Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:58 pm
Can you see a person's life or consciousness? The physical is all that can be directly perceived: seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. The false assumption that those properties of things that can be directly perceived are all the properties of reality there can be is baseless. It is as superstitious a notion as the assumption there can be the supernatural. Since there are the attributes of life and consciousness and they cannot be directly perceived, it is apparent there are natural properties of existence that are not physical.

The two principles of reason are: 1. nothing can be known without evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone, and 2. nothing can be true which denies or evades evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone. The physicalist only observes the first of those principles and ignores the second. The physicalist simply ignores (or evades) the fact that for the first to be true, there must be consciousness that is capable of observing (perceiving) and examining physical evidence, but since consciousness itself cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted) it cannot be physical. To be a physicalist one must evade or deny the evidence of their own consciousness.

Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties.

I know these are new ideas you have never seen before and lt will be difficult to grasp immediately. Here is one way to start. On what basis do you assume the only attributes reality can have are those which you call physical? You know you are living and conscious and have a mind and you know you cannot directly perceive them (and can only know your own introspectively). There is no physical evidence for life, or consciousness, or minds that anyone can perceive or examine, but you cannot deny your own life, consciousness and mind. If they were physical you could perceive them in some way, but you cannot, so they exist and are not physical.
I understand what you are trying to say. You simply assign an attribute to matter and think that the problem is resolved. The problem is not resolved.
First of all, attribute are not, "assigned," to anything, they are discovered. Secondly, I do not recognize what you are calling a, "problem." When the nature of something has been discovered and described, that is all that can or needs to be known. The fact that all objects with momentum attract one another (gravity) and all electrons repel one another (electro-magnetism) does not require an additional explanation, "why is there gravity or why is there electro-magnetism," without assuming the universe is in some way contingent on something else. It is that assumption all religions and superstitious notions are based on.

Now I do not care if others want to believe in a contingent universe and want to pursue discovering some imagined mystical cause of everything, "behind the scene of existence," so to speak, and call their not being able to find it, "a problem," but it's only their problem. There is certainly no requirement for anyone else to be worried about or influence by other's personal interests, is there?
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:17 am Where do the natural properties such as consciousness come from?
Attributes and properties do not, "come from," anything. Something just has to be what it is without having some previous, "cause," or, "explanation." A mystic will make that thing a God or some supernatural force, but it will be assumed to just be. No one doubts that there is something that just is and has the nature it has and that whatever they believe it is, that is the explanation for everything. The only difference between the mystics view and mine, is that what I am actually conscious of and the fact of my own consciousness of it are all that I (or anyone else) can possibly know, and there is no reason to suppose anything more. What exists that I can know is all there is and requires no additional explanation and it is only necessary to discover the nature of what exists--and nothing else.
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:17 am You even do not agree with materialists that they are due to the arrangement of parts of matter.
Of course. I'm not a physicalist. My life, my consciousness, and my mind are perfectly natural knowable attributes of existence, but they are not physical attributes and not caused by something else. You certainly do not have to agree with that, but I would think, for your own understanding, you would have to explain what evidence you have for there being anything more than what there obviously is, or why there needs to be.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

RCSaunders wrote:

"My question refers to your, "gross and fine, congealed in forms and fluid in forces," nonsense."
"Einstein was right. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. A genius discovers e=mc^2 An idiot thinks that mean "matter is energy."
Top

I blog here for a mature philosophical discussion not to be flamed or to encounter snark. To me this should be a forum for sharing by mature adults who are interested in science and philosophy. Your comments do not meet that standard and it falls short as an expression of mature dialogue.

To answer, your response is wrong. Do some further research. Energy from the Big Bang onward cooled, some use the term congealed as matter, some say frozen as matter. Whatever term is used they mean the same thing. Protagoras of Abdera who established in Athens the dialectical, later made famous through Plato's Socratic dialogues, referred to a stone as "frozen music," Knowledge lost in the Dark Ages is slowly being regained. Energy takes many forms chemical and otherwise, has many names, and it can be form or formless.

Again--------------- do your research.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

owl of Minerva wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:15 pm I blog here for a mature philosophical discussion ...
Looks to me like your're mostly telling others what to think and do, which is alright with mel, but it doesn't seem like discussion. If you just keep repeating the nonsense philosophers and professors have taught you others are going to point out those absurdities. It's not directed at you, but your ideas. If it bothers you, just ignore it.

I am totally familiar with the conjectures of cosmologists, which is not a real science. Perhaps you'd be interested in what real science is. Here are two of my articles: "Science Philosophy," and, "Atoms And Apples."
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by simplicity »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:39 am A genius discovers e=mc^2 An idiot thinks that mean "matter is energy."
Why would you suggest that matter is not energy?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:39 am A genius discovers e=mc^2 An idiot thinks that mean "matter is energy."
Why would you suggest that matter is not energy?
Because there is only matter. Energy is only a way of describing the behavior of matter. The idea that matter can be changed into energy is a misunderstanding of the fact that mass changes with acceleration. There is no energy existing that is independent of matter. If there is energy, some matter must be accelerated and that acceleration will be manifested as heat, or motion, or radiation, which increases the relative mass of whatever is accelerated, but there is no energy running around independent of the behavior of matter.

When a neutron is annihilated in atomic fission, the radiant energy produced as heat and light result in an increase in the mass of all atoms affected (accelerated) by that energy and that increase in mass exactly equals the loss of mass of the annihilated neutron. The total mass never changes.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:57 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:15 pm
The functioning of a car is a function of the properties of parts. That is why we can design a car.
Yes just like the functioning of a brain is a function of the properties of parts. Yet EACH part has fucntions that are useless without the whole just like a car.
Or did that point slip your notice.
In the same way earth is made up of lifeless chemicals and energy, whose parts alone have no fucntional significance to the living reality that is the earth, yet together the result is greater than the sum of the parts.
No, Consciousness as a property is not a function of properties of parts since your parts are not conscious.
FFS. and a journaey from London to Liverpool is not the property of any SINGLE part of a car. .
Are you so dull as to have missed that point TWICE now?
For example, your mass is a function of the mass of your parts, which is the sum of the mass of parts. This is not the case for consciousness unless you can tell me what is the function.
Gibberish
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

RCSaunders wrote:

"Looks to me like your're mostly telling others what to think and do, which is alright with mel, but it doesn't seem like discussion. If you just keep repeating the nonsense philosophers and professors have taught you others are going to point out those absurdities. It's not directed at you, but your ideas. If it bothers you, just ignore it.

I am totally familiar with the conjectures of cosmologists, which is not a real science. Perhaps you'd be interested in what real science is. Here are two of my articles: "Science Philosophy," and, "Atoms And Apples." "
Top

If recounting what Einstein discovered in relation to matter and energy is perceived as telling people what to do, I have nothing to say to that. I saw what you referenced and to be honest it appears to be a screed. One thing, of many, stood out: "Independently of real perceivable entities there is no force or energy." Oh no! Energy does not exist! What would Einstein say to that? Having said matter and energy are two sides of the one coin. He also said "matter is energy." In other words energy is fundamental. If you favor science, as you said, you certainly do not act like it.

Philosophy like science is a legitimate discipline and philosophy has been one since the ancient Greeks. Although you say you are anti ideology there is a lot of ideology in what you referenced. An open, ideology-free mind is a necessary tool to bring to any meaningful discussion. Lacking that a rational discussion is not possible. I am only interested in rational discussions.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by simplicity »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:16 pm
simplicity wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:39 am A genius discovers e=mc^2 An idiot thinks that mean "matter is energy."
Why would you suggest that matter is not energy?
Because there is only matter. Energy is only a way of describing the behavior of matter. The idea that matter can be changed into energy is a misunderstanding of the fact that mass changes with acceleration. There is no energy existing that is independent of matter. If there is energy, some matter must be accelerated and that acceleration will be manifested as heat, or motion, or radiation, which increases the relative mass of whatever is accelerated, but there is no energy running around independent of the behavior of matter.

When a neutron is annihilated in atomic fission, the radiant energy produced as heat and light result in an increase in the mass of all atoms affected (accelerated) by that energy and that increase in mass exactly equals the loss of mass of the annihilated neutron. The total mass never changes.
Why isn't matter only a way of describing the behavior of energy?

Why does light act sometimes like a wave and sometimes as a particle?

You suggest that only an idiot only thinks that "matter is energy" yet nothing is really understood about either of these. To enter into a discussion about things non-existent would be like two cave-men discussing which god might be responsible for all things he cannot fathom.

The real question should be..."Why is man compelled to make-up all kinds of bizarre explanations for [every damn thing] when we would all be much better off acknowledging the extremely limited capacity we possess to understand anything at all?"
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:52 am Philosophy like science is a legitimate discipline and philosophy has been one since the ancient Greeks.
While science had been very successful, philosophy is a completely failed discipline. After Aristotle, Abelard, and some of Locke, and a smattering of almost obvious truths, everything else in philosophy is just wrong.

There is, in fact, no philosophy. The entire corpus of recorded philosophy is the record of humanity's worst intellectual failures. All that is taught in the universities and promoted by so-called intellectuals as philosophy consists of superstitions, social/political/economic ideologies, anti-knowledge, anti-reason, and anti-human mendacity. All that goes by the name philosophy is a kind of formalized method of induced insanity.
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:52 am Although you say you are anti ideology there is a lot of ideology in what you referenced.
Really? Which ideology would that be? Here is what I do not believe. And as I wrote there:
I have no interest in convincing anyone else to adopt my views (or any views). One should never accept any view as correct if their own best reason from the best evidence available to them does not convince them it is true. It is better to remain ignorant than to fill a gap in one's knowledge with what is not true.
Have a pleasant day!
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by owl of Minerva »

RCSaunders wrote:

" i have no interest in convincing anyone else to adopt my views (or any views). One should never accept any view as correct if their own best reason from the best evidence available to them does not convince them it is true. It is better to remain ignorant than to fill a gap in one's knowledge with what is not true."
.............................................

Good to know. You are welcome to your worldview.

Have a pleasant day.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:43 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:58 pm
Can you see a person's life or consciousness? The physical is all that can be directly perceived: seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. The false assumption that those properties of things that can be directly perceived are all the properties of reality there can be is baseless. It is as superstitious a notion as the assumption there can be the supernatural. Since there are the attributes of life and consciousness and they cannot be directly perceived, it is apparent there are natural properties of existence that are not physical.

The two principles of reason are: 1. nothing can be known without evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone, and 2. nothing can be true which denies or evades evidence available to be observed or examined by anyone. The physicalist only observes the first of those principles and ignores the second. The physicalist simply ignores (or evades) the fact that for the first to be true, there must be consciousness that is capable of observing (perceiving) and examining physical evidence, but since consciousness itself cannot be directly perceived (seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted) it cannot be physical. To be a physicalist one must evade or deny the evidence of their own consciousness.

Life and consciousness cannot be explained (and do not need to be) in terms of physical properties, because they are not physical properties. They are real, natural properties of existence in addition to the physical properties.

I know these are new ideas you have never seen before and lt will be difficult to grasp immediately. Here is one way to start. On what basis do you assume the only attributes reality can have are those which you call physical? You know you are living and conscious and have a mind and you know you cannot directly perceive them (and can only know your own introspectively). There is no physical evidence for life, or consciousness, or minds that anyone can perceive or examine, but you cannot deny your own life, consciousness and mind. If they were physical you could perceive them in some way, but you cannot, so they exist and are not physical.
I understand what you are trying to say. You simply assign an attribute to matter and think that the problem is resolved. The problem is not resolved.
First of all, attribute are not, "assigned," to anything, they are discovered. Secondly, I do not recognize what you are calling a, "problem." When the nature of something has been discovered and described, that is all that can or needs to be known. The fact that all objects with momentum attract one another (gravity) and all electrons repel one another (electro-magnetism) does not require an additional explanation, "why is there gravity or why is there electro-magnetism," without assuming the universe is in some way contingent on something else. It is that assumption all religions and superstitious notions are based on.

Now I do not care if others want to believe in a contingent universe and want to pursue discovering some imagined mystical cause of everything, "behind the scene of existence," so to speak, and call their not being able to find it, "a problem," but it's only their problem. There is certainly no requirement for anyone else to be worried about or influence by other's personal interests, is there?
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:17 am Where do the natural properties such as consciousness come from?
Attributes and properties do not, "come from," anything. Something just has to be what it is without having some previous, "cause," or, "explanation." A mystic will make that thing a God or some supernatural force, but it will be assumed to just be. No one doubts that there is something that just is and has the nature it has and that whatever they believe it is, that is the explanation for everything. The only difference between the mystics view and mine, is that what I am actually conscious of and the fact of my own consciousness of it are all that I (or anyone else) can possibly know, and there is no reason to suppose anything more. What exists that I can know is all there is and requires no additional explanation and it is only necessary to discover the nature of what exists--and nothing else.
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:17 am You even do not agree with materialists that they are due to the arrangement of parts of matter.
Of course. I'm not a physicalist. My life, my consciousness, and my mind are perfectly natural knowable attributes of existence, but they are not physical attributes and not caused by something else. You certainly do not have to agree with that, but I would think, for your own understanding, you would have to explain what evidence you have for there being anything more than what there obviously is, or why there needs to be.
Matter in all its forms, except the brain within the materialism, has properties which these properties are functions of properties of parts. To me, parts of matter are conscious too so the problem is resolved. There is no need to assume that matter could have arbitrary properties.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:11 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:57 pm

Yes just like the functioning of a brain is a function of the properties of parts. Yet EACH part has fucntions that are useless without the whole just like a car.
Or did that point slip your notice.
In the same way earth is made up of lifeless chemicals and energy, whose parts alone have no fucntional significance to the living reality that is the earth, yet together the result is greater than the sum of the parts.
No, Consciousness as a property is not a function of properties of parts since your parts are not conscious.
FFS. and a journaey from London to Liverpool is not the property of any SINGLE part of a car. .
Are you so dull as to have missed that point TWICE now?
For example, your mass is a function of the mass of your parts, which is the sum of the mass of parts. This is not the case for consciousness unless you can tell me what is the function.
Gibberish
Can't you tell me the function of each part of your car? Sure yes. Now tell me the function of neurons in your brain that give you consciousness.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by Ansiktsburk »

What I wonder when I read the OP is - Know nothing relative to what? Relative to know the brain like knowing all the bits and pieces of a computer(which is a bloody hard thing to know)? Or relative to just observe that it is a gooey white contraption behind the eyes?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:55 am To me, parts of matter are conscious too ...
To me too. They are called organisms and only living entities are conscious. Except for the living organisms there is not consciousness. To suggest anything else is conscious is the mystic nonsense of primitive minds.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:58 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:11 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:02 am
No, Consciousness as a property is not a function of properties of parts since your parts are not conscious.
FFS. and a journaey from London to Liverpool is not the property of any SINGLE part of a car. .
Are you so dull as to have missed that point TWICE now?
For example, your mass is a function of the mass of your parts, which is the sum of the mass of parts. This is not the case for consciousness unless you can tell me what is the function.
Gibberish
Can't you tell me the function of each part of your car? Sure yes. Now tell me the function of neurons in your brain that give you consciousness.
Actually the brain has its own divisions too. You need to educate your self.
Post Reply