Post Reply
Page 4 of 13  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Consciousness is an individual product of a biological organism?
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 8:19AM #31
Faustus5
Posts: 2,020

Jun 21, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Beingofone wrote:

Peer review is the good ole boy network designed to keep a monopoly on real scientific investigation.


Right--when your side loses the debate (and loses in a way that is utterly decisive), the best tactic is to cry "Conspiracy! I'm being oppressed!".


Jun 21, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Beingofone wrote:

This part:


the neural population that represents it is mobilized by top-down attentional amplification



Is almost never addressed by materialistic preachers.


Actually, it is. You only say this because you are not particularly well informed.


Jun 21, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Beingofone wrote:

Attention - your attention please. Who or what decides where to focus attention?


No answer? I did not think so.


You just aren't very well read in this material, so you don't realize that in the very paper I was citing, the following passage appeared addressing the line you are so obsessed with. Here it is:


We should be careful not to take the term "top-down" too literally. Since there is no single organizational summit to the brain, it means only that such attentional amplification is not just modulated "bottom-up" by features internal to the processing stream in which it rides, but also by sideways influences, from competitive, cooperative, collateral activities whose emergent net result is what we may lump together and call top-down influence. In an arena of opponent processes (as in a democracy) the "top" is distributed, not localized. Nevertheless, among the various competitive processes, there are important bifurcations or thresholds that can lead to strikingly different sequels, and it is these differences that best account for our pretheoretical intuitions about the difference between conscious and unconscious events in the mind. If we are careful, we can use "top-down" as an innocent allusion, exploiting a vivid fossil trace of a discarded Cartesian theory to mark the real differences that that theory misdescribed.


Jun 21, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Beingofone wrote:

Its the little guy in your head that decides. The little guy in his head - and its a little guy in the head all the way down - just like turtles.


Again, the combination of both ignorance and arrogance in your post is astonishing. People learn about this problem in basic philosophy courses.   Three separate professors of mine brought it up. You are not in possession of an amazing critique--you are a bearer of very old news. The model I have described does not fall into the homunculus fallacy and in fact the author of the paper I cited has written a lot about it. The passage I quoted above shows the correct interpretation of what is meant by "top down".


Next time you post in this thread, keep in mind that this subject is my academic specialty. You aren't going to surprise me with any new tricks.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 5:08PM #32
Beingofone
Posts: 423

Faust:


We should be careful not to take the term "top-down" too literally. Since there is no single organizational summit to the brain, it means only that such attentional amplification is not just modulated "bottom-up" by features internal to the processing stream in which it rides, but also by sideways influences, from competitive, cooperative, collateral activities whose emergent net result is what we may lump together and call top-down influence. In an arena of opponent processes (as in a democracy) the "top" is distributed, not localized. Nevertheless, among the various competitive processes, there are important bifurcations or thresholds that can lead to strikingly different sequels, and it is these differences that best account for our pretheoretical intuitions about the difference between conscious and unconscious events in the mind. If we are careful, we can use "top-down" as an innocent allusion, exploiting a vivid fossil trace of a discarded Cartesian theory to mark the real differences that that theory misdescribed.




This is peer reviewed turtles all the way down. Infinite regression is the answer by the materialistic babble crowd. 


Even tho its babble - there is a lot of big words so the real concept (and there is none to be found) is buried under jargon. It just sounds impressive with all the scientific lingo.


The real concept being presented is - it just happens.Its a cooperative effort made, like a democracy - love that line. So my mind is run be a vote - hmmm.


I choose not to think that and instead decide for myself. The above mumbo jumbo is thus refuted.


Yup - nobody and nothing deciided what to think folks . Its a conspiracy of so many properties that the cause cannot be found. So saith the biggest and brightest of physicalism.


And if you question this - you are a conspiracy theory nut job who hates all science.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 5:41PM #33
Faustus5
Posts: 2,020

Jun 22, 2012 -- 5:08PM, Beingofone wrote:

This is peer reviewed turtles all the way down. Infinite regression is the answer by the materialistic babble crowd.


No, not infinite regression. It is not fallacious to propose a homunculus to perform a function so long as the homunculus is dumber than the agent it is a part of. And then you can propose dumber houmunculi-like agents to explain that homunculus, etc., until you get to the point where you are proposing utterly mindless molecular processes. Not an infinite regress.


Jun 22, 2012 -- 5:08PM, Beingofone wrote:

Even tho its babble - there is a lot of big words so the real concept (and there is none to be found) is buried under jargon. It just sounds impressive with all the scientific lingo.


Oh, it went completely over your head. Got it.


Jun 22, 2012 -- 5:08PM, Beingofone wrote:

The real concept being presented is - it just happens.Its a cooperative effort made, like a democracy - love that line. So my mind is run be a vote - hmmm.


I'm afraid that's what cognitive neuroscience more or less has discovered, whether you understand it or not: there are many times when unconscious processes go on in your brain where populations of neurons representing different options or interpretations of experience compete with each other for winner-take-all dominance over the nervous system. When you are making choices that's what is going on inside of you.


Jun 22, 2012 -- 5:08PM, Beingofone wrote:

I choose not to think that and instead decide for myself. The above mumbo jumbo is thus refuted.


It went completely over your head, I get it. And by the way, consensus theories in science don't get refuted by some nobody on the internet--because that's all you are.


Jun 22, 2012 -- 5:08PM, Beingofone wrote:

Yup - nobody and nothing deciided what to think folks . Its a conspiracy of so many properties that the cause cannot be found. So saith the biggest and brightest of physicalism.


It went completely over your head, I get it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 8:15PM #34
Beingofone
Posts: 423
The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."
Bertolt Brecht


"Errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all."
Charles Babbage
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2012 - 9:54AM #35
Faustus5
Posts: 2,020

Jun 22, 2012 -- 8:15PM, Beingofone wrote:


The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error."
Bertolt Brecht


"Errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all."
Charles Babbage



In other words, because you have no comprehension of any of the ideas discussed in the global neuronal workspace model, you went to the net and found some quotes to save face. FAIL. Try again.


For instance, cite the actual inadequate data that these scientists are using and explain why it is inadequate.


Look, I know you can't, I know you won't even attempt it. My point is that you don't know one  thing about cognitive neuroscience, but somehow you think you know more than people who have studied the subject very hard their entire lives. Unbelievable arrogance, that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2012 - 7:51PM #36
Blü
Posts: 23,964

Beingofone


I choose not to think that and instead decide for myself. The above mumbo jumbo is thus refuted.


Describe to us the process - the sequence of events - by which you made your choice.


Why can't you make choices unless you have a brain?


What part did your brain play in that choice?


Which of its physical qualities allowed it to play that part? 


How did those qualities work so that you made your decision?


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 6:31PM #37
Beingofone
Posts: 423

Faust:


For instance, cite the actual inadequate data that these scientists are using and explain why it is inadequate



This is quite the challenge. I cannot seem to find a single bit or scrap of 'data' to refute. Very typical when dealing with what causes the thinker to think and make choices by the blind believers in rigid materialism.


If you would point out a single bit of data that tells us where the thinker is, I will be most excited to address the mysterious piece of missing evidence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 6:38PM #38
Beingofone
Posts: 423

Jun 24, 2012 -- 7:51PM, Blü wrote:


Describe to us the process - the sequence of events - by which you made your choice.




I pick a topic.


Why can't you make choices unless you have a brain?



Who told your DNA to construct a brain for you to make choices?


What part did your brain play in that choice?



It slowed down the field and stream of energy and data into bits.


Which of its physical qualities allowed it to play that part?



Synaptic gap traps a single bit of data.


How did those qualities work so that you made your decision?



Could you describe with a little more detail or specifics what you are asking here.


I do appreciate the honest questions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 6:45PM #39
Beingofone
Posts: 423

Oh BTW Faust, I have a conversation tip for ya. When you have a discussion, you should try to make what is called a point. This can either be a premise or a conclusion but without either, like your entire conversation with me is referred to as 'pointless or futile'.


Just trying to help you out there - you look like you needed help in how to make a point.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2012 - 7:03AM #40
Faustus5
Posts: 2,020

Jun 25, 2012 -- 6:31PM, Beingofone wrote:

Faust:


This is quite the challenge. I cannot seem to find a single bit or scrap of 'data' to refute.


Then why did you post a quote about inadequate data when you don't know shit about anything under discussion?


Jun 25, 2012 -- 6:31PM, Beingofone wrote:

Very typical when dealing with what causes the thinker to think and make choices by the blind believers in rigid materialism.


Very typical when dealing with people who actually know nothing about science but pretend to.


Jun 25, 2012 -- 6:31PM, Beingofone wrote:

If you would point out a single bit of data that tells us where the thinker is, I will be most excited to address the mysterious piece of missing evidence.


Why don't you get a basic education on the subject matter so that if someone gave you the data that cognitive neuroscience uses, you might actually have a chance of understanding what it means? I don't cast pearls before swine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 13  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook