Eliminating Qualia

[untermensche]

Grammar is only for those who believe in it.

The only people who really care about grammar are children needing a grade.

It is not needed.

If I wrote: The mind knew it's decision.

Would there be any problem with comprehension?

The parts of language required for comprehension have nothing to do with the artificial "grammar" people have arbitrarily added to language.

 

[ruby sparks]

When LSD binds to a cell, actually to many cells, the behavior of the cells change and experience changes. The mind changes.

Sure. That's something nobody has disagreed with.

The mind is clearly a product of behavior.

Pretty much ditto. Product of brain activity might be a better way to say the same thing. But if behaviour means activity then ok.

It is a product.

That too. It's a product of brain activity, or brain behaviour if you like. That's what it is. As far as we can tell.

A "thing" unto itself.

Not sure what 'thing unto itself' implies as a consequence. It seems to imply independence. But it's a fully dependent product. There appears to be a basic contradiction there.

And how could it be autonomous and in control if it's a product at all times, which would presumably not even exist if not continuously produced by the brain and fully dependent for its existence on ongoing brain activity at every single moment? Supervenient, in other words. A product, as you say. Speed is a product of car activity. Wouldn't autonomy in that case be a bit like saying the car's speed controls the car? It might affect the car, sure. But control? Sausages might be 'things unto themselves' but can they control the sausage-making machine?

But, getting back on point, what experiences the mind?

And why can't the brain be an experiencer, as most think is the case?

 

[WAB]

With all due seriousness:

Grammar is VERY important.

But I was just trying to be funny with my post.

Nonetheless, grammar is V E R Y important; it's the difference between comprehension and utter confusion.

Naturally, grammar refers to far more than apostrophes. There is nearly a science of grammar, though it is inter-subjective.

See Spinoza's Hebrew Grammar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Posthuma

[video]https://spinozaresearchnetwork.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/new-book-engaging-with-spinozas-hebrew-grammar/[/video]

 

[ruby sparks]

Perhaps mind is not of itself an illusion. Mind exists, at least as an undeniable experience, whatever it is. But some of its capacities, including for example being in control, may be illusory, at least to an extent, to whatever it is that experiences it.

As Einstein once said, if the moon were somehow to become self-conscious, it might think that it was steering itself around the earth.

Several psychological experiments reveal how we can believe we are exercising control over our actions and reactions when we are in fact not. This even extends to a belief in control of external events, and this type is known in psychology, unsurprisingly, as 'The Illusion of Control'.

 

[untermensche]

Nonetheless, grammar is V E R Y important; it's the difference between comprehension and utter confusion.

It depends on what "grammar" you're talking about.

The natural "grammar" of a language? The grammar we acquire just by listening to bits of language?

Or the artificial doo dads added by neurotics to a natural language?

 

[untermensche]

A "thing" unto itself.

Not sure what 'thing unto itself' implies as a consequence.

The activity that produces a product is not the product.

The activity in the computer chip is not the product of that activity.

It is something that arises because of the activity.

The mind, a distinct entity, arises because of activity.

It is not the activity.

It is not the thing producing the activity.

It is a "thing" unto itself.

 

[untermensche]

Perhaps mind is not of itself an illusion. Mind exists, at least as an undeniable experience, whatever it is. But some of its capacities, including for example being in control, may be illusory, at least to an extent, to whatever it is that experiences it.

As Einstein once said, if the moon were somehow to become self-conscious, it might think that it was steering itself around the earth.

Several psychological experiments reveal how we can believe we are exercising control over our actions and reactions when we are in fact not. This even extends to a belief in control of external events, and this type is known in psychology, unsurprisingly, as 'The Illusion of Control'.

Do you think these ideas just coalesced randomly?

Or were they put together by an active mind that can move ideas around at will?

 

[WAB]

Nonetheless, grammar is V E R Y important; it's the difference between comprehension and utter confusion.

It depends on what "grammar" you're talking about.

The natural "grammar" of a language? The grammar we acquire just by listening to bits of language?

Or the artificial doo dads added by neurotics to a natural language?

I strike my flag. Not goin' there.

Unter, as much as I like you, and have tried to assist you, this argument for the sake of argument is futile.

And furthermore, and more importantly:

It's NO FUN!!!

Be at peace, and may the FSM (Flying Socratic Monster) rain his noodly blessings upon thee!

...and I'm tired of looking at these ugly authors, first Rabelais, then Hawthorne (bless him). I'm goin' back to being a hottie. Soon.

 

[untermensche]

Nonetheless, grammar is V E R Y important; it's the difference between comprehension and utter confusion.

It depends on what "grammar" you're talking about.

The natural "grammar" of a language? The grammar we acquire just by listening to bits of language?

Or the artificial doo dads added by neurotics to a natural language?

I strike my flag. Not goin' there.

Unter, as much as I like you, and have tried to assist you, this argument for the sake of argument is futile.

You are not familiar with Chomsky?

Only the man who set Linguistics on a scientific course.

 

[WAB]

I am not a big fan of Chomsky. Politically, that is.

As for cunning linguists, my two current favorites are Copernicus and that other guy. No, not that one, yeah, the other one.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky has nothing to do with Derrida.

Chomsky says he does not understand what Derrida is talking about.

Chomsky talks about natural "grammar" as opposed to the unneeded additions some call grammar.

 

[WAB]

Chomsky has nothing to do with Derrida.

Chomsky says he does not understand what Derrida is talking about.

Chomsky talks about natural "grammar" as opposed to the unneeded additions some call grammar.

Yes, I know, unter. I was trying to compose a humorous post and it got all fouled up. My apologies.

I'm pretty sure Derrida doesn't know what Derrida is talking about.

 

[DBT]

A brain and it's activity are two completely different things.

No they are not. Neural activity is a function of the brain, a part of its architecture. A dead brain is a completely different thing to a live, active brain.....

Some theories are full of holes. In Um's case, they're pigeonholes.

As someone else pointed out, a red ball has both redness and roundness. Two completely different things, separate and removed from each other. You can't say that shape and colour are the same thing or are even related. Don't even get me started on size, density, elasticity, temperature, velocity or location.

So many completely different things.

A ball may be any colour, but if the ball happens to be red, the colour is a part or aspect of that particular ball.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Grammar is only for those who believe in it.

The only people who really care about grammar are children needing a grade.

It is not needed.

Actually, it is absolutely necessary to be able to write clearly, as you ironically demonstrate with your example.

If I wrote: The mind knew it's decision.

Would there be any problem with comprehension?

Yes, there would!

Here are the two possible readings:

The mind knew it's decision

This can only be read as 'the mind knew it is decision'. The best reading I can see is that 'the mind used to know that it is constituted by decision'.

The other, grammatically correct, option:

The mind knew its decision

is easy to parse: 'The mind knew what it had decided'.

In short, your own example disagrees with you.

The parts of language required for comprehension have nothing to do with the artificial "grammar" people have arbitrarily added to language.

You obviously don't know how a pigeon becomes a creole do you? More to the point, you are contradicting dear old Chomsky, and indeed yourself, in a previous thread. No change there.

- - - Updated - - -

Chomsky has nothing to do with Derrida.

Chomsky says he does not understand what Derrida is talking about.

Chomsky talks about natural "grammar" as opposed to the unneeded additions some call grammar.

Yes, I know, unter. I was trying to compose a humorous post and it got all fouled up. My apologies.

I'm pretty sure Derrida doesn't know what Derrida is talking about.

I disagree, I think Derrida is a bastard to read, and a steenking Continental, but, like Ricoeur, if you put in the effort he's a clever bugger.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I like this from your linked article.

The effects of hallucinogens are thought to be mediated by serotonin receptor activation; however, how these drugs elicit the unusual behavioral effects remains largely a mystery, despite much research.

The receptor is part of the cell. Not the things that bind by sheer chance to the receptor.

Cells do change.

It is called differentiation.

But it does not happen because something binds to a receptor temporarily.

What that changes is only the behavior of the cell.

The mind arises due to the behavior of the brain.

Not simply because there is a brain.

That has to be the most impressive piece of out of context cherry picking that I have ever seen. You don't get much more intellectually dishonest than that. I assume you know where genes are found and what they do?

 

[Juma]

Actually, it is absolutely necessary to write



Yes, there would!

Here are the two possible readings:

The mind knew it's decision

This can only be read as 'the mind knew it is decision'. While still not quite grammatically correct, the best reading I can see is that 'the mind used to know that its constituted by decision'.

The other, grammatically correct, option

The mind knew its decision

This is easy to parse: 'The mind knew what it had decided'.

In short, your own example disagrees with you.

The parts of language required for comprehension have nothing to do with the artificial "grammar" people have arbitrarily added to language.

You obviously don't know how a pigeon becomes a creole do you? More to the point, you are contradicting dear old Chomsky, and indeed yourself, in a previous thread. No change there.

- - - Updated - - -

Chomsky has nothing to do with Derrida.

Chomsky says he does not understand what Derrida is talking about.

Chomsky talks about natural "grammar" as opposed to the unneeded additions some call grammar.

Yes, I know, unter. I was trying to compose a humorous post and it got all fouled up. My apologies.

I'm pretty sure Derrida doesn't know what Derrida is talking about.

I disagree, I think Derrida is a bastard to read, and a steenking Continental, but, like Ricoeur, if you put in the effort he's a clever bugger.

Maybe. But that doesnt makes him right.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I'm pretty sure Derrida doesn't know what Derrida is talking about.

I disagree, I think Derrida is a bastard to read, and a steenking Continental, but, like Ricoeur, if you put in the effort he's a clever bugger.

Maybe. But that doesn't makes him right.

I'm not sure that you can claim wrongness or rightness about an entire corpus of work. However, I was addressing the question of whether he knew what he was talking about, I think, with good grounds, that he does and is both coherent, consistent and clever, even if I don't accept all of his axioms and premises. You want to talk about correctness, you need to focus on a single argument or claim. I'm happy to do that if you want.

 

[Subsymbolic]

It is to show that the mind is removed from the brain.

There is the brain.

There is the activity of the brain that creates the mind.

And there is the product of the brain activity, the mind.

The mind that is altered when brain activity is altered.

The mind is one step removed from the brain.

That doesn't answer either of the two questions.

Some people are not even worth bothering with.

Any moron can say they do not see what is there.

You have your answers. Find them.

As Koy would say: Irony, big fan...

 

[WAB]

I disagree, I think Derrida is a bastard to read, and a steenking Continental, but, like Ricoeur, if you put in the effort he's a clever bugger.

Yes, very difficult. It has been many years since I tried. We have some Derrida threads in the archives, I believe. I sort of rode the fence on him, thinking perhaps he made too much ado about nothing, or, more correctly, that he was just, well, almost deliberately attempting to frustrate understanding, to further clog lines of communication among people rather than reaching with genuine sincerity toward clarity.

Of course, he was wickedly brilliant, but, like John Ashbery*, an American poet famous for writing a kind of sophisticated, pretentious nonsense verse (similar but different to the candid and funny nonsense of Carroll & Lear, and Ashbery's contemporary, Kenneth Koch), I found the effort to understand him (Derrida) was taking too much of my time, effort, and patience, so I sorta bailed on him: ungrateful little smarmy brat that I am!



*You'll notice — 'cos you're so perceptive and clever, ya bastard ya — I like to keep bringing poets into the mix. This irritates that crap out of some folk 'round these here parts, who think poets ought to be left to the warm and fuzzy world of esthetics.

But I strongly disagree, and I'm something of a Shelleyan with respect to politics (you thought I was gonna say literature, oh come on, admit it! lol ), as I am a Spinozist with respect to philosophy.

Shelley (dead at 29, an utter tragedy for everyone with any respect for truth and intellectual courage), author of The Necessity of Atheism:

Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I disagree, I think Derrida is a bastard to read, and a steenking Continental, but, like Ricoeur, if you put in the effort he's a clever bugger.

Yes, very difficult. It has been many years since I tried. We have some Derrida threads in the archives, I believe. I sort of rode the fence on him, thinking perhaps he made too much ado about nothing, or, more correctly, that he was just, well, almost deliberately attempting to frustrate understanding, to further clog lines of communication among people rather than reaching with genuine sincerity toward clarity.

Of course, he was wickedly brilliant, but, like John Ashbery*, an American poet famous for writing a kind of sophisticated, pretentious nonsense verse (similar but different to the candid and funny nonsense of Carroll & Lear, and Ashbery's contemporary, Kenneth Koch), I found the effort to understand him (Derrida) was taking too much of my time, effort, and patience, so I sorta bailed on him: ungrateful little smarmy brat that I am!



*You'll notice — 'cos you're so perceptive and clever, ya bastard ya — I like to keep bringing poets into the mix. This irritates that crap out of some folk 'round these here parts, who think poets ought to be left to the warm and fuzzy world of esthetics.

But I strongly disagree, and I'm something of a Shelleyan with respect to politics (you thought I was gonna say literature, oh come on, admit it! lol ), as I am a Spinozist with respect to philosophy.

Shelley (dead at 29, an utter tragedy for everyone with any respect for truth and intellectual courage), author of The Necessity of Atheism:

Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.

I’m with Tom Stoppard’s position in Arcadia. Most of the Romantics were self agrandizing man whores with the ethics of a character from a Shakespeare comedy. However I don’t much accept the primacy of Science. I hold that we have dozens of great intellectual traditions, including theatre, poetry and literature. If one wants to understand the human condition then the best approach is multidisciplinary.

I once visited the Collossi of Memnon just to climb up one and recite Ozymandius. I’m a sad bastard.