dimreepr

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Socrates famously having lived after the invention of the printing press.

He also famously refused to write thing's down. The topic title was meant as a metaphor, the juxtaposition of the rate of change in a world that supposedly understands what 'the sword of Damocles' means. 

Writ large in the opening of Will Self's speech that I linked to, in which he explains the value of him not writing his speech.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

How does a record of what someone said become out of date? Has a new version of e.g. the Gettysburg Address been released?

The word gay for instance, in my lifetime, has changed meaning quite radically; if my grandchildren read a book of the sixties that suggested the pope was gay, etymology would be of little help if their teacher was biased enough to want the pope to be homosexual, to put the cat among the chickens, perhaps.

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is it part of a managed persona to be constantly cryptic?

Not at all, it's simply a sign that my thoughts are hard to capture in this format and that I'm quite stupid and slow witted.

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's a waste of life "conversing" with you, how you behave. Your behaviour is fucking irritating. This is the first and last time I'm saying this.

I'm sorry that your biased perception of me, makes you so angry; but are you aware that you don't have to read anything I say?

It's not the first time though is it, please stop peppering my topic's with your personal attacks.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

First, let's be clear that I am not advocating nor think that there is such a thing as a life-force. This was given as an example for argument sake only. Only observation and evidence will tell if it exists or not.

Mind from brain or mind through brain would have the same effect as you describe on the brain.

And the things that you describe, obtained through various forms of brain scans and experiments, are all valid and correct! No issues there!

But major questions still remain.

For the sake of repeating myself, where is mind in the brain? I gave ample references indicating that we don't know. And if it's all over the brain, has the "binding" issue been resolved? no!

You mentioned metabolism forces, but how does this create consciousness? Or more aptly, how is consciousness extracted from a kilogram or so of flesh? We don't know.

If we did know how the brain does its magic, then why after 25 years of neuroscience research did Christof Kock concede his bet to David Chalmers on this issue. In 1998 he bet that by 2023 we would know how the brain achieves consciousness, and lost. I also provided references on this one in my original 'Mind' tread.

And why this panoply of hypotheses and theories on it if we know? Gave examples

I am not the only one advocating for this position. A growing number of neuroscientists are starting to look elsewhere to try and answer the elusive question of how consciousness works.

And why does mind "seem" to be all over in nature? even in low lying life forms? Or without brains? This was not expected - lime molds appearing to think! Gave examples and references on this one too!

Research in the last few decades is not helping us consolidate what we thought about the brain. Gave also ample examples.

A lot of things that we thought we knew about the brain were overturned

• From static brain to neuroplasticity.
• From brain as a computer to it not being one.
• From humans only to other lower life forms.
• From animals feeling no pain and having no sense of self to some that do.
• From synapses to other parts of neurons.
• From neurons to other cells.

We dint' know about this either. Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate:

• Secreted chemicals
• Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions
• Electric currents
• Electromagnetic waves
• Physical contact by cells
• Biological nanotubes between cells

Who could have believed then that bioelectricity would be studied as a measure to control body shapes?

And what about NDE's? Do we ignore all the cases where mind appears to work through an apparently absent brain?

So many things going on that it is hard to follow.

Are we to overlook the entirety of all of these and other findings to come for the sake of sticking to an apparently outmoded model of mind-brain?

"The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic conncections among neurons in a brain. That view is clearly cracking"

Again, I reiterate, what you say about the brain is correct, but there is more to the story than what you tell.

Bolded mine, How do you know? Have you actually had an NDE (if you say yes, I'll now that you're lying?

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The hardware problem is easy; the software one is not!

That's the exact antipode of your previous argument, like I siad "the wiring is complicated, the neuron is as simple as it gets".

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

"More than everyting I said/wrote?" = "Every coin has a flip side". Thanks for clarifying. 

I still don't know what you mean. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's often the tumor of understanding. 

That's my point, understanding a complicated concept is far more likely to be taught effectively through the spoken word, than the written version of knowledge, bc that version is always at least one generation out of date; and I think that might be the tumor of societies, since every empire in history has failed, for some reason. 

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

One day he might twig on.

My apologies for my lack of verbosity/eloquence, for some reason god didn't give me that gift...🙄

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Good example of things you say/write that baffle me. I have no idea what you mean by this.

Only that every coin has a flip side...

More than everyting I said/wrote?

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

What exactly did you say 10 years ago to your friend about that politician? I never heard it so I can't remember, but I'm sure you both remember exactly.

OTOH, I have access to many things you wrote 10 years ago. So yeah, really obvious.

Does that mean you understood everything I wrote/said?

12 hours ago, cladking said:

It is the simplest paradigm to explain every experiment.

And that's why it's wrong, there is no simple explanation of any experiment; look into a mirror and explain why it's back to front instead of upside-down?

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Not clever enough to see the obvious value of preserving the actual words someone once spoke, apparently. Nor clever enough to see that the written word can be dispersed much more readily than passing them down orally, apparently.

Is it really that obvious? 

For instance, Socrates wasn't a fan.

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think the written word is MUCH more valuable than the spoken word in many aspects. I can practically guarantee it will be the only way you and I communicate, 

 Really, doesn't that dismiss causality, in a fundamental way?

Well this is spooky, I came across this keynote speech by Will Self, today:

Well worth a listen, he even point's to the type of metric I meant (far more eloquently) @iNow

9 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Web forums are more dangerous than the printed word, I'd say.

They're the same thing, just amplified again.

It's a shame this will be merged.

We're very clever apes with a penchant for breaking boundaries and the written word has no more value than the spoken word, in advancing our understanding of the available knowledge.

I dismiss the idea that printing democratised anything in any meaningful way, bc for democracy to be effective we're not all reading from the same hymn sheet...

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I've heard history buffs say that Luther and the Reformation wouldn't have happened without the invention of the printing press.  (which wasn't solely about the written word - Luther also used woodcuts, to present simple stories to those less literate)  I really can't think of anything that wasn't advanced by the press, given its role in dissemination of information and promoting knowledge.  It eventually shifted literacy from a tiny elite to a majority of the population.  Sure, it was double-edged - easier to spread propaganda and libel, too - but what technologies haven't had a double edge at some point?  Societies that do well have information gatekeepers who filter out the lies, nonsense, sophistry, etc.  The US Supreme Court just heard oral arguments yesterday on litigation over what such gatekeepers should do in social media companies.

Really? I think knowledge is far more likely to be properly understood, down the ages, using word of mouth; text traps meaning in the moment it's written...

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Using which metric?

The start.

It accelerated the value of the written word, over the spoken word; in essence it got us from worrying about what the next village was up too relevant to ours, to worrying about what the Mongolians are up to.

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

Reality has little effect on beliefs and beliefs have no effect on reality except through the actions they induce.

So, is that a yes to horns?

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

But no education can't make a person correct about anything.

So, is 'that' a yes to horns?

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

 Experiment is a sort of set of guideposts to keep us on a road but it can never be certain it is the right road.  

And yet again we circle back to the only truth we can have about this question, mine...😉

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

"We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept. "

I mean it quite literally.  Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature". 

So if I was a satanist, would I have horns? 🙂

11 minutes ago, cladking said:

"We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept. "

 

I mean it quite literally.  Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature".  In part consciousness is pattern recognition and in humans this manifests as explanations of our perceptions based on beliefs and models.  These models often derive from paradigms which are, in effect, more beliefs; beliefs about the proper interpretation of experiment.  

Each human chooses what to believe and this begins with trying to imitate and please our caregivers/ parents.  As we learn we each choose what beliefs to incorporate.  We are each a construct of what we choose to believe. 

Obviously nothing is static and these beliefs evolve over a lifetime and the change will ideally be driven by logic as we perceive it  and the logic of reality as expressed by experiment.  At every point of our lives our actions and perceptions are driven by our beliefs.  Typically our beliefs are reinforced by our perceptions and by the outcomes of actions driven by those same perceptions.  

There is no breaking out of this pattern but by recognizing it we can influence it.  

"Blue pill or red pill?"

Besides that's an oxymoron?

Education helps, if it's teaching critical thinking, bc then we can see the adverts and attempts to train our thinking.

Are we better off having invented the printing press?

I don't want to block the rabbit hole, so I'll leave it there for know and flesh thing's out as and when.

6 hours ago, user101 said:

I'm currently doing a little research on Gematria. Would like to hear some opinions from the scientific community.

Gematria Brief Intro:

In its simplest form, gematria involves assigning a numerical value to each English letter. The numerical values are assigned based on the order of the letters in the English alphabet. For example, the letter A has a value of 1, the letter B has a value of 2, and so on.

Gematria can be used in a variety of ways. It can be used to find hidden meanings in the Bible, For example, the name 'David' has a numerical value of 14, which is the same numerical value of the word 'king.' This suggests that David was destined to be king, In general, any words or phrases sharing the same numerical value are considered potentially connected and containing hidden meaning.

You can read more about it here : Gematria Wikipedia |  Gematria History And Its Present Usage

Modern English Gematria Usage:

Example 1: Entering the phrases "Thriller Album," "Grammy Award," "Chimpanzee Bubbles," and "Painkiller" into a Gematria Decoder reveals that they are all connected with "Michael Jackson." 

image showing "thriller album", "grammy award" and more has matching values (in red color) with "Micheal Jackson"

 

Example 2: In the 2024 Taiwan presidential election, there were three candidates: Lai Ching-te, Hou Yu-ih, and Ko Wen-je. Entering their names into the Gematria Decoder revealed that only Lai Ching-te has a connection with the word "President," and indeed, Lai Ching-te emerged as the winner and became the President of Taiwan.

 

If these results are pure coincidental, why are there so many relevant matches?

Here are the questions:

1. How do you explain this phenomenon from the perspective of probability and coincidence?

From the perspective of true believers, a single gematria value can be associated with many words and phrases. Making sense of them all involves connecting the relevant words and filtering out those that aren't relevant. This process requires strong intuition, knowledge of the subject of interest and unconventional thinking to establish connections and unveil hidden meanings.

2. How do you explain to true believers that their train of thought on gematria is seriously flawed?

 

If the authors of the bible planned to put their secrets into a bastardised version of their words, that's also translated into a language they couldn't possibly know about, using a number system they couldn't understand; then I guess there really is a God, who knew... 😇

On 8/9/2023 at 12:33 AM, MSC said:

I absolutely detest the question; What is the meaning of life? It's just, really poorly worded when you think about it. 

So I spent a decade or so, trying to just figure out a better question to ask. 

What about, what is the meaning of 'my' life?

I spent year's, "42",  figuring out that one, bloody computer's were no help... 😉

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You got to admit that this could all be much better. With less pain and sorrow and grief and war and illness and death.

If you've never been driven to eat out of a bin, I doubt your taste buds have tingled quite so much...

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Great! We do whatever is necessary to extract as much as we can out of this life situation. We all idealize a world with more purpose, but it is what it is, not what it should be.

Says who?

26 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Thinking only about it without caring, does it make it purposeful? I guess not!

It does for me, YMMV...

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Even cells learn; reptiles show a sense of caring. Ants sacrifice themselves for the better of the community. Some plant cells do the same. Matter of form and degree of love-learn.

But none of them thought about why...

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- Need not necessarily be realizable to be considered a purpose of existence. Aspiration-idealization pushes us onward while all of it being futile or not.

I just like to think about it, I don't care why.

Your purpose may vary... 😉

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Those that aspire to this "Brave new world" have purpose and meaning in their lives.

Also, mistics say that true meaning in life is only found when the ego is no longer standing in the way.

That's where you're missing my point, Merleau-Ponty I think was just pointing out the difficulty in disentangling the mind from the body and not that the body thinks.

The "brave new world" is just describing our modern world, with extreme prescience given when it was writen. The point being we can't engineer a safe world for everybody/thing (everything is on something's menu), it will always fail bc those not included in the plan will find a way to beat the plan; in the context of the OP, "shit happens"...

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

We exist to love and learn; silly isn’t it, but it is.

I am sure that I will get no post traffic out of this one!

What about those that can't?

Not everyone can afford a good education, let alone a hooker... 😉 

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, one needs to constantly question the status quo as no one knows when the next period of revolutionary science will occur.

Thomas "Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"^[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.^[2]"

^{From Wiki}.

 

It's a fine line to tread, questions are great but only if you're willing to listen, properly and honestly, to the answer; by which I mean, not having faith in the answer you want to hear.

21 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I figure that I have a one in a thousand chance of boasting that I told you so on mind.

Boasting is an interesting word to use, bc when you do understand well enough to be able to say that, it will have lost it's meaning for you... 😉 

I hope you do, it's always nice to learn more.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Body instead of consciousness as source of knowledge - interesting. 

That's not what he's saying, we're like mobile anthill all of the part's are inseparable and they all inform the context of our story, if we lose an arm the story changes.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Guess you will have to eat the room as well as the elephant; and the building containing the room; and the world containing the building.

Everything is on somethings menu.

16 hours ago, naitche said:

I agree. But  the question brought in the  O.P. was better crafted to avoid that kind of circularity.

The meaning of life is subjective, but thats not the question posed.

The question posed, and any answer arrived at, is more consequential than that.

You do like to change the goalposts 🙄, but OK I'll bite; what is the actual question?

In 'A Brave new world' the world is engineered to provide everything we need, in a peaceful world; what's wrong with that?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

3- Some neuroscientists and me!

There is no short cut to understanding, if you want to be a pier, you have to build the foundations; just saying "what he said", is not being an honest seeker of truth... 😉

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

No less trainable, but I do ask why?

It's one of those bias's we're unaware of, like why is that brand my favourite?

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am an eternal optimist still in seach of it, with the impression that I will be disapointed

A flash of genuine understanding, in the fog of life, is always worth striving for bc you will never be disapointed; believe me, it's far more satisfying than the best <insert drug> high and it lasts a lifetime.

20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Not special nor spiritual, but mind does not work like we think. 

Like who thinks?