Mind

[Luc Turpin]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who is this we, of which you speak?

Humankind, and especially those that consider humankind special.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Humankind, and especially those that consider humankind special.

Well, that's more of a religious perspective, scientist's tend to consider the evidence before they declare that 'we' are special; you seem to be presenting the antipode, which makes you kinda religious.

I'm not special, nor am I a rock, but I can think and I can comunicate that thinking to a fellow human; the problem you have is Dr Doolittle can't tell you how special a dog is, bc you don't speak the langauge,,,

[Luc Turpin]

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

These might be useful in approaching the study of mind.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-scientists-10-commandments/

 

Sure, it’s important to have ideas, formulate hypotheses, and then devise methods to test those hypotheses, gather results, and draw conclusions that either support and validate or contradict and refute those hypotheses: the rough outline of how science is performed. But there’s so much more that goes into being a scientist that gets to the very core of what it means to investigate the origin, nature, and root cause of any phenomena that we dare to observe, design experiments around, and measure. Here, without further ado, are the 10 commandments that anyone who wishes to conduct good, quality science needs to follow...

 

1.) Thou shalt not assume thy preferred conclusion is correct.

2.) Thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions.

3.) Thou shalt remember the limits of thy theory’s range of validity, and only extend it cautiously.

4.) Thou shalt make public thy data, methods, and results, for all to consider and scrutinize.

5.) Thou shalt remain tenaciously skeptical of any hypothesis that thou encounters.

6.) Thou shalt quantify, respect, and not minimize thine sources of error and thy potential biases.

7.) Thou shalt not accept a new theory as representative of reality until it clears all three of the necessary, critical hurdles.

8.) Thou shalt obtain approval and consent from all relevant bodies before conducting research that may impact others.

9.) Thou shalt not exaggerate the significance of thine results in thine studies.

10.) Thou shalt hold even the best of scientific theories, models, and frameworks as provisional only, and constantly seek to test, revise, and refine them.

Relevant information, but I am not doing science. I am unabashedly and “biasly” presenting one facet of the mind-body conundrum. I do so for the following reasons:

• to present the version of the mind-brain conundrum that is being ignored by the scientific community (it needs attention);
• to ignore the other version as it is well represented (me against all of you) and purportedly the only game in town (none more attention needed);
• to ensure that the scientific community abides by the second commandment that "thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions."

It will then be the responsibility of the scientific community to do good science in uncovering what is really going on with mind and brain.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, that's more of a religious perspective, scientist's tend to consider the evidence before they declare that 'we' are special; you seem to be presenting the antipode, which makes you kinda religious.

I'm not special, nor am I a rock, but I can think and I can comunicate that thinking to a fellow human; the problem you have is Dr Doolittle can't tell you how special a dog is, bc you don't speak the langauge,,,

1- With all of the evidence available, what would still make some scientists think that mind is contained to human brains?

2- We are starting to understand the language of the living... The Secret Language of Cells by Jon Lieff......whale communication....'Sperm whales communicate with each other using rhythmic sequences of clicks, called codas. It was previously thought that sperm whales had just 21 coda types. However, after studying almost 9,000 recordings, the Ceti researchers identified 156 distinct codas."  We are slowly but surely decoding the languages of other living species as well.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-the-sperm-whale-phonetic-alphabet-revealed-by-ai

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Relevant information, but I am not doing science. I am unabashedly and “biasly” presenting one facet of the mind-body conundrum. I do so for the following reasons:

• to present the version of the mind-brain conundrum that is being ignored by the scientific community (it needs attention);
• to ignore the other version as it is well represented (me against all of you) and purportedly the only game in town (none more attention needed);
• to ensure that the scientific community abides by the second commandment that "thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions."

It will then be the responsibility of the scientific community to do good science in uncovering what is really going on with mind and brain.

1- With all of the evidence available, what would still make some scientists think that mind is contained to human brains?

2- We are starting to understand the language of the living... The Secret Language of Cells by Jon Lieff......whale communication....'Sperm whales communicate with each other using rhythmic sequences of clicks, called codas. It was previously thought that sperm whales had just 21 coda types. However, after studying almost 9,000 recordings, the Ceti researchers identified 156 distinct codas."  We are slowly but surely decoding the languages of other living species as well.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-the-sperm-whale-phonetic-alphabet-revealed-by-ai

 

[Luc Turpin]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

Good one! 😊

Illogical, I am not though; just trying to set things up for good science to occur.

I contend that I might be wrong; does the other side do so as well ?

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

 

Also, you are the only one on this forum that has provided information on both sides of the debate.

So, you are less biased than others and me on this forum.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Illogical, I am not though; just trying to set things up for good science to occur.

But what you propose is not science. You said it yourself - what you’re discussing is not science. It’s not particularly coherent, either. 

[Luc Turpin]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

But what you propose is not science. You said it yourself - what you’re discussing is not science. It’s not particularly coherent, either. 

Proposing a hypothesis and have it bashed about by others is not part of the scientific process?

Where I diverge with science is when I say that more than science (including it) will possibly be required to crack the mind nut. "A combination of top-down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff and I. And I add that both objectivity and subjectivity will be required for a fuller understanding of mind as I am not sure that "causal organization" squarely touches upon the latter part (subjectivity) of the requirement.

I admit to not always being coherent, but I am not always incoherent.

I submit regular summaries to try and establish where we are at with and inject coherence in the discussion.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Relevant information, but I am not doing science.

!

Moderator Note

And this is why we ask for evidence in the mainstream sections. 14 pages of not doing science and you've failed to convince anybody that your concepts are valid.

If you feel you could support a Speculation with your arguments, open a thread there. This one is closed.