New stuff in neuroscience

#41
What kills me is that people respond to the posts of user who is clearly as dumb as a rock. If everyone completely ignored him then possibly he might stop posting. I know this sounds harsh and I know I have been beating this drum and for some reason have not yet been banned. But please! Steve001 shows zero ability to have even a shred of nuanced thought. None. Nothing. Nada. And he never has. And this has gone on for years. And yes I suppose it is amusing in some way to let him continue to post and then people argue with him. But when does it end? What is the purpose? Why do people keep responding to his posts? Why is he allowed to continue posting this drivel? Even the other village idiots have left him hanging here on his own. It is humorous, but after a while you swat the fly and move on.
 
#42
Remember
I find it amusing that Steve001 presenting an expert defending his viewpoint in another thread is perfectly fine, but I'm somehow committing a sin against his materialist faith if I post links to Tallis' arguments that people can read and judge for themselves.

In the other thread he specifically notes the credentials of the author he cites as being important. Well after Steve001 referred to Tallis as a "fool" I presented Tallis' credentials here.

Now waiting for Steve001 to post his credentials so that we might compare them to Tallis'.

As for where our memories are if not in the brain, we might turn to the thread entitled 'Do we need morphogenic fields?' as offering one possibility.
Remember Sci, I'm targeting one specific thing he believes which I don't need to reiterate.
Yes, I trust a physicist to understand physics than a biologist to understand physics.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#43
Remember

Remember Sci, I'm targeting one specific thing he believes which I don't need to reiterate.
Yes, I trust a physicist to understand physics than a biologist to understand physics.
Actually, I posted an essay by a physicist who supported the idea of morphogenic fields and I posted some stuff where the physicist Lee Smolin discusses his argument for the laws of nature changing. Smolin even discusses the possibility of a Principle of Precedence which is very much akin to Morphic Resonance and accommodates the idea that universal constants can change.

Anyway, you're willing to defer to experts elsewhere but with Tallis you don't trust someone with experience as a neuroscientist and a philosopher to at least have presented a thoughtful argument. It's different to say that you intuitively feel he's wrong, but you specifically referred to him as a "fool". I remain curious what credentials you have to make such a strong assertion.

Or you could show us where is argument falters - you don't need credentials for that you just need to understand the argument.

Anyway, since you hold physicists in such high regard here's physicist Lee Smolin on the brain & consciousness from his book Time Reborn:

The problem of qualia, or consciousness, seems unanswerable by science because it's an aspect of the world that is not encompassed when we describe all the physical interactions among particles. It's in the domain of questions about what the world really is, not how it can be modeled or represented.

Some philosophers argue that qualia simply are identical to certain neuronal processes. This seems to me wrong. Qualia may very well be correlated with neuronal processes but they are not the same as neuronal processes. Neuronal processes are subject to description by physics and chemistry, but no amount of detailed description in those terms will answer the questions as to what qualia are like or explain why we perceive them.
We don't know what a rock really is, or an atom, or an electron. We can only observe how they interact with other things and thereby describe their relational properties. Perhaps everything has external and internal aspects. The external properties are those that science can capture and describe - through interactions, in terms of relationships. The internal aspect is the intrinsic essence, it is the reality that is not expressible in the language of interactions and relations. Consciousness, whatever it is, is an aspect of the intrinsic essence of brains.

On further aspect of consciousness is the fact that it takes place in time. Indeed, when I assert that it is always some time in the world, I am extrapolating from the fact that my experiences of the world always takes place in time. But what do I mean by my experiences? I can speak about them scientifically as instances of recordings of information. To speak so, I need not mention consciousness or qualia. But this may be an evasion, because these experiences have aspects that are consciousness of qualia. So my conviction that what is real is real in the present moment is related to my conviction that qualia are real.
 
#45
#47
It does not matter if he considers the idea reasonable, which it seems he does. What matters is if the claim itself is a reasonable one? A confluence of evidence is compelling enough that to think memories are non local is an absurdity.
What I find odd is your rationale to defend a rationale you don't comprehend?
We wouldn't have these types of conversations if members would stop referring to these types of people as experts.Blame it on Sciborg for bringing up R. Tallis.

Well, I guess firstly... when did I say I do not comprehend it and what was difficult to comprehend in our discussion in the first place? You simply bringing up his opinion on a matter? Well done for quoting somebody else and then just saying they're a fool. Comprehended. It seems I understood it just fine - he thinks memories may not be stored in the brain. Now if you want to talk about comprehension of the video and the topic he is presenting then I suggest you actually watch it first.

Secondly, when did I say I was defending it? By thinking you are absurd is defending him? No, so I think both your points are invalid so far. I actually said I don't follow his rationale on that so I wouldn't be in the business of trying to defend it.

and thirdly.. no, I will not blame it on Sciborg or anyone else. You and I are having this specific discussion: we are quoting each other. So take blame for your own responses. I did not say he was an expert, did I? The R. Tallis quote is relevant to the discussion we are having considering we are having it because I thought your comment about him being a fool, and then providing no resources to sustain your comment, was quite foolish.
 
#48
Great interview with Zeilinger, I do like that guy.
Dr. Anton Zeilinger gave a lecture at the University of Calgary, Alberta, in June 2012 that I attended and got him to sign my copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, as it is apparently one of his favorite fiction titles (he mentions in a footnote his paper on classical non-local communication). Which, if you're interested in physics, is just some fascinating stuff. Prior to his doctoral work on quantum entanglement he wrote papers proposing classical mechanisms for non-local communication and if you read his current papers he doesn't even favor entanglement. He favors his own kind of classical mechanism that he wrote many papers on. Google it sometime, non-local mechanism + Anton Zeilinger and you should get his pre-doctoral work. He is a fairly popular physicist these days with information physics being applied to public education.

Oh, I should add it will help if you can read German lol
 
Last edited:
#50
The R. Tallis quote is relevant to the discussion we are having considering we are having it because I thought your comment about him being a fool, and then providing no resources to sustain your comment, was quite foolish.
It is my opinion that to think that with all the direct evidence for memories being the brain it is a foolish idea to consider memories are not in the brain. The direct evidence is simple forgetfulness, amnesia, dementia of all types, brain trauma, age related memory loss.
 
#51
Chuck wasn't banned. He demanded his membership be struck from the record, due to the fact that AP is an idiot or something like that
I minor mistake on my part.

Btw, you've been putting a lot more effort into responding to oppossing comments/arguments lately I've noticed. Good for you. You're still a fucking retard though.
I had to respond before you edited this bold part out. You sure are bucking for another bannishment. :)
 
#53
Well, this excellent physicist seems keen to point out that objective realism isn't really tenable, "we are not just passive observers"

http://www.newscientist.com/article...reality-is-what-you-make-it.html#.VByQhRafvzI

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.0179.pdf

http://www.2physics.com/2013/06/quantum-experiment-preludes-endgame-for.html

I feel I've gone off point a bit.
I also like the one part at 21:16 where he says

"Quantum Theory is in a sense a holistic theory ... so, I feel there is a fair chance our notion of computation might change"

Can't help but wonder if this relates at all to Roger Penrose's idea of non-computability and consciousness.
 
#54
It is my opinion that to think that with all the direct evidence for memories being the brain it is a foolish idea to consider memories are not in the brain. The direct evidence is simple forgetfulness, amnesia, dementia of all types, brain trauma, age related memory loss.
Thank you for your response. I also agree, to an extent, it is a foolish idea because it does not fall within my paradigm of how the brain is supposed to operate. That opens a new question about my issues with their claim and maybe the lines of evidence I hold dear are being interpreted wrong on my part, and others. Does that thought ever occur to others? I can listen to a lecture by somebody I vastly disagree with and by the end of it (most of the time) my synopsis of their work isn't, "this man is a fool". I can take what they have to say, mull it over and see where they're coming from. And if I can't, then the first thought through my mind is maybe I'm the fool for not comprehending it, not them. I suppose our brains are just built differently. But, in your defense steve001, there are times when I do come across with an opinion of somebody as a fool, I just try to provide a rationale afterwards if I'm on a forum.

But anyways... my quarrel wasn't with your claim but with your reasoning for it. But you providing your reason (your opinion, nice one) so thank you and now we can move forward. Forgive me, but a lot of the time it seems you are on a ideological-bent war with yourself. Making the world safe for your worldview one forum at a time but the only one you're convincing is yourself... and I often share your "science fan boy" attitude, all though I don't care for that term lol But, I think I have to disagree with you that direct evidence of "simple" (nice ambiguous term btw) forgetfulness, amnesia, dementia of all types, brain trauma, age related memory loss is evidence that these are products of the brain. I would say it's evidence that our awareness of these can be altered and removed. But people who have dementia and become lucid on "good days" show that the file is still in the hard drive, so to speak, but the folder is just missing from your desktop. So I wouldn't say it's definite evidence memories are located in the brain but I wouldn't say it's not evidence for it also. I would say it's sort of evidence on the fence. It can appeal to one side of an argument, or from another point of view, it can appeal elsewhere with similar utility.
 
#55
Thank you for your response. I also agree, to an extent, it is a foolish idea because it does not fall within my paradigm of how the brain is supposed to operate. That opens a new question about my issues with their claim and maybe the lines of evidence I hold dear are being interpreted wrong on my part, and others. Does that thought ever occur to others? I can listen to a lecture by somebody I vastly disagree with and by the end of it (most of the time) my synopsis of their work isn't, "this man is a fool". I can take what they have to say, mull it over and see where they're coming from. And if I can't, then the first thought through my mind is maybe I'm the fool for not comprehending it, not them. I suppose our brains are just built differently. But, in your defense steve001, there are times when I do come across with an opinion of somebody as a fool, I just try to provide a rationale afterwards if I'm on a forum.

But anyways... my quarrel wasn't with your claim but with your reasoning for it. But you providing your reason (your opinion, nice one) so thank you and now we can move forward. Forgive me, but a lot of the time it seems you are on a ideological-bent war with yourself. Making the world safe for your worldview one forum at a time but the only one you're convincing is yourself... and I often share your "science fan boy" attitude, all though I don't care for that term lol But, I think I have to disagree with you that direct evidence of "simple" (nice ambiguous term btw) forgetfulness, amnesia, dementia of all types, brain trauma, age related memory loss is evidence that these are products of the brain. I would say it's evidence that our awareness of these can be altered and removed. But people who have dementia and become lucid on "good days" show that the file is still in the hard drive, so to speak, but the folder is just missing from your desktop. So I wouldn't say it's definite evidence memories are located in the brain but I wouldn't say it's not evidence for it also. I would say it's sort of evidence on the fence. It can appeal to one side of an argument, or from another point of view, it can appeal elsewhere with similar utility.
While speculating memories are somewhere else perhaps fulfills an existential desire it does create a conundrum at the same time that needs addressing.
a. Where are those memories? Maybe in something akin to the cloud? b. How are they accessed? c. Why don't you, me or those folks sitting over there ever have stray memories of others intrude upon us?

It's not ambiguous. Simple forgetfulness is when you forget where you placed your keys or when you know you know something (ex.a name), but just can't recall it in the moment. You've heard the expression "it's on the tip of my tongue"

I have no ideological war with myself ( or anyone else for that matter) to preserve my world view. I except something as true if it's proven true. I won't argue something is true because it meets an existential need as nearly every other member does. The short version is, I won't delude myself to think something is true. Now look at the conversations going on here. There's not one existential post that presents facts, instead posts are about hope that there's transcendence to human existence. My posts question the need for this. Do you understand me better now?
 
#56
I also like the one part at 21:16 where he says

"Quantum Theory is in a sense a holistic theory ... so, I feel there is a fair chance our notion of computation might change"

Can't help but wonder if this relates at all to Roger Penrose's idea of non-computability and consciousness.
I realise the interview is 10 years old, but I doubt his views have changed much on that idea. Indeed, I think they are all the more confirmed. Moreover, it is nice to see a mainstream scientist say this is holistic.
 
#57
I except something as true if it's proven true. I won't argue something is true because it meets an existential need as nearly every other member does. The short version is, I won't delude myself to think something is true. Now look at the conversations going on here. There's not one existential post that presents facts, instead posts are about hope that there's transcendence to human existence. My posts question the need for this. Do you understand me better now?
Just to clarify. You are:

1. A teacher.
2. A native English speaker.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#58
The idea that Steve001 doesn't have an existential need for materialism to be true is highly questionable IMO.

But of course it's easier to write off others as hoping for transcendence, but really that's just ad hominem.
 
#60
I realise the interview is 10 years old, but I doubt his views have changed much on that idea. Indeed, I think they are all the more confirmed. Moreover, it is nice to see a mainstream scientist say this is holistic.
I agree, it looks like the recent Quantum Pigeon paper I posted would very much strenghten this "holistic" view, as it appears to really expand the whole entanglement/connectivity thing.
 
Top