Psience Quest

(2018-08-07, 09:35 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Yes - the goal is to have a scientific model of mental events that includes mind effecting the environment through changing real-world probabilities.  Hence, why I am trying to sell a methodological view to model mind that is not trapped in organic chem.  But measures - if only indirectly - factors like will-power and creativity.

What is conjectured by me; is a process model for simple interaction of bio-information processing leading to natural processes of purposeful behavior.  How living things understand their environment is addressed.  This model is just a (useful) map.

"A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality that, despite being approximations, can be extremely useful" (Wiki). 
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation" (Wiki).

I see a rather basic problem in your enterprise. Your seeking of a "scientific model" of mental experience, of mental events, inevitably runs into the Hard Problem. This is because mental experience, qualities of mind including qualia, intentionality, feelings, knowing, etc. are in an entirely different realm of existence than the empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes that can be "scientifically" modelled. 

Qualities or elements of mind such as qualia, intentionality, knowing, feelings, etc. simply can't be reduced to physical objects or phenomena that can be physically observed. Try to find such things in the chemical and electronic interactions of neurons and synapses processing data in the brain. Or in  any of the intricate cellular machinery and multicellular machinery of the body. It's a category error.  

What empirical objects or physical phenomena would you seek to represent in your model?  It seems to me the model you are trying to set up will necessarily be unscientific, and consequently can't ever get the imprimatur of approval by the scientific community.

(2018-08-08, 12:25 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]"A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality that, despite being approximations, can be extremely useful" (Wiki). 
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation" (Wiki).

I see a rather basic problem in your enterprise. Your seeking of a "scientific model" of mental experience, of mental events, inevitably runs into the Hard Problem. This is because mental experience, qualities of mind including qualia, intentionality, feelings, knowing, etc. are in an entirely different realm of existence than the empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes that can be "scientifically" modeled. 

Back to the start.  Can what I am yammering about, survive acceptance barriers in academia?  Great pragmatic question!  Answer is -- to some degree of probability -- not likely at this time.  That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be talked about.

If "modern" science ignores information as observed phenomenon, it is not much of a science.  Hence, right out front, Information Realism is declared.  

Even the above definition (Wiki), which is a materialistic slanted version, scientific process models REQUIRE an information science framework.  That of logic.  The best science models are just equations; with a few words of meaningful banter associated with them for those who cannot read math fluently - like me. 

Math or logical objects have always deemed to be created by men, rather than being actual and being natural structures in our informational environments we have discovered.  There are data coming from bio-informatics research that are the results of well-developed experiments.  Is DNA a better model as a stick-figure physical representation (1950) OR an animated graphic video that can reenact biological communication (2000-).  Note: that this "model" is on a digital file and maybe in the cloud.  

Times have changed and there is every reason to see experiments in logic, communication/network systems and cybernetics as presenting evidence (at least quasi-empirical in nature) that is as functional for science; as are the properties of matter.  Are physics folks starting to suffer IS (Information Science) envy?  I think its starting.  If you are a newbee scientist at this time - better choice is string theory or quantum computation or bioinformatics?

IR and Direct Perception are concepts that have been percolating for more that 50 years.  They have stood the time as "bastards and crap" from the establishment.  They - along with other ideas - are in a position to rewrite what is the framework for understanding mind; because they fit the data better!  They will not answer the real deep mysteries of life -   but they will put the crazy-ass old beliefs into the background.  

The function of the mind in terms of information science models of input --> output, has not been stated well for the general public.  Brain electrical patterns and electro-chemistry help us understand the physical side -  but what the mind does is change probabilities in its informational environment.  There are already many equations measuring life adapting to circumstances, as capability, productivity, Bayesian behavioral models (conditional probability). 
 
Psi events happen all the time, as intuition, instinct and inspired by deep-feelings such as grief.  Seeing the information objects behind animal instinct and one-celled organism's behavior -- brings all this back to good old natural scrutiny of what we expereince.

Mind has a major role in evolution and Darwin saw it.  It will take better trained minds than mine - to get back on course.  I do see the Third Way as a big step forward.  J. Scott Turner is another solid scientific researcher probing how "purpose and desire" present as drivers in terms of evolution.

(2018-08-09, 03:41 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]..................................................................
Math or logical objects have always deemed to be created by men, rather than being actual and being natural structures in our informational environments we have discovered.  There are data coming from bio-informatics research that are the results of well-developed experiments.  Is DNA a better model as a stick-figure physical representation (1950) OR an animated graphic video that can reenact biological communication (2000-).  Note: that this "model" is on a digital file and maybe in the cloud.  

Times have changed and there is every reason to see experiments in logic, communication/network systems and cybernetics as presenting evidence (at least quasi-empirical in nature) that is as functional for science; as are the properties of matter.  Are physics folks starting to suffer IS (Information Science) envy?  I think its starting.  If you are a newbee scientist at this time - better choice is string theory or quantum computation or bioinformatics?

IR and Direct Perception are concepts that have been percolating for more that 50 years.  They have stood the time as "bastards and crap" from the establishment.  They - along with other ideas - are in a position to rewrite what is the framework for understanding mind; because they fit the data better!  They will not answer the real deep mysteries of life -   but they will put the crazy-ass old beliefs into the background.  
...................................................................

A number of eminent thinkers including Max Planck, Sir Arthur Eddington, Eugene Wigner and Roger Penrose have convincingly argued that we discover, rather than invent, the realities of mathematics. Physicist Wigner wrote, “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious. There is no rational explanation for it."

Materialism is woefully inadequate for explaining the connections that exist between mathematics, the material world, and the human mind. It seems that mathematics and logic inhabit a Platonic world that is basically of a mental or mind nature, and is more basic or fundamental than the material world. Does this also apply to "information objects"?

I think you are saying that Information Science as you conceive of it will not answer the deep mysteries, like the famous Hard Problem of consciousness. If that is what you mean, I agree. For that matter, I don't think anything man has come up with answers "the real deep mysteries of life".

(2018-08-06, 06:07 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]"As has been pointed out so many times, the elements of subjective experience simply can't be reduced to matter and energy and their interactions."

How does anyone know this as factual?

There must be a proof somewhere, right?

~~ Paul

(2018-08-06, 06:07 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]How does anyone know this as factual?

Otherwise an electric toaster is also conscious!  Think of the difference between how a machine doesn't experience anything whereas a sentient being does.

(2018-08-22, 12:29 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]There must be a proof somewhere, right?

~~ Paul

Longtime no see. I heard a rumour you had died. 
According to members there is. Now I'm waiting to see it.

(2018-08-22, 08:32 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Otherwise an electric toaster is also conscious!  Think of the difference between how a machine doesn't experience anything whereas a sentient being does.

Quote:Steve: How does anyone know this is factual?

Let's leave philosophy out. People make and  state claims based upon what they want to be true, not what can be demonstrated. For the person that started this thread their position is evolution must have some mystical element to account for species evolution. Others subsequently have argued as much, but have yet been able to demonstrate that.

P.S. I posted a link to a Science Friday show on the subject of how living in New York city is changing the coloration of pigeons. That post received about 0 responses.

(2018-08-22, 11:57 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Let's leave philosophy out. People make and  state claims based upon what they want to be true, not what can be demonstrated. For the person that started this thread their position is evolution must have some mystical element to account for species evolution. Others subsequently have argued as much, but have yet been able to demonstrate that.

P.S. I posted a link to a Science Friday show on the subject of how living in New York city is changing the coloration of pigeons. That post received about 0 responses.

My argument is a good one.  Try explaining it or stop being so negative about other peoples opinions!

(2018-08-22, 02:47 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]My argument is a good one.  Try explaining it or stop being so negative about other peoples opinions!

That'll turn into a philosophical argument and will get you nowhere. So I'll pass. I like evidence that's discovered then verified over and over. In short I like facts. Ya got any?

(2018-08-22, 03:22 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]That'll turn into a philosophical argument and will get you nowhere. So I'll pass. I like evidence that's discovered then verified over and over. In short I like facts. Ya got any?

You like facts? Brian observed that electric toasters aren’t sentient. That seems factual to me, unless you’d like to challenge that statement. 

It doesn’t seem an unreasonable question to wonder how consciousness could reduce to pure, as-we-currently-understand-it matter when you take an object that fits that description, like an electric toaster, and see that it does not have the same qualities as a human being.

Your ignorant and immature dismissal of philosophy that you don’t understand aside, there were no philosophical arguments made by Brian. He said a toaster is made of the same matter we are but isn’t conscious. Why?