Occupy the Internet
AAAhhhh... I'm going out of my mind AAAhhhh... I'm going out of my mind What it means to discuss things intelligently.
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
What it means to discuss things intelligently.
Already I've signed up for this forum and have come across a discussion purporting itself to be intelligent - about 'consciousness', no less.  What followed was a torrent of pseudoscientific New-Agey postmodernist drivel the likes of which few have ever seen.

I am a biology student who is planning on going into neuroscience.  I am taught to think rigorously; I am taught to demand proof, and I am taught that if there is no evidence to back a thing up to act as if it does not exist.

To imply that consciousness is anything other than the sum total of our cognitive functions which allow us to sense, be aware of, and think about what is around us - to imply that it is anything other than the physical functions which are distributed around the brain - not only implies, in my opinion (and goodness knows everyone's got one; they're like a**holes), that the person who thinks this scoffs at rationality and the real world, but also implies that the person is unable to see the value of what actually does exist.

Nature is beautiful, you sod, and the inner workings of the brain an elegant machine the likes of which has never been produced by humankind and I suspect never will (and don't get me started on computers; they may get to the processing speed but the inclusion of hormones, a limbic system, and the trillions of little synaptic connections which are affected not only by action potential speed but by the chemicals that flow through them make dryware quite unable at this point to mimic a human brain - we don't even understand our own totally).

When you don't know, admit you don't know, and be comfortable with the unknown.

New-Agey crud isn't intelligent.  Alternative woo-woo isn't intelligent (it's almost cargo-culty in that it tries to ape the trappings of actual intelligence; it has the style down but fails miserably at any actual substance).

Stick to what is.
First, take a deep breath caracatita, and relax a bit.
Some people choose to believe only in what they see with their own eyes, but then they learn that their eyes might deceive them (see for example this post in a discussion on faith). Some then turn to "measurement." Of course not everything which was considered proven with a lot of proof behind it turned out to be true. Alas, we now know that everything you think you know and are taught in biology classes for sure is going to be proven false at a later date. And yet we survive and we go on with it. In fact you are taught many things which we currently actually know are false (e.g. Newtonian mechanics), and yet they are comfortable to lean on for different reasons.

"I am taught to demand proof, and I am taught that if there is no evidence to back a thing up to act as if it does not exist."
What do you actually know for sure? Evidence is a tricky word. In courts they often use the term 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but that's subject to much interpretation.

Notice your daily activity. Do you really believe only what you have clear evidence for? For example, a very classical example, you think you know that if you drop a cup made of glass on cement, from 2 meters high, then it will break. How do you know that? Already Hume showed that you have no clear evidence for that yet you believe it on the basis of an unbased belief in induction.
Another example, you believe what your teachers teach you, with very little evidence for it. There were attempts at the beginning of the century to completely prove mathematical proofs, but alas it is pretty much impossible for anything more than the most basic proofs, and all mathematical proofs you currently completely trust are only considered true because a certain group believes them to be true. It's a very serious group, but nevertheless every once in a while even an accepted mathematical theorem turns out to be false. Oh well, that's life.

Or, for example, you said: "pseudoscientific New-Agey postmodernist drivel" You use those words, but do you actually know what they mean? I doubt regarding at least the third word, and yet you use it, like we all constantly use words we don't understand. This is how we use tools in the world. We have a somewhat vague idea, an intuition about them, and we use them. Sometimes we're right sometimes we're not.

So yes, we discuss here what we believe. We discuss our thoughts and opinions. People read them, and then they can take it or leave it. Similarly to your teachers - some professors you should trust, others less so. Some are based in reality, others less so.
As Edna Stern in post quoted Seneca saying: “Whatever is true is my property”  and everything else you can either throw away, or better, try to learn from people's erroneous opinions.
We are all here because we believe that someone's else opinion can actually teach us - even in the case we disagree with it.
Books Discussed
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Selections From a Treatise of Human Nature: With Hume
by David Hume


In response to Arthur Mont
I share Caracaita's disgust at pseudo scientific nonsense aiming to explain consciousness. Arthur, you claim to know with certainty that "biology is going to be proven false at a later date." Such reasoning explains nothing. Science is fallibilistic. You might as well ignore all of biology's claims right now because they're going to be proven false later on. But I'm guessing you won't do that because the claims of biology work to explain the world right now in the best possible fashion. Newtonian mechanics wasn't proven false. Newtonian mechanics was just not a complete explanation of the microscopic world. Hence quantum mechanics, which is not proven false just because of string theory.

You also invoke Hume to suggest that we cannot know things for certain. How about you go jump into the grand canyon, from a high peak point, and tell other people that you don't know for certain what's going to happen? Again, I'm guessing you won't do that. While you cannot know what will happen to that glass, because it hasn't happened yet, you know with almost certainty what will happen based on the "evidence" of what has happened in the past, your knowledge about gravity, the particles making up glass and the hardness of the cement. That sir is evidence.

In response to Stanislav Trumukovsky
I too am a rationalist, one who despises sloppy, intellectually lazy thinking... I have very little patience with new age mumbo jumbo and all that snake oil.....  Only one problem with being so insistent on facts and evidence and such...  women don't want to come home with you and spend the night very much...  being right is way overrated...  Take it from me, I have found much more happiness after becoming a musician... 
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: January 4, 2012 at 6:36 PM
Number of posts: 50
Spans 475 days

  
Searching
No results found.