Relativism VS. Absoulte

[Cirdan]

BH, your making a massive assumption stating that, in essence, everyone stores the same environmental data identically. This just isn't true. Differences in neural pathways, variable emphasis on different senses, variation in biochemical states, are all impacting the objectivity of the information being processed.

...and I get wiped on a regular basis, thank you very much.

oh, and I don't beleive in heresy.

[Wayfarer]

Word.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
BH, your making a massive assumption stating that, in essence, everyone stores the same environmental data identically. This just isn't true. Differences in neural pathways, variable emphasis on different senses, variation in biochemical states, are all impacting the objectivity of the information being processed.

...and I get wiped on a regular basis, thank you very much.

oh, and I don't beleive in heresy.

Neuronal pathways are how memories are formed and stored. If your memories are wiped, or over written, then the neural pathways are whats being changed.

It's not a matter of everyone storing the data in the same manner, or even recalling it in the same manner. If you remove an individual's memory, you are removing the structural relationship between of the neurons in the brain. If you implant memories, you are by definition, changing the neural pathwways.

If you change the neural pathways, the fact that the method of processing of memories changes is merely a byproduct.

[Cirdan]

Where did my last post go?

The neural pathways are manifestations of adaptations in types and numbers of receptor sites on neurins. This is structural and is can't be wiped. Over time they may be reallocated. It is behavior that builds the pathways and not the other way around. Removing memory? hmmm... do you mean surgically? Electroshock? How would you accomplish this without damaging the brain? An athelete that can run the mile in under a minute will still mantain the ability to coordinate the run because the pathways that operate the muscles are memories on a motor level. The "outbound" aspect of motor control is less a memory than a skill learned by repetition. To under motor skills you would have to damage the system. If I take the engine out of the car does that mean I no longer know how to drive?

[Dunadan]

Go, Cirdan. Fend off those robots.

I tend to take an empirical view. If brain and mind states are identical, and we all store them the same way, how come artificial intelligence has completely failed? eh? eh?

And even if you did manage to build a machine that looked like it was thinking, what would it prove? Go back and read Russell: you can't prove a thesis with confirming evidence.

Basically, brain-mind identity can never be proved or disproved, only asserted. To that end it's an amusing distraction, but not as amusing as the Simpsons.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Where did my last post go?

The neural pathways are manifestations of adaptations in types and numbers of receptor sites on neurins. This is structural and is can't be wiped. Over time they may be reallocated. It is behavior that builds the pathways and not the other way around.

Actually it's dendratic budding that establishes neuronal pathways, because that's the process of establishing new synapse junctions. The number of receptor sites, the relative actions of agonist and antagonist neurotransmitters as a function of stimulation over time etc. are secondary to the FORMATION of a synapse. It is the other way around.

Removing memory? hmmm... do you mean surgically? Electroshock? How would you accomplish this without damaging the brain? An athelete that can run the mile in under a minute will still mantain the ability to coordinate the run because the pathways that operate the muscles are memories on a motor level. The "outbound" aspect of motor control is less a memory than a skill learned by repetition. To under motor skills you would have to damage the system. If I take the engine out of the car does that mean I no longer know how to drive?

Yes it is structural, and yes it can be wiped. The reason you have discrete memories is due to the nature of the structure. It is possible to wipe an individual's memory without affecting their motor coordination significantly. Wait.. have you forgotten the concept of amnesia?

Is that what happened to your other post?!

[Cirdan]

amnesia? That is only a temporary condition, lasting only two or three days, except in the movies.

The importance of environment and physical structure still prevents the concept of the pure chemical reaction from being the sole driver of identity. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts.

Basically, brain-mind identity can never be proved or disproved, only asserted. To that end it's an amusing distraction, but not as amusing as the Simpsons.

Yes, but nothing is as amusing as the Simpsons. Funniest show... ever.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Dunadan
[B]Go, Cirdan. Fend off those robots.

I tend to take an empirical view. If brain and mind states are identical, and we all store them the same way, how come artificial intelligence has completely failed? eh? eh?

Brain and mind states are not, however identical. Where did you get this idea? It's like saying that programs and CPU states are identical. One depends on the other, and in a (an emergent) system with a processor that responds to feedback, they both depend (in the latin sense- to dangle) on each other, then why in the world would you think they were identical? If they were identical, there would be no feedback.

Cognition might be generated in your brain, affected by your nurons, modify your pathways, but that certainly doesn't mean that they are identical in nature or substance.

Artificial intelligence has been done over and over again. There are a couple of new attempts, and some have come rather close to passing a turing test. However I think what you are referring to is Artificial Conciousness. Your futzy new stereo that senses what time of day it is and the mood of the lighting, and picks an appropriate song is a working artificial intelligence.

Artifical conciousness is something completely different, and we might get around to it IF and when scientists manage to completely understand how conciousness works in existing natural examples... Like Dogs, and cats. Much less a self aware entity with the capability to deduce the underlying rules of behavior inherant in it's environment and base it's actions and relationships accordingly... like monkeys. EH? EH?

And even if you did manage to build a machine that looked like it was thinking, what would it prove? Go back and read Russell: you can't prove a thesis with confirming evidence.

Confirm to me that cause and effect are anything other than a metaphysical phenomena, and Ill let you introduce Bertrand, with all his interminable complaints about true and false beliefs. But when (if) you do, you're going to have to provide evidence that you are thinking. Because the exact same application applies to you also. You look like you are thinking. What does it prove? Not a damned thing. In which case we can disregard your assertation, because you obviously aren't really thinking, it only looks like you are. If you are going to judge the construct by those standards, then you are going to have to judge yourself, and Bertrand Russel by the same standards, which looks to ME, like it leads to an irreducable conflict ending in an assertation that everything is illusion. Not just identity, but all of Russel's other assertions on empiricism.

"We have first an expectation, then a sensation with the feeling of expectedness related to memory of the expectation. This whole experience, when it occurs, may be defined as verification, and as constituting the truth of the expectation.."

If you expect something, yet all of your cognition is an illusion, then what, pray tell, is the use of verification?

Fortunatley I think that your assertation that the appearance of thinking proves nothing is.. well- it lacks substance. So I think Russel is safe for the time being.

continued- gack- this much effort for what?

[Blackheart]

Continued...

Basically, brain-mind identity can never be proved or disproved, only asserted. To that end it's an amusing distraction, but not as amusing as the Simpsons.

I suppose I shall have to quite patently disagree here. Identity is quite easily verified, assuming you don't reduce our cognition to mere illusion. Dualism, on the other hand is a completely different animal all together, which may be what you are railing against, though I don't quite know why.... I don't remember it being on the table.

Memory formation and retrieval are pretty well documented phenomena, in most scientific circles. Identity is usually established how? By remembering the differences in how they look, and act... oh wait.. memory! What differences... differences in experience, which are stored memories.. differences in preferences... which are stored memories... Even differences in cognition, which are also at least partly, if not majorly due to learned methods of processing information, which is stored in memory...

Hmm- sounds like Identity exists. That is an assertation of course. I can't PROVE it exists. I can't prove that you exist for that matter. But if it doesn't exist, then it certainly means that quite a bit of our understanding of brain function is f__ked in the head. (That's a joke, son. Get it? Eh?)

And (so) assuming identity existss, it sounds to me like it has a lot to do with memory. And memory is stored in the brain yes...

But I suppose your objection based on dualism (hopefully you don't mean some kind of ethereal dualism) is based on the idea that memories are part and parcel of the meat, and cannot be seperated.

I disagree for a number of reasons. Memories can be excised, either by altering brain structure, or altering brain function. And we're talking discrete memories here. Memories can also be introduced- false memories, such as brain washing, for example. (Lets avoid a discussion of the Fruedian concept of recovered memories, since it might be interesting, but I doubt it has anything major to contribure either way)

So if I can excise a memory, or introduce a memory, without significantly altering brain functions such as motor, autonomic functioning, perception (well- other than the subjective levels), then memory is likely a sub componant, but not an integral componant, of the brain.

What kind of memories do young children have? Are their brains disfunctional?

Bah, I guess what I'm tryin to illustrate for you, is that Memory is an integral part of Identity. That's why small children don't have established identities. People who have difficulty with integrating their memories with reality, and difficulty forming memories, or accessing memories, have Identiy problems. Like amnesiacs, alzhiemers patients, dissociative disorders. etc. Psychotics have real identity issues, because their memories don't agree with reality.

If you had the technology to wipe a body's memory, the discrete parts, and leave the basic functions intact, in other words, a tabula rasca, you would have succeeded in removing that person's identity.

If you had the technology to implant new memories onto this blank slate, you would, in effect, create a new identity.

The technology does exist, in a crude manner. It's called brain washing. And yes, you can produce a new identity in this manner, subject to the limits of the technology, and the expertise of the practitioner.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
amnesia? That is only a temporary condition, lasting only two or three days, except in the movies.

The importance of environment and physical structure still prevents the concept of the pure chemical reaction from being the sole driver of identity. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts.

Negative. Amnesia is a broad category, and there are instances of the effects being quite permanant.

I once had a Female suffering from disscociative disorder (what used to be called MPD) on my caseload. Very frustrating individual, kept forgetting her appoinments, because "She" hadn't made them.

Environment is experienced, which is stored as memory. I see no problem there.

Physical structure? I'm afraid you are going to have to be more specific. What do you mean by physical structure, the actual matix of neurons holding a memory, or the basic neuron sheets as they appear in an infantile brain?

Oh, and I'm not arguing against the idea that the sum of the whole is more than the parts.

However I am saying that the MAJORITY of the PARTS are memory.

[Cirdan]

OK, then we are in agreement. I was still argueing against the all or nothing Wayfarer was pitching. In honor of this auspicious moment I will succumb to my chemical needs for a snack, a "pit stop", and some sleep.

[Wayfarer]

Hey! I was simply responding to afro-elf's assertation that human thought is simply a ripple in the neurons.

As I'm sure he was responding to somebody else.

Ad Nauseaum. ack to whoever started this thread.

[Blackheart]

It's all your fault!

*Points fingers randomly at everyone else*

[Wayfarer]

So Blackheart, how is life in orc-land?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
So Blackheart, how is life in orc-land?

Relatively speaking?

[Wayfarer]

Yes. I presume you've escaped being made into haggis?

[Cirdan]

Yeah, where is A-E? My guess is he is diving for pearl divers.

Haggis? What a waste of perfectly good stomache.

[Rána Eressëa]

A-E is busy in Japan. I don't think we'll see him around for a while.

[Aeryn]

someone asked something about what absolute consists of well Dict. entry

ab·so·lute Pronunciation Key (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.
Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.

Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being a word, phrase, or construction that is isolated syntactically from the rest of a sentence, as the referee having finally arrived in The referee having finally arrived, the game began.
Of, relating to, or being a transitive verb when its object is implied but not stated. For example, inspires in We have a teacher who inspires is an absolute verb.
Of, relating to, or being an adjective or pronoun that stands alone when the noun it modifies is being implied but not stated. For example, in Theirs were the best, theirs is an absolute pronoun and best is an absolute adjective.
Physics.
Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
Relating to absolute temperature.
Law. Complete and unconditional; final.

n.
Something that is absolute.
Absolute Philosophy.
Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English absolut, from Latin absoltus, unrestricted, past participle of absolvere, to absolve : ab-, away; see ab-1 + solvere, to loosen; see leu- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abso·luteness n.
Usage Note: An absolute term denotes a property that a thing either can or cannot have. Such terms include absolute itself, chief, complete, perfect, prime, unique, and mathematical terms such as equal and parallel. By strict logic, absolute terms cannot be compared, as by more and most, or used with an intensive modifier, such as very or so. Something either is complete or it isn'tit cannot be more complete than something else. Consequently, sentences such as He wanted to make his record collection more complete, and You can improve the sketch by making the lines more perpendicular, are often criticized as illogical. ·Such criticism confuses pure logic or a mathematical ideal with the rough approximations that are frequently needed in ordinary language. Certainly in some contexts we should use words strictly logically; otherwise teaching mathematics would be impossible. But we often think in terms of a scale or continuum rather than in clearly marked either/or categories. Thus, we may think of a statement as either logically true or false, but we also know that there are degrees of truthfulness and falsehood. Similarly, there may be degrees of completeness to a record collection, and some lines may be more perpendicularthat is, they may more nearly approximate mathematical perpendicularitythan other lines. ·Accordingly, the objection to modification of an absolute term like parallel by degree seems absurd when it is used metaphorically, as in The difficulties faced by the Republicans are quite parallel to those that confronted the Democrats four years ago. This statement describes the structural correspondence between two distinct situations, and concerns about the possibility of intersection seem remote indeed. In this sense, parallelism is clearly a matter of degree, so one should not hesistate to modify parallel accordingly. See Usage Note at equal. See Usage Note at infinite. See Usage Note at unique.

Okay, now I think this link is abit...repetitive...do you agree? do you agree? do you agree?

Sorry, to much cafe latte

[Blackheart]

Oh no- that will do.

It sounds absolutely restrictive to me.

Math entities are about all I can think of that meet the requirements.

And no, Halwynn vanished back in the first age, and no one else would ever dare to mention Haggis to me.