tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8218734603006718950..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Argument From ConsciousnessJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88413294379219638792010-03-17T11:29:58.478-07:002010-03-17T11:29:58.478-07:00Loren, you were the one who started talking about ...Loren, you were the one who started talking about the "houseness" of houses and the "carness" of cars. Calling me a hyper-Platonist is hardly appropriate under the circumstances.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88449163131517345372010-03-16T14:11:10.283-07:002010-03-16T14:11:10.283-07:00Let's consider other sorts of emergences of or...Let's consider other sorts of emergences of order. If you put a lot of marbles in a box, they'll form a triangular grid. Does God say "I like putting marbles into triangular grids. I prefer them to square grids or Penrose pentagonal quasi-grids." and then place those marbles in such a grid???<br /><br /><br /><b>that's just more big guy in the sky thinking. You can't understand modern concepts of God so you keep relating them to this sort quasi biblical world that you assume theologians think in. Why don't you read some theology and learn something?</b><br /><br />It's a side effect of the sort of Universe we live in, with its space-time dimensions.<br /><br /><b>Human consciousness is a side effect of the kind of universe we live in, which is the kind that's created by a God who is not a big guy in the sky but the ground of being.<br /><br />that doesn't prove all consciousness is such a side effect.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89657716471287746122010-03-16T13:35:13.657-07:002010-03-16T13:35:13.657-07:00Emergent values and phenomena are not consistent w...Emergent values and phenomena are not consistent with strict reductionism precisely because the sum is more than its parts. A hierarchical approach recognizes both upward and downward causation without a prejudice toward either. <br /><br />And something to chew on:<br /><br /><i>"When I played with construction toys, I didn't think my productions into existence, my consciousness commanded my arms and hands and fingers to put the pieces into place. <b>Beyond a certain point</b>, it was a manifestly physical process."</i><br /><br />So consciousness preceded the material outcome, and only at a certain point did it come a clearly physical process. Not the best counterargument in this particular debate. <br /><br />(Pardon me if I am tardy in checking back in, busy time of year.)tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53360355410663709242010-03-16T10:17:13.505-07:002010-03-16T10:17:13.505-07:00I was reluctant to reply to Kristen's hyper-Pl...I was reluctant to reply to Kristen's hyper-Platonism, but I think that I must do so. When I played with construction toys, I didn't think my productions into existence, my consciousness commanded my arms and hands and fingers to put the pieces into place. Beyond a certain point, it was a manifestly physical process.<br /><br />Let's consider other sorts of emergences of order. If you put a lot of marbles in a box, they'll form a triangular grid. Does God say "I like putting marbles into triangular grids. I prefer them to square grids or Penrose pentagonal quasi-grids." and then place those marbles in such a grid???<br /><br />It's a side effect of the sort of Universe we live in, with its space-time dimensions.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6789115142385035672010-03-12T09:05:31.666-08:002010-03-12T09:05:31.666-08:00Right on Kristen, but also Loren is arguing form a...Right on Kristen, but also Loren is arguing form analogy. He's trying to link belief in property dualism to medieval essentialist philosophy.<br /><br />The thing is she is a lot closer to medieval nominalism. Meaning she denies meaning to the universe and reduces all phenomena to the point of losing the phenomena for the sake of an ideological re-description of the world according to propaganda.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70378941115121856742010-03-11T19:36:30.901-08:002010-03-11T19:36:30.901-08:00Loren said,
"When you were a kid, did you ev...Loren said,<br /><br />"When you were a kid, did you ever play with construction toys or make sand castles? If you have kids, have you ever watched them doing any of those things? Construction toys: blocks, Lego, Tinkertoys, etc.<br /><br />If you made a house out of blocks or a car out of Lego parts, were you adding some special house-stuff or car-stuff to those parts?<br /><br />I believe that that house's houseness and that car's carness are emergent properties, not extra substances. That is what I believe about myself also, that I'm an emergent property of certain physical entities."<br /><br />"Emergent" means it arises spontaneously out of the substances. But whenever I (or my kids) have made a house or a car, the house-ness or car-ness did not arise spontaneously from the Legos. We added our own conscious organization to turn them into something. The "house-stuff" or "car-stuff" was that which came from our intelligent wills. It did not require an additional "substance;" it required an organizing principle-- in this case, us. <br /><br />Why should your mind be an additional "substance?" Why shouldn't it be something planned by an intelligent will to result from the organization of the substance of your brain?Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79035250863707927222010-03-11T17:34:04.136-08:002010-03-11T17:34:04.136-08:00that source is now on the Faith and Reason website...that source is now on the Faith and Reason website. by the counterbalance foundation:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/cosmohaw-frame.html" rel="nofollow">Stephen Hawking's God</a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60213198418503030312010-03-11T17:26:38.656-08:002010-03-11T17:26:38.656-08:00this is the printed source for the Hawking thing:
...this is the printed source for the Hawking thing:<br /><br /><br />MetaList on Scinece and religion<br /><br />Stephen Hawking's God<br /><br /> In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31242594429436431452010-03-11T17:25:05.074-08:002010-03-11T17:25:05.074-08:00Meta: (1) GUT offers principle like mind as organi...Meta: (1) GUT offers principle like mind as organizing mechanism<br /><br />No it doesn't. <br /><br /><b>sweetie pie I've quoted a printied source. Hawkings says he does in Brief hsitory and the printed source is a physicists himself. Don'g give me that crap.</b><br /><br /><br />I've studied advanced physics in my university years long ago. Metacrock, do you know what a Lagrangian is? How to get equations of motion from one? The Klein-Gordon equation? The Dirac equation? Maxwell's equations? The Einstein-Hilbert equations?<br /><br /><br /><b>don't give me that crap. proving that you know that does not prove that Hawking doesn't propose an op like that. that's some of the most advanced physics, ho way do I believe that you studied that.<br /><br />I studied history of science at the doctoral level but I don't try to pretend that I know all science.</b><br /><br />I have discovered no mind anywhere in sight in the equations of the Standard Model or most GUT's or string theory or loop quantum gravity. It's all totally impersonal and non-conscious.<br /><br /><b>I quoted the printed material in the op. go read it again.</b><br /><br />As to mind-body dualism, I don't think that property dualism is what you want, because a property-dualist mind will die with the body rather than floating free.<br /><br /><b>the probem with trying to argue philosophy when you don't much about it is that you make assumptions like you are making now. There's a huge vast subject matter there it's not just that one type of thing. There many types of dualism.</b><br /><br />Kristen, I will try to explain what I believe with an analogy.<br /><br />When you were a kid, did you ever play with construction toys or make sand castles? If you have kids, have you ever watched them doing any of those things? Construction toys: blocks, Lego, Tinkertoys, etc.<br /><br />If you made a house out of blocks or a car out of Lego parts, were you adding some special house-stuff or car-stuff to those parts?<br /><br />I believe that that house's houseness and that car's carness are emergent properties, not extra substances. That is what I believe about myself also, that I'm an emergent property of certain physical entities.<br /><br /><b>this is the problem with being arrogant and thinking your little special gehottoized view is the only form of knwoledge. Then you take yourself as an expert on thigns you know not of.<br /><br />not all forms of dualism assert essence or think there's a special essence that's added int to make things what they are.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85756798365477862352010-03-11T16:29:35.271-08:002010-03-11T16:29:35.271-08:00Meta: (1) GUT offers principle like mind as organi...Meta: <i>(1) GUT offers principle like mind as organizing mechanism</i><br /><br />No it doesn't. I've studied advanced physics in my university years long ago. Metacrock, do you know what a Lagrangian is? How to get equations of motion from one? The Klein-Gordon equation? The Dirac equation? Maxwell's equations? The Einstein-Hilbert equations?<br /><br />I have discovered no mind anywhere in sight in the equations of the Standard Model or most GUT's or string theory or loop quantum gravity. It's all totally impersonal and non-conscious.<br /><br />As to mind-body dualism, I don't think that property dualism is what you want, because a property-dualist mind will die with the body rather than floating free.<br /><br />Kristen, I will try to explain what I believe with an analogy.<br /><br />When you were a kid, did you ever play with construction toys or make sand castles? If you have kids, have you ever watched them doing any of those things? Construction toys: blocks, Lego, Tinkertoys, etc.<br /><br />If you made a house out of blocks or a car out of Lego parts, were you adding some special house-stuff or car-stuff to those parts?<br /><br />I believe that that house's houseness and that car's carness are emergent properties, not extra substances. That is what I believe about myself also, that I'm an emergent property of certain physical entities.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-392802547248260672010-03-10T19:40:06.963-08:002010-03-10T19:40:06.963-08:00Reductionism takes away everything about life that...Reductionism takes away everything about life that makes it worth living. In the long run, no one really believes in it-- because we can't live our lives as if reductionism were actually true. If consciousness is nothing more than chemical activity in the brain, then <i>we</i> aren't real. We're just chemical reactions. <br /><br />It seems to me that if something is true, it should <i>work</i> to live like it's true. But it doesn't work to live as if reductionism were true. We can't even really do it. We can't stop acting as if love and courage and artistic achievement were real things worth living for. But if there's no consciousness, then none of them mean anything.<br /><br />Sorry, Loren, I don't buy it. And if, when you're not here arguing about it, you're out there living and loving and not giving up-- then I don't think you do either.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74858675985524206582010-03-10T14:00:29.449-08:002010-03-10T14:00:29.449-08:00As to brain damage changing mind, your monitor exa...As to brain damage changing mind, your monitor example is a non sequitur. If the brain is an elaborate "mind antenna", then it's an amazingly fine-grained and detailed one. Simply consider all the physical effects that can affect mind:<br /><br />Psychoactive drugs, brain damage, brain surgery, electrical stimulation, ...<br /><br /><b>Gee you know that's not an answer of any kind. First you say it doesn't work and why? you don't give a reason you say it's complex. You don't really understand the argument do you?<br /><br />If there is something below the surface of consciousness and our consciousness is just accessed by the brain, that's what bain function does in realation like the monitor accessing the soft ware ,than damaging the monitor doesn't really prove anything about the soft ware, see? It doesn't prove the monitor is the soft ware.<br /><br />another example. Let's say that I claim taht the Tv is receiving transmissions form access town and you say it' not, it's manufacturing it's images inside it as their point of origin.<br /><br />would smashing the tv prove that? it would stop the images but jus stopping them, would that prove they didn't originate across town?<br /><br />that's analogy that doesn't ean I think my thoughts are broadcast to me form anther world it just means you can't prove anything but surface correlations.<br /><br />that is in Antwerp to an atheist argument.</b><br /><br />Mind-body dualism is going the way of vitalism, which has been thoroughly discredited by molecular biology.<br /><br /><br /><b>that is nothing more than propaganda. that's the cheer leader giving a cheer, "we going to bust em and beat em and shis boom bah!"<br /><br />that's just the romanticized propaganda of the reductionist ideology at work. The truth is dualism has re packed philosophically and is bigger than ever. Dualism has actually taken the day in it's new of property dualism. </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77793001402878046222010-03-10T14:00:22.804-08:002010-03-10T14:00:22.804-08:00The hard problem is, I will concede, hard. But a c...The hard problem is, I will concede, hard. But a consciousness-stuff-of-the-gaps won't get anywhere.<br /><br /><b>Here's another little term you learned so you gotta find a use for it right? Its an illustration of how the reduction position is nothing more than a scam. They do't study consciousness they pull a bait and switch where the offer brain function to stand in for consciousnesses.</b><br /><br />Downward causation and veto power are artifacts of how our minds/brains work. It's like saying that computer software performs downward causation on computer hardware and has veto power over it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Yea, so what you are doing is trying to hide the phenomena by describing it in a way that makes it sound unimportant. What you just said is extremely important. It means that consciousness is over brain function it's over chemistry it's in control of the deterministically things that are supposes to define and explain it. So they can't explain it away as brain chemistry if it controls brain chemistry.</b><br /><br />And even if there was some sort of consciousness stuff, that does not prove that consciousness is some "basic property of nature".<br /><br /><b>Sure it does because it's irreducible. That's what being a basic property means. That' why electro/magnetism came to be seen as a basic property because it's irreducible.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />As to Grand Unified Theories, I'm familiar with those, and I don't see how they support your quote-mining, proof-texting, and excessive literal-mindedness about certain physicists' remarks.<br /><br /><br /><b>why would you think it's quote minding and proof texting? becasue you have not the research sklls t underastnd what research is do yoU? some graduate student taught you those temrs and you use everytime someone burries you in evidence.<br /><br />you have no sources. you don't have a context to put the material in. you have no proof of anything you say it's just asserting becuase it's part of the ideology that's sacred to the brain washed minions of atheism.<br /><br />you don't see how grand unified theory supports it? try to follow the steps.I know it's a new experience for an athist to follow a line of reasoning, just hold hands and stay with the guide and movement from one premise to another.<br /><br />(1) GUT offers principle like mind as organizing mechanism<br /><br />(2) Mind is the best example of organizing principle<br /><br />here's the pay, move from 1 and 2 to 3 and think about progression of ideas. <br /><br />(3) Since consciousness is part of the basic structure of nature, and since that structure requires a single unifying principle of which mind is the best example, it stands to reason that a conscious mind was the original structure that put consciousness into the universe<br /><br />there now that wasn't so painful was it. all of that was spelled out clearly in the OP you could have read it there and thought bout it you know?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4127208380113823292010-03-10T03:59:18.375-08:002010-03-10T03:59:18.375-08:00The hard problem is, I will concede, hard. But a c...The hard problem is, I will concede, hard. But a consciousness-stuff-of-the-gaps won't get anywhere.<br /><br />Downward causation and veto power are artifacts of how our minds/brains work. It's like saying that computer software performs downward causation on computer hardware and has veto power over it.<br /><br />And even if there was some sort of consciousness stuff, that does not prove that consciousness is some "basic property of nature".<br /><br />As to Grand Unified Theories, I'm familiar with those, and I don't see how they support your quote-mining, proof-texting, and excessive literal-mindedness about certain physicists' remarks.<br /><br />As to brain damage changing mind, your monitor example is a non sequitur. If the brain is an elaborate "mind antenna", then it's an amazingly fine-grained and detailed one. Simply consider all the physical effects that can affect mind:<br /><br />Psychoactive drugs, brain damage, brain surgery, electrical stimulation, ...<br /><br />Mind-body dualism is going the way of vitalism, which has been thoroughly discredited by molecular biology.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.com