Author Topic: ACME vs OMM  (Read 13358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #87 on: May 20, 2010, 06:25:20 AM »

If the above paragraph was giving some directions to a certain city, a chinese won't get there unless he knew english.

That means we do not always create a pre supposed existence. Something must necesarily exist otherwise we might not bother.

Exactly. Thats why it's ridiculous to claim that words 'aren't things' or 'don't exist'.

That garbled paragraph demonstrates how the meaning of words - their essence - are brought into subjective understanding even when their syntactic substrate is compromised. You could say that they don't physically exist, because they have almost no physical substance (a neurological byte weighs how much? what is the specific gravity of a word on an internet browser?) but that fact is an irrelevant distraction to what a word actually is and what it does.

My whole point here is to describe the Cosmos as we humans actually find it. The Cosmos doesn't seem to care that Mickey Mouse is inside our heads and superstrings may be outside - they both are part of the Whole picture. Of course they operate differently, of course a block of iron is different from a cartoon mouse...that's the idea.

There isn't any place that the universe is not. It's in our minds, it's outside of our minds. Same universe, different perspective, different properties. Understanding their relation is a good thing. It's not a threat to established science, it's an extension of scientific thought to include thought itself. Forms. Circles, squares, words, meanings: Part of our Cosmos and not somehow from a different universe that is irrelevant, nothing, non-existing.

The problem of OMM is that it takes the observer for granted. Consciousness is not a given. It's not a nothing. You don't have to consider it something when you are pouring a foundation for a house, but if you want to pour the foundation for a worldview, I dare you to factor in our own existence, on it's own terms without translating it into an exterior phenomenon. It is what it is. Words, music, color, desire. It's as real as it gets, folks.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 07:03:57 AM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #88 on: May 22, 2010, 07:44:11 AM »


I can only claim to have deliberately selected about 70% of the content in there. The more subliminal stuff on the right is strictly serendipitous. I see 'I AM', as well as 'SIAM' with a backward cat tail S and ann M made from conjoined black cats. That's f***ing crazy. I had no idea the tree was a hand until well after I flipped the sinister chirality. I'm noticing that the branches of the tree hands which mirror and touch the eyelashes above the Crescent C (mirroring the stylized moon cat head below, which sets off the solar themes) combine with simese cat (as nose) and flower petal teeth to make a loose jack o lantern-like face or something pushing you back (black cat superstition?) The cat/nose also resonates with the upside down scorpio glyphs.

The forced perspective on the Lichtenstein eye makes it accidentally look like the eye in the pyamid. I'm not that smart. That one was a freebie. On the left side the above the neck the shot of the atmosphere interrupts the image of the Mercurial-teal eclipse such that it suggests plankton and sunlight in the ocean under protective filtering fog. I didn't notice the undercat symmetry either of color and form with the ocean part - a guitar S curve. The fence railing suggests musical notation a bit.

The hourglass theme contrasted with manadala are intentional, but the similarity of the snowflakes (left bottom) to molecular benzene is a freebie. Sideways anatomy view suggests a fish skeleton under the sea uniting the macro world above (top rectangle is inverted satellite photo of part of Rome, bottom is a small sample of the current fastest microprocessor).

The CAT says Cute And Troublesome, btw. The far left rectangles are two zebras inverted (reiteration of the siamese cat theme unintentional) on top of inverted muscle tissue. Animal on one side, meat on the other. The giant fertilizing human ovum does a nice cognitive symmetry with the Coptic iconic eye I Ching mandala with the upper half telescopic astrophysical quarter-moon shape/astrological mandala sun elements. The ribs on the left go with the flower petals on the right.

Let me know if anyone notices anything else fun or has any comments/interpretive insights. I started out trying to plan a different, more diagrammatic piece in the shape of an infinity sign, but I like how this came out better than what I had in mind. Finity+Infinity. There's even more going on here when you look at it sideways or doubled up. Probably I'll print this out to really see what's going on.

Wow. Um. See for yourself. http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=207943&postcount=6
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:04:56 AM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #89 on: May 22, 2010, 04:25:26 PM »
The problem of OMM is that it takes the observer for granted. Consciousness is not a given. It's not a nothing.

Nobody claims that consciousness is not a given. That we have a shared language in which we have shared abstractions doesn't mean a thing, in the sense of 'ACME'. These abstractions don't tell anything about the universe. They exist in our brains, as synaptic states.
And the fact that our brains finds patterns in random things only shows that we evolved a brain that tries to find regularities is natural phenomena in order to make predictions about our surroundings. No magic, no ACME needed.

I still don't see what you think you are proving. OMM is still able to explain our entire world. Consciousness is just our complex physical brain. Yes, it is complex, but in the end it just complexity brought by a huge combination of simple elements. Just as the creation of artificial cells shows that life is nothing more than programmed cells. And before you start complaining that that means there must be a programmer that programmed our DNA -> no, they just naturally evolved by natural selection. Bad programs are automatically eliminated.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #90 on: May 22, 2010, 04:29:52 PM »
Still, I am wondering where understanding fits into your ACME/OMM model. I notice you left that part out of your comment "I like the observation."


I memorized the Radio Shack Electronics Dictionary definition for phase angle in 1978. Just because I liked to sound smart. (I can also tell you ingredients of the original chap stick). In 1990, when I was getting my electrical engineering degree, I  had to design a circuit and show a phase angle on the oscilliscope. I am not sure I really understood it then, but I got an A on the lab, the written and the oral presentation. And I still remember the definition, although I probably couldn't design a circuit or use the oscilliscope correctly.

A phase angle is the difference in degrees by which voltage leads current in a capacitive circuit or lags in an inductive circuit and is equal the ratio x or r where yada yada yada.

Where does understanding fit into all this?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #91 on: May 22, 2010, 05:12:10 PM »
The problem of OMM is that it takes the observer for granted. Consciousness is not a given. It's not a nothing.

Nobody claims that consciousness is not a given. That we have a shared language in which we have shared abstractions doesn't mean a thing, in the sense of 'ACME'.[/quote]

You misread it I think. I'm saying that consciousness is not a given. You are saying that consciousness is just shared abstractions. I'm saying that consciousness is sanity. Only in excess and deprived of OMM-facing exteriority is it extreme and superstitious.

I still don't see what you think you are proving. OMM is still able to explain our entire world. Consciousness is just our complex physical brain. Yes, it is complex, but in the end it just complexity brought by a huge combination of simple elements. Just as the creation of artificial cells shows that life is nothing more than programmed cells.

Quote
And before you start complaining that that means there must be a programmer that programmed our DNA -> no, they just naturally evolved by natural selection. Bad programs are automatically eliminated.
You don't get it. I fully embrace natural selection and DNA. I know that DNA needs no programmer because the universe has built in the properties of DNA into it. It's one giant coherent holographic reservoir of patterns and ideas. Without that, there would be no magic property of DNA that somehow replicates. Replication just wouldn't be possible, is it isn't in atoms or planets.

I don't think that you are going to get this, and I don't think it's either of our fault. You are just set up to have the most effective worldview for who you are and so do I. Nothing I'm saying here contradicts science in any way. I have no problem with randomness leading to complexity. Matter to molecules, molecules to cells, cells to organisms.

Makes sense to me. I only see holes in the OMM as far as the hard problem of consciousness and the existence of life, just because I see absolutely no reason why they would have been physically possible according to OMM. Since I understand that meaning is inherent - literally, it inheres within matter and energy just as the spectrum is within white light. To me this is what accounts for the quantum leaps in structures that utilize memory to reproduce and invent qualia such as pain and pleasure to orient cells to survival. Only then does evolution make any difference to anything.

Quote
These abstractions don't tell anything about the universe. They exist in our brains, as synaptic states.

That's because you don't believe that synaptic states are part of the universe. Synaptic states exist on the outside of the brain, what they are on the inside of the brain are memories, images, words, logic. That's not an illusion. Just the opposite. If you do some kind of laser ablation on someone's brain tissues that accidentally wipe out all memory of their family - which is more relevant, the smoking cerebrum or the experience of suddenly having part of your life disappear. Of course they are thing as far as they both are physically local to the brain, but otherwise they are completely different

And the fact that our brains finds patterns in random things only shows that we evolved a brain that tries to find regularities is natural phenomena in order to make predictions about our surroundings. No magic, no ACME needed.
It does show that, but not only that. It's important to know how we think it developed, but really, it's not that important. Every time you look an one animal and call it a pet and another and call it food, that's the power of the imagination. When you see people walking around, you infer who they are, what their lives are, but unless you talk to them, they are really just zombies to us. Magic and ACME are the least of the problems without patterns being honored. Sanity itself is not possible without teleology and teleology is the inside of consciousness.

I don't care how long of a string of pearls you have, or how many different kinds of pearls are on the strand, the thing just has no reason to invent anything other than really strange variations on pearls. Not seeing self replicating sentient pearl piles. Given that we do have such sentience and self replicating molecules, we know that this possibility is present in matter or the forces acting upon it. Matter, as the OMM defines it, can explain the unbelievable patterns of the Cosmos, but it fails to even approach meaning, order, freewill, the desire to live as essential properties of those patterns.

Which is why it sees only half of the cosmos and is useless for learning about consciousness as reading tea leaves would be as useless as doing knee surgery.

Quote
I still don't see what you think you are proving. OMM is still able to explain our entire world. Consciousness is just our complex physical brain. Yes, it is complex, but in the end it just complexity brought by a huge combination of simple elements.

Complexity has zero to do with it. A plant or flower can tell whether it's thriving or withering. OMM can understand the function- the how and the what of the entire world, yes, but it doesn't even touch what all of that pattern is for - experiencing it. The internet is complex, but it's no closer to having the sentience of a goldfish that a pile of paperclips. Acting like consciousness isn't consciousness. Something has to be inside, feeling what it is to be that thing. When they do that, they won't be feeling or touching synaptic clefts, they will feel power and taste sweetness (probably).

Anyways. It might be more important that you see the cosmos your way. It makes for good science. I'm just reporting to you what I have discovered to be a more complete model that has no problem whatsoever including all of science as well as all of art and all of the personal explorations I have been through. It's just a better, truer, model for me.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #92 on: May 22, 2010, 05:43:59 PM »
Where does understanding fit into all this?

Not sure if I get your question? I would say that understanding is a part of consciousness which leverages pattern recognition of many patterns of patterns. It's cognitive and intuitive, meaningful observation of patterns either interior or exterior to the self.

Toward the OMM side, understanding identifies with increasing scientific skill and political knowledge but in excess can eventually settle into a rigid, formulaic approach toward life and solving problems.

Toward ACME, understanding is sought in the personal and intuitive directions which reconnect the self with the cosmos. It helps evolve new attitudes, behaviors, and insights for self-healing and appreciation of others. At the extreme, overemphasis on subjective understanding can lead to an approach based only on magical thinking and delusion.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #93 on: May 22, 2010, 05:54:44 PM »
Yes, you got my question. Thanx!

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2010, 04:21:06 AM »
Makes sense to me. I only see holes in the OMM as far as the hard problem of consciousness and the existence of life, just because I see absolutely no reason why they would have been physically possible according to OMM. Since I understand that meaning is inherent - literally, it inheres within matter and energy just as the spectrum is within white light. To me this is what accounts for the quantum leaps in structures that utilize memory to reproduce and invent qualia such as pain and pleasure to orient cells to survival. Only then does evolution make any difference to anything.

Immediacracy, I think the core of your argument is in the quote above. You find the existence of life and consciousness 'hard' in terms of naturalistic thinking. That's because they are. Research has yet to solve many questions. But until now they have found naturalistic explanations for everything and it doesn't seem there are any unanswered questioned that can't be solved as such. Of course, things like beauty, creativity, pleasure, music, etc, are not very simple to understand in evolutionary terms, certainly not in forum posts by laymen. Nor is the evolution of something as complex as they human eye. But books are filled that do explain these things evolutionary. And they show that these things can be explained by a complex mix of small and simple evolutionary steps.  Meaning, as embedded in the human mind to make sense of the world, is still not 'embedded in the universe', it is embedded in the human mind and it got there evolutionary.

ACME is a simple and convenient way to explain complex things in the world. However, it is meaningless, doesn't explain anything and in the end it is just totally senseless.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #95 on: May 23, 2010, 07:34:59 AM »
...But until now they have found naturalistic explanations for everything and it doesn't seem there are any unanswered questioned that can't be solved as such. Of course, things like beauty, creativity, pleasure, music, etc, are not very simple to understand in evolutionary terms, certainly not in forum posts by laymen. Nor is the evolution of something as complex as they human eye. But books are filled that do explain these things evolutionary. And they show that these things can be explained by a complex mix of small and simple evolutionary steps.

I don't think that it's possible for a square or a circle or the color spectrum or pain to evolve from a wholly objective model of matter. Sorry. They don't come from the mind exclusively, and they as deep and elemental a part of the cosmos as electromagnetism. You're just tied to the idea that exterior existence is the only possible reality, and that all nonphysical realities are less-than, and arise from physical realities which are the real realities. That's ok, I'm sure there needs to be a lot of people who see the universe that way. I used to be one of them.

Human beings don't experience their imagination as an incredibly complex array of living cells that it is. It doesn't even need a remote control. You can just say 'imagine a stack of pancakes' and it works that fast. Even a 4 year old can do it.

What OMM says is like a father who brings home a computer for the kids with no monitor or keyboard of mouse.

'Where's the screen?' one asks.

    "Oh you don't need a separate screen, the game is actually running in the computer".

"Well how do you play?'

    "It's very complicated but there are great computer scientists working on it right now. It's only a matter of time before we find the game in there".

"Why don't we just put a monitor on it and play the game as kids have been playing it all along? There's huge groups online."

    "No, games aren't really real, it's these dusty boards full of microelectronics that host the games, so were going to keep looking at parts of it in different ways until we find the game itself. Once you attach a monitor, you lose all scientific impartiality and become beholden to the delusions that are projected on the screen".

"That sounds totally crazy, like a 12th century church trying to repair a computer".


     "NO!!!! It's NOTHING LIKE THAT!!! Monitors tell you NOTHING about what's going on in the computer and the computer hosts the game, therefore only probing the computer with electrical meters and Xraying it while the game is running can tell you how the game works."

Quote
Meaning, as embedded in the human mind to make sense of the
 world, is still not 'embedded in the universe', it is embedded in the human mind and it got there evolutionary.
Mind is nothing but human meaning embedded in the human brain. It has no existence other than that. It's what we are made of. Meaning. It's not actually embedded at all, it's just that part of the inside of our brain hosts what we consider our minds. It's pure pattern - on the outside it's a neuroelectric pattern of routed pulses, on the inside those same pulses are experiences and perceptions available to a centralized, mandala-like hierarchy of self awareness. The psyche is not shaped at all like a brain. We (and our entire lives) are a logical abstraction layer generated by a physical biocomputer.

Quote
ACME is a simple and convenient way to explain complex things in the world. However, it is meaningless, doesn't explain anything and in the end it is just totally senseless.

ACME is too extreme on the other end. It wants to fix the computer by doing really well at playing the game. It want's to play the game so well that it thinks it can only get better at it if it gets others to play the game in the same way, and recruit them to recruit others.

What I'm saying is that reverse engineering the computer is important and worthwhile, and that learning more about the game and playing it better is important, but understanding the relation between the two will allow mastering of game programing and computer engineering at the same time.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2010, 08:11:08 AM »
Quote
I don't think that it's possible for a square or a circle or the color spectrum or pain to evolve from a wholly objective model of matter. Sorry. They don't come from the mind exclusively, and they as deep and elemental a part of the cosmos as electromagnetism.

What you seem to say is that the universe couldn't have objectively evolved like that, because YOU can't grasps its underlying principles. I also don't grasp a lot of things, and humanity as a whole might still have a lot to learn as well. But the fact that we might have troubles in understanding how this could be, it doesn't change the fact that it is like that.

As for your computer example, I don't think you were proving anything. I understand that the game is not only the computer processing, but that there also need to be interaction between the human and machine. The machine communicates the progress of the game via external output devices like the monitor, speakers, force feedback, printer, etc. The game also needs input from the human via mouse, keyboard, joystick, etc. The programming of the game, the fact that humans evolutionary like games, etc, it all is part of the OMM world view.

You seem to stress that understanding every part of a complex process degrades enjoyment or experience of the complete thing. But this is absolutely not so. The complex object, in this case a game, is still enjoyable in its total. The fact that if you analyze the complex object you will find that it only consists of a combination of simple elements doesn't change anything. But there is nothing more to it than being a combination of small elements either.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2010, 09:38:08 AM »
What you seem to say is that the universe couldn't have objectively evolved like that, because YOU can't grasps its underlying principles.
No. I understand them completely. Everything that is knowable about the spectrum or circles or squares is right there on the surface. There's no mystery there - it is communicated directly to us (not to our brain necessarily) in a language we innately understand as soon as our eyes can focus the image.

Quote
I also don't grasp a lot of things, and humanity as a whole might still have a lot to learn as well. But the fact that we might have troubles in understanding how this could be, it doesn't change the fact that it is like that.
So you are saying that since YOU don't grasp a lot of things but that you KNOW that your authority on this matter is a fact, regardless of any insight or experience I may have.

Quote
The programming of the game, the fact that humans evolutionary like games, etc, it all is part of the OMM world view.

Yes but it has no idea what a game is or where it comes from...not the usefulness of a gamelike behavior, but a game's creative content itself.  In an allegory where consciousness is the monitor and the brain is the computer, the OMM has no claim to evoke any 'programmer' or 'operator' unless there is some specific material construct that actually performs that function. Which there isn't. There is no game without a sceen, no consciousness without an experience of spatiotemporal presentation layer; images, icons, words, meanings, essence, etc decoded from neurology.

The game is graphic forms on the screen, code instruction sets and microelectronic changes to p and n transistor materials in the box. Totally different. Related, essentially equivalent, but existentially separate.

Programming codes are transduced to
instruction sets to microtransistor arrays, to
i/o devices (monitor) to physical media (photon emissions, acoustic vibration) to
human i/o devices (eyes, eardrums), to
neurological biocomputer texts (chemical and electric activity) to
conscious apprehension of light, sound, geometric patters, avatars.

It's further processed when the living organism is able to identify symbolically with an on screen icon and project themselves (not their brain or body at all, but psychologically) into a simulated situation they find entertaining.

The fact that games maaaaaaay have once conferred a minor survival/reproduction advantage is speculative, dubious, and in no way explains how games are imagined or predicts that they ever would or could be. It's a total non issue.

Quote
You seem to stress that understanding every part of a complex process degrades enjoyment or experience of the complete thing. But this is absolutely not so.
It has nothing to do with complexity at all. You keep holding on to that like it means something. I'm the one arguing for increased complexity by acknowledging that potential subjectivity is the inside of objectivity. You are the one trying to collapse consciousness into a 'simply' this or that, reducing it to some, as yet not understood epiphenomenon of the brain (located where, I don't know).

A kick in the ribs is not subtle or esoteric. For us, on our level, it's a simple reality full of a non-material we know as PAIN. If you were the young universe, and you've got atoms and stars, galaxies and molecules, increasing the complexity of what you do with them gets you no closer to the invention of pain than it would get you toward the invention of Mickey Mouse. Are both pain and Mickey Mouse 'simply' part of what, 'neurological interpretation blah blah'? The cause of pain may be complex but the experience of it surely is not. What accounts for this? How does abstract activities of some axons and dendrites call 'pain' into being from the painless cosmos of just matter and energy?

You may claim not know, but I do. It's obvious. Cells are a higher order of molecular arrangement than atoms. That arrangement itself probably confers an ultra-primitive subjectivity. It wants to live a tiny bit. It sort of feels something if the cell as a whole is getting energy and thriving vs starving. This is what life actually is, from the inside. A story of struggle, of community. From the outside, who cares, it's just a cell to us because we've got trillions of cells. We can't see it feel anything (we don't see other people's feelings either first hand, we infer them from the somatic semiotic texts which we, as humans have intimate knowledge.)

Pain may exist in cells and not in atoms (presumably, but who knows) not because pain was a random mutation of molecules, but because pain is a timeless expression of what it is to be alive. It doesn't matter if it correlates to a molecule or an electrical response. Pain is much more than that to a living organism. Pain is not just a description of damaged cells, it's an interjection to consciousness. A full cognitive list interrupt. That doesn't really do it justice though. You can't explain pain, you can't model it, you can't map it's evolution because it can only be understood by subjectively experiencing it.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #98 on: May 23, 2010, 11:33:00 AM »
So you are saying that since YOU don't grasp a lot of things but that you KNOW that your authority on this matter is a fact, regardless of any insight or experience I may have.
No. I backup the scientific method. My authority, nor what I think, has anything to do with it.

Science is open to everyone and an incredible amount of the brightest people are contributing to it the best they can. If you've discovered something about the nature of the cosmos you can write a paper about it, send it to a journal and have it reviewed by top world experts in the fields. You can then defend your viewpoints in scientific conferences and if you will be accepted depends on the proof and data that you have. If you don't agree with some aspect of it, you are free to proof them wrong.

I support science, and know that they are right unless proven otherwise. Their righteousness is shown daily in my life because all technology is based on it. Their facts and theorizes are not based on what people think or find convenient. If some piece of data is inconvenient to some elaborate theory this is not just dismissed. It is investigated, and if necessary the theory is rejected. Scientific theories explains nature as we understand it. Science research is done in almost any field you can imagine.

What I say is that I prefer insights gathered by the scientific community above things that you 'just think', especially if there are deviations from your insights with the science insights. This is strengthened by you not providing solid reasoning or facts, but by you claiming you can't imagine things to be different.

Quote
It has nothing to do with complexity at all. You keep holding on to that like it means something. I'm the one arguing for increased complexity by acknowledging that potential subjectivity is the inside of objectivity. You are the one trying to collapse consciousness into a 'simply' this or that, reducing it to some, as yet not understood epiphenomenon of the brain (located where, I don't know).

For you, explaining how things work is equal to 'reducing' to basic building blocks. It doesn't reduce anything, it just describes how it works.

Quote
A kick in the ribs is not subtle or esoteric. For us, on our level, it's a simple reality full of a non-material we know as PAIN. If you were the young universe, and you've got atoms and stars, galaxies and molecules, increasing the complexity of what you do with them gets you no closer to the invention of pain than it would get you toward the invention of Mickey Mouse. Are both pain and Mickey Mouse 'simply' part of what, 'neurological interpretation blah blah'? The cause of pain may be complex but the experience of it surely is not. What accounts for this?


How does abstract activities of some axons and dendrites call 'pain' into being from the painless cosmos of just matter and energy?

Pain is very well understood. Just read the wiki on pain. It is fully explained what the evolutionary reason for pain is, and how this manifests in the brain. We fully know what accounts for the feeling of pain. You for some reason won't except that and maintain that there is something higher about feeling pain. Well, there isn't.

Quote
You may claim not know, but I do. It's obvious. Cells are a higher order of molecular arrangement than atoms. That arrangement itself probably confers an ultra-primitive subjectivity. It wants to live a tiny bit. It sort of feels something if the cell as a whole is getting energy and thriving vs starving. This is what life actually is, from the inside. A story of struggle, of community. From the outside, who cares, it's just a cell to us because we've got trillions of cells. We can't see it feel anything (we don't see other people's feelings either first hand, we infer them from the somatic semiotic texts which we, as humans have intimate knowledge.)

Cells don't want or feel anything. They act like nothing more than programmed machines and reproduce. This has been shown by dr. Venter this week.

Quote
That doesn't really do it justice though. You can't explain pain, you can't model it, you can't map it's evolution because it can only be understood by subjectively experiencing it.

That's just not true.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #99 on: May 23, 2010, 01:00:45 PM »
Cells don't want or feel anything.
Evidence?

Human beings act in predictable ways most of the time. If you view them from a telescope from a distance, how would know know whether they feel something or not?

I'm not asking you to believe my worldview, and I'm not seeing any reason to believe that you have attempted to even understand it. I understand your worldview through and though. It's accurate, but it only covers the objective half of the cosmos and chooses to ignore sense and sanity as being part of the picture.

I've pretty thoroughly laid out my observations and have yet to see anyone supply a worthwhile alternative to my understanding of subjectivity and it's relation to the objective side of matter. No valid hypothesis of qualia like color or elementary shapes like circles, yet I'm assured that such things are 'simply' this or that (nonspecific description of neurological process).

It may be that you or I have a fundamental neurological difference, which would be incredibly difficult to sleuth out medically if at all, but it would only take a few minutes looking at our astrology charts to immediately see the difference reflected in the chart. You'll deny this, but that denial too will be in your chart. In any case, nothing you or anyone has said here even remotely gives me pause, and only has made my worldview more concrete and understandable to me. Hopefully your argument has done the same for you.

As for submitting my findings to 'science', I wouldn't mind getting some informed feedback but otherwise I really don't need anyone's validation on this. It's you who wants the validation of some higher authority.

It's easy to prove that our lifes, in the form that we know it, takes place on the inside of our brain, just as this conversation takes place on a screen which displays patterns generated by the inside of a computer. What looks like type on a page is really just an electronic pattern. It looks similar enough to real paper that humans will intuitively treat it that way. But a termite will find no sheet of paper here - no similarity between this simulation and a piece of paper.

We, like termites, can only view our own socially reinforced and sensationally cross referenced simulation. It maps to the outside world to some extent, but really only as far as mechanics are concerned. We pick up an object, we get muscle feedback, we feel it, we remember how to throw it, we foresee the consequences, etc. The simulation itself is made of pure meaning - color, circles and squares, memories, words, images from the naturalistic to the iconic. Your whole life could be turned into a dream right this second and you would never know the difference.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #100 on: May 23, 2010, 01:53:24 PM »
Cells don't want or feel anything.
Evidence?
Feeling and wanting is associated with a brain. This is evident as we can manipulate wantings and feelings with medicine (targeting the brain) and brain surgery. Cells don't have brains or anything similar.

Quote
Human beings act in predictable ways most of the time. If you view them from a telescope from a distance, how would know know whether they feel something or not?
Research. By observing their reactions to stimuli. We can directly observe cells.

Quote
I'm not asking you to believe my worldview, and I'm not seeing any reason to believe that you have attempted to even understand it. I understand your worldview through and though. It's accurate, but it only covers the objective half of the cosmos and chooses to ignore sense and sanity as being part of the picture.

I've pretty thoroughly laid out my observations and have yet to see anyone supply a worthwhile alternative to my understanding of subjectivity and it's relation to the objective side of matter. No valid hypothesis of qualia like color or elementary shapes like circles, yet I'm assured that such things are 'simply' this or that (nonspecific description of neurological process).

That is because your worldview is nonfunctional. You address no questions that are not answerable by science. My 'nonspecific description of neurological process' are nonspecific because it is complex. It takes a book to describe these processes in appropriate detail, and I am no neurobiologist nor a evolutionary scientsts. The answer can be specific enough if you are interested. But you won't accept it, because you don't like the answers. You have this conception that there should be something more. Not based on observations, not based on logic and your 'solution' doesn't progress any of our understandings, nor do you bring any testable results in play.

You claim there is 'something more'. Well, proof it. Show which process is exactly not graspable by science. And check if those scientists agree.

You can claim all you want, but it just adds up to nothing if it neither addresses issues with current science, nor does it progress our understanding in any testable way.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 01:56:14 PM by penkie »
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #101 on: May 23, 2010, 02:37:28 PM »
Feeling and wanting is associated with a brain. This is evident as we can manipulate wantings and feelings with medicine (targeting the brain) and brain surgery. Cells don't have brains or anything similar.

You can deaden pain with a local anaesthetic as well as neurologically with general anaesthetic or a narcotic. There is no reason to issue a pronouncement that no type of subjective sensitivity exists at the tissue level. You can see it. Edema and erythema look painful. Narcotics are particularly interesting because that pain need not be absent to relieve the painful interpretation of pain. The brain may simply amplify the pain of part of an organism to the awareness of the entire consciousness.

The feelings of an animal with a brain is associated with a brain. The 'feeling' or 'being' of a cell is associated with a cell. Otherwise how could brains evolve to feel themselves if there is no cellular precursor for it? At what point do cells have access to the toolbox where pain comes from?

Quote
Research. By observing their reactions to stimuli. We can directly observe cells.
What would reactions you can observer have to do with what their subjectivity consists of? If a cockroach does research on you, will it be able to tell how you feel?

Quote
The answer can be specific enough if you are interested.
If you think that the hard problem of consciousness has been solved then you should tell the foremost academic authorities about it.

"Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules." Patricia Smith Churchland- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Smith_Churchland

"Actually, I think my view is compatible with much of the work going on now in neuroscience and psychology, where people are studying the relationship of consciousness to neural and cognitive processes without really trying to reduce it to those processes. " - David Chalmers

Quote
But you won't accept it, because you don't like the answers. You have this conception that there should be something more. Not based on observations, not based on logic and your 'solution' doesn't progress any of our understandings, nor do you bring any testable results in play.

No, you won't accept that this kind of change in our understanding of consciousness is just beginning. You haven't done the research. You don't have the evidence. You aren't thinking through your logic or observations. You're just telling me 'I'm sure if you look it up you'll find that someone has answered this question already' because you don't like my answers or my questions. I already know your answers. They're 19th century billiard ball. You're not even considering the settled science of general relativity, incompleteness, and uncertainty.

Quote
You claim there is 'something more'. Well, proof it. Show which process is exactly not graspable by science. And check if those scientists agree.
Why, I'm not trying to prove anything? Knowing that my life is the inside of my brain is common sense.

Quote
You can claim all you want, but it just adds up to nothing if it neither addresses issues with current science, nor does it progress our understanding in any testable way.
Current science is great. It's completely compatible with what I'm saying, it's just trying to make consciousness and neurology the same thing when I'm saying that they are two different sides of the same coin.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #102 on: May 23, 2010, 02:56:53 PM »
I already know your answers. They're 19th century billiard ball. You're not even considering the settled science of general relativity, incompleteness, and uncertainty.

You accuse me of using 'billiart ball' science. But I haven't said that the fabric of space/time needs to be deterministic and I know there are boundaries to computation. What I did claim was that theories about nature or the cosmos should be scientific and not based on babbling alone. Asking theories to be scientific is not the same as claiming that nature is deterministic. But hey, what can I expect from someone who bases his life on astrology, a millennia old pseudo-science that classifies amongst the ranks of alchemy and which has been debunked by one of the first modern scientists more than 300 years ago.

Quote
You can claim all you want, but it just adds up to nothing if it neither addresses issues with current science, nor does it progress our understanding in any testable way.
Current science is great. It's completely compatible with what I'm saying, it's just trying to make consciousness and neurology the same thing when I'm saying that they are two different sides of the same coin.

I am finished with this discussion as it goes nowhere. Again you make vague distinctions, using vague analogies. Which sides, which coins are you referring to, and based on what evidence?
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #103 on: May 23, 2010, 03:32:34 PM »
Which sides, which coins are you referring to, and based on what evidence
The objective side (brain function), and the subjective side (consciousness)

coin = metaphor illustrating a topology where interior/exterior are different but sharing the same piece of matter.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #104 on: May 24, 2010, 10:22:06 AM »
Trying to make it a bit clearer, re OMM(M) and ACME.

"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #105 on: May 25, 2010, 07:02:23 AM »
irrationalnon-rational?/rational

Does this video explain why humans can be so irrational? Because they don't want to think so hard? Could be that most insight comes from not thinking rationally:

The first 15 minutes or so discusses this...



Observe what is being said at 30:00:
The trouble with logical people....
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 08:35:49 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #106 on: May 25, 2010, 08:43:41 AM »
irrational/rational

Does this video explain why humans can be so irrational? Because they don't want to think so hard?
Excellent video. I'm spreading it around now too, so thanks. I would say it's the opposite. That it's so hard because PFC rationality is such an inefficient way to try to solve problems.

I remember as a kid computers had just become available in our high school, and they happened to choose the computer I had at home for the class. I was amazed at how it took them a whole semester to trudge through the really really basic points of programming, something that took a matter of minutes to accomplish just by sitting next to a friend who knew how to program. I could see clearly how our educational model is completely wrongheaded and actually disincentivizes curiosity and understanding while actively promoting grade-seeking instrumental reasoning.

Quote
Observe what is being said at 30:00:
The trouble with logical people....
Yes! This is the problem with OMMM. It makes a virtue of it's own inefficiency. The more cynical, defensive, and impatient the mind becomes through this activity, the less it sees other possibilities and the more it invests in the absolute rightness of it's approach. It's like he says, the thing is to be able to be adaptive, to utilize the whole spectrum of logic and imagination (avoiding prolonged OMMM and ACME postures).


"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #107 on: May 25, 2010, 08:55:38 AM »
I told you if I had anything to offer it would be by accident unintentional.
Added: My intention of posting here is to understand the argument, not help others define their POV). I suppose that it may be inevitable that I contribute something useful in my stumbling around searching for clarity, even though I usually end up looking silly after I jump in over my head like I tend to do.


Last night my wife told me she thot that my TBI  'caused' me to become so logical and to my detriment.

The injury was to my right frontal cortex. I Googled RFC and came across David Rock.

1) Monkeymind mostly intuitive  
2) TBI to RFC
3) Became confrontational with auntie w/o regard for the consequences
4) Began asking questions and arguing about religion
5) Studied scientific method and evolution to better debate auntie and brother
6) became an atheist after 50 plus years of religion/superstition/pseudoscience
7) hmmm?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 01:13:07 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #108 on: May 25, 2010, 09:04:56 AM »
I told you if I had anything to offer it would be by accident.

I was born by accident and everything that has brought me positive evolution in my life began as an accident. I'm really not very interested in anything else. Without accidents, all you can really discover is what you already knew in the first place.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #109 on: May 25, 2010, 09:10:54 AM »
My response to my wife last night was:

If getting hit in the head caused.....then it was one of the best things that has ever happened to me.

Hmmm...hitting the TV sometimes used to make it work (in the analog days anyways).

Not sure I would recommend either....
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1116
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #110 on: May 25, 2010, 09:14:58 AM »
@immediacracy

Accidents connote surprise. If you are willing to learn and are tying to learn, nothing is an accident. You are waiting for said "accidents." When scientists discover think up a certain principle or application, it isn't by accident that it matches reality but an expected outcome. With enough time and attemps, you can do just about anything without the need for "accidents."

"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #111 on: May 25, 2010, 09:27:59 AM »
yes, but how does that account for the guy discovering tnt when trying to make a better billiard ball?

Two (seemingly) totally un-related things?


ADDED: Everyone present  was surprised when the billiard ball exploded!
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 09:29:39 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #112 on: May 25, 2010, 09:54:41 AM »
Imagination and creativity are both very useful tools, also in science. Especially because the universe doesn't always behave intuitively. The big however is that this doesn't mean that resulting theories and abstraction shouldn't be verified with the actual data. They should. And they should make testable predictions as well in order to be useful.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1116
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #113 on: May 25, 2010, 10:27:42 AM »
So what if they were unrelated? Unexpected things are bound to occur. To put it simply, expect the unexpected. Something unexpected WILL happen, the difference between a usefull worldview is what you do. If you just marvel at it, its useless. If you try to find an application or at least study it for future ones then it is usefull.

There is always a small chance for something to go wrong. Even the smallest of chances given enough amount of time will become inevitable. Therefore, nothing is an accident. Just inevitable.

Edit.

OMM is a whole lot more useful for predicting the future than ACME. I don't really care about how depressing it is as a worldview. Because the human brain is made to rationalize happiness. OMM just gives you more natural happines because you can now get what you want more often. Because seriously, if you were to objectively count how many times irrationally hoping and rationally thinking/acting got you what you want, rationality would win hands down.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 10:32:32 AM by kindred »
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #114 on: May 25, 2010, 10:30:40 AM »
yes, but how does that account for the guy discovering tnt when trying to make a better billiard ball?

Two (seemingly) totally un-related things?


ADDED: Everyone present  was surprised when the billiard ball exploded!

Viagra.....  the initial intent was not prolong a boner, and I'm sure everyone was surprised when exploding balls occurred then too ;)
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #115 on: May 25, 2010, 10:32:15 AM »
Imagination and creativity are both very useful tools, also in science. Especially because the universe doesn't always behave intuitively. The big however is that this doesn't mean that resulting theories and abstraction shouldn't be verified with the actual data. They should. And they should make testable predictions as well in order to be useful.

Agreed, which is why in a previous example... although I knew intuitively that "seeing the world with different eyes" would actually change the perception, I spent a year building the device and then researching it. I built the perspectacles in less that 3 hours and then researched the visual processing systems.

I had no knowledge of neuroscience or even that there were nasal and temporal retinas, optic chiasm or lateral geniculate nuclei. I knew something would happen with the processing of visual input and hence perception.

Although my research confirmed my "suspicions" (for lack of a better word right now) insight arising from my power-nap, it made no difference to the fact that seeing the world thru different eyes changes our perception by various process in the brain and our thinking changes as well.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 10:53:06 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.