![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 6:03:47
sending people into space...
it is 'our destiny' apparantly.
oh. well it is pointless to fight what is destined...guess we just have to do it then ;-)
i think its all pretty interesting
but... i'm sure people won't have too much of a hard time thinking of better uses for the $$$it isn't that there isn't enough to go around
it is that people don't think things should be sharedsurvival of the fittest
elimination of the unsuccessful
and in a way...
that is precisely what it is.trouble comes when we think darwinean forces are the only forces in our lives
human beings
Dennett thinks we evolved in such a way that we could become...
The nervous system of the earth
The conscience of the earth
The gardians of the earth
We have evolved characteristics such as
foresight
empathy
Which allow us to rise above primitive forces
elimination of the unsuccessful...
lets exploit the earth into extinction...
(oops. guess we needed that)will we ever get there?
the nervous system of the earth?Who knows.
It would be nice to think so
But...
Who knows.
Hard to compete with greed and power and a sense of entitlement
Especially...
For those near the top...
Posted by crazy teresa on September 24, 2005, at 18:18:50
In reply to NASA, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 6:03:47
Who knows? All I can do is make my little part of the world a little better every day. Or try to anyway.
I live in an area filled with old farmers who will never believe man ever made it to the moon, nor will it happen in the future! I saw a documentary about this theory. I wan't aware this belief was so prevalent in the US.
And where did the $$$ for Area 51 come from if the gov't wouldn't even admit it existed until recently? We're talking major dollars.
Have you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"? I do agree with a few of the points in the book, including that politicians don't really control much. It's a big mother of a book, dry in many spots, but it was especially interesting to me since my husband is a railroad engineer. There are college scholarships given out every year; winners are based on essays written by students regarding the book. Cash in! :~}
Posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 19:57:53
In reply to NASA, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 6:03:47
No Alexandra *of course* we won't get there. Not a snowflakes chance. The conscience of the earth???
I've heard about Dennett, some book review.But yes, why not discuss sense of entitlement, at the top especially, and how that influences forms of belief, like religious faith and political opinions.
There. I've put my foot in it.
Declan
Posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 20:00:02
In reply to Re: NASA » alexandra_k, posted by crazy teresa on September 24, 2005, at 18:18:50
Teresa, any book that begins with 'Howard Roark laughed' goes into my wastepaper basket. I'm more interested in *her* history.
Declan
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2005, at 0:00:34
In reply to NASA, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 6:03:47
... go start a hippy commune somewhere.
actually... my uncle did that for a while.
till community mental health committed him for compulsory assessment and treatment ;-)i dunno.
i guess we can only worry about our own actions
ourselves
but....
it is sort of tempting...to actually get a bit more involved.
don't think i'd do well in politics...
too much dirt on me...i dunno.
but it does seem pointless grumbling...
but i do get some sort of satisfaction in it too - of course :-)i dunno...
hmm
Posted by crazy teresa on September 25, 2005, at 10:46:51
In reply to Re: NASA, posted by Declan on September 24, 2005, at 20:00:02
Posted by Declan on September 25, 2005, at 14:37:35
In reply to Huh? (nm) » Declan, posted by crazy teresa on September 25, 2005, at 10:46:51
Is that how The Fountainhead starts? Forgive me tereza, I'm just an arrogant prick. I think I got a bit upset answering the previous post to Alexandra.
Declan
Posted by Declan on September 25, 2005, at 14:41:58
In reply to Huh? (nm) » Declan, posted by crazy teresa on September 25, 2005, at 10:46:51
O yeah, by her history, I meant that Ayn Rand lived in interesting times. All I half remember is maybe a Baltic connection (Latvia?), St Petersberg and escape and then the US. I think she witnessed (some of) the Russian revolution first hand.
Declan
Posted by crazy teresa on September 25, 2005, at 15:49:44
In reply to Re: Huh? » crazy teresa, posted by Declan on September 25, 2005, at 14:41:58
You're not a prick, just very passionate! ;~}
I don't know about her personal history, but it would be fascinating in that time period.
I have edited myself :~} in accordance with the bobster's civility rules:
I have (done some reading) on the Ayn Rand Society. Sounds like a bunch of (really nice people) who have formed a (really nice following) based on her ficticious work (geniuses)!
By the way declan, I love that I never have to question how you really feel about issues! ;~} You and I would be great friends IRL!!!
crazy t
Posted by Declan on September 25, 2005, at 16:32:03
In reply to No problem! » Declan, posted by crazy teresa on September 25, 2005, at 15:49:44
Thankyou teresa, that's very kind of you.
There is a tradition of libertarianism in the US which is unfamiliar to Australians. It can be expressed in ways I like (not liking the FDA, say) and in ways I don't (ownership of heavy duty firearms, say). It's not part of the political debate here as it is (I assume) in the US.
Declan
Posted by AuntieMel on September 26, 2005, at 16:43:28
In reply to NASA, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 6:03:47
Is it worth it? Every penny, in my book, though I do think those pennies could be spent more efficiently sometimes.
I was very young when the space program started, but I remember the thrill of it, watching the launches, worshiping the astronauts. So, so many of us wanted to grow up to be one that the sciences were studied in a way we haven't seen since.
Meeting an astronaut was for me a bigger thrill than it would have been to meet Mick Jagger.
Even today NASA reaches out to kids to get them interested in science. One web site for kids has a list of the everyday "spinoff" items that came from the space program:
http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml
The NASA sites run tours that are of interest to kids, from being able to see mission control, to the wetf training facility, to Space Camp, to interactive museums, and so on, and so on. I remember touring Johnson Space Center as a youngster and I go back on a regular basis. When there is a mission they have a room where you can watch and listen.
I could go on for days.....
Posted by gromit on September 27, 2005, at 18:32:22
In reply to Re: NASA » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on September 26, 2005, at 16:43:28
> Is it worth it? Every penny, in my book, though I do think those pennies could be spent more efficiently sometimes.
I agree, of all the stuff we spend a bunch of money on this one isn't a waste. I used to imagine traveling in space all the time as a child, who am I kidding I still do.
Rick
Posted by AuntieMel on October 18, 2005, at 14:50:31
In reply to Re: NASA » AuntieMel, posted by gromit on September 27, 2005, at 18:32:22
Ok, so this isn't political.
I'm heading your way end of next week. I've got a date with a mouse.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 1:49:31
In reply to NASA, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 6:03:47
alexandra k offers:
> sending people into space...... [snip] ...
> Dennett thinks we evolved in such a way that we could become...
> The nervous system of the earth
> The conscience of the earth
> The gardians of the earth...
would this Dennett be like, Daniel C. Dennett,
author of
"Consciousness Explained" ?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 1:57:44
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ... » alexandra_k, posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 1:49:31
yes indeed it would.
are you a fan?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 2:01:38
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ... » alexandra_k, posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 1:49:31
he may have said it there...
i'm trying to think precisely where i read him saying that...
could be from
"kinds of minds"
"content and consciousness"
"the intentional stance"
"brainchildren"
"elbow room"
but i think it might be the one you linked...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 2:02:36
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ..., posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 2:01:38
"freedom evolves"
i think it is likely from there...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 2:12:47
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ..., posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 2:02:36
yes it is from there.
if you follow the link and "see inside" the book you can read a bit of it.
it actually contains...
the bit i was thinking of.:-)
Posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 2:36:47
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ... » lil' jimi, posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 1:57:44
maybe not a fan fan ...
... years ago i read and enjoyed
"Consciousness Explained" ...
but i have not read any of his other works ...
... i relished his thoroughgoing
physicalist eliminativism ...
it is so precisely unconventional ...... i just read your follow ups ...
... so you will understand that with my
specifically limited exposure i would be surprised by dennett being so expansive ...
thank you for the links ...i am trying to imagine an eliminativist political party.
alternatively, have you read roger penrose's "shadows of the mind"?
penrose served as a counterpoint to dennett at the time i read them.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 4:28:30
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ... » alexandra_k, posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 2:36:47
> ... i relished his thoroughgoing
> physicalist eliminativism ...hmm. i don't think he would approve of your saying that he is an eliminativist... he is determined that he is not... whether he is right about that is, of course, another matter...
> i would be surprised by dennett being so expansive ...
oh. well. remember the stuff in the second half of consciousness explained where he starts talking about 'the birth of reason' and so forth. start with the molecules and build up to... intentionality? well... this is a continuation on this theme.
evolutionary accounts of consciousness, intentionality, and... free will. its worth a read if you are into that stuff :-)
> i am trying to imagine an eliminativist political party.
lol. he doesn't think he is an eliminitivist. he thinks he is a compatabilist. but... well... he rejects the current conceptions (from both sides fairly much) before carving out his own view... kind of like he (tried to?) do with consciousness...
(i have sympathy. he is an eliminativist about qualia or consciousness. i don't really buy his account of consciouness. though... i do buy his account of intentionality)
> alternatively, have you read roger penrose's "shadows of the mind"?
> penrose served as a counterpoint to dennett at the time i read them.:-)
no. haven't read any penrose. tend to stick to the philosophical literature really...have you read any Searle or Chalmers?
Posted by lil' jimi on November 6, 2005, at 15:20:55
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ..., posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 4:28:30
alexandra k,
let me assert my total tyro rank with academic philosophy:
there are no threats to my amateur status.
the philososphy of consciousness is strictly an avocation with me.
i am much more intuitive than scholarly about these issues.> > ... i relished his thoroughgoing
> > physicalist eliminativism ...
>
> hmm. i don't think he would approve of your saying that he is an eliminativist...i recall now that he disaows eliminativism ... my apologies.
> he is determined that he is not... whether he is right about that is, of course, another matter...
>his word is good with me.
> > i would be surprised by dennett being so expansive ...
>
> oh. well. remember the stuff in the second half of consciousness explained where he starts talking about 'the birth of reason' and so forth. start with the molecules and build up to... intentionality? well... this is a continuation on this theme.
>my memory being what it is, no ... time and tide ... maybe vaguely ...
> evolutionary accounts of consciousness, intentionality, and... free will. its worth a read if you are into that stuff :-)
>i read slow like.
i am working on the amazon excerpt you offered.
i need to read his "Intentional Stance" to get a grip on his view.
i found this http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/intentionalstance.html> > i am trying to imagine an eliminativist political party.
>
> lol. he doesn't think he is an eliminitivist.yeah.
> he thinks he is a compatabilist.
i am googling "compatabilist" now: tyro jim says, "wooo whee!"> but... well... he rejects the current conceptions (from both sides fairly much) before carving out his own view... kind of like he (tried to?) do with consciousness...
>excellent.
> (i have sympathy. he is an eliminativist about qualia or consciousness. i don't really buy his account of consciouness. though... i do buy his account of intentionality)
>i was moved by his elimination of consciousness.
it struck me as Zen-esque, if not parallel with buddhism's Anatman, or "No-Self".> > alternatively, have you read roger penrose's "shadows of the mind"?
> > penrose served as a counterpoint to dennett at the time i read them.
>
> :-)
> no. haven't read any penrose. tend to stick to the philosophical literature really...
>penrose has made hs own inroads into the the theory of the mind.
he is a Platonist.> have you read any Searle or Chalmers?
only some articles by them.
and their attacks on penrose's proposals.
most of the philosophers repudiate penrose.
he is a mathematical physicist.
he uses godel to disembowel algorithmic analogs for consciousness, hence no strong AI is possible.as soon as i find out about "Compatabilism" i will be suggesting
a Compatabilist Political Party.~ jim's a party animal ... not
Posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 1:31:34
In reply to Re: ... Dennett thinks ..., posted by alexandra_k on November 6, 2005, at 4:28:30
dear alexandra k,
in observance of your excommunication from these towers of babble,
allow me to confirm my intention that we will take up our discussion in a week's time ...meanwhile, i shall try to catch up on my studies ...
... i read the excerpt from "Freedom Evolves" ...
... totally beyond my mistaken expectations ...
... Thanks ...i can also read the issues that brought our gracious doctor robert to whip out his can of punitive on our alexandra k ...
... all i got so far was that you are opposed to something and hence thought it was not fair ... And this then could lead others to feel negatively judged ... that's a No-no, so you got the boot ...anyway, that is one long fragging thread there and for me it may take a week to read the whole thing ...
by the bye, i have been banned before ... more than once ...
... and, i pretty much earned them ... i admit i was not civil ...
... in fact, i was/have been concerned i may have been banned (and hence dismissed from our conversation) for some of my recent contributions to pB politics ... and it may happen yet ...... ha!
... but i should say that i have noticed and do appreciate that my shots at Bill O'Reilly have been honored by being awarded the top of the page status ...
... we know that does not happen by itself ...
... perhaps a somewhat subtle editorial from the management ... (?) ...anyway, my studies (glacial as they go) now include "intentionality"
and "compatabilism" ... i am going for a lot more context for them both ... shameful of me to have so little appreciation of Dennett really ...my interests focus on the intersection of neuroscientific studies of consciousness (like libet's "mind time: the temporal factor in consciousness"; restak's "modular brain"; rita carter's "exploring consciousness"); penrose's mathematical realism; the ontology of quantum theory; and mahayana buddhism ...
... it is a small intersection ...for instance, in oliver sacks' "the man who mistook his wife for a hat", sacks tells of sub-60s IQ savant twins who, as casual spor,t exchanged progressively larger numbers with some pleasure ... sacks discovers these 6 or 7 digit (i forget how many digits exactly numbers are all prime ... (i can't find my copy of sacks' right now; maybe they were 9 digit primes)
... it is as if they were plucking them from some platonic reality they had access to ...i come here to explore the political implications of that intersection.
malignance and political oppression exist.
seeing these things as unfair and expressing our opposition is a delicate matter here in the land of the dictatorship of the Civil.
there are risks for trying.
you are paying for taking that risk.
i honor you for your sacrifice.
i'll be here when you can return.
... well, i plan to be here ... one never knows ...~ jim, i could get banned too
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 18:38:38
In reply to Re: your banishment » alexandra_k, posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 1:31:34
Hey there.
We will have to catch up in a couple weeks - assuming we can co-ordinate our blocks ;-)I actually think... That while it can be hard at times... It is worthwhile to try and understand the reasons for the PBC's / blocks and try and follow the guidelines because... Unless one only wants to talk to people who agree with ones own way of thinking... One has to learn to express oneself in a way that has people listening to what one has to say and following along (though they may still disagree) and engaging in dialogue - which they won't if they feel they are being attacked.
Re-phrasings can be a bit tricky...
But I think it is worth taking the time...Hmm.
I have to learn to get better at that myself...
Anyway...
> ... i read the excerpt from "Freedom Evolves" ...
> ... totally beyond my mistaken expectations ...
> ... Thanks ...:-)
But he hasn't even got started yet! You might really like what he has to say about Conway's life game. Are you familiar with that? The notion is... That you 'digitalise' space by turning it into little pixels (like a square of math paper). Each pixel is either 'on' or 'off'. Time is similarly discrete and progresses fowards in instants. There is one law of physics in the life world... I do believe it is... If 3 adjacent 'pixels' are 'on' then in the next instant the 'pixel' will be 'on' otherwise the 'pixel will be 'off'.
(If less than 2 adjacent 'pixels' are 'on' then in the next instant the 'pixel' will be off - you can think of it as dying of lonliness if you like. If more than 3 adjacent 'pixels' are 'on' then in the next instant the 'pixel' will be off - you can think of it as dying of overcrowding if you like).
[okay i checked... its a tiny bit more complicated: 2 or 3 and its on]
So... You start with a distribution of cells. And using the one law of physics in the life world... You can predict the state of the lifeworld for every instant into the future with 100% accuracy. Laplace's vision of determinism...
What is interesting...
Is that certain configurations or distributions of cells behave in different ways. Three cells in a horizontal line will become three cells in a vertical line will become three cells in a horizontal line back and forth as a 'flasher' indefinately (provided that nothing encroaches). Four cells in a square will remain that way forever (provided that nothing encroaches).
Dennett says... Encroachment is: 'what makes life interesting'.
You get some configurations (or 'objects') that move...
There are 'gliders' which take strokes horizontally across the life plane (for example). There are 'eaters' which encroach on other configurations and engulf them. The ontology of 'gliders' 'eaters' etc is an emergent ontology to what Dennett calls the 'design stance level'. The very notion of 'moving through space' is an emergent ontology to the design stance level.From the physical level... All there are are cells. And cells don't move through life-world space, they stay right where they are though can turn 'on' or 'off'. The behaviour of the cells can be predicted with 100% accuracy...
From the emergent design level... There is an ontology of 'gliders' and 'eaters' and 'movement of an object through space'. Their behaviour can be predicted fairly reliably by saying things like:
'An eater can eat a glider in three steps. In the first step a bridge forms between the eater and the prey. In the second step both the eater and glider collide with the bridge. In the third stage the eater recovers and the prey does not.'
But all this is PROVIDED THAT... Nothing else encroaches. So... The predictive leverage we have at the design stance level is less than the predictive leverage we have at the physical stance level (because of the PROVIDED THAT clause). But... The notion is... That our predictions are more computationally tractible. Imagine how much you would have to compute to express the above design stance prediction from the level of physics... (It is controversial but I actually don't think the translation is possible because design stance ontology cannot be translated into physical stance ontology).
People do work (or perhaps play) trying to build various configurations of objects in the life world...
Trying to build self-replicating configurations (has been done).
Trying to build universal turing machines (which can compute any computable function) in the life world (has been proven that it is possible - by Turing I think).So... It would be possible to build a chess playing computer in the life world!
:-)
Of course... It has been estimatedt that you would need a life world on the order of billions and billions and billions of pixels square... But it is possible in principle...
:-)
What I find most interesting in the notion of self-replicating life configurations. Also... Mutating self-replicating life configurations (which is very much harder). Also... Trying to build 'protective' configurations that are less vulnerable to 'engulfment' or other 'harm'. The trade off between defence, and mobility...
Etc etc...Some people think... The life world is a model of conditions in the actual world... When we go back to considering the molecular soup that was the origin of cells etc...
:-)
Anyway... Something to think about.
If you find yourself getting bored...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
> anyway, my studies (glacial as they go) now include "intentionality"Okay... Intentional states just are mental states like belief and desire and hope and fear etc etc that are states that are ABOUT something other than themselves (are ABOUT states of affairs in the external world, or are ABOUT other mental states). What is most interesting about intentionality... (IMO) is how the intentional stance relates to the design stance and how the design stance relates to the physical stance and hence how the intentional stance (and the ontology of beliefs and desires etc) relates to the laws of physics and the ontology of physics (where there is mass and charge etc).
> and "compatabilism" ...
Compatabilism (with respect to free will) is just the thought that...
IF determinism was true (as it is in the life world on the physical level)
THEN we can still have free will.To be a compatabilist you don't have to say that the actual world really is determined on the physical level (the way the life world is). You might think determinism is false... You might say that the actual world is irreducibly indeterminate on the physical level...
What makes you a compatabilist is the thought that IF determinism was true... Then that wouldn't rule out free will.Dennett.... Is of course interested in showing how 'free will' is emergent to the intentional stance. In the same way that 'eaters' and 'gliders' are emergent to the design stance. Thus... He wants to show... How there can be free will in the life world.
> my interests focus on the intersection of neuroscientific studies of consciousness (like libet's "mind time: the temporal factor in consciousness"; restak's "modular brain"; rita carter's "exploring consciousness"); penrose's mathematical realism; the ontology of quantum theory; and mahayana buddhism ...
:-)
I'm a fan of Libet's 'backwards referral in time' experiments. Though I'll admit... I've only read of them in Dennett's "Consciousness Explained". Hmm.. Modular Brain... Closest I've come to that would be Jerry Fodor's "Modularity of Mind". Those are interesting to me... But I haven't read them...> for instance, in oliver sacks' "the man who mistook his wife for a hat",
:-)
I remember learning about that in my Cognitive Psychology course.> sacks tells of sub-60s IQ savant twins who, as casual spor,t exchanged progressively larger numbers with some pleasure ... sacks discovers these 6 or 7 digit (i forget how many digits exactly numbers are all prime ... (i can't find my copy of sacks' right now; maybe they were 9 digit primes)
Yeah, I remember that :-)
> ... it is as if they were plucking them from some platonic reality they had access to ...
Hmm... Or crunching numbers really really fast. Kind of like... How computers do ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 19:20:40
In reply to Re: your banishment » lil' jimi, posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 18:38:38
though i should add (very briefly)
that (IMO) "Freedom Evolves" deteriorates rather once he gets to the end of contemplating the life world...you aren't going to get fully fledged intentionality (or fully fledged freedom either) from considering chess playing turing machines in the life world...
(the thought with chess playing computers is that... regardless of the hardware (and physical laws)... regardless of the software (and design rules)... sometimes it is just more computationally tractible and faster for our purposes (real time constraints finite minds etc) to consider the chess playing computer from the intentional stance
'oh. it believes that if it moves its queen just so then it will get me in check and it desires to get me into check and that is why i predict it will move its queen just so...'.
but... does a chess playing computer REALLY have beliefs and desires??? or just METAPHORICALLY? but then... do people REALLY have beliefs and desires??? or just METAPHORICALLY? and that is the problem of intentionality...
hmm.
but my point is that the chess playing computer doesn't seem to have mental states in quite the same way we do...
and stuff in the life world doesn't seem to have freedom in quite the same way we do...
though to be fair he is more interested in 'rudimentary' mental states and 'rudimentary' freedom. kind of... the 'missing link'
(though i'm fairly interested in the prospects for a three dimensional life world with 5 (or is it 7) 'fields' superimposed the way the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force etc is supposed to be)
anyway...
point is... its still a jump from there to the distinctively human variety of freedom that we want...
:-)
Posted by gromit on November 20, 2005, at 22:01:06
In reply to Re: Hey, Gromit » gromit, posted by AuntieMel on October 18, 2005, at 14:50:31
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.