Your suggestions is nonsense, by your own logic. Even when we *could* observe which neural pathways are involved with making a specific decission (something we absolutely CAN NOT do with current-day technology), a skeptical objection analogous to your own, like 'we don't know what the monkey REALLY experienced!' still flies. So either:
1. You should retract your skeptical objection to the orginal experiment, or 2. You should retract your 'solution' as it is 'observational science' (as opposed to what?) as well.
Now, in a general sense they are part of the process Just what I was saying.
your neurons, taken as a whole, however, are quite self-aware They are not, not even 'taken as a whole' (whatever that might be). I am self aware. Furthermore, I am not my neurons (as is evidenced by your example of brain damage).
Well, most of the matter that makes up human beings has no awareness whatsoever. Only those portions that take part in the higher-order neurological functions are part of that process. My neurons are not self-aware. They supposedly play a role in creating my self-awareness, but the same goes for my hands, my vocal cords, and arguably every other body part that I am aware of.
Shit-in-a-can is a new product but realistic-looking CGI porn is, when it's done correctly, indistinguishable from _real_ porn which makes it totally irrelevant if it was filmed or rendered in the first place...
Unless ofcourse, CGI-porn is something different and does _not_ look completely realistic. And that 's what you said in this post of course, I know that.
But whatever you say here is something else and, well, economic nonsense, because it seems to imply a novel way of producing the same stuff opens up a new market, quod non.
>You were wired a particular way at birth, and now your wiring has been changed by your experiences.
Nowhere have I said that I don't agree with this view, in THIS formulation. I only object to dualistic formulations. Why do I have to stress this so often? I'm on your side! I just don't want dualistic, flawed, meaningless concepts frustrating proper research...
Don't say: brain = person (for it is clearly not) Don't say: our brain thinks (for we do the thinking, with our brain. Compare: "Our legs walk" with "We walk with our legs".) Don't say: our brain dictates (because how can we understand our brain then?)
This is a delicate matter, no need to cloud our vision with semi-dualistic nonsense. Just say what you mean in the first place, and be prepared to answer questions on how you say things. Or else we'll get bogged up in attention = consciousness research again, e.g.
I've done numerous classes on neurology (and philosophy, and neural networks, machine learning, neurophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, etc.) in university, and I would have found the amount of conceptual confusion in psychology to be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
> Go read a book on neural networks. In fact, read several.
Another testimonium paupertatis, you have understood NOTHING of where I am coming from and why I take issue with certain formulations.
> There is no dualism. That's the point.
Then don't talk like there is!
> There are [sic] nothing subtle about any of it.
Clearly, you misunderstand.
> When you bring soul into it, you bring religion into it,
Easy there cowboy! Go grep for `soul' in my posts!
> Petrified doctrine and dogma is exactly what you have expressed, which is not the ability to learn, but to believe.
You misunderstand.
> If I didn't have anything to contribute to the discussion then why did you bother to reply?
First, to answer a question, and after that, to defend myself from people accusing me of things I have not said.
In closing I will REPEAT, that I SINCERELY think that personality comes from the brain, and that I ONLY OBJECT to certain FORMULATIONS of certain philosophical positions...
Come on, please, please, please, don't be silly and presume I believe in Cartesian dualism, don't presume I believe mind and body are unrelated, or ontologically seperate, just READ what I say and THINK about your formulations...
(they could have used some thinking)
> Our brains dictate to us who we are.
Please explain this remark to me, I have a few questions:
1) Our brain `dictates'? Does that mean it speaks to `us'? Communicates with `us'? How? In some kind of language?
2) And we, presumably, have to understand our brain in order for it to dictate stuff to us.
So, how do we communicate with our brain? In what language? How can we understand our brain?
Leading to question...
3) What enables `us' to speak the language our brain speaks? With WHAT do we understand our brain?
It logically, cannot be our brain...
(Pause.)
(Think.)
(Think harder.)
(Read that last remark again.)
(Think again.)
Please realise, that if our brain communicates with us, we cannot use our brain to understand that communication, because we are trying to communicate with our brain in the first place.
It would be like trying to communicate with a Russian, who is your interpreter, but who only speaks Russian: you need an interpreter to talk to your interpreter, but to do that you need an interpreter, etc. etc.
Try to understand this; I know you are not a philosopher! It's a very important point! If our brain `talks' to us, or `shows' us things, or `thinks for' us, WHAT DO WE USE TO INTERPRET THOSE THINGS OUR BRAIN SHOWS/SAYS/THINKS?
>I hate to have to burst your philosophical bubbles, but the reason for the development of western philosophy in the first place was a lack of understanding, particularly of this very topic.
You have no right to talk about `western philosophy' if you so obviously grasp so very little of it.
If you do not understand how this horrid brain=mind/person/soul conceptual mess can only lead to scientific stagnation, to dogma, to petrified doctrine, pleae be a good person and leave the conceptual subtleties to philosophers.
(It's not like you have anything to contribute.)
If you still think I am wrong, please, answer my questions... or if you did-not-mean-that-when-you-said-that, explain to me WHAT you meant.
If western philosophy is all about understanding, allow ME to ask for explanation.
If western philosophy is all about asking for clarification, allow ME to ask for clarification.
First. I am a proponent of AI, you won't see me attacking the Turing Test. You seem to be ascribing certain convictions to me which I have in no way expressed.
But anyway,
You seem to define 'person' as the whole system: brain and body.
No. A brain is part of a body. Furthermore, I have not defined `person' anywhere and I have no need to do so.
I'd happily apply the word 'person' to a biologically normal human being, to a brain in a crippled body communicating by speech synthesiser, to a brain in a vat communicating only by computer, and to an artificial intelligence that passes the Turing test.
I'm mostly ok with that. But you really should phrase "a brain in a crippled body communicating by speech synthesiser" as "a person with a crippled body communicating by speech synthesiser" for reasons explained in my previous posts.
You say `I am a person, implemented as a brain, resident inside a head'.
This simply does not make sense.
You do not reside in your head. You reside in a house. (I presume).
Is the car the same car after fueling? After an oil change? After a new engine has been put in? After a paint job?
See, the same kinds of questions can be asked about something totally unrelated to neuroscience, and this is a huge clue.
And, don't make the mistake to presume these questions about cars can be answered by car mechanics. Where would they start? How would they determine what constitutes a car without engaging in reflection on concepts, viz. philosophy?
Second: I am not referring to the effects of hormones.
Third: I am only objecting to the "the brain is the person"-answer to the question on how personality is related to the body: the mind-body problem.
Clearly, I am a person, and I have a brain in my head. I don't think you can object to this.
But if you say a person is a brain (and, presumably, a brain is a person), you should believe all these sentences mean the exact same thing:
I am a person, and I have a brain in my head. I am a brain, and I have a brain in my head. I am a person, and I have a person in my head. I am a brain, and I have a person in my head.
Mostly nonsense of course. So clearly, a brain IS NOT a person.
Nevertheless, if you ask me if personality is `stored' in the brain, or something analogous to that, I would probably agree. There has been ample evidence of the fact that brain damage can cause severe personality changes, the case of Phineas Gage comes -- obviously -- to mind.
But believing that "a brain is a person" is, as Hacker & Bennett argue, committing a mereological fallacy, that is, confusing wholes and parts of things.
Ok, thanks. So selling both versions at the same price is still ok?
But considering WMP is pushed quite a bit in WindowsUpdate and WMP itself is `free' while its rival products are not, this doesn't really promote competition does it:
Windows + (something else):.costs X+Y (Y>0, I assume) Windows + WMP:..............costs X Windows:....................costs X
So unless Windows without WMP *has* to be cheaper, or RealPlayer/QuickTime/Whatever are given away for free, the Microsoft deal is still better, right?
> and no, buying WineX and dealing with the > emulation layer isn't good enough
Why not? Why make this distinction when almost your entire list consists of 3rd party software anyway.
Compare:
`OSX can't open MS Office documents either, but it *can* run software that can.'
with
`Linux can't play Warcraft 3, but it *can* run software that can.'
See?
Oh, and btw, I am *not* claiming Linux can do everything OSX can do (you've got a point with the waking up in less then a second AFAIK), I'm just pointing out your logical errors.
I bet those extraterrestrials will shoot down our military satellites with their highly advanced photon-lasers (incorporating nano-technology on a MACROSCOPIC level!)
Without knowing what Hitler would do later on? Starting another war with Germany? Do you think the people of GB/France/Belgium would have agreed to that?
Slashdot Mirror
If they made Quake too easy, let's all play XPilot!
http://www.xpilot.org/
Your suggestions is nonsense, by your own logic. Even when we *could* observe which neural pathways are involved with making a specific decission (something we absolutely CAN NOT do with current-day technology), a skeptical objection analogous to your own, like 'we don't know what the monkey REALLY experienced!' still flies. So either:
1. You should retract your skeptical objection to the orginal experiment, or
2. You should retract your 'solution' as it is 'observational science' (as opposed to what?) as well.
It is a category mistake to suggest otherwise.
> I have yet to see too many kids raised thinking the world revolves around Linux
> based IDEs.
And when you'll see them, what then?
Security comes from the junta.
Which is analogous to saying that if you can't see one molecule, you can't see a bunch of them together!
Hey wait a minute! We are invisible already!
Don't you understand?
Shit-in-a-can is a new product but realistic-looking CGI porn is, when it's done correctly, indistinguishable from _real_ porn which makes it totally irrelevant if it was filmed or rendered in the first place...
Unless ofcourse, CGI-porn is something different and does _not_ look completely realistic. And that 's what you said in this post of course, I know that.
But whatever you say here is something else and, well, economic nonsense, because it seems to imply a novel way of producing the same stuff opens up a new market, quod non.
That's like saying there are loads of people baking bread but nobody's baking bread using only their feet so there's a market for feet-made bread.
0, because of (x - x) ?
>You were wired a particular way at birth, and now your wiring has been changed by your experiences.
Nowhere have I said that I don't agree with this view, in THIS formulation. I only object to dualistic formulations. Why do I have to stress this so often? I'm on your side! I just don't want dualistic, flawed, meaningless concepts frustrating proper research...
Don't say: brain = person (for it is clearly not)
Don't say: our brain thinks (for we do the thinking, with our brain. Compare: "Our legs walk" with "We walk with our legs".)
Don't say: our brain dictates (because how can we understand our brain then?)
This is a delicate matter, no need to cloud our vision with semi-dualistic nonsense. Just say what you mean in the first place, and be prepared to answer questions on how you say things. Or else we'll get bogged up in attention = consciousness research again, e.g.
I've done numerous classes on neurology (and philosophy, and neural networks, machine learning, neurophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, etc.) in university, and I would have found the amount of conceptual confusion in psychology to be funny, if it wasn't so sad.
> Go read a book on neural networks. In fact, read several.
Another testimonium paupertatis, you have understood NOTHING of where I am coming from and why I take issue with certain formulations.
> There is no dualism. That's the point.
Then don't talk like there is!
> There are [sic] nothing subtle about any of it.
Clearly, you misunderstand.
> When you bring soul into it, you bring religion into it,
Easy there cowboy! Go grep for `soul' in my posts!
> Petrified doctrine and dogma is exactly what you have expressed, which is not the ability to learn, but to believe.
You misunderstand.
> If I didn't have anything to contribute to the discussion then why did you bother to reply?
First, to answer a question, and after that, to defend myself from people accusing me of things I have not said.
In closing I will REPEAT, that I SINCERELY think that personality comes from the brain, and that I ONLY OBJECT to certain FORMULATIONS of certain philosophical positions...
Come on, please, please, please, don't be silly and presume I believe in Cartesian dualism, don't presume I believe mind and body are unrelated, or ontologically seperate, just READ what I say and THINK about your formulations...
(they could have used some thinking)
> Our brains dictate to us who we are.
Please explain this remark to me, I have a few questions:
1) Our brain `dictates'? Does that mean it speaks to `us'? Communicates with `us'? How? In some kind of language?
2) And we, presumably, have to understand our brain in order for it to dictate stuff to us.
So, how do we communicate with our brain? In what language? How can we understand our brain?
Leading to question...
3) What enables `us' to speak the language our brain speaks? With WHAT do we understand our brain?
It logically, cannot be our brain...
(Pause.)
(Think.)
(Think harder.)
(Read that last remark again.)
(Think again.)
Please realise, that if our brain communicates with us, we cannot use our brain to understand that communication, because we are trying to communicate with our brain in the first place.
It would be like trying to communicate with a Russian, who is your interpreter, but who only speaks Russian: you need an interpreter to talk to your interpreter, but to do that you need an interpreter, etc. etc.
Try to understand this; I know you are not a philosopher! It's a very important point! If our brain `talks' to us, or `shows' us things, or `thinks for' us, WHAT DO WE USE TO INTERPRET THOSE THINGS OUR BRAIN SHOWS/SAYS/THINKS?
>I hate to have to burst your philosophical bubbles, but the reason for the development of western philosophy in the first place was a lack of understanding, particularly of this very topic.
You have no right to talk about `western philosophy' if you so obviously grasp so very little of it.
If you do not understand how this horrid brain=mind/person/soul conceptual mess can only lead to scientific stagnation, to dogma, to petrified doctrine, pleae be a good person and leave the conceptual subtleties to philosophers.
(It's not like you have anything to contribute.)
If you still think I am wrong, please, answer my questions... or if you did-not-mean-that-when-you-said-that, explain to me WHAT you meant.
If western philosophy is all about understanding, allow ME to ask for explanation.
If western philosophy is all about asking for clarification, allow ME to ask for clarification.
First. I am a proponent of AI, you won't see me attacking the Turing Test. You seem to be ascribing certain convictions to me which I have in no way expressed.
But anyway,
You seem to define 'person' as the whole system: brain and body.
No. A brain is part of a body. Furthermore, I have not defined `person' anywhere and I have no need to do so.
I'd happily apply the word 'person' to a biologically normal human being, to a brain in a crippled body communicating by speech synthesiser, to a brain in a vat communicating only by computer, and to an artificial intelligence that passes the Turing test.
I'm mostly ok with that. But you really should phrase "a brain in a crippled body communicating by speech synthesiser" as "a person with a crippled body communicating by speech synthesiser" for reasons explained in my previous posts.
You say `I am a person, implemented as a brain, resident inside a head'.
This simply does not make sense.
You do not reside in your head. You reside in a house. (I presume).
First: This has nothing to do with neuroscience:
Is the car the same car after fueling? After an oil change? After a new engine has been put in? After a paint job?
See, the same kinds of questions can be asked about something totally unrelated to neuroscience, and this is a huge clue.
And, don't make the mistake to presume these questions about cars can be answered by car mechanics. Where would they start? How would they determine what constitutes a car without engaging in reflection on concepts, viz. philosophy?
Second: I am not referring to the effects of hormones.
Third: I am only objecting to the "the brain is the person"-answer to the question on how personality is related to the body: the mind-body problem.
Clearly, I am a person, and I have a brain in my head. I don't think you can object to this.
But if you say a person is a brain (and, presumably, a brain is a person), you should believe all these sentences mean the exact same thing:
I am a person, and I have a brain in my head.
I am a brain, and I have a brain in my head.
I am a person, and I have a person in my head.
I am a brain, and I have a person in my head.
Mostly nonsense of course. So clearly, a brain IS NOT a person.
Nevertheless, if you ask me if personality is `stored' in the brain, or something analogous to that, I would probably agree. There has been ample evidence of the fact that brain damage can cause severe personality changes, the case of Phineas Gage comes -- obviously -- to mind.
But believing that "a brain is a person" is, as Hacker & Bennett argue, committing a mereological fallacy, that is, confusing wholes and parts of things.
I agree.
Umh, the person is the person, obviously.
Just as the car is the car, and not the engine.
A better questions to ask is:
Q: Should I buy and read ``Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience'' by Bennett and Hacker?
A: Yes.
What does this mean for GStreamer, which, as I understand it, has similar goals and is being used by quite some OS software already.
Particularly in GNOME software... Which is the desktop used by RedHat and Ximian (Novell).
Not a nice move if you ask me, it has probably to do with the mp3 licence.
Grrr. You cannot posibly have any idea how angry i get when people blame violence on the existence of a religion
... but, I suppose, if you weren't religious, you wouldn't get so very angry, right?
Ok, thanks. So selling both versions at the same price is still ok?
But considering WMP is pushed quite a bit in WindowsUpdate and WMP itself is `free' while its rival products are not, this doesn't really promote competition does it:
Windows + (something else):.costs X+Y (Y>0, I assume)
Windows + WMP:..............costs X
Windows:....................costs X
So unless Windows without WMP *has* to be cheaper, or RealPlayer/QuickTime/Whatever are given away for free, the Microsoft deal is still better, right?
Then why don't make the one without WMP as expensive (or more expensive even) as the one with and let the market sort it out?
Or would the EUC be so bold as to tell some company how their products should be priced?
Good news, I've been looking at getting a notebook for some time now and my little research indicated a superior battery life on Apple notebooks.
The prohibitive price is still a bottleneck for me though.
Or even Persephone... :-)
... when I say that it will probably suck but that I'll go anyway ;-)
Must... resist... going... to... movie...
To paraphrase a well known SF icon.
> and no, buying WineX and dealing with the
> emulation layer isn't good enough
Why not? Why make this distinction when almost your entire list consists of 3rd party software anyway.
Compare:
`OSX can't open MS Office documents either, but it *can* run software that can.'
with
`Linux can't play Warcraft 3, but it *can* run software that can.'
See?
Oh, and btw, I am *not* claiming Linux can do everything OSX can do (you've got a point with the waking up in less then a second AFAIK), I'm just pointing out your logical errors.
I bet those extraterrestrials will shoot down our military satellites with their highly advanced photon-lasers (incorporating nano-technology on a MACROSCOPIC level!)
And when was that you think?
The invasion of Sudetenland?
The Anschluss?
The re-occupation of the Rheinland?
Pre 1936?
Pre 1933?
Just after WOI?
Without knowing what Hitler would do later on? Starting another war with Germany? Do you think the people of GB/France/Belgium would have agreed to that?