Argument for God(s) Second Edition - please critique

[1137]

so basically you are claiming that the mind is not dependent on the brain?

Correct.

 

[McBell]

Correct.

Now all you need to do is show it is true.

atanu has failed miserably.
Perhaps you will do better?

 

[1137]

Now all you need to do is show it is true.

atanu has failed miserably.
Perhaps you will do better?

Placebos work by the mind causing physiological changes through belief. No material or physical substance, no chemical changes induced. If the mind was purely depended on the brain, we would expect medication to work but not cognitive techniques like placebo use. And before you object that the placebo is somehow physical, this already assumes reductionism and argues for it, and you must show how.

 

[atanu]

This is nothing more than wishful thinking based on wishful thinking.

You are basically saying that a car without gas should still run because the car is still intact.

And you are saying that for brain to exhibit symptoms of intelligence, it requires a fuel. Do we know what that fuel is?

 

[atanu]

Now all you need to do is show it is true.

atanu has failed miserably.
Perhaps you will do better?

Ha ha.

 

[atanu]

Intelligence is a property of certain sections of an active brain. Correct. Just as heat is a property of an active fire. The novelist analogy is unclear.

I already said that if intelligence was created in brain, then a brain in a dead body would say "I exist".

I am fully constrained by the brain since I am an aspect (or a dynamical property) of the active brain.

I agree that your intelligence Is fully constrained. I never doubted that.

The tragedy is that despite being fully constrained so you say "My intelligence is fully constrained but I the truth."

 

[atanu]

The free man is that that knows that ontological levels of Seer, Knower, and Thinker are different.

Most of us are tied to thoughts (mind).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

All this argument needs to have any tensile strength, so to speak, is a single example of 'mind' existing where 'brain' does not.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

 

[sayak83]

I already said that if intelligence was created in brain, then a brain in a dead body would say "I exist".



I agree that your intelligence Is fully constrained. I never doubted that.

The tragedy is that despite being fully constrained so you say "My intelligence is fully constrained but I the truth."

You are now speaking incoherently. A dead body necessarily implies a dead brain.

If your intelligence is not constrained by your brain, please try to multiply numbers faster than a computer.

By the way do you need me to quote Upanisadic passages that state that intelligence and mind are forms of and are constrained by the material nature? I have desisted as this is not a Hinduism forum.

 

[sayak83]

blank

 

[sayak83]

And you are saying that for brain to exhibit symptoms of intelligence, it requires a fuel. Do we know what that fuel is?

Energy from food and water and oxygen carried by the blood. Brain dies within 10 minutes if this supply is cut off.

 

[sayak83]

Placebos work by the mind causing physiological changes through belief. No material or physical substance, no chemical changes induced. If the mind was purely depended on the brain, we would expect medication to work but not cognitive techniques like placebo use. And before you object that the placebo is somehow physical, this already assumes reductionism and argues for it, and you must show how.

Anxiety is a physical state that creates harmful hormones and chemicals as well as increase "fight and flight" responses that are harmful to the body. A placebo reduces anxiety as the brain falsely believes that the emergency (due to sickness) is over and hence scales back on its "emergency alert" state. This improves the bodily health as it moves out of the "fight and flight" systems and associated stress hormones.

Fun fact. The brain is in charge of almost all bodily states. It calculates how much hormone to secrete and when, how fast the heart must pump, how many times the lungs must inflate and deflate, when to secrete digestive juices etc. etc. etc.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No its not. Consider a mathematical function F(x)=y. A brain can be said to have a function if it maps certain inputs into certain outputs in a consistent manner. I am pretty sure the brain has many such functions.

That was sort of my point. The brain has many, many functions, but what this "main function" is that you referred to is, if anything, unscientific and unsupported by any research in fields related to the brain, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. One need only note Rosen's [M,R]-systems which ascribe to any cell a functional component that takes as input the states of most of any cell and as output again most of the cell to realize that reducing the brain to some "main function" is nonsense. This is true even if one adamantly opposes massive modularity (as I do) approaches to cognition and brain functions.

I did not understand what you are saying. Qunatum Mechanics does not require there to be an agent. It requires an observer, which is ANY QM system that can interact strongly enough with the prepared QM states to decohere it from QM superposition to classical probability mixtures.

Quantum systems cannot be "observers". The measured outputs of states of quantum systems are defined to be the infinite set of possible projections onto a ray in Hilbert space by the application of observable (Hermitian) operators. The projection postulate and its equivalent formulations within any formulation of quantum mechanics requires there to be a fundamental "break" from the dynamical evolution of quantum systems to the results of measurement/observation. Thus within quantum theory and quantum formalism we find a dynamical description of quantum systems which is incompatible with the classical world of experience. The classical limit emerges not simply from decoherence (which is inadequate even to explain such macroscopic violations as the original Schrödinger cat Gedankenexperiment), but is inexorably tied to the process of measurement, and environmental interactions cannot yield the classical realm from the quantum. The subjective process of preparations of specified systems measured in some specified manner is required to yield the classical realm from the quantum mechanical. In fact, there exists several mathematical proofs that illustrate the necessity of fundamental outcomes in quantum mechanics upon free choices by human choices of measurement, ranging from the free will theorem and Bell's inequality to the very statistical frequencies which formed the basis for QM formalisms and the measurement process to the orthodox and Copenhagen interpretations of QM.

Even the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is a good enough "observer". So..

It isn't an observer in any sense, nor is it relevant. The CMB is actually classically described most of the time and to the extent it has been treated using quantum physics, such systems (like every single possible quantum system) cannot transition to the classical realm without observation. If we don't look, the classical reality we experience quite literally doesn't exist:

"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.

"The notion of Physical Object is Untenable”
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29-29.


“The laws of quantum physics are in conflict with a classical world, in particular, with local and macroscopic realism as characterized by the violation of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, respectively.”
Kofler, J., & Brukner, Č. (2008). Conditions for quantum violation of macroscopic realism. Physical review letters, 101(9), 090403.

“Our study has shed some light on the persistent issue of the emergence of classical realism in closed quantum systems, specifically the breakdown of MR by the measurement process. We have shown that the principles of classical mechanics cannot describe even the measurement of macroscopic observables with a smooth classical limit.”
Leshem, A., & Gat, O. (2009). Violation of smooth observable macroscopic realism in a harmonic oscillator. Physical review letters, 103(7), 070403.


“Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment demonstrates that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable that is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon into the interferometer by a space-like interval.”
Jacques, V., Wu, E., Grosshans, F., Treussart, F., Grangier, P., Aspect, A., & Roch, J. F. (2007). Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment. Science, 315(5814), 966-968.
etc.

I used the word interface as a verb. Interact. Information exchange. Fourier superposition of signal phases etc.

The same result emerges. Somehow cognition is supposed to result from interactions of the brain with the brain, or rather with "electrical signals". However, the electrical signals are the primary method exploited by neuronal networks, and thus the "interface/interaction" you refer to is the brain's activity, not interaction. You have to be much more precise even to give a simplistic descriptions of the brain as consisting of information processing systems or as an information processor, and you will not be able to magic such descriptions into anything defensible as a model of consciousness.

Subsystems of the brain extract coarse grained information from other subsystems. Replace intentional language with maths where appropriate.

The problem is the models of information processing in the brain, from Hodgkin-Huxley to our most sophisticated models of dynamical synchronization among and within neuronal networks (or the treatment of subneuronal systems such as "the computing dendrite") do not yield models of higher-level cognition. The maths fail. They can be used to formulate reasonably accurate models of neuronal function and even the dynamics of neuronal populations, but fail utterly to yield rather basic models of cognition, let alone consciousness.

It does not. I have no idea how you got that sense. Functional language and design language is perfectly acceptable in many natural systems. No intentions or immaterial agents are implied thereby.

I don't think you understood my point(s).

 

[sayak83]

That was sort of my point. The brain has many, many functions, but what this "main function" is that you referred to is, if anything, unscientific and unsupported by any research in fields related to the brain, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. One need only note Rosen's [M,R]-systems which ascribe to any cell a functional component that takes as input the states of most of any cell and as output again most of the cell to realize that reducing the brain to some "main function" is nonsense. This is true even if one adamantly opposes massive modularity (as I do) approaches to cognition and brain functions.




Quantum systems cannot be "observers". The measured outputs of states of quantum systems are defined to be the infinite set of possible projections onto a ray in Hilbert space by the application of observable (Hermitian) operators. The projection postulate and its equivalent formulations within any formulation of quantum mechanics requires there to be a fundamental "break" from the dynamical evolution of quantum systems to the results of measurement/observation. Thus within quantum theory and quantum formalism we find a dynamical description of quantum systems which is incompatible with the classical world of experience. The classical limit emerges not simply from decoherence (which is inadequate even to explain such macroscopic violations as the original Schrödinger cat Gedankenexperiment), but is inexorably tied to the process of measurement, and environmental interactions cannot yield the classical realm from the quantum. The subjective process of preparations of specified systems measured in some specified manner is required to yield the classical realm from the quantum mechanical. In fact, there exists several mathematical proofs that illustrate the necessity of fundamental outcomes in quantum mechanics upon free choices by human choices of measurement, ranging from the free will theorem and Bell's inequality to the very statistical frequencies which formed the basis for QM formalisms and the measurement process to the orthodox and Copenhagen interpretations of QM.


It isn't an observer in any sense, nor is it relevant. The CMB is actually classically described most of the time and to the extent it has been treated using quantum physics, such systems (like every single possible quantum system) cannot transition to the classical realm without observation. If we don't look, the classical reality we experience quite literally doesn't exist:

"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.

"The notion of Physical Object is Untenable”
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29-29.


“The laws of quantum physics are in conflict with a classical world, in particular, with local and macroscopic realism as characterized by the violation of the Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities, respectively.”
Kofler, J., & Brukner, Č. (2008). Conditions for quantum violation of macroscopic realism. Physical review letters, 101(9), 090403.

“Our study has shed some light on the persistent issue of the emergence of classical realism in closed quantum systems, specifically the breakdown of MR by the measurement process. We have shown that the principles of classical mechanics cannot describe even the measurement of macroscopic observables with a smooth classical limit.”
Leshem, A., & Gat, O. (2009). Violation of smooth observable macroscopic realism in a harmonic oscillator. Physical review letters, 103(7), 070403.


“Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment demonstrates that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable that is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon into the interferometer by a space-like interval.”
Jacques, V., Wu, E., Grosshans, F., Treussart, F., Grangier, P., Aspect, A., & Roch, J. F. (2007). Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment. Science, 315(5814), 966-968.
etc.


The same result emerges. Somehow cognition is supposed to result from interactions of the brain with the brain, or rather with "electrical signals". However, the electrical signals are the primary method exploited by neuronal networks, and thus the "interface/interaction" you refer to is the brain's activity, not interaction. You have to be much more precise even to give a simplistic descriptions of the brain as consisting of information processing systems or as an information processor, and you will not be able to magic such descriptions into anything defensible as a model of consciousness.


The problem is the models of information processing in the brain, from Hodgkin-Huxley to our most sophisticated models of dynamical synchronization among and within neuronal networks (or the treatment of subneuronal systems such as "the computing dendrite") do not yield models of higher-level cognition. The maths fail. They can be used to formulate reasonably accurate models of neuronal function and even the dynamics of neuronal populations, but fail utterly to yield rather basic models of cognition, let alone consciousness.




I don't think you understood my point(s).

I will get to your post in detail. For now, I will state that I favor the consistent histories formulation of QM where measurements no longer play a fundamental role in the theory.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories/

 

[1137]

All this argument needs to have any tensile strength, so to speak, is a single example of 'mind' existing where 'brain' does not.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

Of course of there are any deities or spiritual beings out there, we have many examples.

 

[1137]

Anxiety is a physical state that creates harmful hormones and chemicals as well as increase "fight and flight" responses that are harmful to the body. A placebo reduces anxiety as the brain falsely believes that the emergency (due to sickness) is over and hence scales back on its "emergency alert" state. This improves the bodily health as it moves out of the "fight and flight" systems and associated stress hormones.

Fun fact. The brain is in charge of almost all bodily states. It calculates how much hormone to secrete and when, how fast the heart must pump, how many times the lungs must inflate and deflate, when to secrete digestive juices etc. etc. etc.

So you agree that immaterial ideology causes change to the body. Guess our discussion is complete.

 

[atanu]

Energy from food and water and oxygen carried by the blood. Brain dies within 10 minutes if this supply is cut off.

If that is the case then try feeding glucose and oxygen to Revive a dead body.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Of course of there are any deities or spiritual beings out there, we have many examples.

Holy crap you have evidence that deities exist, with examples? Wonderful, lets have it. Billions are waiting, with baited breath.

 

[atanu]

All this argument needs to have any tensile strength, so to speak, is a single example of 'mind' existing where 'brain' does not.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

I will wait with baited breath to hear about any experience of a brain being observed in absence of consciousness.

OTOH, brains (with intact physical structures) in dead bodies do not exhibit consciousness.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I will wait with baited breath to hear about any experience of a brain being observed in absence of consciousness.

Ok, go check out a sleeping person, or a cadaver. Your turn.