|
Post by turbonium on Oct 20, 2005 1:46:23 GMT -4
Hi peter - yes, the subject is very overwhelming in its scope, and I am not anticipating or suggesting this thread will lead to the unlocking of the mysteries of the universe! ;D I was partially inspired to begin this topic by the ongoing developments within the field of quantum physics. That is, the sub-atomic theories and hypotheses, the Alain Aspect experiments, Dr. Bohm's studies, etc. This field opens up questions about what is physical reality, how all material (or immaterial) may actually be interconnected throughout the universe, that what is perceived by us as physical is almost entirely non-physical at sub-atomic levels. And so on..... pw1.netcom.com/~wolfpapers/myarticles/Soul%20and%20death%20Q&A.pdfFrom the above link... Dr. Fred Alan Wolf earned a Ph. D. in theoretical physics from U.C.L.A.... Dr. Wolf has taught at the University of London, the University of Paris, the Hahn-Meitner Institute for Nuclear Physics in Berlin, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and San Diego State University in the United States."We have the illusion that our human bodies are solid, but they are over 99.99% empty space. If an atom is blown up to the size of an entire football stadium, the dense part of the atom would be comparable to the size of a single grain of rice placed on the 50 yard line. Now why is that important? Because in an atom, the nucleus accounts for 99.99% of all of the matter or mass. Atoms are mostly made of space. So although we experience ourselves as being these solid human bodies, it’s more like “who we are” is an awareness or consciousness that lives in space "Non-Locality is defined as phenomenon that occurrences on one side of the Universe can instantly effect 'matter' on the other side of the Universe. There are implications from this regarding space and time being illusory. Physicist Barbara Brennan said... "Quantum physics is beginning to realise that the Universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the Whole."
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 20, 2005 2:16:10 GMT -4
Hi peter - yes, the subject is very overwhelming in its scope, and I am not anticipating or suggesting this thread will lead to the unlocking of the mysteries of the universe! ;D Lack of optimism duly noted. ;-) SNIP Hmmm. I just don't see how the second follows from the first, with all due respect to the person you've quoted. Yes, that's one of the spooky aspects of quantum theory. But is there any requirement to invoke it with regards to what happens in our brains, or the brains of other animals? Huh? Once again, with respect to the speaker, there's words here, but not as I'm familiar with them. Firstly, what's an energy pattern? Secondly, if the universe is a web, why can't there logically be such a thing as a part? If you look at a spider's web, you can easily see it as consisting of parts. Even if a more generic meaning of "web" is applied, I still think that's a reasonable position. It's fancy words, but to what effect? Do they provide a means for explaining things better? Do they make predictions? Unless there's more to what she said, it's little more than fancy prose.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 20, 2005 13:02:12 GMT -4
Abstract "things" are sometimes defined as "ethereal" - those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, like the color red. Is the number 3 real? Are hate or happiness real? Are their effects real? Or are they just "abstract ideas" created by humans?
Words like "house", "car", and "tree" do refer to objects, but don't assume that other words like "number" or "red" must refer to distinct entities too. This is the number one area I see philosophical discussions get tripped up. People tend to assume that the word->object designation applies in general. When the question "What is the color red?" is asked, everyone goes looking for the color red. When they can't find it in the physical world, they assume that it must exist in some other "ethereal" world, perhaps "in the mind". Such reasoning is fallacious.
As we develop our language skills we learn to use words as if they referred to objects. We may talk about the evil in OJ Simpson's murder of his wife. But that doesn't mean there is a distinct evil entity that exists apart from the brutal act of stabbing, as if evil were some sort of shadow or spirit that accompanied the stabbing. It is the physical act of murder that we label as evil. This is a complex act performed in a vastly complex social context. There is no one component that constitutes "evil". We just use the word "evil" as if it referred to some sort of distinct entity.
When people engage in philosophical discussions like these, they may ask "What is evil" and go looking for the entity the word "evil" refers to. When they can't find it or point to it, they conclude it must exist as some sort of ethereal entity. But as I have shown, the assumption that the word must refer to a distinct entity is mistaken.
What we do is leverage our skills at using words to refer to objects to use them as if they referred to objects. We do this by using the same grammatical forms. Speaking of "abstract thinking", this is an example of abstracting. Abstract thinking is applying your existing skills to situations that are similar. Once you learn how to make simple pots from wet clay, you can extend your skills to make pots with handles, cups, vases, wash basins, etc. There are only minor variations in the process that you can easily learn and thus extend the application of your skills.
Likewise, once you have mastered flying a plane with analog instruments, you should be able to fairly quickly learn to fly one with a digital cockpit. There will be differences in the details, but not so many that you cannot adapt. To deal with the different cockpits in similar ways is what constitutes abstract thinking in this example. There is no one thing we can point to, or that we refer to, that is the "abstract thinking". However, that does not mean we are talking about something "ethereal" or "unreal". The plane, the pilot, and the process of the pilot flying the plane are all very real, and it is aspects of all that that we are talking about.
(Another example of abstract thinking: Learning to convert a single temperature such as 77 degrees Fahrenheit to Celsius and then learning to convert any Fahrenheit temperature to Celsius.)
As for the number 3, what exists are the linguistic symbol "3", objects in the world, and people who count those objects. There is no distinct entity designated by the symbol "3" either physical or ethereal. To assume there is such an entity, even an ethereal one, is to not appreciate the rich complexity of our language.
1. Consisting of spirit; not material; incorporeal; as, a spiritual substance or being.
It is interesting how talk of spirits leads us to think of a "spiritual substance". We cannot rule that out, of course, but consider some other ways the term "spirit" is used. Let's say you came home and your dog Fido was jumping up on you and wagging its tail vigorously, and you said, "Fido sure is in a good spirit". It is as if you are talking about a special substance inside the dog, but all you are talking about is your dog's complex physical response to you in the context of your coming home. It is linguistically convenient to ascribe to this complexity a single word, in this case "spirit". Such linguistic conventions are powerful extensions of our language. We all know what you mean.
When we don our philosophy hats and wonder "What is this spirit we speak of?" we immediately go astray. We assume that we must be talking about a distinct entity (or substance) as if we were talking about a house or a tree.
2. Of or pertaining to the intellectual and higher endowments of the mind; mental; intellectual.
I don't want to ramble on too long, but when you think about the intellectual and the mental, try to consider these as skills you see people exhibit, as aspects of people accomplishing tasks in various contexts. As a simple example, if you find Jay "intellectual" consider that all you have seen are his posts. There are complex patterns of words there that you key on and identify as "intellectual".
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 20, 2005 13:27:49 GMT -4
Abstract "things" are sometimes defined as "ethereal" - those things that do not exist in reality or exist only as sensory experience, like the color red. Is the number 3 real? Are hate or happiness real? Are their effects real? Or are they just "abstract ideas" created by humans? There's a great word to describe that very thing: reificationDamn, now I'm doing it
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 20, 2005 14:44:32 GMT -4
Thanks, Al, for summing up my lengthy post with a single word!
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 20, 2005 14:58:30 GMT -4
De nada ;D
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 7:55:45 GMT -4
We may talk about the evil in OJ Simpson's murder of his wife. But that doesn't mean there is a distinct evil entity that exists apart from the brutal act of stabbing, as if evil were some sort of shadow or spirit that accompanied the stabbing. It is the physical act of murder that we label as evil. This is a complex act performed in a vastly complex social context. There is no one component that constitutes "evil". We just use the word "evil" as if it referred to some sort of distinct entityFirst off, OJ didn't do it - in fact, he's dedicated his life to catching the real killers, even if he has to play every golf course in the country to find them! As for "evil" not being "real", I'm going to argue that it may one day be proven that it is real. Not concrete like a table or chair, perhaps, but as real as light or sound. We can already measure brain wave frequencies, and know that they vary depending on the person's mental state. We can also identify regions of the brain with high levels of neuron activity - for example, the amygdala is a brain region involved in anger and other emotions. Eventually, we may be able to measure each emotion's unique identifying values. So, we will be then able to measure and identify "anger" as we now are able to identify sound wave frequencies. Is it also possible to eventually discover that "evil" exists in the same way? If we eventually can prove "anger" exists, as much as light or sound exist, it isn't impossible to consider. There may be identifying data measurements that indicate the existence of "evil" within one's mind.- perhaps only at times when acts such as murder are carried out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 23, 2005 11:30:52 GMT -4
I'm going to argue that it may one day be proven that it is real.
The question "Is evil real?" is not a valid question. This is one of those areas where philosophy paints itself into a corner. Either a "yes" or a "no" answer is misleading. You will find it more fruitful to ask "How do people use the word 'evil'?" and then to observe some of the various ways the word is used and the complex patterns of actions and contexts people use it in.
Note that evil is a property of things (of human actions in particular contexts) and not a thing itself that properties are ascribed to. It makes no sense to ask if a property is real, to ask whether it exist or not. To talk that way would be like saying my coffee cup is constructed out of a unit of cylinder-shape, a unit of arc-shape, 2.7 units of hardness, 32.7 square inches of blackness, and 6 ounces of weight. The cup actually is constructed out of clay, paint, and glaze. The properties we ascribe to it are just aspects of those materials and how they relate to other materials and objects.
There may be identifying data measurements that indicate the existence of "evil" within one's mind.- perhaps only at times when acts such as murder are carried out.
Look at it this way: You had to learn how to use the word "evil". You observed all types of human actions and you learned to apply the word to those that are harmful such as murder, robbery, assault, and so on. The actions you observed, seen on the news, read about, etc. were all open to view. To see the evil, you did not have to observe anything hidden, beneath the skin, or especially, in the brain.
It is the actions themselves and their effects on our lives that we label as evil. What goes on in the perpetrator's body is not a relevant detail to identifying acts of evil. The neural patterns of an accountant embezzling money and of a man stabbing his wife may very well be different. Yet, we consider both acts evil. Even among murderers, the neural patterns will be different in the details. Each person's brain is different from everyone else's because of genetic variations and differences of experience. Neural dumps of brain patterns will not match among evildoers.
Don't make the mistake of approaching these types philosophic issues as physicists approach their field of study. Physicists "penetrate phenomena". They look beneath the surface to find an explanation in underlying details. Many issues in philosophy, however, are issues of language. Language is a tool. We use it to get things done. The best way to come to understand a hammer is to see it in use. You may miss its purpose completely if you insist on just taking it to the lab and cutting it open.
Likewise, language is best studied by observing it in use, by watching people use it to get things done. Here, everything is wide-open to view. You don't find evil by narrowing your focus to look a single thing or phenomenon operating beneath the surface or otherwise hidden from view. You step back, widen your view, observe the rich variety of human action, and appreciate our ability to key on complex patterns in that variety and ascribe a single word to it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 27, 2005 22:57:39 GMT -4
I understand your point about "evil" as a concept developed by humans to explain certain actions by people. I wanted to point that out earlier but didn't have the time. But I was also mentioning evil as an extension of an emotion, anger, which may be eventually proven to 'exist' in the same way as light or sound. If something can be quantifiably measured in this way, we can also say that it is a phenomenon that exists.
Now, as "evil" is really an arbitrary label we put on something or someone as an act carried out for no reason other than death and/or destruction, we indeed may not be able to verify it "exists" in some measurable way. And, a psychotic may actually take "pleasure" out of committing a murder, and if his brain functions were to be measured, they may show that to be true - to wit, no "anger" is detected in the brain waves and synaptic processes. His brain may be "wired" abnormally and skew the ability to measure his brain compared to a normaly functioning brain.
But emotions will possibly, in the future, be able to be proven to exist, as much as light or sound currently are measurable and quantifiable.
So, if and when emotions are scientifically measurable, could this also lead to a way to analyze the progress or "evolution" of human emotion over future generations, similar to how we can currently measure the physical changes over time, such as height, weight, etc?
I'm putting forth the possibility that while human 'physical' evolution may be shown over tens of thousands of years, it may be shown that mental processes progress or "evolve" at a much faster rate. And that we are only unable to demonstrate that because we have yet to develop the technologies to properly measure that progression.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 28, 2005 3:15:09 GMT -4
Minds (thoughts, emotions, consciousness etc) are what brains do: complex processes rather than entities.
Cultural evolution will be faster than physical evolution for a couple of reasons: a much shorter generation time and a Lamarckian rather than Darwinian mechanism; an idea can be modified and transmitted immediately in its changed form without having to be selected out.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 29, 2005 18:44:43 GMT -4
I understand your point about "evil" as a concept developed by humans to explain certain actions by people.
The notion of "evil" is not an explanation. In fact, I have been trying to be anti-explanation on this subject. Out of all the actions people take, some are genuinely detrimental to our well-being. We use the word "evil" to talk about these kinds of actions, to protest them, to persuade others to not do them, etc.
But I was also mentioning evil as an extension of an emotion, anger, which may be eventually proven to 'exist' in the same way as light or sound. If something can be quantifiably measured in this way, we can also say that it is a phenomenon that exists.
I am not saying that "evil" does not exist. Nor am I saying that it does exist. My point is that, linguistically, the notion of existence does not make any sense when literally applied to properties such as evil. Not all words refer to objects.
That said, part of the power of language is that we can talk about evil as if it were a thing that did exist. An orator commenting on "the existence of evil in men's hearts" is not speaking to cardiology. The phrase is just a rhetorical device, a metaphor, poetic language that serves to highlight a particular point.
Now, as "evil" is really an arbitrary label we put on something or someone as an act carried out for no reason other than death and/or destruction, we indeed may not be able to verify it "exists" in some measurable way.
All you are going to get from measurements are sets of numbers, perhaps something like this:
| 0.7 -1.2 37.24 187.0 | | 1.5 0.1 19.12 54.4 | | 2.7 2.5 -4.31 263.1 | | 0.9 2.4 26.50 21.7 |
Even if this sequence occurs in every evildoer's brain while they are committing acts of evil, the sequence is not what we "really" mean by the word "evil". When it comes to evil, we don't care about scientific measurements. We do care, though, about getting robbed or about having a loved one taken from us by an act of murder. Our lives are genuinely, objectively, and non-arbitrarily affected by such acts. We use the word "evil" to talk about, and hopefully deter, those kinds of acts.
And, a psychotic may actually take "pleasure" out of committing a murder, and if his brain functions were to be measured, they may show that to be true - to wit, no "anger" is detected in the brain waves and synaptic processes.
You stupid nitwit, turbonium. You are starting to piss me off, you moron.
In viewing those words on your screen, or words like them in other contexts, you come face to face with anger. When you want to see if your wife is angry at you, you don't need to probe her brain with scientific instruments. Although there are electrochemical processes at work here, they are not what we "really" mean by "anger".
(By about now, you should have realized that I wasn't really angry with you, that I was just pretending. Note that you figured that out without having to crack my skull open. What you key on here, is context. An actor in a play may give a convincing appearance of being angry at another actor in the play, but there is no reason to be concerned about their friendship here. The context of a play is different than real life.)
Let's say you did probe your wife's brain when she was angry at you. (I'm sure that would only get you in more trouble, but bear with me.) In all the processes going on, what would qualify as anger? To keep it simple, let's say you discovered that whenever she was angry, and only when she was angry, that you detected the chemical element cobalt. Would you suggest to us, then, the anger is really cobalt? Would cobalt in a silver mine, in a sense, be pure anger?
So, if and when emotions are scientifically measurable, could this also lead to a way to analyze the progress or "evolution" of human emotion over future generations, similar to how we can currently measure the physical changes over time, such as height, weight, etc?
You should re-read and think about Peter B's posts in this thread. Emotions are observed in all sorts of animals. You don't necessarily need to measure neural patterns in a dog to understand how it came to be that a it barks and snarls angrily at a neighbor dog who comes into its yard and tries to take its bone away.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2005 23:02:56 GMT -4
Let's say you did probe your wife's brain when she was angry at you. (I'm sure that would only get you in more trouble, but bear with me.) In all the processes going on, what would qualify as anger? To keep it simple, let's say you discovered that whenever she was angry, and only when she was angry, that you detected the chemical element cobalt. Would you suggest to us, then, the anger is really cobalt? Would cobalt in a silver mine, in a sense, be pure anger?First - the female brain will forever remain one of the world's greatest unsolved mysteries! ;D But to use your example - say that cobalt is an element detected when one exhibits anger. That could be only one of several indicators of anger. Say cobalt is also detected as prevalent in other emotions, such as fear. So cobalt in a pure form does not mean it is "pure anger" or fear. We may be able to narrow the emotion down by measuring other indicators within the brain, such as brain wave frequency. Beta frequencies are measured from 14 to 30 cps. These are associated with fear and anger, excitement and tension within the subject. Further, as linked below, there appears to be a distinction between fear and anger in the amygdala, an area of the brain..... www.dartmouth.edu/~sbs/Adams%20et%20al%20Science%202003.pdfThe amygdala is thought to be part of a neural system responsive to potential threat (1). Consistent with this is the amygdala’s well-documented sensitivity to fear faces. What is puzzling, however, is the paucity of evidence for a similar involvement of the amygdala in the processing of anger displaysI realize that we have only scratched the surface of our understanding of the human mind and emotions, but primary indicators are that we may someday be able to measure and analyze individual emotions and their "evolution" over generations.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2005 23:27:45 GMT -4
You should re-read and think about Peter B's posts in this thread. Emotions are observed in all sorts of animals. You don't necessarily need to measure neural patterns in a dog to understand how it came to be that a it barks and snarls angrily at a neighbor dog who comes into its yard and tries to take its bone away
Of course, we can easily observe anger in animals without needing to measure it. But my point is that we are able (or will be able in the future) to prove it "exists" through scientific measurements. From this, we will be able to analyze if there are any generational changes in the emotional responses of animals and humans.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 30, 2005 12:38:59 GMT -4
But to use your example - say that cobalt is an element detected when one exhibits anger. That could be only one of several indicators of anger. Say cobalt is also detected as prevalent in other emotions, such as fear. So cobalt in a pure form does not mean it is "pure anger" or fear.
But let's say that you find that cobalt appears only when someone is angry. Have you found anger then? That is, is cobalt anger?
Here is another thought experiment, and this may apply just as well to Al's notion that emotions are brain processes:
Let's say that you test many people with a sensitive, high-resolution brain scanner and you discover that whenever any one of them is angry, and only when the test subject is angry, that a particular 3 mm x 3 mm x 3 mm cube of neurons in the amygdala oscillate in a particular pattern at 27.31 cps. This pattern happens to be exactly the same and at exactly the same frequency for everybody. Whenever that pattern appears at that precise frequency, the person is angry. In fact, you discover that you can hook up electrodes to this area, generate the exact same patterns, and make the person become angry. You go on to win the Nobel Prize for isolating the emotion of anger.
Now, let's say that I let you guys on apollohoax.net do scientific experiments and studies on me. You open up my head and sever any connection going to or coming from the from the 3 mm cube of anger neurons in my amygdala and you then hook up your electrodes to it. When you stimulate the cube to oscillate in the anger pattern, do I then feel angry?
How about this: You remove the cube from my brain and keep the cells alive in a tank in your laboratory. You sew me back up and send me on my way. When you stimulate the cube in your lab into the anger pattern, do I then suddenly feel angry wherever I happen to be?
I think these examples illustrate some of the problems with trying to reduce "anger" to some sort of distinct, well-defined entity or process inside the person.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 30, 2005 13:20:10 GMT -4
We may be able to narrow the emotion down by measuring other indicators within the brain, such as brain wave frequency...
The amygdala is thought to be part of a neural system responsive to potential threat (1). Consistent with this is the amygdala’s well-documented sensitivity to fear faces. What is puzzling, however, is the paucity of evidence for a similar involvement of the amygdala in the processing of anger displays
Philosophy all too often encourages you to dichotomize, to split things in two. That often puts you on the wrong track from the start. The result, as we see here, is that anger is split into two pieces: the inner brain process in the amygdala and the outer "display" or expression of this inner anger. The outer/inner dichotomy, in fact, plagues much discussion of consciousness.
Evolution occurs at the ecological scale, that is, at the scale of organisms in their environments. Often, features (including behaviors) co-evolve together. There is no advantage for an animal to bare its teeth and growl unless other animals react to it by either fleeing or gearing up for battle. These behaviors likely evolved together.
What evolved are not "inner angers" and "outer displays" of them. What evolved are systems. Animals that bare their teeth and growled gained and advantage in those environments where the ability to perceive and respond to such displays was likewise evolving. Over time, this anger system refined itself.
What evolved over time was the entire system. There is no one component that is "anger". The retraction of the jaw muscles is not anger; nor are the oscillations that are occur in the brain anger. It is not like nature first evolved an "anger" inside the animals as if there was a time when animals ran around angry at each other on the inside, but indifferent to each other in behavior. Nor did evolution evolve displays of anger only to later evolve some sort of "inner anger emotion" to go along with it.
|
|