Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 127 (171908)
12-28-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by 1.61803
12-28-2004 12:45 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
So if one man imagines something, it is just that. Or ten men. Or 2000. Hypothetically, if everyone imagined the same thing, would that thing exist? Does collective imagination have any power?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 12:45 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 2:19 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 48 by Ben!, posted 12-28-2004 4:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 47 of 127 (171919)
12-28-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
12-28-2004 1:38 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Depends on what you mean by "Power". If enough people believe that pink elephants exist. Then does that mean they do? No...they don't except in the imaginations of those who believe it.
But YES: if by POWER you mean the ability to change human civilization, or policy, or dispersal of wealth. Collective imagination can be very powerful in this regard.IMO Peace be with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 12-28-2004 1:38 PM Phat has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 48 of 127 (171940)
12-28-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
12-28-2004 1:38 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Well...
I don't mean to insult you or to belittle your belief, but this is exactly what non-believers think about believers (a.k.a. God). So...
"Exist" is a funny word, and I don't like it. So I'll try to work around it. You are you, right? And you can't get outside your head. So, if YOU imagine something, it basically exists for you. If 1, 10, or 2000 others imagine something but you do not, then it basically does not exist for you; although there will be effects (notice the societal effects of different religions on even those who do not believe). In that same vein, if everybody believes that something exists, then basically it does exist.
Now, usually people coordinate their beliefs with evidence and consistency. Things that are simply imagined usually wind up being untenable--either they start to conflict with other measurements, or the imaginations of different people start to show differences.
However, I would say that, since we can't ultimately know an "absolute truth," and that since our scientific theories are incremental and based on observation, this type of "consistent imagination", if it doesn't conflict measurable data, then it is not distinguishable from "reality."
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 12-28-2004 1:38 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 4:16 PM Ben! has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 49 of 127 (171945)
12-28-2004 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ben!
12-28-2004 4:03 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Hi Ben,
Ben writes:
if everybody believes that something exists, then basically it does exist.
So what happened during the Y2K change over? Nothing happened.
I do not agree with this point....I do not think that one person believing or a million will make a pink elephant appear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ben!, posted 12-28-2004 4:03 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by contracycle, posted 12-28-2004 6:07 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 50 of 127 (171950)
12-28-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dshortt
12-28-2004 12:09 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Dennis,
Thanks for the welcome. And thanks for your attitude (interested, personable, willing) with this thread; it makes discussion enjoyable.
For some scientists this may be true, but for many, it is exactly what is sought. SETI seeks to establish the "ultimate truth" that we are not alone in the universe and should consider ourselves thereby less "special".
Ah, but there's the rub. In my view (and of course I really want everybody else to think the same way!), there's only a very fine line (and only a philosophically interesting one) here. YES, we CANNOT know ultimate truth. HOWEVER, we are searching for knowledge, data, and theories that DO explain our experience consistently and completely. If we do actually attain consistency (with data and within the explanation) in our explanations, then there's really very little difference (and zero PRACTICAL difference) between "absolute truth" and what we've done.
But that is just the point: we can't model reality currently (as NosyNed and other scientists and scientific types will admit) simply based on the natural. ... how long do we wait for science to come through on it's promissory notes?
Here I think is the interesting question, and I thought this was one of the directions you are headed. ... (deleting many sentences, going for simplicity now). I guess the answer is, I don't know. I was tempted to say "there IS no 'longest time'," but now I think not. I guess it would be at the point where we stop making progress (i.e. stop creating theories that INCREASE the amount of data that we can explain) and where we stagnate on our knowledge for a long time.
There is no "time," in principle, though. Science doesn't have to be "right." You can get the right answers through other means. Science is just a method to get some answers. It has its benefits and its shortfalls. Certainly all of those on this board reap the benefits of science. But it's not the only way to get answers. Maybe it's the only quasi-dependable, communicable way though.
I would prefer to follow the more logical course.
I'll bite--What is this? I don't understand what is more logical to you. Please explain.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dshortt, posted 12-28-2004 12:09 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2004 6:05 PM Ben! has replied
 Message 58 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 6:56 AM Ben! has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 127 (171959)
12-28-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Ben!
12-28-2004 4:35 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Ben writes:
If we do actually attain consistency (with data and within the explanation) in our explanations, then there's really very little difference (and zero PRACTICAL difference) between "absolute truth" and what we've done.
I like that idea. I like it very much. That's what I've been thinking. LOGIC is an absolute. All you need is that, and all the rest follows.
As regards the term "supernatural," if we got rid of that in this discussion, and just called it "the natural that we do not know about," I don't see a lot of disagreement here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Ben!, posted 12-28-2004 4:35 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2004 8:54 AM robinrohan has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 127 (171961)
12-28-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by 1.61803
12-28-2004 4:16 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
quote:
So what happened during the Y2K change over? Nothing happened.
Nothing OFFICIALLY happened. So NORAD did not OFFICIALLY go down for 6 hours.
I find Y2K interesting because it has passed into modern myth as a modern myth. Even thogh the warning were legitimate, and vast amounts of work carried out to prevent the potential disaster, and that work in large part succeeded. So, despite this being one of our better successes at habndling oncoming crises, it's become a joke in hindsight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 4:16 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 8:57 PM contracycle has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 53 of 127 (171999)
12-28-2004 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by contracycle
12-28-2004 6:07 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
My apologies if I inadvertantley insulted any work you may have contributed during the Y2K..I was refering more to the "doomsdayers" and apocalyptic nonsense that was bringing out all sorts of fruitcakes with all manner of EVENTS supposedly going to take place. The Millenium passed with no end of the Earth, or Jesus making a public appearance.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by contracycle, posted 12-28-2004 6:07 PM contracycle has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 54 of 127 (172041)
12-29-2004 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Brad McFall
12-25-2004 10:10 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
I'm not sure if this relates as I can't claim to understand it but it sounds fascinating. lfen
News
Published online: 23 December 2004; | doi:10.1038/news041220-12
Natural selection acts on the quantum world
Philip Ball
Objective reality may owe its existence to a 'darwinian' process that advertises certain quantum states.
If observing the world tends to change it, how come we all see the same butterfly?
A team of US physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive quantum world.
If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it, how is it that we can agree on anything at all? Why doesn't each person leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to find?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states.
Natural selection acts on the quantum world | Nature

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 12-25-2004 10:10 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 55 of 127 (172052)
12-29-2004 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
12-28-2004 12:31 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Phatboy writes:
DO Pink Elephants exists outside of the minds of those who imagine them?
Do you have reason to think so?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 12-28-2004 12:31 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 12-29-2004 5:36 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 127 (172053)
12-29-2004 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Parasomnium
12-29-2004 5:08 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
For the sake of argument, assume that thousands of people whom I had met as well as millions worldwide had claimed the existance of pink elephants. True Believers. Specifically, they mentioned one benevolant pink elephant who loved humans and who changed the lives of those who had met her.
Her name was Elsie. While many who believed in pink elephants seemed wacky and unreasonable--indeed very non rational, there were many who had undoubtedly benifited from their interactions and encounters with Elsie.
While there were some who tried to manipulate the situation, and use Elsies name and reputation to extort gifts and money from me, and while others had no change of heart or spark in their lives and were quite annoying when they demanded that I open my mind to Elsie, I was quite content to be left alone. I often wondered about Elsie, though. It was all quite amusing and disturbing, to say the least.
There were those few who talked with Elsie every day and who seemed full of a spark that I and many others lacked. The spark of life was undoubtedly with them. I knew that there were other paths that could spark and renew me, such as meditation and aerobic exercise.
There was still part of me that wondered if I would cross the line from safety and freethinking sanity to an uncertain leap of faith were I to ever call out in the darkness to this Elsie. She existed in the minds and hearts of others, but not in my own.
parasomnium writes:
Do you have reason to think so?(That Elsie COULD exist)
Rationally and logically, no. Emotionally and intuitively, yes.
Was the "no" my brain talking? What was talking that said "yes"?
And I know that you see my parable!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-29-2004 03:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Parasomnium, posted 12-29-2004 5:08 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Parasomnium, posted 12-30-2004 2:05 PM Phat has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 127 (172058)
12-29-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Parasomnium
12-28-2004 12:26 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Hey Parasomnium,
quote:
Normally, education is about teaching new generations practical knowledge.
But under a naturalistic philosophy, why should they trust any of it?
quote:
It seems I had a narrow escape there.
As any Superhero would have done. Or were you just teasing me?
quote:
You used "realities", "the physical" and "the natural", I just followed along.
I think if I were to press you further on this one, you do equate the "natural" with the "real". But it seems the rest of my post has veered us off topic somewhat, and I apologize. Let me try another experiment, if I may.
I am betting, from looking at your picture, that when you walk into a room, that room is changed forever. Nobody in that room could NOT notice you if they were even half awake. And then, upon meeting you, the combination of your talents, intellect, humor, and the unity of your experiences that make you YOU would be a permament imprint upon the mind of that person. Now, imagine someone parading your dead body (I know, I know, I am already deeply sorry for this analogy) through the same room, or an accurate (not currently available in stores kids) physical representation of you. Wouldn't quite have the same effect, would it? There is a youness to you that has never happened in the history of the universe and suggests strongly that the "self" is seperate from the physical, or at least an addition to.
Dennis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Parasomnium, posted 12-28-2004 12:26 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 12-29-2004 8:12 AM dshortt has not replied
 Message 87 by Parasomnium, posted 12-30-2004 2:21 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 127 (172059)
12-29-2004 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Ben!
12-28-2004 4:35 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Hey Ben,
I like the way you think; you and I seem to be quite similar, just coming at it from different directions.
quote:
Ah, but there's the rub. In my view (and of course I really want everybody else to think the same way!), there's only a very fine line (and only a philosophically interesting one) here. YES, we CANNOT know ultimate truth. HOWEVER, we are searching for knowledge, data, and theories that DO explain our experience consistently and completely. If we do actually attain consistency (with data and within the explanation) in our explanations, then there's really very little difference (and zero PRACTICAL difference) between "absolute truth" and what we've done.
But a rub upon the rub if you will, is that under a purely naturalistic philosophy, knowledge itself cannot be trusted. And yes, certainly consistencey could not be ignored, (except by the ingorant or insane), but anything resembling a philosophical statement that is an outflow of this consistency, or that the consistency itself is based on could not be trusted. And that is how we find empirical science in the priviliged postion of being the arbitror or truth today.
quote:
Here I think is the interesting question, and I thought this was one of the directions you are headed. ... (deleting many sentences, going for simplicity now). I guess the answer is, I don't know. I was tempted to say "there IS no 'longest time'," but now I think not. I guess it would be at the point where we stop making progress (i.e. stop creating theories that INCREASE the amount of data that we can explain) and where we stagnate on our knowledge for a long time.
And maybe our answers to some of these questions is different because in my view, science has stagnated on the big questions. Where did we come from, why are we here, origins if you will. Forty years ago, it looked pretty promising, I will admit. And I bit off on the notion that science would find the origins of life, the universe and man. Now you may be able to argue some evolutionary trivia with me, but ultimately I am sure you will agree we don't have scientific answers to these questions some forty years later, and don't appear to be any closer. I would liken our progress in these areas to the clearing of a field. We see the outer edges and think we are closer to clearing the entire landscape without realizing the horizon is an infinite distance from us. I am not at all suggesting we give up; on the contrary, as you and others have pointed out, science is very important to our knowing anything. But to put it in the postition of being our ONLY tool to gain knowledge is foolish and dangerous.
quote:
Science doesn't have to be "right." You can get the right answers through other means. Science is just a method to get some answers. It has its benefits and its shortfalls. Certainly all of those on this board reap the benefits of science. But it's not the only way to get answers. Maybe it's the only quasi-dependable, communicable way though.
I would like to hear you expound on this when you have time.
Thanks
Dennis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Ben!, posted 12-28-2004 4:35 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2004 8:02 AM dshortt has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 59 of 127 (172062)
12-29-2004 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by dshortt
12-29-2004 6:56 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
I like the way you think; you and I seem to be quite similar, just coming at it from different directions.
Cool, glad to hear it. I'm very interested to continue; I'm still not quite sure where you're coming from. So I have some questions
But a rub upon the rub if you will, is that under a purely naturalistic philosophy, knowledge itself cannot be trusted.
Why do you say this? I am not sure what you mean "trusted." You mean there's no reason "a priori" reason to believe in something like causality (a.k.a. Hume), so there's no "grounding" reason to believe that things won't change at any moment? I'm just guessing, I'm really not sure.
But to give you a peek at where I may come from after your response... I'm probably going to argue (unless you throw something at me that I'm not expecting) something along the lines of "the rub rubbing the rub is that this "knowledge" MUST be trusted. And if that applies, then I would also argue that the argument has nothing to do with science or anything else.
And maybe our answers to some of these questions is different because in my view, science has stagnated on the big questions. Where did we come from, why are we here, origins if you will.
Well... abiogenesis and evolution are ... by their nature, they are slow sciences. There's some crazy stuff out there--I just listened to a talk today (online for free!) about the molecular structure of ion channels. It's crazy!
We have quantum chromodynamics, which according to the author can relate gravitational and intertial mass, marrying quantum mechanics with general relativity. That's new stuff.
... but thinking more about it, I understand where you're coming from I think. 40 years isn't much time (it seems to me) in the history of the world. And I think that the actual building blocks that are being developed have not, in any way, stagnated. I think "revolutionary" thought is based on good, solid, unexplained data. I think we're still getting new, good, data. I think the new ideas are, then, only inevitable. But of course, maybe not. It's all personal viewpoint. And if you want to turn away from science, that is a choice of course you have.
Science doesn't have to be "right." You can get the right answers through other means. Science is just a method to get some answers. It has its benefits and its shortfalls.
Certainly all of those on this board reap the benefits of science. But it's not the only way to get answers. Maybe it's the only quasi-dependable, communicable way though.
I would like to hear you expound on this when you have time.
I started writing this up, but yeah, it's a bit long. I'll write it up separately, and post later if you're interested. By the way, can you think of any alternate forms besides religion, philosophy, and ignorance? Ignorance being the choice to stop asking questions of this nature. And don't laugh--for me, that's the closest viable alternative to science.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 6:56 AM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 11:21 AM Ben! has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 127 (172063)
12-29-2004 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by dshortt
12-29-2004 6:23 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
quote:
Normally, education is about teaching new generations practical knowledge.
quote:
But under a naturalistic philosophy, why should they trust any of it?
Because it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 6:23 AM dshortt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 8:26 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024