again.

 

[10-12-14?]

That's peachy keen!

[2-3-4?]

Oy, how many more?

 

[1-2-10?]

Yes! We're near the end!

[5-6-8?]

Right! You're doing great!

 

I'm ready, now. I can guess your rule.

I'm the one that you cannot fool.

The rule you use for sets of three:

Increasing numerosity!

 

Deborah Frisch (Penn PhD)

 

From: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/humor.html

Ok, I admit it, this post had little to do with memory. It was just an excuse to post something I thought was neat. Bite me!

Edit: Fixed the link

Your short term memory can only hold 5-9 discreet items.

Sort of true. But it depends upon what we are trying to remember. The more confusable the stimuli (like line lengths from 1 to 3 inches) the fewer items we can remember, and less confusable stimuli (like faces) can actually extend the number to quite large amounts. Also, groups of items can be joined together into meaningful units (chunks) that can extend what we are capable of keeping in memory.

Your long term memory is infinite.

I don't know what this means. Memory is notoriously unacurate. To call long term memory "infinite" is misleading at best.

If you study one night for 60 minutes, that's worse than studying for 10 minutes once a day for six days.

It is better for long term retention, but not necessarily better for number of items remembered on some particular test right after the six days.

You must want to remember something for it to go into your long term memory so you will know it, otherwise it will not.

Not quite true. But I think what your teacher was getting at was that when you give more meaning and attention and thought to something you will remember it better. Just glancing at words on a page will not help you remember the content very well. [Wanting to remember something will make it more meaningful, and thus it will be more memorable...]

Out of 10 things learned you will forget six in the next 1-2 days, unless you study.

The attempted application of statistical trends in experimental situations to real settings. I wouldn't call this false, but I would take the numbers here with a grain of salt...

The math really doesn't have to be that complicated. It is enough just to say that the probability of choosing right on the first pick is 1/3, and therefore the probability of it being one of the other two doors P(C1 U C2) is 2/3. We are shown a door that is not a winner, so P(C1 U C2) = P(C1) = 2/3.

If you can place the sets in one-to-one correspondence with each other, then you have proven that they have the same cardinality. (I think.) All you need to provide is a function that maps one set onto the other in such a manner (one-to-one).

If the sets have a different cardinality, there will be no such function.

there have been several worrying expressions of dislike of definitions (esp by a maths moderator). worrying because maths IS its definitions.

The question is, COULD math have developed differently (remaining consistent) such that .999... does not equal 1, but is only very close to it?