Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60
Like Tree11Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By Jewish-Scientist
  • 1 Post By shlunka
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Definition of consciousness, morality and genius

  1. #1 Definition of consciousness, morality and genius 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    54
    Hello, I'll just plunge right into it:


    Consciousness is the activation of (a) reaction.


    Consciousness is the activation of reactions in the brain. These reactions come from structures and stimuli that together make for certain physical, chemical and electrical states (reactions) which produce what we have termed 'consciousness'. In this sense, part of the great neural network that make up much of our brain are the parts that make up our consciousness. When we see something f.ex. that we believe "we know" or "recognize", it is only a certain state of these reactions that are present. In that way, all our consciousness is a physical (and biological probably) phenomenon that are very present in our species in fact. So when we see a building f.ex. and we have conscious phenomena about it (f.ex. "we think that it is our mother's old house and we have good memories of living there"), then it is only matter and forces that are affected in such a way as to create certain states.

    Much of what may be thought of as a reaction may be not be reaction by some strict definition of the word, but may only be action. So our consciousness is a big neural network where there are many reactions of a specific kind. In this way, our whole consciousness is just made up of a big neural network and so, it has its place in reality. It is the same for an ant f.ex., even though its consciousness is probably much more limited than ours is. It is just certain physical, chemical, electrical etc. states. It would, taken far enough, make it possible to calculate and predict states of consciousness from the knowledge and understanding of the stimuli and structures that create these reactions and how these certain reactions work together.


    Morality is the idea of a consciousness that affects another consciousness.

    Morality is the idea of a consciousness that affects another consciousness somehow. Our species is very tuned to consciousness and so we have developed a lot of body parts that react to consciousness. A matter can only be relevant in the idea of morality if it happens between two consciousnesses. A consciousness (in a man f.ex.) that does not affect another consciousness is outside the idea of morality. Just as well if a consciousness is affected by something that is not a consciousness (f.ex. a stone) then it does not have a place in morality either.

    F.ex. if you are alone on an island and is isolated from the rest of the world, then the place of your actions in morality is dependent entirely on the effects on another consciousness.

    If you hurt yourself alone on an island, the place in morality of your actions is completely dependent on the affects on others. If your actions are and will be completely isolated from all other consciousnesses, then it is neither good or bad.

    If you help yourself under these conditions, it is netiher good or bad either.

    If you help another consciousness, it is generally good. (moral assumption)

    If you hurt another consciousness, it is generally bad. (assumption again, for the sake of argument)

    If you are hurt/helped or someone else is hurt/helped by something that is not a consciousness, then it is neither good or bad.

    As such, morality is placed to a high degree in the consciousnesses of humans because our species has developed so many and so dominant body parts for consciousness partly.


    Genius is conscious creation. In this way, it differs from more typical creation in the way that non-genius relies more on non-conscious action while genius relies on conscious creation from conscious reactions. In this way, genius is ever intensified and is focused on very specific points that are present in a man's consciousness (or an animal's consciousness). In this sense, all people are genius in some ways (and probably all animals as well, if only in the infinitesimal range) and all men (and animals) are non-geniuses in some ways.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenver View Post
    Consciousness is the activation of (a) reaction.

    So that's conscious?
    Okay, thanks.

    Morality is the idea of a consciousness that affects another consciousness.
    Really?
    Nothing at all to do with, say, the usual definition, which is something about distinguishing (or at least delineating) good from bad.

    If you help another consciousness, it is generally good. (moral assumption)
    If you hurt another consciousness, it is generally bad. (assumption again, for the sake of argument)
    Like you admitted, these are assumptions.
    But you can't declare them to be "moral" ones until you have explicitly defined "moral".

    Genius is conscious creation.
    Nope.

    In this way, it differs from more typical creation in the way that non-genius relies more on non-conscious action
    You've obviously never "created" anything, or seen other people do so.

    In this sense, all people are genius in some ways (and probably all animals as well, if only in the infinitesimal range) and all men (and animals) are non-geniuses in some ways.
    Right. Which completely and utterly devalues the meaning of genius.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    If everyone was a genius... then wouldn't nobody be a genius? Also... morality is subjective, to some individuals hurting others is enjoyable.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    If everyone was a genius... then wouldn't nobody be a genius?

    I am inclined to say that the answer is no.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    If everyone was a genius... then wouldn't nobody be a genius?
    I am inclined to say that the answer is no.
    Huh?
    I agree with Shlunka (but don't tell him, it'll go to his head).
    Genius is defined, roughly, as exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.
    How can there be "exceptional" anything if everyone is "exceptional"?
    If we're all incredibly clever then no-one's intelligence will be particularly remarkable - everyone being a genius simply raises the average and puts the upper limits as the norm.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    sapiens-sapiens brain is nothing more than a very advanced pattern recognition and association engine

    genious is exceptional pattern recognition
    alternately phrased:
    a core element of genius is an unusual capability for pattern recognition
    alternately phrased:
    genious is the ability to use pattern recognition to solve problems
    alternately phrased:
    a genius is a person who has become an expert in pattern recognition
    alternately phrased:
    a genius sees universal patterns repeating across different fields and levels of existence

    are you beginning to detect a pattern here?

    A) limited possibilities/potentials, limited materials/particles = limited patterns
    B)delineating the interplay of pattern creates (for lack of a better term) beat frequencies

    given one pattern and one beat frequency, the missing pattern becomes obvious
    given 2 beat frequencies, it gets a bit tricky, then see A) above
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    genious is exceptional pattern recognition
    Citation needed.

    alternately phrased:
    etc
    are you beginning to detect a pattern here?
    All predicated on you showing that genius actually is, and is nothing more than, "exceptional pattern recognition".

    A) limited possibilities/potentials, limited materials/particles = limited patterns
    B)delineating the interplay of pattern creates (for lack of a better term) beat frequencies
    given one pattern and one beat frequency, the missing pattern becomes obvious
    given 2 beat frequencies, it gets a bit tricky, then see A) above
    WTF?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    cite me dadio
    that's all you need to get started.....

    rephrased for those lacking imagination:

    A) there are limited possibilities for assembly of limited particles requiring different force levels for assembly/construction and disassembly/deconstruction
    there are therefore a limited number of derivable patterns within the physical world
    B) combinations of unique patterns lead to combination patterns with discernable convergences and divergences (which I am calling a "beat frequency" for brevity)

    the rest is obvious
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    cite me dadio
    IOW it's a guess on your part.

    rephrased for those lacking imagination:


    A) there are limited possibilities for assembly of limited particles requiring different force levels for assembly/construction and disassembly/deconstruction
    there are therefore a limited number of derivable patterns within the physical world
    So what?

    B) combinations of unique patterns lead to combination patterns with discernable convergences and divergences (which I am calling a "beat frequency" for brevity)
    So what?

    the rest is obvious
    All that's obvious here is that you have some weird idea in mind and you can't explain it except by repeating obscure overblown rubbish.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    pattern recognition
    silly
    nothing wierd about it

    think about it
    sleep on it
    let it soak in through your pugnacious approach to problem solving / communicating
    (that may take awhile?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    If your best attempt at explaining what you mean is "think about it"...
    Back on the ignore list you go.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thanx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Schlunka......I agree.
    shlunka likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    I am not sure, but I think I understand what Sculptor is saying. ex: You were given 5 books and asked how many ways can they be arranged. The answer is 120 combinations ( 5!=5*4*3*2*1=120 ). No matter how many book you are given, you can find the amount of possible combinations. This is what Sculptor calls A. Given a set of elements, no matter how big, there is a finite number of possible combinations.

    New situation: You must put 10 books on a shelf. After all 10 books are put on the shelf, a little kid will take all the wrongly placed books off the shelf. There are 3,628,800 possible combinations ( 10!=10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1=3,628,800 ). Through random guess work you have 3 books correctly placed. You notice that the 3 correct books were in height order. You put all the books in ascending order. This satisfies the little child. You had an quick sudden thought. When we look at this thought slowed down we observe what Sculptor calls B. The ability to locate a pattern, analyse what is given, and then predict what the hidden parts of the pattern.

    According to Sculptor an entity processes genius if it has A and B. A could be tested with the second problem above. When the entity is left to guess for the correct arrangement it will not repeat guesses. Instead it will try every guess until it finds the correct one. To test for B, give the entity the same problem multiple times with the child always preferring the same pattern. If after several runs, if the entity learned the child's preferred pattern, it will begin with guesses that are similar to the pattern. I used the word "entity" because the test subject could be man, animal, or AI.

    Also, just my thoughts on moral. Morality is an property that every soul has. Soul is defined as the spiritual part of duality. A duality defined as any entity with a physical and a spiritual part. If you were told that 0 degrees C is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point of water, then you could derive a perfectly accurate thermometer. Similarly, Tenver set two points allowing us to derive the morality scale. Values on the morality scale must always be treated as variables. The morality level of a consciousness is changed by actions. It should be noted that thoughts can be actions. A thought of hurting someone can lower's your morality level, while hoping a friend will recover can raise your morality level. The further down the scale a soul is the more a force affects it. Through empirical studies it has been determined that this force causes good to happen to the moral and bad happen to the immoral. The exact nature of this force is up for debate (karma,G-d,luck etc.). That is not for moralists to study. Moralists guide government to outlaw the immoral and allow the moral, resulting in a raised morality level for the collective group in the town, state, country etc.

    O.k. that felt like it took forever. Feel free to ask any questions or voice any concerns.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    sorry bout that duck
    some days I find it difficult to understand when others don't seem to get what i see clearly
    and telling the explanation is a lot like trying to remember how it was that i learned how to ride a bike, and then trying to explain that.
    then, i get frustrated and respond unkindly

    anyway, here's a few links as re genius = pattern recognition:

    Genius sees universal patterns repeating across different fields and levels of existence
    Recognizing Unrecognized Genius | Cadmus Journal

    An intellectual genius is a person who has become an expert in pattern recognition.
    Two Kinds of Genius

    talks to the importance of teaching pattern recognition
    As I See It: Flash of genius - Forbes

    The genius notices patterns or discrepancies that are not obvious to average minded people
    How Does a Genius Think? | eHow

    ..................
    Yeh, what Jewish-Scientist keyboarded in!
    thank you!

    I first began to notice how much I was relying on pattern recognition when comparing knowledge sets across different diciplines and the cognitive/logical patterns inherent within their varied lexicons.
    Language/lexicons is/are a tool/s, every tool is a crutch, lean on a crutch long enough, and you become crippled, which goes unnoticed until you try a different tool.
    We create blind spots in our reasoning based on our languages(maths included) and lexicons.
    And it is in seeking out those blind spots that interdiciplinary pattern recognition becomes another valuable tool.
    ergo: The beat frequency analogy wherein, one may descern convergences and divergences
    once seen, the convergences show where the patterns allign, and the divergences(the real interesting parts) show where the varied diciplines have their gaps or weak spots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    I am not sure, but I think I understand what Sculptor is saying. ex: You were given 5 books and asked how many ways can they be arranged. The answer is 120 combinations ( 5!=5*4*3*2*1=120 ). No matter how many book you are given, you can find the amount of possible combinations. This is what Sculptor calls A. Given a set of elements, no matter how big, there is a finite number of possible combinations.

    New situation: You must put 10 books on a shelf. After all 10 books are put on the shelf, a little kid will take all the wrongly placed books off the shelf. There are 3,628,800 possible combinations ( 10!=10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1=3,628,800 ). Through random guess work you have 3 books correctly placed. You notice that the 3 correct books were in height order. You put all the books in ascending order. This satisfies the little child. You had an quick sudden thought. When we look at this thought slowed down we observe what Sculptor calls B. The ability to locate a pattern, analyse what is given, and then predict what the hidden parts of the pattern.

    According to Sculptor an entity processes genius if it has A and B. A could be tested with the second problem above. When the entity is left to guess for the correct arrangement it will not repeat guesses. Instead it will try every guess until it finds the correct one. To test for B, give the entity the same problem multiple times with the child always preferring the same pattern. If after several runs, if the entity learned the child's preferred pattern, it will begin with guesses that are similar to the pattern. I used the word "entity" because the test subject could be man, animal, or AI.

    Also, just my thoughts on moral. Morality is an property that every soul has. Soul is defined as the spiritual part of duality. A duality defined as any entity with a physical and a spiritual part. If you were told that 0 degrees C is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point of water, then you could derive a perfectly accurate thermometer. Similarly, Tenver set two points allowing us to derive the morality scale. Values on the morality scale must always be treated as variables. The morality level of a consciousness is changed by actions. It should be noted that thoughts can be actions. A thought of hurting someone can lower's your morality level, while hoping a friend will recover can raise your morality level. The further down the scale a soul is the more a force affects it. Through empirical studies it has been determined that this force causes good to happen to the moral and bad happen to the immoral. The exact nature of this force is up for debate (karma,G-d,luck etc.). That is not for moralists to study. Moralists guide government to outlaw the immoral and allow the moral, resulting in a raised morality level for the collective group in the town, state, country etc.

    O.k. that felt like it took forever. Feel free to ask any questions or voice any concerns.
    The definition for all of the 3 things are just definitions, you cannot calculate anything specific with them fron a non-specific definition. It is only a general definition. It is only based on conceptual constructions, not tied to any specific measurements or assumptions about the real world. Any theory of anything must define its conceptions and the constructions that it uses to build its world and these 3 definitions are such possible considerations. They do not tie to anything in the real world in that sense, where you could assign assumed values to variables and so, they are not useful or applicable to calculate anything from. It merely states the rules so to speak, not the data. It is merely connections between logical constructions, rather abstract in their definition themselves. They say nothing about what would be moral for anyone, only what morality is and on which basis its existence should be construed. It is only a definition and is not tied to any assumed specific of reality in a regular sense. Merely abstract conceptions. If it is true though, of an assumed human understanding and construction of reality (reality is itself only a concept for man), then all specific constructions of reality must be based on this definition, else the logic circuit will not follow to completion. It is not tied to any specific (and equally always assumed) construction of reality nor does it lend favor to any one such. If this definition should be logically true though, then all specific constructions of reality must follow this else they will be logically false.

    I liked sculptor's idea as well. Consciousness may well beat with a certain link within the depth of the Universe. In some ways, but probably also in some ways not. If man is part of the Universe, he may well have a certain similarity to all, and so his consciousness may widen and narrow to go in and out of resonance with this beat of the Universe. Some parts of it may be conscious and some parts of it non-conscious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    The soul can be indirectly observable through a strange phenomenon. For several very specific brain diseases the patient would undergo brain surgery with an anesthetic that stops the pain but leaves the patient awake. They decided to try an experiment. They would us a probe to create a current, set off the chain the body naturally undergoes while awake. They expected that by doing this they could make patients move limbs, say words, and even think of a memory. They were able to do all that, but something unexpected happened. When they make the patients do, say or think something the patient would remark "You did that" or something along those lines. Physically, it was the exact same as if the nerve fired on its own, so the patient should not have noticed anything. The fact that they all knew leads to the conclusion that something other than the physical body makes up a whole human. Dualism of man is the idea that people have two parts, a physical body and a spiritual soul. That is a very accurate description of how the patients reacted to the nerve stimulation. If neurology supports the dualism then terms of dualism should be defined. What is a better name for the non-physical part of a human that commands the body than the soul. Sins and merits leave a mark on your soul can be defined as actions. The morality scale is a way to measure souls and actions. The latter terms have real world reference because they describe the duality of man, which is tangible.

    The reason I said values on the scale must be treated as variables is because the best way to compare morality is comparatively ( ex: Person 1 < Person 2 < Person 3 < Person 1 + Person 2 ). Also, as situations change the value of the same actions change. Shooting a stranger is a terrible crime. Shooting a stranger who was trying to kill someone makes you a hero. For the same action to have different values it must be a variable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    If everyone was a genius... then wouldn't nobody be a genius?
    I am inclined to say that the answer is no.
    Huh?
    I agree with Shlunka (but don't tell him, it'll go to his head).
    Genius is defined, roughly, as exceptional intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight.
    How can there be "exceptional" anything if everyone is "exceptional"?
    If we're all incredibly clever then no-one's intelligence will be particularly remarkable - everyone being a genius simply raises the average and puts the upper limits as the norm.

    You are right.
    I recall my answer due to the flawed reasoning behind it.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    54
    Genius has not to do with certain levels of intelligence or ambitious drive... only with creation from conscious processes... no one is a perfect genius or perfectly without genius. Even among popularly recognized geniuses there are differences... all have genius because genius is nothing but conscious creation and all does so to some degree. No one consciously creates everything they do in life just as no one does no conscious creation (even if it is in an infinitesimal range such as for animals). Even the highest incarnation of man does not live without unconscious action just as even the most dumbfounded soul does not live without some conscious creation in their life, even if it is rare and slight. Genius and non-genius is not two distinctly separated categories of men without any differences in them. Genius and non-genius is merely descriptions of the processes of production in a sense.

    There are people who produce more in the way of genius and less in the way of genius... just as there is more towering genius there is more easily approachable genius... most people live rather unconsciously in many ways and this is more without genius (not saying one is better than the other)... genius is ever intensified consciousness in a sense which leads to productive creation... and as such, the creation is very specific and narrow in many senses compared to the many possible experiences of life.
    Einstein is supposed to have said, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” In this way, climbing a tree is wholly out of the consciousness of a fish, but small parts of swimming may be in the consciousness of a fish (though of course, any practical observation is almost, if not completely, futile as it is a fish). Some approach genius more and others less. What varies is the level of conscious creation. A man may do something, and he may do it from production from consciousness or he may do it from unconscious action. In this way, it is open to animals as well even though their species and bodies are probably much less made with consciousness in mind. No man does everything he does from conscious creation just as well that no man does nothing from conscious creation in some way. No man is made up purely of unconscious action. It is a matter of degree and both ways have its positives and negatives furthermore as a side-note in my opinion.

    Consciousness is the activation of a reaction. These reactions are certain kinds that creates what humans have termed consciousness, in my opinion, and therefore some men and some animals are more tuned to genius and also towards generating associations in thought and behavior with morality. Morality is really in many ways a human idea and, personally, I would not be definitely convinced that it exists in a more ontological conception of reality. Man is really the only creature on Earth that thinks of divinity of any kind and, personally, I'm not sure whether that is a sign of the conception of man or a revelation of the origin of the world. There is no creature on Earth that takes man seriously but himself and I can have my doubts as to whether that is an artifact of the human mind or a revelation of God, in some sense.

    Whether one should be of a higher or lower genius is not necessarily a universal interest and if all is condemned and granted to be the speck of dust that he is then any creation is rendered entirely pointless as the true creation would lie with the origin of the Universe, in whatever shape it is. Consciousness and unconsciousness both have the benefits and drawbacks, but at least in a deterministic Universe all singularity is drawn out into one, which is the Universe itself. The human mind is apt at cheating itself with consciousness. It is itself giving birth to and creating itself, much in its own image of the world. A circular argument indeed or itself playing a trick on itself into the abyss of the unknowable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    I am not sure, but I think I understand what Sculptor is saying. ex: You were given 5 books and asked how many ways can they be arranged. The answer is 120 combinations ( 5!=5*4*3*2*1=120 ). No matter how many book you are given, you can find the amount of possible combinations. This is what Sculptor calls A. Given a set of elements, no matter how big, there is a finite number of possible combinations.

    Okay, let's ignore the fact that Genius being [nothing more, or less, than] "exceptional pattern recognition has yet to be established, what does there being a finite possible number of combinations have to do with it?
    IF genius is an ability to recognise existing patterns all that happens with a limited (though large) number of patterns being possible means that, at some, point, genius will run out.
    IF genius is pattern recognition THEN all it's doing is seeing already existing patterns.

    According to Sculptor an entity processes genius if it has A and B. A could be tested with the second problem above. When the entity is left to guess for the correct arrangement it will not repeat guesses. Instead it will try every guess until it finds the correct one.
    What?
    Something has been/ is being very badly explained here. There's no guessing involved - it's seeing and recognising patterns that no one else sees.

    Morality is an property that every soul has.
    Citation needed.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    The soul can be indirectly observable through a strange phenomenon. For several very specific brain diseases the patient would undergo brain surgery with an anesthetic that stops the pain but leaves the patient awake. They decided to try an experiment. They would us a probe to create a current, set off the chain the body naturally undergoes while awake. They expected that by doing this they could make patients move limbs, say words, and even think of a memory. They were able to do all that, but something unexpected happened. When they make the patients do, say or think something the patient would remark "You did that" or something along those lines. Physically, it was the exact same as if the nerve fired on its own, so the patient should not have noticed anything. The fact that they all knew leads to the conclusion that something other than the physical body makes up a whole human. Dualism of man is the idea that people have two parts, a physical body and a spiritual soul. That is a very accurate description of how the patients reacted to the nerve stimulation. If neurology supports the dualism then terms of dualism should be defined. What is a better name for the non-physical part of a human that commands the body than the soul. Sins and merits leave a mark on your soul can be defined as actions. The morality scale is a way to measure souls and actions. The latter terms have real world reference because they describe the duality of man, which is tangible.
    What?
    I mean, just... what?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenver View Post
    Unsupported claims and general waffle deleted
    If you're going to write so much could you please ensure that it's at least part-way accurate/ supported/ coherent.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    anyway, here's a few links as re genius = pattern recognition:
    The majority of those tend to be making unsupported claims amid the general waffle.
    (Or inaccurate ones - the Lorenz anecdote is incorrectly "applied" for example).
    If you substitute the word "connections" for "patterns" I'd be far more sympathetic to your position.
    A connection isn't necessarily a pattern.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Hmm... I think pattern recognition, and I'd add, the ability to think about new patterns, is a very succinct way to describe intelligence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    ... A connection isn't necessarily a pattern.
    No, no it isn't.
    Without further explanation, I still prefer the concept "pattern"
    Assuming the "connections" to be the interface of pattern(s) it still shrinks the meaning I was trying to communicate.
    However, it is the interface between pattern(the connection if you will) wherein lies true insight.
    The pattern of which I speak remains far beyond the simple moment/point of connection, and may be applied to many different interfaces, remaing whole and unaltered, and yet altered within the moment/point of the connections.

    1 + 2 = 3 and yet 1 and 2 remain unchanged by the + or the =
    and 3 then retains within it the 1 and the 2

    too simplistic?
    .....................
    as/re:
    IF genius is pattern recognition THEN all it's doing is seeing already existing patterns.
    Precisely so young sir!

    Which in no way indicates "commonly" seen and/or recognized patterns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    No, no it isn't.
    Without further explanation, I still prefer the concept "pattern"
    The number of patterns - i.e. "meaningful" sequences - is considerably less than the possible number of connections 1.

    1 + 2 = 3 and yet 1 and 2 remain unchanged by the + or the =
    and 3 then retains within it the 1 and the 2
    too simplistic?
    To the extent that I can't see any relevance.

    IF genius is pattern recognition THEN all it's doing is seeing already existing patterns.
    Precisely so young sir!
    Which in no way indicates "commonly" seen and/or recognized patterns.
    Huh?
    I thought the point of genius is that sees "patterns" that aren't commonly recognised.

    1 Anecdotal "evidence" I found a solution to a problem I was working on (graphical solutions for centre of gravity location) while considering a completely different subject (maximum possible forward speed of a single-rotor helicopter) because I saw a connection (swinging arcs) - but I'd never call it a pattern. (Side note - while not exactly "dreaming" it does sort of tie in with this topic: I prefer to call it "decoupling" than dreaming).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    ... I thought the point of genius is that sees "patterns" that aren't commonly recognised.

    1 Anecdotal "evidence" I found a solution to a problem I was working on (graphical solutions for centre of gravity location) while considering a completely different subject (maximum possible forward speed of a single-rotor helicopter) because I saw a connection (swinging arcs) - but I'd never call it a pattern. (Side note - while not exactly "dreaming" it does sort of tie in with this topic: I prefer to call it "decoupling" than dreaming).
    Yes seeing what is not commonly seen.(some days I suspect that we only seem to be using the same language)

    Of Einstein it was said that genius was being able to phrase succinctly what everyone felt intuitively.
    Seeing within to see without, so to speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Of Einstein it was said that genius was being able to phrase succinctly what everyone felt intuitively.
    Nah, it's just pointing out the f*cking obvious to a bunch of blind men.

    Seeing within to see without, so to speak.
    Whut?
    Nothing to do with "seeing within".
    The damn thing's right there, sticking out like a sore thumb!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    hahaha
    pattern baby
    you are predictable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Huh?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    I'm clairvoyant.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    uh huh
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    hi clair
    can I call you clair
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Knew you were going to post that.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    haha
    pattern baby
    pattern
    all is pattern
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    I turned myself into a kitten too. I now have the power to play with yarn and look insatiably adorable.
    babe likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    adorable?
    your avatar?
    not by a long shot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Dog lover.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    arf
    meow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Hmm... I think pattern recognition, and I'd add, the ability to think about new patterns, is a very succinct way to describe intelligence.
    DO you believe that patterns exist in many things we do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Hmm... I think pattern recognition, and I'd add, the ability to think about new patterns, is a very succinct way to describe intelligence.
    DO you believe that patterns exist in many things we do?
    everything
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Hmm... I think pattern recognition, and I'd add, the ability to think about new patterns, is a very succinct way to describe intelligence.
    DO you believe that patterns exist in many things we do?
    Yes....you darn right. I think it's part of the science mindset.
    sculptor and babe like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Lynne_Fox and Sculptor...I totally agree......there are patterns in music and speech also. Character recognation requires the ability to establish a speech pattern, and singing music is about patterning words around phrases.
    Lynx_Fox and sculptor like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    The soul can be indirectly observable through a strange phenomenon. For several very specific brain diseases the patient would undergo brain surgery with an anesthetic that stops the pain but leaves the patient awake. They decided to try an experiment. They would us a probe to create a current, set off the chain the body naturally undergoes while awake. They expected that by doing this they could make patients move limbs, say words, and even think of a memory. They were able to do all that, but something unexpected happened. When they make the patients do, say or think something the patient would remark "You did that" or something along those lines. Physically, it was the exact same as if the nerve fired on its own, so the patient should not have noticed anything. The fact that they all knew leads to the conclusion that something other than the physical body makes up a whole human. Dualism of man is the idea that people have two parts, a physical body and a spiritual soul. That is a very accurate description of how the patients reacted to the nerve stimulation. If neurology supports the dualism then terms of dualism should be defined. What is a better name for the non-physical part of a human that commands the body than the soul. Sins and merits leave a mark on your soul can be defined as actions. The morality scale is a way to measure souls and actions. The latter terms have real world reference because they describe the duality of man, which is tangible.
    Reference this "experiment" for the peer reviewed journal it is published in, please.
    Your description is... difficult to understand and I have no idea who, "they" are. Grays?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    They decided to try an experiment.
    Citation required. (My default position, based on experience at work, is that if people make claims (especially extraordinary ones) without evidence or references then they might as well have made it up; I will therefore assume that no such experiment was performed until shown otherwise.)

    Physically, it was the exact same as if the nerve fired on its own, so the patient should not have noticed anything. The fact that they all knew leads to the conclusion that something other than the physical body makes up a whole human.
    You have fallen into the trap of confirmation bias: "I have a belief; this observation appears to confirm it; therefore my belief must be true; I will ignore any other explanations in case they conflict with my beliefs."

    All this "experiment" shows is that we can tell the difference between the stimulation of a single part of the brain and a similar end result caused by a wider involvement of the brain; i.e. between choosing to do something and being caused to do it.

    Consider a similar experiment where the electrical stimulus was applied to a muscle to make it contract. The subject would (rather obviously) know they weren't responsible for making he muscle move. Does that prove the existence of a soul? No, it just proves we are conscious of doing things.

    Or an even simpler example: when the doc taps your knee to test your reactions. You know you didn't make your leg move. Does that imply the existence of the soul?

    I have just noticed that my heart is beating without me consciously doing it. Does that prove the existence of a soul?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    There may be different definitions of same word depending on from which angle it is made.


    Concisions: I think personally consciousness is a state which show capacity of observation which non-living and some living ones do not have.

    Genius are physically abnormal/extraordinary people , whose this characteristic make them much better performer than most of people in any field which is important for society .

    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You have fallen into the trap of confirmation bias: "I have a belief; this observation appears to confirm it; therefore my belief must be true; I will ignore any other explanations in case they conflict with my beliefs."
    This applies to the vast majority of broken science posts I've seen on here. It should be permanently on my clipboard along with "selective perception".
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenver View Post
    Consciousness is the activation of (a) reaction.
    How do you explain reactions when people are unconscious: asleep, in a coma, etc.

    Genius is conscious creation.
    And yet geniuses often say that insight comes to them when they are not thinking about the problem, when they are asleep, daydreaming, etc.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    As many people pointed out, I did not put a citation for my claim. That was my mistake. Wilder Penfield describes this neurological phenomenon in The Mystery of the Mind. In this book he says, "For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements." on page 80. I defined soul as the non-physical element he concludes must exist.

    I believe we can accept the axiom that Sir Isaac Newton displayed great genius. His famous Theory of Universal Gravitation is really a description of a pattern. Mathematical patterns are based on term number. He created a pattern based on distance, mass, and a previously undefined force (gravity). His Laws of Motion are also patterns he noticed in moving masses. Newton saw patterns in fluid mechanics, light, heat, etc. that others before him missed. Any equation in physics is a highly accurate description of a pattern. Even the Standard Model is a description of a pattern, namely the pattern that fundamental forces and particles follow. The reason we made the Standard Model is because science is looking for a single formula that describes all the patterns this Universe displays. We are looking for a pattern in the patterns.

    According to Sculptor an entity processes genius if it has A and B. A could be tested with the second problem above. When the entity is left to guess for the correct arrangement it will not repeat guesses. Instead it will try every guess until it finds the correct one.What?
    Something has been/ is being very badly explained here. There's no guessing involved - it's seeing and recognising patterns that no one else sees.
    In the problem I described earlier in that post, you had to put books in a pattern (arrangement) which only the child knew. An entity has property 'A' if it realizes there are finite patterns, so it tries every pattern until it finds the correct one. An entity has property 'B' if after doing this exercise several times it learns that one pattern is used the most often. Now when it preforms the exercise, it will no longer try patterns randomly with no pattern being repeated (guessing), but it will try the favored pattern first. An example of this process is a mother with her toddler. The toddler want this a certain way. Because he can not explain why he prefers this pattern, we label it as random, immature, nonsense. However, the mother knows what pattern the toddler likes because she has had to put things in this pattern many times before. Alternatively, she knows why he has this preference. That came from understanding her child better than us, allowing the toddler to "explain" himself. She developed this understanding through spending a great deal of time with the child. In other words, studying the pattern the child uses to communicate. I do not have a citation for this, but there is a simple experiment that show that what I have said is valid. Babysit a toddler for a day. Then observe the mother caring for the same toddler for a day. You will observe the mother understanding the toddler better, resulting in better care.

    You have fallen into the trap of confirmation bias: "I have a belief; this observation appears to confirm it; therefore my belief must be true; I will ignore any other explanations in case they conflict with my beliefs."
    Replace "belief" with "hypothesis", add "preform experiment to gain observations" and stop at the third semicolon to make an simplified empirical method. I use this post as a citation to prove that I do not ignore others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    As many people pointed out, I did not put a citation for my claim. That was my mistake. Wilder Penfield describes this neurological phenomenon in The Mystery of the Mind. In this book he says, "For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements." on page 80. I defined soul as the non-physical element he concludes must exist.
    Without having read the book - I'm having trouble finding a copy - I'd guess that Penfield's "other element" would have been called, by him, mind.
    I suppose you're aware that "soul" has connotations that go far beyond those of "mind"?
    Could you explain why you chose that term and how "soul" differs" from "mind" if in fact it does?
    (And if it doesn't then why did you choose the term with extraneous connotations?)

    Any equation in physics is a highly accurate description of a pattern.
    Is it?

    In the problem I described earlier in that post, you had to put books in a pattern (arrangement) which only the child knew. An entity has property 'A' if it realizes there are finite patterns, so it tries every pattern until it finds the correct one. An entity has property 'B' if after doing this exercise several times it learns that one pattern is used the most often. Now when it preforms the exercise, it will no longer try patterns randomly with no pattern being repeated (guessing), but it will try the favored pattern first. An example of this process is a mother with her toddler. The toddler want this a certain way. Because he can not explain why he prefers this pattern, we label it as random, immature, nonsense. However, the mother knows what pattern the toddler likes because she has had to put things in this pattern many times before. Alternatively, she knows why he has this preference. That came from understanding her child better than us, allowing the toddler to "explain" himself. She developed this understanding through spending a great deal of time with the child. In other words, studying the pattern the child uses to communicate. I do not have a citation for this, but there is a simple experiment that show that what I have said is valid. Babysit a toddler for a day. Then observe the mother caring for the same toddler for a day. You will observe the mother understanding the toddler better, resulting in better care.
    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the child placing books in "patterns", nor the mother "knowing WHY he has this preference".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    As many people pointed out, I did not put a citation for my claim. That was my mistake. Wilder Penfield describes this neurological phenomenon in The Mystery of the Mind.
    Thank you. Not exactly a scientific reference but ...

    In this book he says, "For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements." on page 80. I defined soul as the non-physical element he concludes must exist.
    Firstly, "adopting a hypothesis" is not the same as "concluding must exist".

    Second, despite his careful choice of words, one must assume that Penfield is simply looking for evidence that confirms a belief he already has. After all, many people see the same evidence and conclude it supports the hypothesis that the brain is simply a complex, electrical-chemical mechanism.

    Therefore, no "must" about it.

    I believe we can accept the axiom that Sir Isaac Newton displayed great genius. His famous Theory of Universal Gravitation is really a description of a pattern. ...
    I have no idea what that is all about or why you think it relevant.

    Replace "belief" with "hypothesis", add "preform experiment to gain observations" and stop at the third semicolon to make an simplified empirical method.
    But your "simplified empirical method" is not scientific. In fact it is almost the definition of pseudoscience. A scientific approach would be to test the idea (to destruction, if possible). It would look at alternative causes and effects that could interfere with the result, and then think of experiments to eliminate them (if possible). By "stopping at the third semicolon" you are simply accepting the first hypothesis that occurs to you (or the one you like best) without even attempting to eliminate any others.

    This is what creationists and other assorted cranks do.

    I use this post as a citation to prove that I do not ignore others.
    But you have ignored all the objections I raised to your conclusion.
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by JEWISH-Scientist
    I believe we can accept the axiom that Sir Isaac Newton displayed great genius.
    Isaac Newton had extraordinary brain capabilities that made him able to perform much efficiently in Physics,Math .
    Secondly most possibly he also had received suitable environment around those days and motivation to do his scientific work.
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by JEWISH-Scientist
    An entity has property 'A' if it realizes there are finite patterns, so it tries every pattern until it finds the correct one. An entity has property 'B' if after doing this exercise several times it learns that one pattern is used the most often. Now when it preforms the exercise, it will no longer try patterns randomly with no pattern being repeated (guessing), but it will try the favored pattern first.
    We do what is suited for our goals according to our understanding/thinking/ condition of mind.
    If we do not have capacity to solve a problem, how can we choose that pattern that other genius may choose ?
    Learning and adaptation also depends on our brain+ thinking. We adopt things when we like or think them valuable or they suit us.

    Yes there are many alternative for any thing, but we choose suitable/valuable depending on conditions on brain on that time.
    "No law of Physics is surprising & can not beat commonsense until it does not give enough explanation logically or I did not understand it rightly or simply it is wrong "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    To Dywyddyr - The mind is part of the soul, like how the Id is part of the mind. The soul expresses itself through the mind, which expresses itself through the body. Physical harm damages the body, while food sustains it. Traumatic events, expensively during a person's childhood, damage the mind, while healthy relationships sustain it. Immoral actions damage the soul, while moral actions sustain it.

    In the problem I described earlier in that post, you had to put books in a pattern (arrangement) which only the child knew. An entity has property 'A' if it realizes there are finite patterns, so it tries every pattern until it finds the correct one. An entity has property 'B' if after doing this exercise several times it learns that one pattern is used the most often. Now when it preforms the exercise, it will no longer try patterns randomly with no pattern being repeated (guessing), but it will try the favored pattern first. An example of this process is a mother with her toddler. The toddler want this a certain way. Because he can not explain why he prefers this pattern, we label it as random, immature, nonsense. However, the mother knows what pattern the toddler likes because she has had to put things in this pattern many times before. Alternatively, she knows why he has this preference. That came from understanding her child better than us, allowing the toddler to "explain" himself. She developed this understanding through spending a great deal of time with the child. In other words, studying the pattern the child uses to communicate. I do not have a citation for this, but there is a simple experiment that show that what I have said is valid. Babysit a toddler for a day. Then observe the mother caring for the same toddler for a day. You will observe the mother understanding the toddler better, resulting in better care.
    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the child placing books in "patterns", nor the mother "knowing WHY he has this preference".
    If the child's father made sure the books were always in a desired pattern, then the child learned that this was the "correct" way to organize these books. The mother could know this, so would always put them back that way to make the child happy. If she didn't know this, then she would put then that way through trial and error. Eventually she will figure out how the child likes the books to be arranged.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    As many people pointed out, I did not put a citation for my claim. That was my mistake. Wilder Penfield describes this neurological phenomenon in The Mystery of the Mind.
    Thank you. Not exactly a scientific reference but ...


    In this book he says, "For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements." on page 80. I defined soul as the non-physical element he concludes must exist.
    Firstly, "adopting a hypothesis" is not the same as "concluding must exist".


    Second, despite his careful choice of words, one must assume that Penfield is simply looking for evidence that confirms a belief he already has. After all, many people see the same evidence and conclude it supports the hypothesis that the brain is simply a complex, electrical-chemical mechanism.


    Therefore, no "must" about it.


    I believe we can accept the axiom that Sir Isaac Newton displayed great genius. His famous Theory of Universal Gravitation is really a description of a pattern. ...
    I have no idea what that is all about or why you think it relevant.


    Replace "belief" with "hypothesis", add "preform experiment to gain observations" and stop at the third semicolon to make an simplified empirical method.
    But your "simplified empirical method" is not scientific. In fact it is almost the definition of pseudoscience. A scientific approach would be to test the idea (to destruction, if possible). It would look at alternative causes and effects that could interfere with the result, and then think of experiments to eliminate them (if possible). By "stopping at the third semicolon" you are simply accepting the first hypothesis that occurs to you (or the one you like best) without even attempting to eliminate any others.


    This is what creationists and other assorted cranks do.


    I use this post as a citation to prove that I do not ignore others.
    But you have ignored all the objections I raised to your conclusion.
    -How is a book written by an expert in the field not a valid reference.
    -I am using the axiomatic method for discussing morality. I said, "If you accept the soul exist, then..." You asked why you should accept the soul's existence. I gave an example where the idea of the soul was empirically supported.
    -What Wilder Penfield is saying is that the mind is not simply the brain and the electro-chemical reactions within in it. If you claim it is, then you are ignoring the data.
    -If we accept that Newton displayed genius and analyze what he did, then you can form an accepted definition of genius.
    -Everything you described between "A scientific..." and "...(if possible)" can be simplified to "preform experiments and make observations".
    -After the trird semicolon you wrote,
    I will ignore any other explanations in case they conflict with my beliefs.
    so how can you say,
    By "stopping at the third semicolon" you are simply accepting the first hypothesis that occurs to you (or the one you like best) without even attempting to eliminate any others.
    -I use the a list of points I made to your objections are proof that I do not,
    ...you have ignored all the objections I raised to your conclusion.
    To RAJ_K - I agree, Newton's environment allowed him to express his natural genius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    49
    I almost forgot; Dywyddyr, Mystery of the Mind by Wilder Penfield is avalible on amazon here.
    Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain: Wilder Penfield: 9780691023601: Amazon.com: Books
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    -How is a book written by an expert in the field not a valid reference.
    Did I say it was not a "valid reference"? No. (How are the reading comprehension classes working out for you?) I said it was not a scientific reference. That is because (I'll type this slowly so you can keep up) it is a book. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

    He obviously wrote the book to present his philosophy and dig up some anecdotes that he thinks support it. (A bit like you and your closed minded approach to reality.)

    -I am using the axiomatic method for discussing morality. I said, "If you accept the soul exist, then..." You asked why you should accept the soul's existence. I gave an example where the idea of the soul was empirically supported.
    We can make up an infinite number of such counter-factuals. "If you accept that invisible pink unicorns exist then ..." and dig up some evidence that can be interpreted as supporting it. But that is not how science works. (I know it is how closed minded cranks defend their beliefs, though.)

    -What Wilder Penfield is saying is that the mind is not simply the brain and the electro-chemical reactions within in it. If you claim it is, then you are ignoring the data.
    No, I am interpreting the data in a different way. The data can clearly be taken to show that the brain is a "machine" which can be stimulated electrically to reproduce its normal effects. In the same way that electrical signals can make muscles move (does that require something invisible outside the muscle?) Or the same way that a doctors mallet can make you leg kick (does that mean there is some invisible force involved?)

    so how can you say,
    By "stopping at the third semicolon" you are simply accepting the first hypothesis that occurs to you (or the one you like best) without even attempting to eliminate any others.
    Because you do. You have a conclusion and look for evidence that confirms it. You will not accept an alternative conclusion based on the evidence. When the evidence disagrees with your conclusion you ignore the evidence or claim it isn't valid. This is pseudoscience and crackpottery. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    To Dywyddyr - The mind is part of the soul, like how the Id is part of the mind.
    No.
    To claim that you first have to show that the soul exists.
    I asked - Could you explain why you chose that term and how "soul" differs" from "mind" if in fact it does?
    You have not done so, you have not even attempted to do so.
    All you've done is make an unsupported claim.

    The soul expresses itself through the mind, which expresses itself through the body.
    In order for this to be true you'd have to show that the soul does in fact exist.

    Immoral actions damage the soul, while moral actions sustain it.
    Empty claim.

    If the child's father made sure the books were always in a desired pattern, then the child learned that this was the "correct" way to organize these books. The mother could know this, so would always put them back that way to make the child happy. If she didn't know this, then she would put then that way through trial and error. Eventually she will figure out how the child likes the books to be arranged.
    Yeah. Basically "Blah blah blah". You've know gone from knowing why the child did it to knowing THAT the father did it.
    Apart from the fact that all you've done is move the problem back one step you've also negated your own argument - learning why the child did it from observing the child. In the case you've just mentioned the mother knows due to knowledge of the father's behaviour.


    -How is a book written by an expert in the field not a valid reference.
    Because books aren't peer reviewed. You can get away with any old crap in a book.

    I gave an example where the idea of the soul was empirically supported.
    No you haven't.

    -What Wilder Penfield is saying is that the mind is not simply the brain and the electro-chemical reactions within in it. If you claim it is, then you are ignoring the data.
    I'll try again: how does mind (which IS empirically supported) differ from soul (which is not only not empirically supported but has no evidence at all)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    I almost forgot; Dywyddyr, Mystery of the Mind by Wilder Penfield is avalible on amazon here.
    Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain: Wilder Penfield: 9780691023601: Amazon.com: Books
    Yes thank you. I was utterly unaware of Amazon.
    Maybe if you learned to understand context you could have saved yourself the effort of typing that.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    To Dywyddyr - The mind is part of the soul, like how the Id is part of the mind.
    No.
    To claim that you first have to show that the soul exists.
    I asked - Could you explain why you chose that term and how "soul" differs" from "mind" if in fact it does?
    You have not done so, you have not even attempted to do so.
    All you've done is make an unsupported claim.


    The soul expresses itself through the mind, which expresses itself through the body.
    In order for this to be true you'd have to show that the soul does in fact exist.

    Immoral actions damage the soul, while moral actions sustain it.
    Empty claim.

    If the child's father made sure the books were always in a desired pattern, then the child learned that this was the "correct" way to organize these books. The mother could know this, so would always put them back that way to make the child happy. If she didn't know this, then she would put then that way through trial and error. Eventually she will figure out how the child likes the books to be arranged.
    Yeah. Basically "Blah blah blah". You've know gone from knowing why the child did it to knowing THAT the father did it.
    Apart from the fact that all you've done is move the problem back one step you've also negated your own argument - learning why the child did it from observing the child. In the case you've just mentioned the mother knows due to knowledge of the father's behaviour.


    -How is a book written by an expert in the field not a valid reference.
    Because books aren't peer reviewed. You can get away with any old crap in a book.

    I gave an example where the idea of the soul was empirically supported.
    No you haven't.

    -What Wilder Penfield is saying is that the mind is not simply the brain and the electro-chemical reactions within in it. If you claim it is, then you are ignoring the data.
    I'll try again: how does mind (which IS empirically supported) differ from soul (which is not only not empirically supported but has no evidence at all)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewish-Scientist View Post
    I almost forgot; Dywyddyr, Mystery of the Mind by Wilder Penfield is avalible on amazon here.
    Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain: Wilder Penfield: 9780691023601: Amazon.com: Books
    Yes thank you. I was utterly unaware of Amazon.
    Maybe if you learned to understand context you could have saved yourself the effort of typing that.

    Sir Duckness. I have always rather considered the soul is the mind. Your mind is who you are. Would that not also be your soul? I am not speaking a spiritual thing. But when you die, the person who was you is gone. So, and correct me if I am wrong, that they are one and the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Sir Duckness. I have always rather considered the soul is the mind. Your mind is who you are. Would that not also be your soul? I am not speaking a spiritual thing. But when you die, the person who was you is gone. So, and correct me if I am wrong, that they are one and the same?
    But, as I pointed out earlier, the word "soul" has connotations. Supernatural ones. In fact soul is generally used to mean "the part of you that doesn't die".
    And while I have no overall obection to "soul" being used to mean "mind" 1 provided it is clearly understood by all that that is what is meant, Jewish-Scientist 2 has clearly differentiated betwen the two - "The mind is part of the soul".

    1 In the context of "everything other than physical appearance that makes you you".
    2 I really wish he'd change his user name since "scientist" is most definitely NOT what he is.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Sir Duckness. I have always rather considered the soul is the mind. Your mind is who you are. Would that not also be your soul? I am not speaking a spiritual thing. But when you die, the person who was you is gone. So, and correct me if I am wrong, that they are one and the same?
    But, as I pointed out earlier, the word "soul" has connotations. Supernatural ones. In fact soul is generally used to mean "the part of you that doesn't die".
    And while I have no overall obection to "soul" being used to mean "mind" 1 provided it is clearly understood by all that that is what is meant, Jewish-Scientist 2 has clearly differentiated betwen the two - "The mind is part of the soul".

    1 In the context of "everything other than physical appearance that makes you you".
    2 I really wish he'd change his user name since "scientist" is most definitely NOT what he is.
    Then I believe we agree. Thank you for your answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The genius of Descartes
    By Olly in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 18th, 2010, 09:16 AM
  2. Can you be a Genius without being smart?
    By Booms in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2008, 06:25 PM
  3. What Makes a Genius?
    By Infinitism in forum Biology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2008, 03:40 AM
  4. Boy Genius is HERE! :)
    By Boy Genius in forum Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 21st, 2008, 05:41 AM
  5. Dear Genius's YOUR help is needed
    By Theoryofrelativity in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: November 19th, 2007, 07:51 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •