News:

Testimonial: "Yeah, wasn't expecting it. Near shat myself."

Main Menu

On the socialization of children

Started by Unkl Dad, June 09, 2010, 08:54:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Hawk on June 13, 2010, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on June 13, 2010, 06:31:08 PM
It's too bad this perfectly good thread has degenerated into smug wankery.

Sorry, I will stop posting.

Not so much talking about you, actually. Note the word "smug".
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


LMNO

So, on one side we have Kai (and others), who has reams of experiments and case studies regarding the human brain, and the biology of consciousness.

One the other side, we have P3nt (and others) who has an untestable theory about... well, as far as I can make out, fields of conciousness that may or may not continue to exist after the biological brain has ceased to function.

Since the latter theory is untestable (so far), then it cannot be considered science.

In addition, without any available, testable, replicable evidence of the latter theory, then we have to fall back on Parsimony.  Which means that the simplest explanation with the least amount of conjecture is Kai's position.

He may not be right, but he's got a lot more evidence on his side, and a lot less speculation and guessing.



Cramulus

if we reduce the question of "what happens to you after you die" to a question about brain activity, it's very simple


but
life =/= consciousness


LMNO

It seems to be a conflict of science vs speculation.

Since one has specific rules and the other involves making shit up, there is very little common ground.

P3nT4gR4m

My position isn't based on any theory. My position is entirely based on not knowing and having the honesty to admit that I have no business ruling out anything. The reason I got a bug in my ass is because Kai (and others) were quite happy to wade in with absolute certainty on a point which science currently has neither the means nor the ambition to make comment on, one way or another.

If I want to measure voltage I'll use science. If I want to find out if there's life after death I'll have to wait til I'm dead. Somehow Kai is convinced he knows the answer already. That's just a common or garden belief any way you paint it. I'll attack that kind of thing til I'm blue in the face. In the interests of science!

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

LMNO

Like I said, Kai was answering from the basis of what is currently known.

You were answering from the basis of what you pulled out of your ass.


Not too much common ground there.

Cramulus

it sounded to me like Kai was answering a question about what happens to consciousness after you die.

which -- to me -- doesn't really scratch the [entirely human] itch to understand death.



Again, my questions about death are not about what happens to my cells or tissue - those are easy questions to answer. There is a Me which transcends scientific materialism, and is its existence in this world so anchored to my body? I don't think so [today]. This still leaves a big question mark.

P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 03:19:51 PM
Like I said, Kai was answering from the basis of what is currently known.

You were answering from the basis of what you pulled out of your ass is currently not known.


Not too much common ground there.

I didn't pull anything out of anywhere. I merely said - I don't know. IMO an unanswered question is just that - it's unanswered. Just exactly when did the scientific method become dressing up opinion in tangentially related theory and parading it as fact?


I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

I think the current state of scientific research indicates strongly that a neurological system is necessary to interact/measure the consciousness of an entity. If the  neurological system is busted, broken, destroyed or non-existent then scientists, doctors, me, you, the homeless guy on the corner... none of us can interact with or measure the consciousness of the entity. I think we can all agree with that.

However, that doesn't really tell us all that much about the consciousness itself... only about what is necessary for that consciousness to be manifest in our shared perception of reality.

For example, if we go on IRC and run a Turing test for Kai, Pent, Cramulus and Erisbot... the network of computers, routers, switches, applications etc. will be necessary for us to interact with or measure the consciousness of each of our subjects. If however, the network dies, the server crashes, a bulldozer cuts through a nice chunk of fiber etc etc etc we would no longer be able to interact with or measure the consciousness of our test subjects. That doesn't mean that Cramulus has lost his consciousness, only that he has lost his connection.

Science today seems able to be pretty precise about the necessary connectivity required for interacting with Realitynet. It is possible that without the necessary connection, there is no consciousness... but it is also possible that there is simply no connection to that consciousness. Deciding either way requires a leap of faith, I think.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

I think that may be what P3nt is getting at as far as science being a belief when it comes to delving into that territory.  Science can quite adeptly observe what happens to a body/individual before, during, and after death.  But these are observations from the outside.  Science can't observe what happens behind-the-eyes, if you will.  Yes, it can observe the brain-waves and body happenings, but it can't document the experience of death and the experience of after-death.  The theory is that dead is dead, and then there is no experience.

And I can understand P3nt's argument in that respect.  Speaking as a social scientist, you can only get so far observing from this perspective, from the outside.  When I study kids and drug abuse, I can look at the data, the arrests, grades, suspensions, admissions to treatment, etc., etc., but, until I sit down with a kid, talk to them, listen to them tell me their story, until I do that, I only have a certain portion of the story.  Without that behind-the-eyes perspective, I can only come to certain conclusions which may, or may not, be accurate.  

So, I think there is a question or questions about the after-death (note, I didn't say after-life) that science cannot 100% answer.  And I think that is okay for science.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

LMNO

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:

You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU  :lulz:

Ok, if i've got this right, Kai said, "here's what I consider to be the best explanation of consciousness: an emergent process that stems from the neural connections in the brain."

Then you disagreed, because... well, basically you don't like that explanation, but you offer no counter argument.

While there may be slim evidence to back up Kai, it is evidence, and it seems to make sense when you consider that whatever consciousness is, it exists in this universe and must conform to the laws of this universe.  

And you... you have no opinon, you have no theories, and you don't even have enough information to disprove Kai.

If we use a Fuzzy Logic Truth Chart™ on this, Kai may be below 100% True, but you haven't even managed to get on the chart yet.

P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: LMNO on June 14, 2010, 03:50:49 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2010, 06:03:36 PM
:cn:

You seem quite adamant about this shit, Kai. For someone who prides himself as a 'scientist' you seem to have reached a pretty firm conclusion, based on fuck all much data. Conciousness might do all manner of things after the biology dies. Last I heard nobody had proven anything yet? That's before we even begin to scratch the surface of different popular time models in physics. Either show me some hard data, other than ... something, something, Alzheimer, something... or STFU  :lulz:

Ok, if i've got this right, Kai said, "here's what I consider to be the best explanation of consciousness: an emergent process that stems from the neural connections in the brain."

Then you disagreed, because... well, basically you don't like that explanation, but you offer no counter argument.

While there may be slim evidence to back up Kai, it is evidence, and it seems to make sense when you consider that whatever consciousness is, it exists in this universe and must conform to the laws of this universe.  

And you... you have no opinon, you have no theories, and you don't even have enough information to disprove Kai.

If we use a Fuzzy Logic Truth Chart™ on this, Kai may be below 100% True, but you haven't even managed to get on the chart yet.

I didn't disagree with Kai on that point at all. Consciousness seems to be an emergent property that stems from the neural connections of the brain. That'd be my best guess too. However I have no proof as to whether or not it is capable of existing in some form or other once the the neural connections of the brain cease to function. I can think of a dozen or more scenarios which would allow for this to be the case but I made a point of trying not to argue for any of these, given that I have no evidence to support or disprove them.

Here's what we know for sure. When you tell someone to think something you can measure the effects of that process using instrumentation attached to the head in some way. Consciousness does indeed seem to be coming from there. However, as far as I'm aware, there is currently no instrumentation which is capable of quantifying that consciousness itself. You can't weigh it, measure it's velocity, tell me what colour it is or how it smells. Therefore there is no certainty about what happens to it, once the brain is destroyed. IMO, despite the fact that it might be a fairly logical assumption that it disappears,  it's still just an assumption. An assumption based on absolutely no available data whatsoever.

Given that our impression of the form of consciousness draws some parallel with that of a computer program (the latter being an emergent property of the interactions of a bunch of miniature transistors) I used the example of an email. My point being that the emergent property of software is not dependent on the hardware on which it runs. The whole pattern is subject to a myriad state changes in which it can be imprinted on magnetic or optical media, printed out on paper or so on and then reloaded on a myriad different devices, themselves independent of the original. Is it possible that the 'software' pattern of our consciousness is capable of a similar state change at the point of death? I don't know. Apparently Kai does.

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

LMNO

So, you're saying that a system that emerges from a multiplicity of simple interactions can then become independent of those interactions? 

Cramulus

my grandma's dead but I inherited her car

LMNO

I don't quite know how to respond to that, but I'm pretty sure a car is not an emergent system.