patrick.net

You won't even have the concept of "I" anymore, let alone the concept of time.

Agree. That was my point. I'm not into vague "spiritual" bullshit, so I'm not going to waste my precious time with it.

At least orthodox Christianity has something to offer: eternal life, based on the premise that human death is *not* natural, but the result of Adam and Eve's sin.

But as well all know, the Adam and Eve story is bullshit. Genetic evidence proves it. There was never a perfect world that can be restored by an Atoning Savior.

20

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Mar 12, 7:55am

I would say you like certainty in knowledge, and don't want to be bothered with possibilities.

I would love certainty, but I'm certainly for exploring all possibilities as long as these possibilities are based in reality. If I did not bother myself with the possibilities, how can the process of gaining further knowledge progress?

For instance, fairies in the sky is a possibility, but that's not a possibility supported by existing facts.

You can acknowledge the mysteries, but want to assert that science can eventually answer them all, and to the extent that it can not, you aren't interested.

Yes I do acknowledge the unknown, but I don't lose interest simply because science cannot answer them today . Your statement "to the extent that it can not", seems to tell me that you think some questions are possibly not answerable by science, ever . Why is that? Science is not dogmatic at all.

Or even see philosophical questions and spirituality as a possible obstacle to this.

Sometimes not always. There are philosophers who provide a lot of cogent arguments without getting into religion. so I don't think what you say is absolutely true..

Much of the difference is probably in emotional make up.

Partly. Partly may also be due to the fact that you have a lower estimation of what Science can answer than I do. Because you say:

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.

Sum total of experience of a human being is in their brain - where else can it be?

I don't get what you say by real truth vs. personal truth. Can you give an example or elaborate more on this?

Scientific truths are impersonal. They are true regardless of who looks at them. Law of conservation of energy has nothing to do with anybody's personal opinion.

You keep saying that "I don't know" and I don't think you are dogmatic, but you are unwilling to explore further.

You seem to think that the human experience has something to do outside of our brain chemistry, I really don't think that's true. the Brain is a lot more complex than you think and can explain a lot more about human interaction than you think. Which is why I'm saying you are underestimating the power of science.

21

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 9:09am

the Brain is a lot more complex than you think and can explain a lot more about human interaction than you think. Which is why I'm saying you are underestimating the power of science.

Who says I deny the complexity of the brain ? Actually, I think that like so many things it is infinitely complex. That is if you were to graph what we don't know about the brain, that graph might start to asymptotically approach zero tens of thousands of years from now (by definition never reaching zero).

Also, for me, if we one day have a far better understanding (as opposed to complete understanding) of how our brain creates our perception of self and our consciousness, that would not be the end of the mystery. It's sort of analogous to the creation versus evolution argument. Evolution proves that the bibles 6000 year version of history and creation is BS, but it doesn't fully explain how life came to exist on Earth and it doesn't preclude the possibilities of forces at play which are far outside of our comprehension. (note: I didn't say or imply supernatural - unless supernatural includes natural forces or intelligence that is beyond our understanding).

Similarly in physics, if we get to where we understand all subatomic particles and lets say we even eventually have some kind of unified field theory. So ? That's not the the end of mystery ? It surely increases it.

There will always be bigger and deeper questions. Say we found out that at one "time" there was nothing but a singularity from which everything came. IF that's true then how could that be ? And how do we even think about a world absent time ?

I don't get what you say by real truth vs. personal truth. Can you give an example or elaborate more on this?

For some, their religion can be a personal truth. On some level, they might know that it's not the absolute truth, but it's something they choose to live by as if it were true. Are you familiar with the idea of models in science or say for example in psychology there is Freud's structural model (ego, id super ego) ? It doesn't deal in absolute truths but rather a framework, an agreed way of talking about and analyzing psychological growth and issues. There are many other models in psychology that are in use today. People understand they are models, but at the same time they live by them essentially as truths.

22

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Mar 12, 10:20am

that graph might start to asymptotically approach zero tens of thousands of years from now (by definition never reaching zero).

So you are actually saying that we will never have a complete understanding of the human brain by definition ? :)

See this is why arguing semantics is pointless. Actually figuring out and asking the right questions about how the consciousness happens is much more interesting.

There will always be bigger and deeper questions.

:-) I never denied this. You did not have to go at great lengths to prove this one point. So what are we arguing on?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/F0R0OCurkLM

For some, their religion can be a personal truth. On some level, they might know that it's not the absolute truth, but it's something they choose to live by as if it were true.

You mean it is truth in the strands of their neural cortex but may not be absolutely true? :-) Isn't that an illusion?

If it gets worse, then it might be a delusion.
I'm not kidding, there's actually a medical condition.

Are you familiar with the idea of models in science or say for example in psychology there is Freud's structural model (ego, id super ego).

I don't have a very high opinion of Freud. Mainly because I read this book and some of his models have been seriously discredited. Not to say he's not a good scientist, just that his model based interpretation can be studied with much more advanced medical devices such as MRI etc. and can be tested. Some key models (such as his models for dreams) have been thoroughly bunked.

an agreed way of talking about and analyzing psychological growth and issues.

Yeah but psychology without a neural basis is like shooting in the dark.

. People understand they are models, but at the same time they live by them essentially as truths.

I think that's a problem, because how would you then know if the model you were working with is true or not? How do you test the model?

So sorry, I am still having a hard time understanding something as "personal truth"...I get personal belief, but I don't get personal truth.

23

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 11:32am

So you are actually saying that we will never have a complete understanding of the human brain by definition ?

No, I was saying a graph that approaches zero asymptotically never reaches zero by definition. 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.

.I get personal belief, but I don't get personal truth

But it was you who said:

But I just don't like to concern myself with semantic hygiene type questions

I don't know that the distinction is important. But someone who bases decisions on a model is treating the model for all intents and purposes as if it deals in truths.

24

freak80 2012 Mar 12, 2:40pm

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.

25

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 3:50pm

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.

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."

26

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Mar 12, 3:51pm

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 .

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).

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

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.

27

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 4:01pm

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

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

28

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Mar 12, 4:03pm

Never particularly into that idea per se.

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

I mean you also said:

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

29

freak80 2012 Mar 12, 4:05pm

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.

30

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 4:09pm

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.

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.

31

freak80 2012 Mar 12, 4:20pm

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.

32

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 4:20pm

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.

33

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 4:25pm

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:

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.

34

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Mar 12, 4:40pm

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.

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.

35

freak80 2012 Mar 12, 5:11pm

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.

36

freak80 2012 Mar 12, 5:12pm

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.

37

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 11:31pm

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)

but you are unwilling to explore further.

or

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

or

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

or

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

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

or

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.

38

marcus 2012 Mar 12, 11:45pm

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

39

marcus 2012 Mar 13, 12:30am

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.

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.

40

freak80 2012 Mar 13, 12:41am

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.

41

freak80 2012 Mar 13, 12:46am

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.

42

marcus 2012 Mar 13, 1:18am

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.

43

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Mar 13, 2:32am

Marcus,

Consider what you've posted:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

44

marcus 2012 Mar 13, 11:42am