curbyIII

To BurgDe:

You are nothing more than a very complicated calculator. Your mind-calculator's only purpose is: to evaluate incoming input of the outside world and try to predict the best course of action in order to gain the optimum amount of pleasure and avoid pain. That's all there is to it. Although it may seem strange that a bunch of neurons hooked up together can form such a complex mind. It is equally strange that a bunch of logic gates hooked up together can form a thinking computer. But they do. The systems I am describing are so complex that they just SEEM to be impossible.

DRFseven

Because of the way your nervous system works, as you experience input from your environment, neurons fire in constellations all over your brain. Not only does your cortex "light up", but your limbic system (emotion) does, too. If it weren't for emotions, you wouldn't care what happened and there would be no motivator for behavior. The protein enables a transfer of chemicals that allows that particular chain of firing to be repeated; this is your memory of the experience. The emotions generated by the original experience "come with" the memory because the limbic connections are embedded in the memory chain. A huge quantity of these chains are involved in processing information, and, thus, in remembering information. And that's what thinking is; it's incoming signals causing chains of neurons to activate and incorporate the new signals into the corresponding chains. All those thousands and thousands of chains are automatically linked by other neurons that don't contribute to the memory's firing pattern, but signal "like" firings. It's like putting the first few notes of a tune into a search engine and , voila! All the tunes with that sequence are brought up, with previously experienced emotions attached. Pondering a decision is really like cycling through associated memory paths over and over.

BurgDE

DRFseven and curbyIII:
Thank you for your responses.

Let's get specific. The electrical activity of neurons is controlled by a variety of voltage-gated ion channels, which are huge protein molecules. The dynamics of these ion channels can be modeled by markovian kinetic models. It is the dynamics of these protein molecules which underly the operation of our nervous system. Experimentally, we can measure feedback responses in blood pressure and heart rate and correlate these responses with the electrical activity surrounding a whole sympathetic nerve in rats.

It makes sense that the dynamics of ion channels can lead -- though evolution and complicated interconnections -- to the deterministic operation of our autonomic nervous system in maintaining our homeostatis or to the instinctive or conditioned behaviors that all animals exhibit.

What is not obvious is how the dynamics of ion channels -- which do not care about logic-- can lead to logical thinking. I simply want you to see the gap between our knowledge of how ion channels work and the explanation of our self-conscious identity and sense of responsibility and purpose.

Matt Young

BurgDE asks:

If you do not have the "foggiest idea" how to explain our ability to reason in terms of
molecular, biological processes, then how can you be convinced that our "free-will" is an illusion?

I am reminded of the God-of-the-Gaps argument, which every contributor to this forum knows: There must be a God because something or other is unexplainable any other way. Often, that something or other is soon explained, and the argument evaporates, only to be replaced by another convenient gap. Mr. Burg is arguing analogously that, if I can't explain in detail how the molecular computer he calls his brain works, then he must have consciousness and free will. He may or may not, but my inability to explain the chemical workings of a brain have no bearing on the topic.

My argument is that, as far as we can tell, the brain works according to the laws of physics. I postulate the laws of physics to be deterministic. I therefore postulate the workings of the brain to be deterministic. Voila! No free will.

bd-from-kg asks:

So the original theory has not “escaped refutation” at all, but has been supplanted by a new theory. And of course it has been supplanted because it was proved wrong. What exactly is wrong with this procedure? Isn’t that how science normally operates?

Yes and no. The point I was trying to make is that, sometimes, the ad-hoc hypothesis is so ridiculous that no dispassionate obsever could accept it. If the ad-hoc hypothesis is plausible and testable, then the theory may be extended.

Example 1 from pseudoscience: Homeopaths argue that the water remembers, perhaps by electromagnetic radiation that remains in the water. They have no evidence for the remembering properties of water nor for the electromagnetic radiation, which ought to escape at the speed of light anyway, and they make no verifiable predictions.

Example 2 from real science: The neutrino was postulated to explain an apparent violation of conservation of energy. Its properties were predicted and it was eventually identified. The theory was extended by a plausible and testable ad-hoc hypothesis.

Ism Schism

I’ve never understood this “There’s no objective truth” thing.

I just found this to be an interesting question.

Obviously if "objective reality" exists, "objective truth" must also accompany it -- otherwise "objective reality" would become falsifiable(If not true -> false, or at least "not true"). I think the problem of objective truth, is the not-so-simple matter of understanding a specific objective reality, perhaps even -- completely understanding a specific objective reality.

There are many componants to "objective reality", and if you had the power to completely understand objective reality, in very small part or as a whole, you could completely end an entire section or subsection of science, or even science as a whole. In short: you could and, should I say: "should", be able to put the period on the sentance, in order to claim yourself as "objective".

This, to me, is why any form of "objective morality" is a complete fraud. We know nothing -- no scratch that, we know enough about nothing to think we know something. A human mind can never grasp objective truth. Never: when that day comes we will be Gods (or at least the God of that 'objective concept') -- now the objectivists can go take a power-nap...

...or they could(and quite rightfully should) put the period on the sentance. Prove "objective" morality or take a seat.

[Note to bd-from-kg: I used this as a bouncing-off point to go after objectivists, the last half (2 paragraphs) of this is not directed at you.]

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Ism Schism ]</p>

Ism Schism

If a certain amount of "objectivists" do not address me, I am going to make an entirely new topic of it. It is my opinion that objectivism can not be allowed to stand; why, -- because it's bullshit.

Prove me wrong.

{getting cocky...}

Tani

BurgDE:
vs.

you missed what kharakov has said. you evaluate precisely because you desire the best of all methods. however, let's consider the odd cases as well: if you were to select the one that is less than perfect by mistake of reason, you couldn't write off desires. on the other hand, if you were to select the one that is less than perfect for a reason, then it is still the most desirable for you. last of all, if your decision was random, then you denounced free will.

Adrian Selby

Let's not confuse Objectivism as a school of thought with objective truth or attempts to get at it. I apologise if this above comment misreads Schism's point.

With regard to how neurons firing can lead to logical thought, I think its a complexity issue. At the moment we don't know very much about how brains work at all. But the nets criss crossing our brains interact so complexly that trying to identify the operations within the brain with logical thoughts in particular is difficult if not impossible. Ted Honderich I think argued for this kind of identity theory, can't remember the name of it, (epiphenomenalist? eek) please help me.

If conscious thought is the emergent property of a functioning brain, then logical thought is possible an emergent property of a set of neural patterns firing slightly differently to non logical thought according to the focus of consciousness, which is to an undefinable extent determined by what the sensory apparatus is telling the brain, so in filling out this reply, my brain is prioritising logical thought out of all possible thought, though its possible that the system as a whole has the holistic quality that one could not take those nets out of the brain and demonstrate (somehow) the emergent property of logical thought.

A simpler example would be with perception. If its the case that the visual cortex and the parts of the brain responsible for other senses are processed apart, why do 'we' get a consistent experience. The simple answer might be that 'we' being a whole brain, through the incredibly complex messages, almost simultaneously organise this information, not in a filing system model kind of way, but 'on the fly' and orientation of these separate sensory messages is performed naturally in virtue solely of the nets of neurons being organised as they are.

Sorry if this is vague, I think its a problem with explanations of brain and consciousness that we simply know too little about the brain's functioning to get a grip on the question of consciousness in brain terms. Talk of 'minds' 'thoughts' etc. I've long thought are part of a convenient social vocabulary that is useful for particular situations, eg conversations with other people. But to suggest thoughts are ontologically distinct from the neurons firing is another step.

Adrian

Kharakov

Thank you as well (It's been a while since you posted, sorry)

To address the first part of your post- Did your desires (for what is wholesome and practical) not determine what choice you made? Do you have control over what you feel is wholesome or practical?

To address the second half- The dynamics of protein molecules determining our thought processes are actually the outcome of the same thought processes. We cannot be sure that what we believe to be happening (protein molecules determining our thoughts) is any more than another thought process- the whole idea of a physical brain might be a logical step in a long, drawn out thought process- we do not know if it is true or not.

To rephrase what I said: How do the disciplined thought processes involved in reasoning OR the conscious experience lead to the belief (or thought process) that the dynamics of protein molecules lead to thought?

Infinity Lover

Simply put, the truth is what you're telling when you're being honest.

It's actually a simple matter of distinguishing certainty and doubt. On any given topic, find out what you know for certain on that subject, and what you can't be sure of. As long as you're not mixing up questionmarks and exclamationpoints, keep in mind there may be things you're overlooking, you're telling the truth on that subject.

Try to realize there is an INFINITE amount of information out there, most of it will be lost before you could ever get your hands on it, so it's IMPOSSIBLE to know it all.

Besides that, life isn't only about knowing stuff, sooner or later you also have to make CHOICES, and THAT'S where the men are seperated from the boys, the fools from the wisemen.

Absolute truth? Don't bust your skull on that one! It's one of Gods b.s. claims, and not much else.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Marcel Rombouts ]</p>