5 ms·

>Minding is activity brains perform, exactly as motion is activity cars perform. This is a contentious claim, for which you have provided no arguments. Unsuppo

>Minding is activity brains perform, exactly as motion is activity cars perform. This is a contentious claim, for which you have provided no arguments. Unsupported assertions are entirely useless in this discussion. My argument is very clear and straightforward. If you disagree, you should point out which premise you disagree with and why. Unspecific incredulity does not make an argument. Note that my claim that consciousness supervenes on the dynamics of the EM field generated by the brain does not make it "mysticism". The EM field is a perfectly kosher physical property of the universe. The core claim of my argument is rather mundane in fact. If you feel compelled to resist the argument at all costs because it strikes you as mysticism, you simply didn't understand it.

ncmncm 6y ago
You appear to imagine that something you think of as "EM fields" can achieve things that cannot be done with wires or axons and transistors or nerve cells. EM fields are linear. That means you can't get any information out of EM interactions [except in ferromagnetic materials] that you didn't put in. It makes them useful for communication, but not for computation, or "consciousness", whatever woowoo you imagine that to be. That you don't understand electromagnetics utterly fails to endow electromagnetics with divine powers. Information processing with nonlinear computational elements such as transistors and nerve cells is stuff we (like every living creature, and your thermostat) use all day, every day. Magickal "consciousness" processes that don't depend on nerve cell operations are an extraordinary claim that demands actual, you know, evidence, which would require words that have actual, you know, definitions. If you imagine that you have this "consciousness" magick that bonobos, ravens, and elephants don't, it is on you to demonstrate it. Good luck. I find "consciousness" mysticism actively disgusting, overwhelmingly worse than Martian UFO fantasies, homeopathy scams, claims of quantum-based ESP powers, or even Ayn Rand objectivism. Even to bring it up is an insult to thinking persons.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  Again, your comment completely fails to demonstrate comprehension of my argument. It's not a complex argument. I don't know why you fill it in with nonsense and then disparage your made up nonsense. What a waste of effort! The specific thing that EM fields can do that axons or transistors cannot do is provide "intrinsic unity", the seamless cohesion that underpins the unified whole of conscious experience. This is because the EM field is itself a unified whole. The computational aspects of consciousness are still found in the dynamics of neurons. Again, I was very specific in the argument about what property of the EM field I'm referencing. I'm not sure why you insist on battling strawmen. But increasingly obtuse and indignant responses do not make an argument. So you should really abandon that shtick.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    "Intrinsic unity" is woo. "Seamless cohesion" is woo. "Unified whole of conscious experience" is woo. There will never be a theory of undefined term. Seeking a scientific blessing for your religion is barking up the wrong tree. Science doesn't issue blessings.
    - hackinthebochs 6y ago
      These aren't undefined terms. It might help if you read even a little bit on philosophy of mind so you can be familiar with the common usage of such terms before dismissing them. But that's really not necessary as these terms aren't jargon heavy.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        "Philosophy of mind"? Thank you for the warning, I will steer clear. BS is not a thing I seek out.
- namero999 6y ago
  No one is conflating consciousness with mysticism other than you here. It's not about feeling special like I'm sure you think it is. It's about a phenomenon that science cannot explain, and to think that it is explained by some low-resolution correlations or "intuitive" associations is indeed damaging what science stands for. This attitude is religious faith at its best (or worse).
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Next you will be saying termite mounds aren't really built by termites, and that we only imagine they are because we often find termites all through them. ("Even more often, we don't! Explain that!")
    - namero999 6y ago
      Of course I am not going to say that. There is a precise, empirical, causal account of how mounds are built by termites, we can actually see them during the build process, and we don't have to do any category jump in order to understand that process. It's definitely not a good analogy for the absurd category jump which posits that an electron jumps to a different potential orbital and I experience redness.

ncmncm 6y ago

You appear to imagine that something you think of as "EM fields" can achieve things that cannot be done with wires or axons and transistors or nerve cells. EM fields are linear. That means you can't get any information out of EM interactions [except in ferromagnetic materials] that you didn't put in. It makes them useful for communication, but not for computation, or "consciousness", whatever woowoo you imagine that to be. That you don't understand electromagnetics utterly fails to endow electromagnetics with divine powers. Information processing with nonlinear computational elements such as transistors and nerve cells is stuff we (like every living creature, and your thermostat) use all day, every day. Magickal "consciousness" processes that don't depend on nerve cell operations are an extraordinary claim that demands actual, you know, evidence, which would require words that have actual, you know, definitions. If you imagine that you have this "consciousness" magick that bonobos, ravens, and elephants don't, it is on you to demonstrate it. Good luck. I find "consciousness" mysticism actively disgusting, overwhelmingly worse than Martian UFO fantasies, homeopathy scams, claims of quantum-based ESP powers, or even Ayn Rand objectivism. Even to bring it up is an insult to thinking persons.

hackinthebochs 6y ago
Again, your comment completely fails to demonstrate comprehension of my argument. It's not a complex argument. I don't know why you fill it in with nonsense and then disparage your made up nonsense. What a waste of effort! The specific thing that EM fields can do that axons or transistors cannot do is provide "intrinsic unity", the seamless cohesion that underpins the unified whole of conscious experience. This is because the EM field is itself a unified whole. The computational aspects of consciousness are still found in the dynamics of neurons. Again, I was very specific in the argument about what property of the EM field I'm referencing. I'm not sure why you insist on battling strawmen. But increasingly obtuse and indignant responses do not make an argument. So you should really abandon that shtick.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  "Intrinsic unity" is woo. "Seamless cohesion" is woo. "Unified whole of conscious experience" is woo. There will never be a theory of undefined term. Seeking a scientific blessing for your religion is barking up the wrong tree. Science doesn't issue blessings.
  - hackinthebochs 6y ago
    These aren't undefined terms. It might help if you read even a little bit on philosophy of mind so you can be familiar with the common usage of such terms before dismissing them. But that's really not necessary as these terms aren't jargon heavy.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      "Philosophy of mind"? Thank you for the warning, I will steer clear. BS is not a thing I seek out.
namero999 6y ago
No one is conflating consciousness with mysticism other than you here. It's not about feeling special like I'm sure you think it is. It's about a phenomenon that science cannot explain, and to think that it is explained by some low-resolution correlations or "intuitive" associations is indeed damaging what science stands for. This attitude is religious faith at its best (or worse).
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Next you will be saying termite mounds aren't really built by termites, and that we only imagine they are because we often find termites all through them. ("Even more often, we don't! Explain that!")
  - namero999 6y ago
    Of course I am not going to say that. There is a precise, empirical, causal account of how mounds are built by termites, we can actually see them during the build process, and we don't have to do any category jump in order to understand that process. It's definitely not a good analogy for the absurd category jump which posits that an electron jumps to a different potential orbital and I experience redness.