Originally posted by TacDavey
Perhaps simplifying it to chemical reactions isn't fully representative of it's complexity, but my point still stands. If you follow it down to it's most basic functions, there isn't any true logic guiding it. It's a series of electrical bursts and chemicals. Nothing that can produce a trustworthy idea.
QFT FTW
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanEmpirical science has given us our most reliable understanding of the material world. So currently, it seems the best place to put home plate and look outward from there.
Why are all "spiritual vs. science" seemingly required to take place in an empirical/scientific arena?
IMO though, 'empirical' and 'scientific' aren't necessarily synonymous; nor are spirit and science necessarily at odds.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Perhaps simplifying it to chemical reactions isn't fully representative of it's complexity, but my point still stands. If you follow it down to it's most basic functions, there isn't any true logic guiding it. It's a series of electrical bursts and chemicals. Nothing that can produce a trustworthy idea.
I find your use of "trustworthy" curious. And yes, obviously the idea of an idea (getting metaphysical here) is something outside of an electrical response. But those electrical/chemical responses are what cause thoughts. We can track our brains' workings, and they are indeed of sufficient complexity to perform everything we do, say, and feel on a daily basis.
Just because we don't have a 1:1 understanding of how a thought is formed, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle (with the pieces being the billions of reactions in our brains), doesn't mean that there is something supernatural happening. It just has yet to be fully demystified because of its complexity.
Because your tact here is just hinting at a God of Gaps philosophy, with the exactities of human thought being one of the last bastions for supernaturalists that can't be immediately blown out of the water by modern science.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are all "spiritual vs. science" seemingly required to take place in an empirical/scientific arena?
Show me a set of standardized rules used in religion to make assessments about the world, and I'll happily play an "away game" on religion's turf. Frankly though, science is the only side that has an arena that makes any sense (if we're staying with your analogy). The fact that all but the most stringent evangelicals have to frame their religious views through the prism of our modern scientific knowledge, means that religion itself has no rebuttal for the methods or conclusions put out by scientific inquiry about the world. Science works, and we know it works. The best religion can do is work with what's left or remain outside science's scope.
Originally posted by Digi
Show me a set of standardized rules used in religion to make assessments about the world, and I'll happily play an "away game" on religion's turf. Frankly though, science is the only side that has an arena that makes any sense (if we're staying with your analogy). The fact that all but the most stringent evangelicals have to frame their religious views through the prism of our modern scientific knowledge, means that religion itself has no rebuttal for the methods or conclusions put out by scientific inquiry about the world. Science works, and we know it works. The best religion can do is work with what's left or remain outside science's scope.
My comment was really just some subtle poking fun at the idea that if something does not make sense from a scientific perspective than it is probably false, or invalid. It amuses me how each "side", per say, has its go to routine when participating in any religious discussion. Relious folks tend to toute whatever their holy book is, the non-religous immediately demand that the opposition substantiate their argument with empirical fact.
Both sides are missing the point, imo, sans certain circumstances.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
My comment was really just some subtle poking fun at the idea that if something does not make sense from a scientific perspective than it is probably false, or invalid. It amuses me how each "side", per say, has its go to routine when participating in any religious discussion. Relious folks tend to toute whatever their holy book is, the non-religous immediately demand that the opposition substantiate their argument with empirical fact.Both sides are missing the point, imo, sans certain circumstances.
I hear you, but I think a lot of it comes to the difference between claims about what spirituality means to oneself and what it means in terms of how a person experiences the world versus how the world is in some empirical sense.
I know personally I try not to tell people their experiences or interpretations of those experiences are wrong, because I sort of agree, those aren't empirical questions, the same way as my own interpretations of the universe is not. However, a statement like "the brain produces heaven after death" isn't a matter of some personal spirituality, but an empirical statement about how the universe works
I agree completely that the sides are missing something, as personal spirituality says nothing about material reality, the same way as science has nothing to say about a person's individual sense of the spiritual (save the mechanisms that might produce it)
Originally posted by Digi
I find your use of "trustworthy" curious. And yes, obviously the idea of an idea (getting metaphysical here) is something outside of an electrical response. But those electrical/chemical responses are what cause thoughts. We can track our brains' workings, and they are indeed of sufficient complexity to perform everything we do, say, and feel on a daily basis.Just because we don't have a 1:1 understanding of how a thought is formed, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle (with the pieces being the billions of reactions in our brains), doesn't mean that there is something supernatural happening. It just has yet to be fully demystified because of its complexity.
Because your tact here is just hinting at a God of Gaps philosophy, with the exactities of human thought being one of the last bastions for supernaturalists that can't be immediately blown out of the water by modern science.
I'm not holding to something super natural happening because we don't have enough data. When it all comes down to it, the brain is nothing more than chemical reactions and electricity. Regardless of it's complexity, that's where it all comes from. And there is no logic behind chemical reactions and electricity. So if you traced the process of the creation of an idea back to it's earliest stages, you would find the the idea was not rooted in logical thought, but in uncontrollable bursts of natural processes.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
My comment was really just some subtle poking fun at the idea that if something does not make sense from a scientific perspective than it is probably false, or invalid. It amuses me how each "side", per say, has its go to routine when participating in any religious discussion. Relious folks tend to toute whatever their holy book is, the non-religous immediately demand that the opposition substantiate their argument with empirical fact.Both sides are missing the point, imo, sans certain circumstances.
So then what IS the point we're missing? You seem to be headed toward a non-overlapping magisteria (sic?) argument, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, religious discussion tends to follow certain patterns because once you understand both sides' arguments, it really boils down to a few simple ideas and tenants on either side. It shouldn't come as any surprise.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not holding to something super natural happening because we don't have enough data. When it all comes down to it, the brain is nothing more than chemical reactions and electricity. Regardless of it's complexity, that's where it all comes from. And there is no logic behind chemical reactions and electricity. So if you traced the process of the creation of an idea back to it's earliest stages, you would find the the idea was not rooted in logical thought, but in uncontrollable bursts of natural processes.
Nor is there any logical thought in a single cell, blood vessel, etc. etc. but they all do their thing. We're products of evolution, and every action serves whatever function it evolved to accomplish (however imperfectly it might accomplish this). And, if we're to break it down further, every atom is subject to deterministic movement as per the laws of physics in our universe. Again, there's nothing unexplainable, even though we don't currently have the technology to achieve a 1:1 understanding of each interconnection.
Also: "Uncontrolled bursts of natural processes" makes it sound much more random than it needs to. Life came from randomness, yes, but once it existed it was naturally selected for survival, making it function with a high degree of order.
You're trying to find the ghost in the mahcine. Imo, it's just the machine, and nobody (as yet) has come up with a convincing argument otherwise. So you're contradicting yourself, because saying that chemical and electrical impulses aren't sufficient for human thought as it exists contradicts your first sentence there that you're not holding onto a supernatural explanation because we don't hav enough data. If you think physical phenomenon aren't enough, but aren't claiming a supernatural explanation, what are you getting at?
Originally posted by TacDavey
So if you traced the process of the creation of an idea back to it's earliest stages, you would find the the idea was not rooted in logical thought, but in uncontrollable bursts of natural processes.
the process of neuronal activation is controlled by many mechanisms...
an action potential in a single neuron alone is mediated by several mechanisms that I can think of off the top of my head (excititory vs inhibitory neurotransmitters, ionotropic and metabotropic receptors, ionic channels, mylen, nodes of ranvier) and probably dozens I can't name or are as of yet undiscovered... When we look at groups of neurons and cells, we get glia that are literally only responsible for mediating and synchronizing neuronal activation. If we look at something like the early layers of the primary visual cortex, or even earlier, in a structure known as the lateral geniculate nucleus, neurons are arranged in such a way that they activate and deactivate eachother in highly specific and specialized manners. For instance, the reason objects seem to have clear edges defining them is a product of this type of processing. I can go over it with you if you are interested in learning how it works, but like, there are countless optical illusions that exist only because we are able to trick the way the brain is organized.
actually, this site is fantastic and normally provides explanations and links about why certain illusions work the way they do:
EDIT: even just check out this one, its one of my favs. The explanation is good, and really, play with all the options available. You would not see these types of illusions if there were not some type of strict organization in perceptual processes:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html
your characterization of how the brain produces thought is a literal strawman or based on a highly incomplete understanding of how the brain organizes itself... I don't mean this to sound as critical as it does, but like, you are 100% wrong.
Originally posted by Digi
Nor is there any logical thought in a single cell, blood vessel, etc. etc. but they all do their thing. We're products of evolution, and every action serves whatever function it evolved to accomplish (however imperfectly it might accomplish this). And, if we're to break it down further, every atom is subject to deterministic movement as per the laws of physics in our universe. Again, there's nothing unexplainable, even though we don't currently have the technology to achieve a 1:1 understanding of each interconnection.Also: "Uncontrolled bursts of natural processes" makes it sound much more random than it needs to. Life came from randomness, yes, but once it existed it was naturally selected for survival, making it function with a high degree of order.
You're trying to find the ghost in the mahcine. Imo, it's just the machine, and nobody (as yet) has come up with a convincing argument otherwise. So you're contradicting yourself, because saying that chemical and electrical impulses aren't sufficient for human thought as it exists contradicts your first sentence there that you're not holding onto a supernatural explanation because we don't hav enough data. If you think physical phenomenon aren't enough, but aren't claiming a supernatural explanation, what are you getting at?
A single cell or blood vessel does not produce ideas and theories.
No, I'm not putting super natural explanations onto something simply because there is a lack of data. I'm saying, whatever data we do find, it still wouldn't explain how the brain can produce logical theories and ideas. At least not ones we can trust to be accurate. Because in the end, ideas are formed from causes that are not bound by logic. Complex as it may be, the very thing that put the idea into life was not logical or rational, but simply a natural process that evolution dictated would act that way, so how can we trust it to produce a logical truth?
Originally posted by inimalist
the process of neuronal activation is controlled by many mechanisms...an action potential in a single neuron alone is mediated by several mechanisms that I can think of off the top of my head (excititory vs inhibitory neurotransmitters, ionotropic and metabotropic receptors, ionic channels, mylen, nodes of ranvier) and probably dozens I can't name or are as of yet undiscovered... When we look at groups of neurons and cells, we get glia that are literally only responsible for mediating and synchronizing neuronal activation. If we look at something like the early layers of the primary visual cortex, or even earlier, in a structure known as the lateral geniculate nucleus, neurons are arranged in such a way that they activate and deactivate eachother in highly specific and specialized manners. For instance, the reason objects seem to have clear edges defining them is a product of this type of processing. I can go over it with you if you are interested in learning how it works, but like, there are countless optical illusions that exist only because we are able to trick the way the brain is organized.
actually, this site is fantastic and normally provides explanations and links about why certain illusions work the way they do:
EDIT: even just check out this one, its one of my favs. The explanation is good, and really, play with all the options available. You would not see these types of illusions if there were not some type of strict organization in perceptual processes:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html
your characterization of how the brain produces thought is a literal strawman or based on a highly incomplete understanding of how the brain organizes itself... I don't mean this to sound as critical as it does, but like, you are 100% wrong.
I fully understand that the brain is organized and complex. I don't see how optical illusions demonstrate the brains ability to form ideas and theories.
Though, you're right. I'm not educated in the scientific aspects of how the brain works. I'm coming at it from more of a philosophical standpoint.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I fully understand that the brain is organized and complex. I don't see how optical illusions demonstrate the brains ability to form ideas and theories.
a) what type of ideas and theories?
b) you don't comprehend how important sensory information is how and what we think?
Originally posted by inimalist
a) what type of ideas and theories?b) you don't comprehend how important sensory information is how and what we think?
a.) Any type of ideas or theories. Take philosophical theories for example.
b.) No, I don't see sensory information creating ideas or theories. Define "important sensory information".
Originally posted by TacDavey
a.) Any type of ideas or theories. Take philosophical theories for example.
like, what aspect do you mean? are you talking about the developmental origins of philosophical ideas? are you talking about what processes are occurring as you interpret philosophical information? are you talking about the "voice in your head" that comes up with linguistic representations of the abstract ideas you are thinking of?
the concept of "philosophical ideas" is far to ambiguous for any type of neural analysis, and includes huge portions of memory, developmental plasticity, cognitive dissonance, emotional processes, mood/context processing and like thousands of other systems/interconnected processing pathways.
Originally posted by TacDavey
b.) No, I don't see sensory information creating ideas or theories. Define "important sensory information".
you are parsing that differently than I intended, I mean, do you not see the significance of sensory information in terms of how it influences our ideas
for instance, there is no other way information can get into the brain
but frankly, if you don't see sensory information as important, you are telling me that a mute, deaf, blind person with no sense of touch, taste, proprioception or vestibular sensation, would be able to come up with theories of how the world works? a world they have, literally, no way of knowing anything about?
How could Locke come up with the idea of tabla rasa without the ability to interact with his world? how could any philosopher put together 2 concepts if they had no ability to observe either of them? sensory processes underly absolutely every part of cognitive processes. A great example of this is the fact that the sensory information in your environment makes you better able to recall and remember things. If you take a test in the same room you learned the information in, you are much better than if you change rooms, simply because there is sensory congruence between the two scenarios (Nairne challenges this, but not in a way that changes the content of my point, he describes the congruence in functional terms)
or another good example:
there is something called "neuroplasticity", essentially, the brain organizes itself based on the sensory information that comes into it and interacts with genes. This happens all through life, but is of primary importance during childhood, as the brain is forming the initial structures that will be responsible for all behaviour.
thus, if you are not subjected to a type of stimuli during these critical periods, you will be unable to properly perceive it when encountered later.
there were studies done where kittens were raised in an environment that had no horizontal lines. Because of this, their visual system never arranged in such a way that enabled them to perceive horizontal things. when introduced into a normal environment, they were unable to process horizontal stimuli.
So, think about what things horizontal stimuli allow you to perceive. shapes, objects, people, places, your home, etc. How could you ever come to rational philosophical ideas about the world. Basic perception and our ability to sense things in our world clearly underly our ability to think about things.
This is even further evidenced by activation in sensory modalities when we think about things. When you see the colour blue, it activates the same part of the brain (ok, slightly posterior) as is activated when you think about the colour blue. When you see someone walking, it activates the same part of the brain that is active when you are walking. If you don't have the structures that allow you to see blue or that enable you to walk, you can't cognitively think about them. In the walking example, you are entirely unable to understand what a person is doing, or really that they are performing an action.
Originally posted by inimalist
like, what aspect do you mean? are you talking about the developmental origins of philosophical ideas? are you talking about what processes are occurring as you interpret philosophical information? are you talking about the "voice in your head" that comes up with linguistic representations of the abstract ideas you are thinking of?the concept of "philosophical ideas" is far to ambiguous for any type of neural analysis, and includes huge portions of memory, developmental plasticity, cognitive dissonance, emotional processes, mood/context processing and like thousands of other systems/interconnected processing pathways.
You are making this more complex than it needs to be. Let's take the basic concept of an "idea". You see a ball, and you get the idea that it should be blue, instead of red, for a number of "logical" reasons that aren't important.
How can you truly consider this idea trustworthy, if at it's basic form, it sprung from something not bound by logic? In other words, how can you trust the logic of the byproduct of something that is not guided by a logical motivation? The cells in the brain do not stop to consider if it's logical to send electronic impulses through the brain. The chemicals don't stop to consider if it's logical to react the way they do. They simply do it, because that's how they were pre-programmed to act by evolution, so how can you trust them to produce the logical truth? In other words, chemicals don't reason, they react.
Originally posted by inimalist
you are parsing that differently than I intended, I mean, do you not see the significance of sensory information in terms of how it influences our ideasfor instance, there is no other way information can get into the brain
but frankly, if you don't see sensory information as important, you are telling me that a mute, deaf, blind person with no sense of touch, taste, proprioception or vestibular sensation, would be able to come up with theories of how the world works? a world they have, literally, no way of knowing anything about?
How could Locke come up with the idea of tabla rasa without the ability to interact with his world? how could any philosopher put together 2 concepts if they had no ability to observe either of them? sensory processes underly absolutely every part of cognitive processes. A great example of this is the fact that the sensory information in your environment makes you better able to recall and remember things. If you take a test in the same room you learned the information in, you are much better than if you change rooms, simply because there is sensory congruence between the two scenarios (Nairne challenges this, but not in a way that changes the content of my point, he describes the congruence in functional terms)
or another good example:
there is something called "neuroplasticity", essentially, the brain organizes itself based on the sensory information that comes into it and interacts with genes. This happens all through life, but is of primary importance during childhood, as the brain is forming the initial structures that will be responsible for all behaviour.
thus, if you are not subjected to a type of stimuli during these critical periods, you will be unable to properly perceive it when encountered later.
there were studies done where kittens were raised in an environment that had no horizontal lines. Because of this, their visual system never arranged in such a way that enabled them to perceive horizontal things. when introduced into a normal environment, they were unable to process horizontal stimuli.
So, think about what things horizontal stimuli allow you to perceive. shapes, objects, people, places, your home, etc. How could you ever come to rational philosophical ideas about the world. Basic perception and our ability to sense things in our world [b]clearly
underly our ability to think about things.This is even further evidenced by activation in sensory modalities when we think about things. When you see the colour blue, it activates the same part of the brain (ok, slightly posterior) as is activated when you think about the colour blue. When you see someone walking, it activates the same part of the brain that is active when you are walking. If you don't have the structures that allow you to see blue or that enable you to walk, you can't cognitively think about them. In the walking example, you are entirely unable to understand what a person is doing, or really that they are performing an action. [/B]
Whoa, I never said sensory information was completely unimportant, only that I don't see it as being able to produce logical ideas all on it's own. I said, I don't see sensory information CREATING ideas. I have no problem with the idea that sensory information INFLUENCES ideas or theories.