How are scintific theories produced?

[effie]

I so hope this is not the case effie? But if so I'm deeply apologetic for behaving in such a way

I meant that in the best possible way, a_uk I know that my English is not good (the proof is that I used the wrong word-condescending-, while what I really meant was that you are very affable. I am really sorry ) and you said that it is excellent. I thought that it was very kind of you

I'd agree that it is a 'unified' experience but you appear to be assuming that what we are discussing is already settled? Thank you for your definitions.

I think it is already settled. I mean, can a complex organism (with its biological and behaviouristic activities) be directed by two or more "masterminds"?

You'll have to show me why? Most of what I've said is my own opinion and I’m unaware that this is the common consensus as I'm not associated with any of the professions you have so far mentioned.

In a previous post I have written down some of the evidence which show that CNS is not able to store memory and ,as a consequence, is not mind:
1. Living cells, despite the fact that they do not have a CNS (brain, etc), DO have intellectual faculties. IWhat does it demonstrate to you?

2. Man, in the beginning of his life, is a single cell: the fertilized oocyte, which divides into 2, the 2 into 4 and so on. Some of these cells, through differentiation, become CNS, others become liver, other heart, etc. In other words, these cells specialize in order to offer their services to the entire organism. None of the specialized organs has the ability to decide if it will function or not, or decide the kind of response it will display. If something like this could happened, the organism would soon fall apart. Consequently, none of the specialized organs could be mind (neither brain, nor any other), because mind is able to guide the behaviour of the entire organism, as well as the function of all the organs that are under its control.

3. None of the innumerous researches that have taken place for many decades has proved that information are stored in any part of the C.N.S. (brain, neurons, D.N.A., R.N.A, prosynaptic/ postsynaptic electric potential etc.). The absolute absence of laboratory proof proves (no pun intended ) that C.N.S cannot be mind, since it cannot store memory.

4. The basic truth which identifies CNS with mind (noetic organ) has been proved ineffective, since it hasn't helped us fully interpret, explain and comprehend none of the intellectual faculties, nor none of their disorders.

Then they'd be wrong, as its a CNS linked with sub-systems ‘running’ around in an environment.

Is the fact that information indeed pass through the CNS enough to prove that they are also stored in it and utilized by it? Is there any solid proof/ evidence that shows the above?
Should or shouldn't we test the idea that information only pass through the CNS in order to obtain their final physial form? How scientific is our approach when we refuse to test every alternative version, before reaching a definite decision?

You are proposing a circularity that I think does not exist. Long before the verbal communication of intended violence is uttered the non-verbal signals would have been recognised by the body and have set in motion the activation of dopamine and maybe preparing an adrenaline response. The response to the bodys adrenaline rush can be considered as ‘fear’ and that is a Mind response.

Why must each 'intellectual faculty' have to represent the 'total'?
I agree that we must have a memory to ‘perceive’ and that ‘reading’ has a memory based component but you appear to think that the recognition of pattern, sign, is based upon mind? In my world its not, the recognition of symbols may be. So in your book I would recognise 'writing', I'd just not 'understand' it.

Each 'intellectual faculty' has to represent the 'total' because psychiatry (the science which studies intellectual faculties) has proved so. I don't see where the problem is, since you have agreed that we need memory in order to perceive, expreience emotions, etc. e.g. would a baby be frightened if you threatened to slap it, if it hadn't been slapped before? Why? Furthermore, if I wrote this posts is greek, would you "perceive" anything, even if I talked to you about things you already knew?
What's more, when a baby sees a book does not even recognize the writing let alone understand it. Consequently, even recognition is based on memory, which is one of the intellectual (mental) faculties. Of course, signals (optic, acoustic, etc) reach mind by means of the CNS, but are not utilized by it.

The concept that that Mind can be ‘identified’ as a ‘single noetic-unit’. To my understanding what you want to do is to transfer your concept of what the ‘brain’ is into a ‘brain’ without physicality? Hence I think that what you mean by, “Body and mind are two interconnected systems”, is that there are two actual physical systems, i.e. body and mind and because of this you are ‘looking’ for mind in a substance that is unperceivable to normal perception but also physical, hence, you’ve settled upon the Physicists concept of ‘fields’ and the apparent fact that the body generates a type of one, at least that’s what I understand you to be saying.

That's a pretty accurate description. I would like to underline that mind/noetic organ/ program, that is to say the "mastermind"which guides a living organism, is a physical factor, with physical attributes, and not some imaginary "presence". Mind has to have "physical identity" in order to interact with body (matter) and execute its role (intellectual functions).
However, this entity does not belong to the level of matter, given that our knowledge regarding the properties of matter show that the latter, in any form, organization, etc, does not have the ability to serve any of the intellectual faculties.

This would depend what you mean by 'complex' as the complexity in biological systems is the result of millions of years of evolution. I can imagine technology in a few million years as being pretty complex.

I thought I had said that the A.I. top-down approach of trying to 'define' Mind is pretty much over. What they have achieved is to have 'programmed' Logic and hence pretty much Deduction. So, to me, it looks like they will achieve models of the Reasoning faculties but they won't be Mind. The other approach is based upon biological concepts, e.g. 'neural nets', parallel processing, 'genetic' algorithms, etc.., and uses them to build real-time objects that interact with the world and as such are reverse engineering. No-one to my knowledge has yet programmed an 'endochrine' system but the idea of one to be used to provide the objects with more choices of behaviour has been proposed. What these approaches build will not be human minds but they might well be minds.

Since DNA appears to be being aptly described as a computational process, in effect a biological Turing machine, I'll keep paying attention to whats coming out of the A.I. labs I think. Do I think they will 'make' human 'minds', no, but do I think they give us better models with which to understand ourselves, yes.

I think that it can be a looong discussion, but ,due to the molecular basic truth, the role of DNA has been overestimated. Sooner or later it will be proved that DNA does not have any of the intellectual properties that have been attributed to it. It cannot codify and utilize information, nor does it have at its disposal the knowledge it is necessary to create a living organism. The idea that a molecular system has the knowledge and the ability to create an entire living organism is absolutely metaphysical,wrong and incompatible with the existing knowledge, but are considered logical and scientific because they are evaluated with the molecular dogma (basic truth), from which they have been produced..
Science hasn't yet offered not a single evidence to prove that DNA itself decides if it will function or not, how it will function, when it will function, etc.

As I say, I do not think that a CNS on its own can do anything, just that without one you can have no mind. I think that if many of these "psychosomatic diseases" and "mental disorders" are not due to damage then they must be the 'minds' disorders in that it is 'feeding' back 'contradictory' inputs to the CNS which then produces 'dis-ease' in the Body systems. I understand the Body to be the source of Freuds 'unconscious' and Jungs 'archetypes' as it transforms the outputs of the world into the 'things' that we call sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. For me, Mind is born out of Body, and the philosophical question is how much of this process can we 'recognise'? Can the Mind pay attention to how its 'unconscious' communicates Mind? As such, bringing in Physics to explain 'us' does not appeal to me. These 'fields' may have a function but I doubt its needed to explain us, as Darwin has been proved correct and the discovery of DNA has put Biology upon a truly scientific footing for the first time. And Biology identifies us as being an animal amongst other animals, of the Primate family. Many appear to not like this definition.
You want "psychosomatic diseases" and "mental disorders" to be what? Disturbances in the 'field'? And the solution to 'mental problems' will be a problem for Physicists rather than Psychiatrists?
a_uk

These are some very specialized issues, which I think we cannot analyze "right here, right now". All I can say is that obviously, without a CNS we don't have a mind. Howver, without a heart we also do not have amind. Does that mean that heart IS mind? I don't think so
I'd prefer not to discuss yet about the ïdentity of the noetic organ" and how mental disorders shoud be treated. This would be a huge noetic "jump", since we still are at the starting point of a very long trip (which started from the basic truths in general and has ended up here ).
Do you think that we should go back to basic truths in general? Because the basic truth we are discussing is only an example I used, in order to highlight my views regarding all normal sciences.

Effie

[Arising_uk]

I think it is already settled. I mean, can a complex organism (with its biological and behaviouristic activities) be directed by two or more "masterminds"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "directed" here? I'm not even sure that a complex organism can be 'directed' by any 'masterminds'?

In a previous post I have written down some of the evidence which show that CNS is not able to store memory and ,as a consequence, is not mind:

Ah! This is where we differ. You appear to view the CNS as something that will inputting and working with something called 'memory' as data?

I understand the CNS to be 'memory' not something that simulates memory functions for some abstract 'mind'. Its a 'meatware' instantiation of 'memory'. It pattern-retrieves based upon inputs.

1. Living cells, despite the fact that they do not have a CNS (brain, etc), DO have intellectual faculties. IWhat does it demonstrate to you?

That I still don't understand what you mean by 'intellectual faculties' and that bodies built only of subsystems can interact with the environment.

2. Man, in the beginning of his life, is a single cell: the fertilized oocyte, which divides into 2, the 2 into 4 and so on.

I'd have thought that Man, in the beginning, is the fusion of two DNAs whose instructions start the process of building us. So in the beginning we are two, sperm and egg.

Some of these cells, through differentiation, become CNS, others become liver, other heart, etc. In other words, these cells specialize in order to offer their services to the entire organism. None of the specialized organs has the ability to decide if it will function or not, or decide the kind of response it will display. If something like this could happened, the organism would soon fall apart. Consequently, none of the specialized organs could be mind (neither brain, nor any other), because mind is able to guide the behaviour of the entire organism, as well as the function of all the organs that are under its control.

You forget that each cell contains the complete set of instructions. I agree that there are no ‘decisions’, such as mind makes, in any of this. What is the first ‘structure’ started in the ‘growing’ of Man? The ‘spinal chord’, the ‘beginning’ of the CNS,.

Your claim appears to be that because we do not know the mechanism behind the specialization of cells to produce macro-structures such as ‘organs’, that a ‘guiding intelligence’ must be behind it? If so you’ll like this guy I think, http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html as I think you have ‘mind’ as a ‘morphic field’.

3. None of the innumerous researches that have taken place for many decades has proved that information are stored in any part of the C.N.S. (brain, neurons, D.N.A., R.N.A, prosynaptic/ postsynaptic electric potential etc.). The absolute absence of laboratory proof proves (no pun intended ) that C.N.S cannot be mind, since it cannot store memory.

Like I say, I don’t think its Mind either, I think its ‘memory’. If it can do what our computational models can do then its pattern recognition and retrieval capabilities are immense as just its parallel ‘neural’ structure is at the limit and probably beyond of what we could currently model. I think its because you want this structure to ‘work’ with memories, with an external observer ‘watching’ them, that leads you to look elsewhere than the CNS and Body for their source.

4. The basic truth which identifies CNS with mind (noetic organ) has been proved ineffective, since it hasn't helped us fully interpret, explain and comprehend none of the intellectual faculties, nor none of their disorders.

Okay. What I’m hearing here is that Psychiatry has a basic truth that all behaviour and ‘mental problems’ are based upon physical causes. So it has used the drugs that Biology and Chemistry suggest and the ‘forces’ that Physics provide and it is still not getting any concrete results. Since the Mind in this field is considered as a ‘unified’ but physical ‘whole’ there must be something else that we’ve missed. My guess is that for you its EM fields as research shows that they can effect ‘mental states’. If you can get this accepted as a basic truth then you will be able to keep the ‘physical causes’ and get a whole new bunch of ‘mind’ tools to play with?

Is the fact that information indeed pass through the CNS enough to prove that they are also stored in it and utilized by it? Is there any solid proof/ evidence that shows the above?

Its this ‘pass-through’ that I question? You appear to want a Mind to be there first? I do think it will be possible to identify all of the areas of the CNS involved in ‘mental events’. I also think a lot of the ‘higher’ ones will be found in very ‘little’ macro-structures of the ‘brain’, i.e. if you look at the ‘brain’ its like a ‘cauliflower’ in that the ‘brain’ is the result of multiple ‘bifurcations’ and at some level must ‘clump’ but there will be other ‘mental events’ that rely upon the activation of spatially distant ‘clumps’, and I can imagine all the clumps making Mind, as long as it has a Body that is.

Should or shouldn't we test the idea that information only pass through the CNS in order to obtain their final physial form? How scientific is our approach when we refuse to test every alternative version, before reaching a definite decision?

I’m not sure I understand this?

Each 'intellectual faculty' has to represent the 'total' because psychiatry (the science which studies intellectual faculties) has proved so.

But have you not said that you think the basic truth of Psychiatry is wrong. So why should I trust this proof?

I don't see where the problem is, since you have agreed that we need memory in order to perceive, expreience emotions, etc. e.g. would a baby be frightened if you threatened to slap it, if it hadn't been slapped before? Why? Furthermore, if I wrote this posts is greek, would you "perceive" anything, even if I talked to you about things you already knew?

The problem for me is that you appear to think I’m not slapping a baby but an EM field?

Until the baby’s sensors and CNS are ‘synched’ and at the appropriate level of function, my guess would be that the baby would not be ‘frightened at all’, each slap would be a nearly complete surprise.

If you did what you said I’d ‘perceive’ that I was being addressed in a language I did not understand. Of course I could cut-paste it into Babel and see what comes-up but I doubt its language parser would be up to the job.

What's more, when a baby sees a book does not even recognize the writing let alone understand it. Consequently, even recognition is based on memory, which is one of the intellectual (mental) faculties. Of course, signals (optic, acoustic, etc) reach mind by means of the CNS, but are not utilized by it.

See I think you have it wrong here. ‘Signals (optic, acoustic, etc)' don’t exist outside. The CNS transforms something into its ‘signals’, etc which produce sight, sounds, etc which lead to Mind. There could be a feedback system involved but whether its based in the ‘meatware’ or produced as ‘software’, I’m undecided.

That's a pretty accurate description. I would like to underline that mind/noetic organ/ program, that is to say the "mastermind"which guides a living organism, is a physical factor, with physical attributes, and not some imaginary "presence". Mind has to have "physical identity" in order to interact with body (matter) and execute its role (intellectual functions).
However, this entity does not belong to the level of matter, given that our knowledge regarding the properties of matter show that the latter, in any form, organization, etc, does not have the ability to serve any of the intellectual faculties.

Like I say, I think you’ll like Sheldrake but think these things will not be needed to explain Mind. They might explain various effects.

I think that it can be a looong discussion, but ,due to the molecular basic truth, the role of DNA has been overestimated. Sooner or later it will be proved that DNA does not have any of the intellectual properties that have been attributed to it. It cannot codify and utilize information, nor does it have at its disposal the knowledge it is necessary to create a living organism. The idea that a molecular system has the knowledge and the ability to create an entire living organism is absolutely metaphysical,wrong and incompatible with the existing knowledge, but are considered logical and scientific because they are evaluated with the molecular dogma (basic truth), from which they have been produced..
Science hasn't yet offered not a single evidence to prove that DNA itself decides if it will function or not, how it will function, when it will function, etc.

I think we differ here as I understand DNA as the codification of the ‘factories’ the Human is built from and I think birth and sheep cloning goes a long way to proving this. As such, to search outside of ourselves for the source of Mind appears to be a metaphysical wish to me.

These are some very specialized issues, which I think we cannot analyze "right here, right now". All I can say is that obviously, without a CNS we don't have a mind. Howver, without a heart we also do not have amind. Does that mean that heart IS mind? I don't think so

As I say, I think the search for the ‘place’ of Mind is misguided.

I'd prefer not to discuss yet about the ïdentity of the noetic organ" and how mental disorders shoud be treated. This would be a huge noetic "jump", since we still are at the starting point of a very long trip (which started from the basic truths in general and has ended up here ).

My guess is that it will be with EM generators or 'presenters' of some kind.

Do you think that we should go back to basic truths in general? Because the basic truth we are discussing is only an example I used, in order to highlight my views regarding all normal sciences.

Up to you, but I think that your ‘basic truth’ could bear with more examination. Although I’m always interested to hear ‘grand’ unifying theories of Science.
a_uk

[bus2bondi]

hi, what i was wondering is this. You said your theory couldn't be applied politically or socially. This is not true. political science has always been accused as being a lesser science, or no science at all. i am fully aware that it would be better to change the world person by person, and only that, and i'm all for that as well, but for whatever unfortunate reason, reality will not let this happen, or will not soon enough. Those in gas chambers, and getting their limbs chopped off cannot wait for the ultimate solution, so realistically some other action needs to happen, and as soon as possible. That is why "poli sci' etc. is a necessary evil, at least for the time being. Who knows what will happen later, maybe people will evolve entirely, and then who knows after that. but still, right now, the problems require a different answer, along with the adage of changing people hearts/minds one by one as well. This is why i mentioned to you before that i found your theory interesting because i thought it could possibly be applied to some of the ones i have. If you are correct, it could possibly speed things along, and further perfect them.

I was wondering how a government could weed out corruption, for example. Could there be a test, a scientific method to test public servants, of their honesty? (is this not a possible way your theory could be applied?)

For example, can you pinpoint decency in the brain, etc. etc.. I think this could also be tested by their reactions to certain sound waves. (will expand later on the origination of this thought when the other day was driving down the road in my car, and thought of asking ya, but didn't feel i could until this latter thought appeared, now the 2 dots connect together, more perfected in their purpose, so now can ask you

anyhow, what do you think about this?

[bus2bondi]

p.s. there would be nothing finer than eliminating possible mistakes, and wasting less time, see?

i wouldn't want to spend the better portion of my life heading in the wrong direction. I wouldn't want to waste it on a false theory, if i knew i were working on a correct theory.

[effie]

I'm not sure what you mean by "directed" here? I'm not even sure that a
complex organism can be 'directed' by any 'masterminds'?

Simplification: I am a woman with a body, a CNS etc. Which part of me takes the decisions regarding my thoughts and actions? Each human body is formed by innumerous subsystems, which are perfectly coordinated. Who is the coordinator?

Ah! This is where we differ. You appear to view the CNS as something that will inputting and working with something called 'memory' as data?

I understand the CNS to be 'memory' not something that simulates memory functions for some abstract 'mind'. Its a 'meatware' instantiation of 'memory'. It pattern-retrieves based upon inputs.

Then I think you should present this pattern: how an environmental stimulus is transformed into signal, how and where is it stored?

I'd have thought that Man, in the beginning, is the fusion of two DNAs whose instructions start the process of building us. So in the beginning we are two, sperm and egg.

These two become a single entity, the fertilized egg (oocyte)

You forget that each cell contains the complete set of instructions.

No, I do not forget it. I just question where are these instructions are stored. Certainly not DNA, because a slight change of an environmental condition (e.g. temperature) leads to the expression of a totally different set of genes. In other words, each DNA has the potential to express every kind of genes. Which factor determines which genes will be expressed? In other words DNA is like the matrix of the printing office. Who is the typographer?

Your claim appears to be that because we do not know the mechanism behind the specialization of cells to produce macro-structures such as ‘organs’, that a ‘guiding intelligence’ must be behind it? If so you’ll like this guy I think, http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html as I think you have ‘mind’ as a ‘morphic field’.

Thanks for the link

Like I say, I don’t think its Mind either, I think its ‘memory’.

You cannot seperate mind from memory. Mind is not an abstract, ethereal idea/ presence. It's a totally functional factor. Simply mind without memory does not exist.

Okay. What I’m hearing here is that Psychiatry has a basic truth that all behaviour and ‘mental problems’ are based upon physical causes. So it has used the drugs that Biology and Chemistry suggest and the ‘forces’ that Physics provide and it is still not getting any concrete results. Since the Mind in this field is considered as a ‘unified’ but physical ‘whole’ there must be something else that we’ve missed. My guess is that for you its EM fields as research shows that they can effect ‘mental states’. If you can get this accepted as a basic truth then you will be able to keep the ‘physical causes’ and get a whole new bunch of ‘mind’ tools to play with?

Something like that

Its this ‘pass-through’ that I question? You appear to want a Mind to be there first? I do think it will be possible to identify all of the areas of the CNS involved in ‘mental events’. I also think a lot of the ‘higher’ ones will be found in very ‘little’ macro-structures of the ‘brain’, i.e. if you look at the ‘brain’ its like a ‘cauliflower’ in that the ‘brain’ is the result of multiple ‘bifurcations’ and at some level must ‘clump’ but there will be other ‘mental events’ that rely upon the activation of spatially distant ‘clumps’, and I can imagine all the clumps making Mind, as long as it has a Body that is.

You can imagine that, sure, but can you prove that? That's what science is about!

Should or shouldn't we test the idea that information only pass through the CNS in order to obtain their final physial form? How scientific is our approach when we refuse to test every alternative version, before reaching a definite decision?

I’m not sure I understand this?

I said that there are various versions regarding how information are stored. Science must test them all before definitely deciding where memory is stored.

But have you not said that you think the basic truth of Psychiatry is wrong. So why should I trust this proof?

Have Newton's laws of gravity been discarded due to the fact that his basic truth has been superseded by the basic truth of Einstein? In other words, a verified knowledge cannot be discarded, can only be enriched and improved. Similarly, all knowledge psychiatry has accumulated so far cannot be thrown away due to inadequacies as far as the prevailing basic truth is concerned!

The problem for me is that you appear to think I’m not slapping a baby but an EM field?

No, you're slapping a baby. But the baby, if it hadn't be slapped before wouldn't be frightened if I threatened to slap it, because it wouldn't have a relevant memory. Consequently, memory and emotion are tightly connected!

Until the baby’s sensors and CNS are ‘synched’ and at the appropriate level of function, my guess would be that the baby would not be ‘frightened at all’, each slap would be a nearly complete surprise.

How are sensors and CNS synched? And would that alter the fact that memory is indispensable for any kind of emotional reaction?

If you did what you said I’d ‘perceive’ that I was being addressed in a language I did not understand.

You would perceive that, but you wouldn't have any memory or feeling regarding what I had said, would you? Once gain I insist that perception, emotion and memory are tightly interconnected. In fact, they are a single unity with different aspects: they are mind.

See I think you have it wrong here. ‘Signals (optic, acoustic, etc)' don’t exist outside. The CNS transforms something into its ‘signals’, etc which produce sight, sounds, etc which lead to Mind. There could be a feedback system involved but whether its based in the ‘meatware’ or produced as ‘software’, I’m undecided.

Signals already exist in the environment. External stimuli activate a sensor (eye, ear, skin, etc), which transforms them into electric pulses which are directed to the brain. This is verified, solid knowledge that we are not able to disprove. Of course, the significance and the meaning of each stimulus/signal is totally subjective.

I think we differ here as I understand DNA as the codification of the ‘factories’ the Human is built from and I think birth and sheep cloning goes a long way to proving this.

Then why haven't we succeded in creating a clone that wouldn't die soon? Don't these failures clearly show us that there is something missing from our experiments?????

As such, to search outside of ourselves for the source of Mind appears to be a metaphysical wish to me.

Arising _uk I am deeply upset right now, because since the beginning I have been insisting that mind is not an abstract idea or something outside of ourselves. On the contrary, I have always said that mind must be a biological factor with physical attributes, otherwise it wouldn't have the ability to interact with body...

Up to you, but I think that your ‘basic truth’ could bear with more examination.

I agree, all opinions/ ideas MUST be tested with scientific criteria. Nevertheless, we seem to view things from a completely different perspective, and I do not know if we will ever work this out

[effie]

hi, what i was wondering is this. You said your theory couldn't be applied politically or socially. This is not true.

I know It can be applied to every group/community (economic, politic, social, scientific). I have just said that I am not qualified to apply it anywhere else but science.

I was wondering how a government could weed out corruption, for example. Could there be a test, a scientific method to test public servants, of their honesty? (is this not a possible way your theory could be applied?)

I am afraid i will disappoint you. I prefer to speak when I am sure what I say is true, or when I have some evidence to support my ideas. So I don't have much to say regarding honesty and staff, but I would love to hear your ideas. Maybe then I could come up with some ideas of my own

Of course, there are psychologists who study "the language of the body"/or body language. They say for example that when somebody is lying usually scratch their nose very often. But this approach is totally irrelevant to the approach i am trying to present here.

I think that brain waves are the most reliable indicators for many "mental states", but first we must establish which are the "normal" numbers. That is to say, we have to establish which is the average wave activity when a man is sincere and which is the respective activity when he is lying. Then, we can compare the brain activity of any person to the established standards and see if they're lying or not. but I do not know if that is possible.

I know for sure that doctors use this technique to diagnose brain, heart, stomach and psychological abnormalities, based on the respective established "normal" levels

Ps. Welcome back to the thread

[Duncan Butlin]

Good afternoon, Ms. Bus2bondi and Ms. Effie,

The trouble with external tests of truthfulness is just that: they are external. The human mind is exquisitely complex, and can often hide things from itself, let alone from people on the outside. Thus external detection of lying and cheating is bound to be both labour-intensive and incomplete.

The only real way of keeping people honest is to persuade them to police themselves. Fear is an essential part of this. Fear of rebuke, fear of discipline, fear of exposure, fear of punishment, fear of retribution . . . all work to develop a healthy organ of self-censorship in the brain, so that telling the truth becomes natural and spontaneous. It used to be call a conscience.

So any strategy for detecting dishonesty must also have well-defined consequences attached. Given a healthy atmosphere of fear, honesty can flourish. This is what the Christians mean by “walking in the fear of the Lord”, and they’ve got it spot on, not for the first time.

[effie]

Goodevening, Mr Butlin,

I agree that mind "moves in mysterious ways" and can lie even to itself. However, I assume that bus2bondi is looking for a method to ascertain if someone is lying on purpose- and therefore consciously.

I do not agree that imposing fear would be the best way to secure honesty. This discipline is external and will be violated when the first chance arises. In my opinion, the ideal way to avoid dishonesty and any kind of "deviations" would be self-evolution. If everyone managed to supersede their passions, insticts, fears, etc would have no reason to feel guilty about their actions (because they wouldn't have committed any blameworthy actions), consequently they would have no reason to lie about them.

Of course, I do agree that currently, given our lack of conscience, honesty must be imposed via external means.

Effie

[Arising_uk]

The trouble with external tests of truthfulness is just that: they are external. The human mind is exquisitely complex, and can often hide things from itself, let alone from people on the outside. ...

I hear this as, "The trouble with external tests of truthfulness is that people can lie. My mind is "exquisitely complex" and, as such, can "often hide things from itself", let alone lie to others."

...Thus external detection of lying and cheating is bound to be both labour-intensive and incomplete.

Partially true. If you teach the fundamentals of human communication then general 'lying and cheating' is easy to perceive amongst the un-tutuored liers. Its the 'tutored' ones we need to be wary of. This view also promotes the view that the detection of a 'lie' is difficult. Whilst this is true in the case of the written word, within face-to-face communication it is only possible due to a relative lack of 'attention' to how we communicate. Although I take the point that optimally we cannot tell if someone is lying, I then assume actions prove louder than. In either case 'labour-intensive' does not appear to apply?

The only real way of keeping people honest is to persuade them to police themselves.

True but 'persuasion' is not the method. If anything its an obstacle.

Fear is an essential part of this. Fear of rebuke, fear of discipline, fear of exposure, fear of punishment, fear of retribution . . . all work to develop a healthy organ of self-censorship in the brain, so that telling the truth becomes natural and spontaneous. It used to be call a conscience.

And here's what this approach produces. It makes all acts, acts of negation rather than affirmation and calls this 'healthy'? What this view calls a 'conscience' is a 'brutal flagellator' that assumes a 'brutal nature' to justify the 'flagellators' existence. It needs to make 'truth' 'natural and spontaneous', as if 'truth' to oneself isn't? Any 'truth' that needs repetition to understand may be a 'truth' but not in any philosophical sense I understand?

So any strategy for detecting dishonesty must also have well-defined consequences attached. Given a healthy atmosphere of fear, honesty can flourish. This is what the Christians mean by “walking in the fear of the Lord”, and they’ve got it spot on, not for the first time.

They may well have but my memory is that this is the OT. The NT or the Christians, believe in Love, Forgiveness and an All Compassionate God if memory serves?
I agree that societal and cultural mores are things to not be idly cast aside but think that an easier phenomenological strategy to help 'detect' lying is too learn how one 'thinks', e.g. how in the past have you 'believed' liars? And how your words allow your 'thoughts' to be communicated to others and how to understand all the responses you are getting along with their words and how they effect how one is 'thinking', ad infinitum, or at least until you understand that is.
a_uk
p.s. there should probably have been more "I's" and "we's" in that. Too many "you's" I think?

[Arising_uk]

Simplification: I am a woman with a body, a CNS etc. Which part of me takes the decisions regarding my thoughts and actions?

To me, the 'thoughts' are the product of the Body. The 'regarding' and 'deciding' are done by Mind. To point at some part of the Body to say that is where Mind is, is I think, a mistake, because from a phenomenological view there is no disembodied Mind, just 'me' and my Body or my Body and 'me'. My Mind 'stretches' to the limits of my Body and if I hold or drive an object it 'stretches' to the end of that. To me, its the whole of 'you' that makes these things and looking for a reductionist argument that defies its own source to explain Psychiatry's failures is bad philosophy. Which at the end or beginning of all Sciences is where the Scientist has to 'rest a while' to contemplate the conclusions that their results are presenting. In other words, when 'paradigm shifts' are occurring the Scientists have to become Philosophers and examine the axioms upon which their systems are built. You appear to be of the Psychiatrists who are banking upon the Physicists justifying your hypothesis which are built upon the results of applying Physics and Computer Imaging based technologies upon your patients with beneficial results?

Each human body is formed by innumerous subsystems, which are perfectly coordinated. Who is the coordinator?

If they are perfectly coordinated why would they need a coordinator? If you mean what coordinated the building of such systems I'd say it appears to be DNA that does this. Whether something else 'created' it all, I'm militant agnostic about.

Then I think you should present this pattern: how an environmental stimulus is transformed into signal, how and where is it stored?

You have noticed that this is a philosophy forum? As such I'm only reasoning upon what I've read and studied and as I'm not a neuroScientist I doubt I can present it, as I'm sure that Science is only just beginning to scratch the surface of these issues.

I'm not sure what you are asking? 'Eyes' apparently have rod, cones and colour receptors(although I think this is misleading as they are better described as light filters and 'colour' is the effect). The external stimulus causes an 'electrical', chemical(or whatever scientific level of description is appropriate for the phenomena being studied) response in the neural fibre that is connected to the relevant 'sensor'. I assume this also applies to the rest of the senses. As it 'travels' the 'signal' has to be transformed, why? Because the Body is a 'filter' of stimulus. Take the 'eye', there are X amount of 'receptors' but they have to enter the 'optic nerve' and since we are not, in reality, an infinite physical space hidden inside a finite one(although I can understand a sense in which we are), the 'signals' have to be 'combined' or ‘transformed’(which is where I think we differ in our understanding of the CNS as you appear to think it is a point-to-point system, i.e. stimulus-receptor-end neuron), this process continues all the way 'through' the CNS until 'we' get the 'sensory experiences' or phenomena. What the 'we' is and 'where' its located are things I think Science is only just beginning to explore.

Here’s a nasty way to think about the way I think about memory and minds. Lets say I’m a programmer working upon the software for a missile-armed drone. All the hardware is ready but we’ve run into problems of how to recognize friend or foe(or is that and?). What we tried was to store the pictures of friends and foes in a database of ‘memories’ and when the sensor, basically a ‘neural net’ ‘saw’ something it transformed it into the databases format and a search engine compared that to each memory to find the best one to judge its reaction upon and returned the result. But the search-time was killing us as this is supposed to be a real-time combat drone. So what we did was train another ‘neural net’ upon ‘friend or/and foe’ examples with a fire/no-fire output and linked them by having the first net ‘pass’ the decision “friend or foe” to the second net, i.e. feed a slice of its current input there and stop paying attention until a fire no fire comes back. The best bit is that it gives the first net time to future target acquire if it wishes. It does not have to, the first net can ‘fixate’ upon the target until the result comes back. If ‘its’ been future target acquiring when the result comes back it can also use the ‘stored’ inputs to reacquire, if possible, the original target from a partial input, i.e. the target has moved, and be awaiting the result from the second input. Is such a system showing intellectual and memory capabilities?

No, I do not forget it. I just question where are these instructions are stored. Certainly not DNA, because a slight change of an environmental condition (e.g. temperature) leads to the expression of a totally different set of genes. In other words, each DNA has the potential to express every kind of genes. Which factor determines which genes will be expressed? In other words DNA is like the matrix of the printing office. Who is the typographer?

That’s interesting? You think Human DNA can reproduce any other animal form?
What evidence is there that heat can produce different Genes?

You cannot seperate mind from memory. Mind is not an abstract, ethereal idea/ presence. It's a totally functional factor. Simply mind without memory does not exist.

I agree that ‘memory’ is a base of Mind but think that in a very real sense ‘mind’ is an ‘abstraction’ based upon a Meat memory-system and that is the CNS. Whether we find that it is ‘hardwired’, based upon actual connections in the CNS that allow its outputs to be fed back in as inputs or whether it is a ‘soft-wired’ ability I think will be up to advances in neuroScience and Computer Imaging technology.

You can imagine that, sure, but can you prove that? That's what science is about!

I think neuroScience and Computing are starting to address these issues right now.

I said that there are various versions regarding how information are stored. Science must test them all before definitely deciding where memory is stored.

Not really, it just has to keep testing until it finds one that fits the observations and data.

Have Newton's laws of gravity been discarded due to the fact that his basic truth has been superseded by the basic truth of Einstein? In other words, a verified knowledge cannot be discarded, can only be enriched and improved. Similarly, all knowledge psychiatry has accumulated so far cannot be thrown away due to inadequacies as far as the prevailing basic truth is concerned!

Depends what you mean by “superseded”. Newton’s equations have not been disproved, just localized to planetary bodies and ‘near-space’(although these are relatively to us vast distances). We don’t send probes to the planets based upon Einstein’s equations. What has changed is the metaphysical models produced that explain why the equations work. Both still believe their basic truth that there is a physical world that can be explained by Laws of Physics. Your case is that the basic truth was/is that all mental events are physical, in the ‘brain’ so to speak, and hence treatable by physical means without respect to the mental event itself. I think its disagreement with this that produced Psychology as a field. But you have a problem as the methods used so far do not appear to work that well and the evidence of how ‘brain’ functions does not match the observations from Psychiatry. Ah! Apologies I get your analogy now. You don’t want too change your basic truth but expand it to cope with the anomalies? So this is where the EM field comes in? It adds to the ‘limited brain’ by having a ‘super-brain’ in this EM field that explains the experiences of being a Mind?

No, you're slapping a baby. But the baby, if it hadn't be slapped before wouldn't be frightened if I threatened to slap it, because it wouldn't have a relevant memory. Consequently, memory and emotion are tightly connected!

I agree the CNS and Endocrine systems are highly correlated. You mistake how memory and emotions and perception are experienced. You can slap a baby many times before it will be old enough to recognize the threat. It may well be that the physical response will decrease each time as the CNS and Endocrine systems will begin to ‘re-member’.

How are sensors and CNS synched? And would that alter the fact that memory is indispensable for any kind of emotional reaction?

By ‘their’ interactions as the body grows.
It would point to the fact that we can have an ‘emotional’ reaction for the first time.

You would perceive that, but you wouldn't have any memory or feeling regarding what I had said, would you? Once gain I insist that perception, emotion and memory are tightly interconnected. In fact, they are a single unity with different aspects: they are mind.

I’d have the ‘feeling’ of ‘shame’ that I did not understand what you were saying and the memory that I promised myself that I would learn another language. I’d have no understanding of what you were saying and hence the only memory I’d have would be the memory of the ‘squiggles’.

I agree that “perception, emotion and memory are tightly interconnected” and in fact are produced by the ‘single unity’ that is the Body which produces these things that are experienced as Mind.

Signals already exist in the environment. External stimuli activate a sensor (eye, ear, skin, etc), which transforms them into electric pulses which are directed to the brain. This is verified, solid knowledge that we are not able to disprove. Of course, the significance and the meaning of each stimulus/signal is totally subjective.

Can you say there are external ‘signals’? Is it ‘electricity’ and ‘pulses’ as the Physicist understands them? What do you mean by ‘directing’ to the ‘brain’? I thought the ‘brain’ cannot be the destination? I agree that the ‘significance and the meaning’ is ‘subjective’ but not that the ‘stimulus/signal’ is.

Then why haven't we succeeded in creating a clone that wouldn't die soon? Don't these failures clearly show us that there is something missing from our experiments?????

Obviously, but you think it means that we were unable to create an EM field at the same time? My take is it confirms what the Cloner’s say, when they say they don’t really understand what they are doing yet.

Arising _uk I am deeply upset right now, because since the beginning I have been insisting that mind is not an abstract idea or something outside of ourselves. On the contrary, I have always said that mind must be a biological factor with physical attributes, otherwise it wouldn't have the ability to interact with body...

And I think I understand better now but you must admit you are not giving me much to ‘work’ with. Apologies for the upset.

To me you have already assumed that there is ‘something’ else that must be interacting with body to produce mind and I think this is not necessary given our current understanding of the Body at present.

Something you said to b2b interested me. You said ‘brain waves’. I’d been thinking that you were working with EM fields but are you saying the ‘brain waves’ generated by computer imaging using some kind of CAT scanner? Instead of ‘waves’ in an external EM field?

I agree, all opinions/ ideas MUST be tested with scientific criteria. Nevertheless, we seem to view things from a completely different perspective, and I do not know if we will ever work this out

It would take a pretty big ‘revelation’ upon your part to convince me that it is necessary to have Mind based in an external EM field, yes.

[effie]

Arising_uk,
These are some of the evidence that demonstrate that heat influences genes expression:

Activator, and Temperature-Dependent Expression of Bacteriocin and Pectin Lyase Genes in Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum
Kazuteru Yamada, Jun Kaneko, Yoshiyuki Kamio, and Yoshifumi Itoh
Appl. Envir. Microbiol., Oct 2008; 74: 6017 - 6025.

Changes in gene expression associated with acclimation to constant temperatures and fluctuating daily temperatures in an annual killifish Austrofundulus limnaeus
Jason E. Podrabsky and George N. Somero
J. Exp. Biol., Jun 2004; 207: 2237 - 2254

Please note that I never said that human DNA can reproduce any other animal form, I just said that genes' expression depends on various factors.
The same DNA, under different circumstances, expresses different genes.

Furthermore, I have been talking about endogenous EM fields (brain waves) all along. It would be stupid, on my behalf, to think that an external EM field could carry the memory of the organism!

Effie

PS. My post is short and not elaborate. Excuse me, but lately science has exhausted me

[Arising_uk]

hi effie and Happy New Year to you.

Please note that I never said that human DNA can reproduce any other animal form, I just said that genes' expression depends on various factors.
The same DNA, under different circumstances, expresses different genes.

Thanks for the references.

I agree that the genes expression is dependent upon mutiple various factors, but strictly speaking can we say that there is such a thing as 'the same DNA'? Given that DNA is just the bases in line and that all living things appear to have it I'm not surprised that all the different possible combinations of genes are expressible within this system.

Furthermore, I have been talking about endogenous EM fields (brain waves) all along. It would be stupid, on my behalf, to think that an external EM field could carry the memory of the organism!

Whoops! You may not like Sheldrake then.
But my mistake, I had thought you were promoting another version of 'mind in fields' that I've heard.

If you are saying that because of the way we image 'brain' activity and can see a 'wave' pattern of activation that this is 'mind' in action I'd not disagree. But this leaves me confused as to which way you think the activation is going? What do you think the base of this imaging is? Ah! Is this why you are asking for where it is? Or have I yet again misunderstood? Is it some kind of electrical 'ghost in the machine' you are proposing?

a_uk

p.s. I doubt its science thats tiring you, but having to talk to pseudo-philosophers

[Duncan Butlin]

Good evening, Ms. Effie,

Concerning preventing people lying, I am sorry I have been so late in replying. But you are being far too idealist -- we are never going to be able to change human nature so that everyone is scrupulously honest. And anyway, I don’t honestly think we would like it if we did. It would make everybody so serious. Part of human interaction is seeing, occasionally, just what you can get away with. Trying it on, in other words. This is an essential part of playing and joking with each other, which are two of the delights of social interaction.

I am not sure what you mean about me missing Bus2bondi’s point about catching intentional liars: surely putting liars in fear works just as well at the conscious level? Why are you so keen to protect them? Why do you suggest that they are only lying because they feel guilty? Do you not recognise they may well be doing it just to gain advantage, to get ahead, to cheat you? May I suggest what you are actually trying to do is appease them? Hoping that if you pretend not to notice, they will correct their bad behaviour of their own accord? Just to be nice to you? I don’t think human nature works like this: if you allow somebody an inch, then they will tend to take a mile. Power goes to the head, and must be limited by external discipline.

I am sad to see you telling Arising_uk that lately science has exhausted you. You told me you were trying to concentrate on it. Are your studies in general wearing you down? I do hope not.

[effie]

Arising_uk,

I entered Sheldrake's website and, from what I have read, I can't say I disagree with him. Of course, I haven't read many details because I'd have to order his books- and that's something I haven't done yet.

What I have been struggling to say is that mind is not an abstract function, an abstract idea or a property of Body/brain or any other organ etc. It is not a non-natural factor which doesn't have its own physical (biological) existence. On the contrary, what I claim is that mind is a natural/physical/biological factor, in the sense that it has its own physical identity and its own physical attributes whith which it performs its faculties.

Effie

ps In this forum I haven't talked to any "pseudo-philosopher". Philosopher is a greek deriving word, which is composed from the words φίλος (friend) and σοφία (wisdom). In other words, a philosopher is a person who loves wisdom. Since we all seek knowledge, we are philosophers -to be

According to Aristotle, true philosophers are those who spend time wondering about their basic truths and trying to improve them. That's what we are trying to do here, Arising According to Aristotle, those who don't do that are blind and will never be able to recognize the answers, even if they hit them on the head So I think that we have taken the right path, we'll see if we'll make it or not! (at least we try, don't you think?)

[effie]

Dear Mr Butlin,

I have already said that I have not enough knowledge to form an opinion on this issue. I just said that an ideal situation would be that all people would have nothing to hide, would be kind enough not to benefit against the others, would not want to cheat, etc.

I am fully aware that this situation is too far from reality, that's why I told b2b that I really have no solution to propose. I don't want to appease anyone: in fact I can't stand people who behave in indecent ways.

I also said that external discipline is necessary only due to the weaknesses of human nature. I would be ashamed of myself If I needed laws,police etc to impose me to do the right thing. I don't know if I help other people, but I certainly don't harm them. And that's a personal choice, nobody made me make it.

Effie

ps. Yes, in general I am focusing on science, but lately I feel a little tired. There is nothing contradictory about this statement, I think. It's just a phase I'm going through