| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| then it can never be beyond scrutiny. |
And it isn't. Science is scrutinized very well actually. It's very hard to bring up a new idea without proof. It is the EXACT opposite for religion though. There is no scrutiny, just "faith".
I am not commenting on anything else as I have already done that, just the quoted part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Mathematical symbolism no matter how complicated or sophisticated, is incapable of relaying the information of what it actually means to see a particular color or hear a particular sound to someone who is blind or deaf. |
But colors and sound can be described using math. Different colors are just different wavelengths and combinations of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Sound is even easier: it's simply a compression wave in a physical medium.
I'm particularly obsessed with sound. Did you know that it sounds "right" to most people in the world to have a dominant minor seventh chord resolve to the tonic? It sounds like an ending. If we look at the harmonic spectrum of the dominant minor seventh chord we find that there is no trace of the tonic. For some reason our ears crave what is missing. Many composers in the classical and romantic eras would put alternating dominant and tonic chords at the end of a piece to give that extra kick of finality, sometimes excessively. Jazz composers will sometimes end a piece on the dominant and leave us hanging.
I digress.
My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Mathematical symbolism no matter how complicated or sophisticated, is incapable of relaying the information of what it actually means to see a particular color or hear a particular sound to someone who is blind or deaf. |
But colors and sound can be described using math. Different colors are just different wavelengths and combinations of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Sound is even easier: it's simply a compression wave in a physical medium.
I'm particularly obsessed with sound. Did you know that it sounds "right" to most people in the world to have a dominant minor seventh chord resolve to the tonic? It sounds like an ending. If we look at the harmonic spectrum of the dominant minor seventh chord we find that there is no trace of the tonic. For some reason our ears crave what is missing. Many composers in the classical and romantic eras would put alternating dominant and tonic chords at the end of a piece to give that extra kick of finality, sometimes excessively. Jazz composers will sometimes end a piece on the dominant and leave us hanging.
I digress.
My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
Of course, frequencies, wavelengths, energies, etc. can be easily described mathematically to all observers. However, I think you have missed my whole point.
There are the physical properties of light and sound, and then there is the internal perception of color and sound in the mind.
For example, how do you know that you see the same color of an object that I see (for the sake of argument, we are looking at the same thing)? We might both say the object is green, but how could we ever know that we are seeing the same green? Perhaps, due to differences in our perception my green is actually your red. We will never be able to find out.
Ultimately, it is impossible for mathematics to fully describe the qualitative experience of one conscious being to another.
The other problem is that there is no sensible reason from a pure physics point of view, that would explain why we have consciousness. Really, we should be nothing other than extremely complicated biological robots.
Yet, I, for one, have consciousness. I assume other people have consciousness, but I have no way to prove this. Maybe, everyone else really are just extremely complicated biological robots.
Perhaps, my cat back home in America is just a biological robot. He interacts with people and cats solely due to the internal firings of electrical impulses in his brain and other internal happenings of his neural machinery. There is no consciousness, no awareness of any kind whatsoever.
Yet, I find this impossible to believe. My cat seems have many symptoms of consciousness, but how I could ever prove his consciousness with certainty? It is in fact impossible for me to know. I can only take it on faith that my cat has consciousness, albeit a lower level of consciousness than mine.
The various properties of matter are computable from physics, but how could one ever compute consciousness from physics? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Of course, frequencies, wavelengths, energies, etc. can be easily described mathematically to all observers. However, I think you have missed my whole point. |
I think you missed my whole point, which was:
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
Berkeley's arguments for subjectivism have been around for 300 years. We've come a long way since his time.
| Konglishman wrote: |
| The various properties of matter are computable from physics, but how could one ever compute consciousness from physics? |
It can be shown that some perceptions are near universal: the dominant-tonic resolution in music. The presence of such universal perceptions may one day enable us to measure consciousness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can theoretically measure material things associated with consciousness, but you can't measure pure consciousness taken as a symptom of the eternal soul.
As far as sound goes, transcendental sound (from beyond the material universes) penetrates all material coverings and is the key to liberation.
A pretty comprehensive article about the Vedic conception of sound (touching on the "creation and origin of sound" and "human sound creation") is found here:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/vedicsound.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
Berkeley's arguments for subjectivism have been around for 300 years. We've come a long way since his time. |
What about taste? Why do I like pudding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
Berkeley's arguments for subjectivism have been around for 300 years. We've come a long way since his time. |
What about taste? Why do I like pudding? |
Because you need sugar? Because pudding kicks ass?
Notice the "maybe"s and the "may"s in my posts. I certainly don't have all the answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
Berkeley's arguments for subjectivism have been around for 300 years. We've come a long way since his time. |
What about taste? Why do I like pudding? |
I actually saw a really interesting talk on TED about this yesterday, or at least partly about this, by Malcolm Gladwell. Basically people don't really know what they like in food, or at least don't tell freely what they like.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| You can theoretically measure material things associated with consciousness, but you can't measure pure consciousness taken as a symptom of the eternal soul. |
Of course we can't measure your ineffable, infinitely conscious ideal. The idea that we should even try to is ridiculous.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| As far as sound goes, transcendental sound (from beyond the material universes) penetrates all material coverings and is the key to liberation. |
I think your and my ideas of what constitutes sound differ drastically. Let's just leave it at that.
A definition of sound from this article:
| Article wrote: |
| "Persons who are learned and who have true knowledge define sound as that which conveys the idea of an object, indicates the presence of a speaker and constitutes the subtle form of ether." |
This is fine until the "subtle form of ether" bit where it loses it. Most of the rest of the article, if you'll excuse me, is a bunch of quackery.
I did kind of like this tidbit:
| Article wrote: |
| ...sound must be a product of consciousness. |
It made me think the same way John Cage's 4:33 made me think. The essence of sound (or music) is really in the listener's interpretation, and so in that way it is a product of consciousness; however, I'm also of the ilk that I believe a tree falling in the forest does make a sound (ie a compression wave in the surroundings) whether there is anyone/thing there to hear it or not, and would argue that that sound exists independent of any consciousness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: Konglishman |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Konglishman wrote: |
| Of course, frequencies, wavelengths, energies, etc. can be easily described mathematically to all observers. However, I think you have missed my whole point. |
I think you missed my whole point, which was:
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| My point is: if there are universals to perception then maybe the nature of such isn't so unquantifiable after all. |
Berkeley's arguments for subjectivism have been around for 300 years. We've come a long way since his time.
| Konglishman wrote: |
| The various properties of matter are computable from physics, but how could one ever compute consciousness from physics? |
It can be shown that some perceptions are near universal: the dominant-tonic resolution in music. The presence of such universal perceptions may one day enable us to measure consciousness. |
I agree that it would seem certain that there are laws which must govern perception. As for the univeral perceptions, I assume you are referring to the five senses and other senses common to animals.
However, I doubt that these near universal perceptions have much to do with these laws of perception.
More likely, in my opinion, these near universal perceptions came about due to the nature of the evolution of the animal mind (which includes humans) and survival of the fittest. Other qualitative perceptions did not make the cut because they were not as useful for the survival of the organism. Finally, these near universal perceptions probably only appear universal because all of the animals on Earth are related.
Finally, I have no idea who this Berkeley is that you are talking about. Nor do I know what subjectivism is although I suspect I know what it is given the context of what we are talking about.
Actually, I have been thinking about these things ever since I was a teenager. If there has been anyone who has helped inform my thinking on this matter, then that would be Roger Penrose.
Last edited by Konglishman on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George Berkeley was an Irish Bishop/philosopher who was a big proponent of the idea that our perceptions of color are subjective. In fact, he thought everything was subjective to individual perception.
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philberkeley.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| You can theoretically measure material things associated with consciousness, but you can't measure pure consciousness taken as a symptom of the eternal soul. |
Yes but so what. The man with the ruler may measure his daughter's height and feel good he's able to nourish her so she can grow but he knows his ruler can't measure how happy she is.
Still waiting how your vedic conception of reality explains the origin of carbon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
The simple explanation is that all chemicals (and everything else) are produced by God, and by His unlimited intelligence chemicals are combined in the precise way needed to create life.
Rather than focusing on the chemicals and trying to imitate God's combining them to create life, intelligent people should focus on trying to understand God.
http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2005/02/Life_Comes_From_Life.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| The simple explanation is that all chemicals (and everything else) are produced by God, and by His unlimited intelligence chemicals are combined in the precise way needed to create life. |
No. The Staypuff Marshmallow Man did it. Again, how do we determine whose model better approximates reality? Simply saying "god/xenu/Zeus did it" isn't an explanation.
Whenever you just say "god did it", it always reminds me of an opening scene in a Douglas Adams book:
| Quote: |
| No cause could be found for the explosion. It seemed to have happened spontaneously and of its own free will. Explanations were advanced, but most of these were simply phrases which restated the problem in different words, along the same principles which had given the world "metal fatigue". |
| Quote: |
| Rather than focusing on the chemicals and trying to imitate God's combining them to create life |
You say that until you're hit by a bus and then you're suddenly glad some people focused on chemicals and tried to imitate life and who it can all save a human life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can never figure out why science or religion have to be mutually exclusive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
