patrick.net

Marcus,

The whole point of science is to show that there is nothing "supernatural." Everything "must" be reduced to matter and energy and the laws-of-physics. If you haven't figured that out by now, you haven't been paying attention.

If you're into the idea of an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul that can survive death, science isn't exactly your friend.

wthrfrk80 says

If you're into the idea of an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul that can survive death, science isn't exactly your friend.

Never particularly into that idea per se.

wthrfrk80 says

The whole point of science is to show that there is nothing "supernatural."

Really ? That's the whole point of science ? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard you say. True enough that science often finds itself contradicting religious beliefs. True that science doesn't depend on faith in any way, except possibly faith in science itself. Modern science is empirical. Anything "supernatural" that could be empirically proven true would henceforth be deemed natural.

Also, I have repeatedly said in these discussions that I have no belief in the "supernatural," whatever that even means. Talk about your bullshit semantics.

I can see it now. "Johnny, why do you want to be a scientist ?"

"So I can spend my life showing that there isn't anything supernatural. That's what really gets me excited about science."

marcus says

But yes it is my opinion that we will ever know everything about the brain. But that is no leap, if you can even comprehend what knowing everything about something as complex as the brain, and in turn the human mind, means.

Marcus - you are making the discussion way too complicated. The brain consists of more than 100 billion neurons. These neurons are interconnected in myriad different ways. From these connections emerge functions of the human brain. Functions can be mapped to structures and vice-versa. While the problem of mapping the whole human brain is infinitely difficult, our understanding is not limited. We understand the general functionality quite well and we can work off from that. This understanding is what I'd call foundational aspects of neuroscience.

So there - human mind = function emerging from the human brain, which in turn comprises of neurons connected in an infinitely varying, complex network. This neural network has dynamic properties such as learning and the network can adapt.

My brief description above does not explain the brain in all gory detail nor does it contain every possible minute detail that we know about the brain so far, but the general idea is irrefutably true.

I have a strong disagreement with your second statement, because you are needlessly making it sound complicated while the general structure and function of the brain can be understood quite easily through any popular book such as this excellent book .

marcus says

I don't know that the distinction is important

It is important because the true spirit of science is to ask questions, discover and work from what we already know. Your point has repeatedly been, "but how can we know EVERYTHING?"

We don't have to know everything, at the same time-- we don't have to be frightened or simply stand in awe for not knowing things. We can learn and make progress, by following the footsteps of giants (scientists who have laid the foundational work).

marcus says

But someone who bases decisions on a model is treating the model for all intents and purposes as if it deals in truths.

Yeah how did that work out in Freudian times?

He came up with Oedipus Complex which has been utterly discredited by the work of Ramachandran.

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

More likely Johnny goes in to science just because of curiosity.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tu57B1v0SzI

By the way, if all we had was Newtonian Mechanics, wouldn't this be kinda supernatural ?

marcus says

Never particularly into that idea per se.

really? Your Cool Story Bro thread doesn't imply that way.

I mean you also said:

marcus says

I believe that "The Egg" appeals to the spiritual in me.

marcus says

Also, I have repeatedly said in these discussions that I have no belief in the "supernatural," whatever that even means. Talk about your bullshit semantics.

So what's your point then? It seems we're just involved in a mere juggling of words. It's a waste of time.

uomo_senza_nome says

We don't have to know everything, at the same time-- we don't have to be frightened or simply stand in awe for not knowing things.

Good. Then please don't be afraid. I know you aren't the kind of asshole that would project that kind of BS point of view on me.

I will be in awe, as all true scientists are. You want to make me out to be someone I am not, and I am done trying to help you understand what my point of view is or isn't.

uomo_senza_nome says

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

THere have been moments when I thought we were in the same conversation. You ask me to elaborate and probe away. When I try pretty hard to answer you project all kind of BS my way. A conversation doesn't have to be an argument.

I have nothing to say on this anymore.

marcus says

By the way6, if all we had was Newtonian Mechanics, wouldn't this be kinda supernatural ?

Marcus,

Sonic booms (as shown in that rocket video) are not supernatural any more than sound waves are. And don't confuse sound waves with the kind of "waves" involved in quantum physics. You show that you don't really understand the science involved or science at all for that matter.

If you want vague spiritual/emotional bullshit, go on Oprah or The View.

uomo_senza_nome says

I mean you also said:

marcus says

I believe that "The Egg" appeals to the spiritual in me.

Yes. And sorry, but I'm not going to break it down for you. It's like art. It either does something for you or it doesn't.

wthrfrk80 says

You show that you don't really understand the science involved or science at all for that matter.

You're right. Because I don't understand that:

wthrfrk80 says

The whole point of science is to show that there is nothing "supernatural."

I have no idea what rocket video you're talking about. Goodnight.

marcus says

You want to make me out to be someone I am not, and I am done trying to help you understand what my point of view is or isn't.

Not quite. I hope you at least got the part where you were ambiguous.

marcus says

When I try pretty hard to answer you project all kind of BS my way. A conversation doesn't have to be an argument.

I don't think what I said is BS. and I think I have provided sufficient proof to show that simply having faith that models are true doesn't work.

I think I've shown this with examples from neuroscience (Freudian specifically). But only if you dig further, you'll understand the fallacy in your statement.

Instead, if you superficially claim what I wrote as BS and just reject it outright, I don't think there can be an effective conversation.

uomo_senza_nome says

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

Well put.

marcus says

I have no idea what rocket video you're talking about. Goodnight.

The toward the end of the double slit experiment video you posted, there's a clip of a rocket creating a sonic boom that is visible thanks to a cloud of ice particles. It's pretty neat.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think what I said is BS. and I think I have provided sufficient proof to show that simply having faith that models are true doesn't work.

I think I've shown this with examples from neuroscience (Freudian specifically). But only if you dig further, you'll understand the fallacy in your statement.

Instead, if you superficially claim what I wrote as BS and just reject it outright, I don't think there can be an effective conversation.

You're arguing where there is no argument and you project opinions and beliefs and a side of the conversation on to me that isn't there.

I talked about personal truths. I think people operate this way sometimes, I didn't say it's right or good (or wrong or bad).

I only mentioned Freud because you wanted examples of what I meant by personal truths or models. AGain you're arguing where there is none. People use models all the time in science, psychology, economics, and business for the purposes of making decisions. Because decisions are sometimes required. I didn't say it was good or bad.

The BS and straw man projections are all of this kind of stuff (if your your idea of effective conversation, is just making my point of view whatever you want it to be, then I'll do without)

uomo_senza_nome says

but you are unwilling to explore further.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

the Brain is a lot more complex than you think and can explain a lot more about human interaction than you think.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

If it gets worse, then it might be a delusion.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

We don't have to know everything, at the same time-- we don't have to be frightened or simply stand in awe for not knowing things

or

uomo_senza_nome says

Your Cool Story Bro thread doesn't imply that way.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

I have no interest in arguing this. I think I originally distinguished between personal truth and absolute truth. For someone who doesn't like to get hung up on semantics, you sure do. If you don't understand what I meant, or want to say there is no such thing, that's fine.

By the way though, compared to Dan discussing this stuff, you are truly enlightened, thoughtful and a gentleman promoting excellent and positive conversation.

wthrfrk80 says

The toward the end of the double slit experiment video you posted, there's a clip of a rocket creating a sonic boom that is visible thanks to a cloud of ice particles. It's pretty neat.

I hadn't seen that part of the video.

wthrfrk80 says

You show that you don't really understand the science involved or science at all for that matter.

Was it my posting the video that "showed" that ? I'm going to assume that you reached this conclusion using your idea of what empirical means.

Marcus,

My apologies. I thought you were trying to say that quantum physics was directly related to the shock waves seen in the rocket video. I didn't realize you hadn't even seen that part of the video. Total mistake on my part.

I over-reacted because it seemed to be a very silly argument...that shock waves were somehow supernatural and/or directly related to the wave/particle nature of electrons. But you were not actually making that assertion since you hadn't even seen the last part of the video with the rocket.

wthrfrk80 says

I didn't realize you hadn't even seen that part of the video. Total mistake on my part.

Okay. But now that I've seen it, I don't think it was meant as anything other than filler for viewers, or possibly just an example of waves that are visual. (and it is kind of cool). I thought it was clear that the other (cartoon) video had ended.

That slit experiment is one of the most famous examples of the weirdness that goes on at the quantum level, but believe me people don't try to make inferences
about the realities on our level from the weirdness at the sub atomic level.

But it is weird. As far as we know, at the particle level, matter is almost entirely space. And the models that explain things (the behavior and the Math), such as string theory or the MWI are bizarre.

As we quantify things, and learn how they work well enough to make use of them, does this mean we totally understand ? Maybe my problem is that I am not as easily convinced that I understand things as many people are.

Marcus,

Consider what you've posted:

marcus says

How much of this is brain chemistry, how much is part of a sum total of experience, versus how much might even have to do with some real truths or only personal truths (models) ? I just don't know.

marcus says

But yes it is my opinion that we will ever know everything about the brain.

Now, based on what you've posted: I came to an understanding that you are thinking that there's something beyond the human brain that we don't possibly understand about our human experience and we will NEVER know what that something is.

What I was trying to show was that there's adequate understanding about the human brain to demonstrate that ALL our human experience is through constructs of the brain.

I've read a little about neuroscience and I am keenly interested to learn new things in that field. Based on what I know, the brain is complex enough to accomodate ALL of our human experience and then some.

You keep saying "I don't know and I may never know"..which means that if you start reading more about a subject, you'll start knowing more. Sure there would be finer and finer questions, but that's the beauty of science. Finer and Finer questioning can be answered. That is the challenge.

marcus says

I think I originally distinguished between personal truth and absolute truth.

Yes and I think I was trying to show you that personal truth is ambiguous: Personally, I can have an opinion or a belief, but that's not truth. I suppose I was setting a higher standard for what you'd call "truth", than what you were portraying.

marcus says

People use models all the time in science, psychology, economics, and business for the purposes of making decisions. Because decisions are sometimes required. I didn't say it was good or bad.

Yes and I'm fine with that. Models are wonderful because we can simulate what "might" happen. But models are useless if they are not flexible. Models need to be adapted from what we learn about reality.

You were trying to show that models are somewhat closer to your personal truth idea and I was showing that it's not, because I can't think of anything that can be labeled such way.

marcus says

The BS and straw man projections are all of this kind of stuff

I'll leave it others who may be following this thread to judge if what I said was straw men.

Thanks for your compliment.

uomo_senza_nome says

Now, based on what you've posted: I came to an understanding that you are thinking that there's something beyond the human brain that we don't possibly understand about our human experience and we will NEVER know what that something is.

I didn't say this. Although I know what you're getting at. You're trying to take the conversation more towards an argument about spirituality. I'm not interested in going there. I might plant seed or try to get you thinking about something, but I have no interest in selling you on the idea that your way of seeing the world or interfacing with the world should be more like my way. I'm not saying my way is better.

But I can tell you with certainty that I never implied that the things that I see as far beyond human comprehension (call them transcendent for lack of a better word)in any way block my search for or appreciation of scientific knowledge.

I have respect for other areas of human thinking and achievement though. This includes some models that are not "true" in the absolute sense but are still rich areas of exploration. Yes it's true. For me, entertaining ideas can be fun without ruling them out because of an overly empirical bias.

Consider Jung ?

http://www.skepdic.com/collectiveun.html

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/tp/archetypes.htm

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/collective_unconscious.html

You are clearly more interested in the physical brain so I'll leave you this, an excellent series Charlie rose did a while back.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/E8zTtOGh3AQ&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/embed/z1Esj2dOGj0&feature=related