Relativity

[sandwiches]

So you're sticking with the success argument? Hmm. With respect to engineering applications of science, I basically agree with you. Engineering relies mainly on hard science and so it can quantify the reliability of a solution. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't buy the success thing.

What would you use to measure the reliability, usefulness, and accuracy of a method for gathering knowledge?

What of my example for revelation? Could you take me to a lab and do a test on me to determine my soft drink preferences that would be more reliable than just asking me?

I'm not sure we can do that now, but we will be able to do just that. It's not like your tastes exist in some unobservable plane of existence. They're merely electrochemical reactions in your brain.

I don't see why people are so resistant to the idea that some questions cannot be answered by science.

This is such a obvious and vague statement that it's meaningless. Of course some things can't be answered by science. Science is the method through which we gather knowledge of the observable universe. The things that science cannot answer are those that cannot be observed, that is to say, those have no known effect in the universe. However, if something has no known effect in the universe, then it's not relevant to us.

So, to summarize: Science can answer all the question that matter.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, to summarize: Science can answer all the question that matter.

At least in principle. It may be true that there are some aspects of reality that are physical, but are simply beyond the human mind, however advanced, to grasp. However, if something is ascertainable, then I would agree that it is by science that we will ascertain that information -- whether it is humans or aliens that are doing the ascertaining.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure what you're saying about "voting on evidence." Are you claiming that scientists have voted on accepting DNA as being evidence for evolution, for instance?

It's not that explicit, hence my qualifier of "basically." Are you familiar with the peer review process? When you submit a paper you must also submit your credentials - the institution you're associated with and your CV. Why should that matter? Shouldn't the work stand on its own? Next, reviewers are assigned. It varies from pub to pub, but say it's 3, and in order to be accepted you need 2 to approve your paper. They have basically voted on the validity of your work.

Science societies aren't as influential as they once were, but it's the same thing. Members used to vote on who was accepted into membership. They were basically voting on whether to accept your work. That caused some famous rivalries - Hooke & Newton come to mind.

Now, from a practical perspective I understand why it's done the way it is. Trying to implement an ideal review process would bog it down and nothing would happen. But, it is a process that favors established science and frowns upon challenges.

More importantly, are you saying that some things that we call "evidence" in science, aren't?

No. Again, it's not that easy. Take qualified evidence for example. Didn't you get frustrated with using litmus paper in highschool science? I sure did. Was it the right color or wasn't it? It's not a binary answer where one definitively says it is or isn't evidence. It's the subjectiveness of the methods that admit human factors to the interpretation of the evidence.

What would you use to measure the reliability, usefulness, and accuracy of a method for gathering knowledge?

I already gave that. I prefer hard measurements, i.e. things that can be quantified. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives when it comes to specifying a confidence level.

I'm not sure we can do that now, but we will be able to do just that. It's not like your tastes exist in some unobservable plane of existence. They're merely electrochemical reactions in your brain.

That's a statement of faith.

 

[Resha Caner]

At least in principle. It may be true that there are some aspects of reality that are physical, but are simply beyond the human mind, however advanced, to grasp.

 

[sandwiches]

It's not that explicit, hence my qualifier of "basically." Are you familiar with the peer review process? When you submit a paper you must also submit your credentials - the institution you're associated with and your CV. Why should that matter? Shouldn't the work stand on its own? Next, reviewers are assigned. It varies from pub to pub, but say it's 3, and in order to be accepted you need 2 to approve your paper. They have basically voted on the validity of your work.

Science societies aren't as influential as they once were, but it's the same thing. Members used to vote on who was accepted into membership. They were basically voting on whether to accept your work. That caused some famous rivalries - Hooke & Newton come to mind.

Now, from a practical perspective I understand why it's done the way it is. Trying to implement an ideal review process would bog it down and nothing would happen. But, it is a process that favors established science and frowns upon challenges.

Shouldn't credentials matter when deciding who will evaluate your paper? After all, I wouldn't want my lawnmower guy trying to validate the findings of physicists or paleontologists. So, I'm not sure what the question "Shouldn't the work stand on its own?" is supposed to mean... That papers should validate themselves??

No. Again, it's not that easy. Take qualified evidence for example. Didn't you get frustrated with using litmus paper in highschool science? I sure did. Was it the right color or wasn't it? It's not a binary answer where one definitively says it is or isn't evidence. It's the subjectiveness of the methods that admit human factors to the interpretation of the evidence.

We have better, more accurate methods today of testing pH than litmus paper. Sorry but just because we don't have perfectly accurate ways of observing and testing does not make any claim equally valid. There is such a thing as "more" or "less" accurate.

I hear this a lot from creationists (not saying you're one.) That they use the same evidence but they simply "interpret it differently." Again, there's measurably worse and better ways to analyze data.

I already gave that. I prefer hard measurements, i.e. things that can be quantified. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives when it comes to specifying a confidence level.

And science provides qualifiably and quantifiably the most consistent measurements and results. Now, if you're aware of a better method of gathering knowledge, please do tell.

That's a statement of faith.

Sure. As much faith as saying my car is still parked outside my office even though I can't see it from here. The fact remains that we have yet to find anything that relates to human behavior that isn't related to the human body and more specifically, the brain. Simple induction based on the best available evidence known to me.

 

[sandwiches]

And if it's beyond our comprehension, then nothing can be said on the subject. At least not reasonably.

Little sidetrack: Which is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to theists. The whole: "God is beyond our understanding but I understand this whole laundry list of things about him."

 

[Resha Caner]

And if it's beyond our comprehension, then nothing can be said on the subject. At least not reasonably.

Not true. You're conflating 2 separate things. John can see an airplane fly even if he doesn't understand why it flies. So, John can understand aspects of the demonstration, just not all of it - not enough to explain it "scientifically."

Shouldn't credentials matter when deciding who will evaluate your paper?

You misunderstood me. When I submit a paper, I must submit my credentials. I know for a fact people use it as a way to sift out the chaff. I was once an assistant editor.

We have better, more accurate methods today of testing pH than litmus paper. Sorry but just because we don't have perfectly accurate ways of observing and testing does not make any claim equally valid.

You're confusing me. It seems like you're agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.

I hear this a lot from creationists (not saying you're one.) That they use the same evidence but they simply "interpret it differently." Again, there's measurably worse and better ways to analyze data.

FYI this has happened to me in engineering. Two engineers with the same data make different conclusions. It is a real problem.

And science provides qualifiably and quantifiably the most consistent measurements and results. Now, if you're aware of a better method of gathering knowledge, please do tell.

I'm not claiming a better method. I don't know where this is coming from. I just get tired of people trying to make more of science than it really says.

Sure. As much faith as saying my car is still parked outside my office even though I can't see it from here.

Qualify it all you want, it's still a statement of faith.

The fact remains that we have yet to find anything that relates to human behavior that isn't related to the human body and more specifically, the brain. Simple induction based on the best available evidence known to me.

Not true. Do some reading on the mind-body problem. That science will eventually solve that problem is, again, just faith.

 

[Davian]

...
Do some reading on the mind-body problem. That science will eventually solve that problem is, again, just faith.

How would you describe the "mind-body problem"?

 

[Resha Caner]

How would you describe the "mind-body problem"?

Mind–body problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sandwiches]

Not true. You're conflating 2 separate things. John can see an airplane fly even if he doesn't understand why it flies. So, John can understand aspects of the demonstration, just not all of it - not enough to explain it "scientifically."

You're right. I should have used a better word than "comprehend" in the way I usually use it. I meant it as in "understand" or "rationalize." I was thinking more along the lines of a square circle. It's nonsense. It can't be mentally visualized, rationalized, etc. For me, to see a plane, even if I didn't know how they fly would be "comprehensible" in that I understand that it is "something" and it is "flying." Something incomprehensible to me is something to which I can't even attribute any properties (like the square circle above.)

You misunderstood me. When I submit a paper, I must submit my credentials. I know for a fact people use it as a way to sift out the chaff. I was once an assistant editor.

Ah OK! Now I see what you mean and I agree with you except, as you said that unfortunately, those journals only have so much time and space, but I do hope that a better method, maybe through crowd-reviewing on the internet or something will come along.

You're confusing me. It seems like you're agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.

I guess I am confused too. I was under the impression that you think that all claims about evidence are merely arbitrary and there is no way to tell which is "more correct."

FYI this has happened to me in engineering. Two engineers with the same data make different conclusions. It is a real problem.

I'm sure. We use science to tell which is more correct.

I'm not claiming a better method. I don't know where this is coming from. I just get tired of people trying to make more of science than it really says.

Then, what exactly is your complaint about science. Is it that we think it's the best method for gathering knowledge?

Qualify it all you want, it's still a statement of faith.

Faith. Sure. Just don't act like all faith is equal. I see this a lot when debating with theists. They seem to think they're "dragging you down" to their level OR they think they've elevated their position to yours by using just such comments as "believing in evolution takes faith," "atheism is a religion," "scientific dogma," etc.

Just like not all interpretations of data are correct, not all faith is equally justified. That I have faith my car is in the parking lot is on a totally different ballpark than saying that I have faith my car will sprout wings and fly me home.

Not true. Do some reading on the mind-body problem. That science will eventually solve that problem is, again, just faith.

None exists. I've covered this amply with Growing Smaller.

 

[sandwiches]

Mind–body problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the page: "The mind-body problem is a philosophical problem arising in the fields of metaphysics and philosophy of mind."

While philosophers argue about the nature of the mind, conscious, and subconscious, science is starting to be able to read the brain and show us the pictures the brain is seeing, is being able to affect mood with chemicals and electricity, discover subconscious sight using magnets, et cetera.

 

[Davian]

How would you describe the "mind-body problem"?

Mind–body problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the page: "The mind-body problem is a philosophical problem arising in the fields of metaphysics and philosophy of mind."

While philosophers argue about the nature of the mind, conscious, and subconscious, science is starting to be able to read the brain and show us the pictures the brain is seeing, is being able to affect mood with chemicals and electricity, discover subconscious sight using magnets, et cetera.

More to the point, philosophers working with neuroscience are able to demonstrate that there is no 'problem'.

Descartes did not have tools like that at his disposal.

 

[Resha Caner]

More to the point, philosophers working with neuroscience are able to demonstrate that there is no 'problem'.

Descartes did not have tools like that at his disposal.

You guys are funny. Do you really think I'm that sloppy? The wiki was only an intro. Neuroscience is indeed impressive in what it has accomplished. But the list of things they don't know is even more impressive. For the sake of medicine I hope it gets better. With respect to the issue raised by philosophers, neuroscience does not yet have an answer.

As it happens, a friend of mine is an expert in artificial intelligence. Just last Sunday he told me about his 2 biggest frustrations. 1) Artificially intellgent systems will not answer, "I don't know." 2) They have not grasped the benefits of forgetting bad or irrelevant data.

Along with that, no one has yet met the "grandma cell" challenge raised by Hofstadter.

 

[Davian]

You guys are funny. Do you really think I'm that sloppy? The wiki was only an intro. Neuroscience is indeed impressive in what it has accomplished. But the list of things they don't know is even more impressive. For the sake of medicine I hope it gets better. With respect to the issue raised by philosophers, neuroscience does not yet have an answer.

How would you then describe the problem, and establish that it is a problem?

 

[Resha Caner]

How would you then describe the problem, and establish that it is a problem?

Huh? I already answered this. Sorry if I've confused you somehow. To quote the wiki:

"The problem arises because mental phenomena arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend."

And I gave 2 examples: artificial intelligence, the grandma cell.

That's the brief intro. If that answers your question great. If not, what's next?

 

[Davian]

Huh? I already answered this. Sorry if I've confused you somehow. To quote the wiki:

"The problem arises because mental phenomena arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend."

And I gave 2 examples: artificial intelligence, the grandma cell.

That's the brief intro. If that answers your question great. If not, what's next?

You will need to be very specific on how an AI issue can be applied to the human brain, and I am not aware of this 'grandma cell' - googling did not help.

In reference to your above quote, can you provide an example of "mental phenomena that arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend", and how this was established or demonstrated.

 

[Greg1234]

More to the point, philosophers working with neuroscience are able to demonstrate that there is no 'problem'.

Descartes did not have tools like that at his disposal.

Ah, but why focus on the brain and not all the other organs of the body? Plants and bacteria demonstrate intelligence without a brain (they both are also animated without a brain), a rock is animated by a force (and vibrates) yet has no brain, patients with heart transplants complain about receiving the imprint of the donors' memory, but these organs and other physical components are no more adept at producing consciousness (the force that animates the physical) than the brain.

But your argument has some major faults. For example, do you think a rock produces force?

 

[Davian]

Ah, but why focus on the brain and not all the other organs of the body? Plants and bacteria demonstrate intelligence without a brain (they both are also animated without a brain), a rock is animated by a force (and vibrates) yet has no brain, patients with heart transplants complain about receiving the imprint of the donors' memory, but these organs and other physical components are no more adept at producing consciousness (the force that animates the physical) than the brain.

But your argument has some major faults. For example, do you think a rock produces force?

Excellent point, Greg. You yourself may be an example of where someone can pull ideas out of somewhere other than their brain.

 

[Resha Caner]

You will need to be very specific on how an AI issue can be applied to the human brain, and I am not aware of this 'grandma cell' - googling did not help.

I learned about the grandma cell from Godel, Escher, and Bach by Hofstadter, but as an intro:
Grandmother cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With respect to AI, one avenue of research is an attempt to model the brain using what has been learned from neuroscience as a means for creating intelligence. So far it hasn't worked as well as hoped - the point being that our understanding of the brain is not yet sufficient to explain intelligence.

 

[Davian]

You will need to be very specific on how an AI issue can be applied to the human brain, and I am not aware of this 'grandma cell' - googling did not help.

In reference to your above quote, can you provide an example of "mental phenomena that arguably differ, qualitatively or substantially, from the physical body on which they apparently depend", and how this was established or demonstrated.

I learned about the grandma cell from Godel, Escher, and Bach by Hofstadter, but as an intro:
Grandmother cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this, there is no paradox:

"The grandmother cell concept was espoused by headlines like “One face, one neuron” from Scientific American, but these read too much in Quiroga’s work. It certainly seemed like one particular neuron was responding to the concept of Halle Berry. But there was nothing in Quiroga’s research to show that this cell was the only one to respond to Halle Berry, nor that Halle Berry was the only thing that activated the cell. As Jake Young wrote, “The purpose of the neuron is not to encode Halle Berry.”

Instead, our brains encode objects through patterns of activity, distributed over a group of neurons, which allows our large but finite set of brain cells to cope with significantly more concepts. The solution to Lettvin’s paradox is that the job of encoding specific objects falls not to single neurons, but to groups of them."

Your brain on Oprah and Saddam (and what that says about Halle Berry and your grandmother)


I also checked the Brain Science Podcast, as I have not listened to every episode. Check out:

Miguel Nicolelis (BSP 79) Brain Science Podcast

Dr. Miguel Nicolelis
Miguel Nicolelis at Duke University is pioneering brain-machine interfaces. In his book Beyond Boundaries: The New Neuroscience of Connecting Brains with Machines---and How It Will Change Our Lives he puts his groundbreaking work into an historical context. I discussed his book briefly in BSP 78, but I have now posted an in depth interview. The focus of our conversation is on why his work challenges longstanding assumptions about the primacy of the single neuron in brain function.

Transcript (see page 17):
http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/storage/transcripts/year-5/79-brainscience-Nicolelis.pdf

With respect to AI, one avenue of research is an attempt to model the brain using what has been learned from neuroscience as a means for creating intelligence. So far it hasn't worked as well as hoped - the point being that our understanding of the brain is not yet sufficient to explain intelligence.

I agree that AI has a ways to go, but I do not see how this specifically applies to the mind-body "problem" you are positing.

Can you put forth an example of a mental phenomena that would demonstrate this problem?