The Doctrine Of Willful Ignorance

[cleanhippie]

The word “ignorant” is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult. Of course, ignorance is not always a pejorative. There are many things I am ignorant of simply because I have not yet received knowledge. But there is an aspect of ignorance that continues to defy logic and reason that lives mostly in the realm of religious belief. We know this characteristic as “Willful Ignorance,” and it concerns how an individual chooses to interpret the reality and its connection to things proved, unproved and, of course, things that cannot be proved.

When someone tells us that something is “true,” we can choose to either accept it as such or not. For instance, say I’am at a protest and I am made aware of a boundary that the police had set up to keep protesters organized. A police officer has given me the knowledge that if I step across this line, I will be arrested. I accept this as a true statement. There is no reason to doubt it and debating it will likely result in a similar outcome. I can then choose my actions according to whether or not I want to be arrested.

--snip--


There is enough information available from literally thousands of independent and verified sources that can explain how religious beliefs started and evolved within the human species. From the fields of psychology, archaeology, anthropology, biology and many other scientific disciplines come comprehensive understanding of how the human mind can come to believe. The scientific community is responsible for the discovery of knowledge and insights into so many aspects of our existence, but as these facts are revealed by our best and brightest, the faithful persist in ignoring facts in favor of superstition.

This is the doctrine of willful ignorance. It causes such an unbalance of reality in the lives of religious believers that they’ve largely become a parody unto themselves. Willful ignorance not only sustains superstitious beliefs, but it is also responsible for why believers are so fiercely protective of their gods. The most detrimental result of willful ignorance, though, is that it causes most believers to resist that spark of skepticism that results in the journey down the path of enlightenment and remains one of the most injurious obstacles to the growth and evolution of our societies.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2011/10/07/willful_ignoranc/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[rrneck]

1. Stupidity = self inflicted ignorance.

I think I have that one on a cafe press t shirt.

[zipplewrath]

2. Tad over the top

"There is enough information available from literally thousands of independent and verified sources that can explain how religious beliefs started and evolved within the human species. From the fields of psychology, archaeology, anthropology, biology and many other scientific disciplines come comprehensive understanding of how the human mind can come to believe. The scientific community is responsible for the discovery of knowledge and insights into so many aspects of our existence, but as these facts are revealed by our best and brightest, the faithful persist in ignoring facts in favor of superstition."

Science tells us very little about faith or spirituality. We can explain much about the history of traditions (although not nearly as much as the author suggests) but the underlying faith is not really subject to much scientific scrutiny. There are definitely a large number of people who engage in nothing much more that superstition. However, there are very learned people who still have "faith" and feel a personal connection with an omniscient presence. Science isn't going to have very much to offer in that area.

[darkstar3]

4. Actually, neuroscience has explained that phenomenon quite well,

and there are several books on the subject. The Believing Brain is just one of them.

Furthermore, the number of people who still have "faith", whether they are "learned" or not, has no bearing on the validity of that faith.

[tama]

5. Considering

that neuroscience is unable to explain placebo and that the "mental processes reduce to neural processes" is just an un verified hypothesis, open minded scientific approach would advice remaining skeptical of those explanations.

[cleanhippie]

7. Thats simply not true.

Placebo effect is quite well understood. Shermer's The Believing Brain explains it quite well with plenty of references to scientific study and research to support that.

Here is a link to another resource.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11141/

[tama]

9. Let's be carefull

about what scientific explanation means. There is lot of empirical studies about the phenomenon and more keep coming, but no explanatory theory of the data. From your link:

"The mechanisms of pain amelioration on the battlefield, in acupuncture anesthesia, and with hypnosis are presumably related. Although the mechanisms by which the brain affects the perception of pain are only beginning to be understood, the effect is neither magical nor a sign of a suggestible intellect. In short, the placebo effect is quite real."

The main problem - in the context of the working hypothesis that mental phenomena reduce to neural processes - is the seeming mental causation that placebo suggests.

***

Just did a quick search to see if there's anything new on the quantum mind front on the subject and this came up:
Quantum Theory of Placebos
www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PPBY.ppt
The Conception Of The Mind/Brain Connection That Underlies Classical ... The Conception That Underlies Quantum Mechanics! .... A Placebo Experiment. ...

And no, I'm not saying that is scientific explanation either. Just valid argument that the explanation should be searched in quantum mechanics instead of classical mechanics.

[darkstar3]

11. "quantum mind"

Fuckin' really?

[tama]

16. What's the problem? nt

[darkstar3]

21. It is self-explanatory. nt

[tama]

22. Willfull ignorance? nt

[darkstar3]

8. Yeah, you need to read more

I'm not engaging with you on this again until I have at least a solid guarantee of your sobriety.

[cleanhippie]

14. !

:spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

[cleanhippie]

6. What darkstar said.

Neuroscience HAS actually explained these things quite well, to the point that the explanation are not only plausible, they are quite probable.

I respectfully suggest that you do read up on the subject, and Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain is a great resource.

[tama]

18. Checked the Amazon page for TBB

And I don't dispute that we are gullible beings. But let's try some rational and critical thinking.

1) Do you deny the possibility that you too have a "believing brain"? Or that the skeptical community and the "world's best-known skeptic Michael Shermer" also has a believing brain? Or is it just "them others"?

2) Assuming for the sake of consistency that you don't deny the possibility that also members of the skeptical community have believing brains, is it possible that the belief that "all mental phenomena are just epiphenomena of classical mechanics and nothing else", is just a belief of the believing brain - and not the scientific truth?

3) If you accept the POSSIBILITY that reduction of mental phenomena to classical mechanics can be just a belief and not the scientific truth - and I assume you do - we can proceed to the next example.

4) If it can be shown that mental causation apparent in placebo effect is not consistent with the hypothesis that all mental phenomena reduce to classical mechanics, but not inconsistent with the hypothesis that also quantum mechanics are involved in mental processes, then which hypothesis is more plausible?

[darkstar3]

20. Read the book and you should find your answers.

That is, unless you continue to harp on the appeal to ignorance.

[tama]

23. I don't have the book

and no money to buy it. I can only hope that you would be more helpful and tell me how it explains placebo and how that explanation relates to the hypothesis that mental phenomena reduce to classical mechanics.

Would you consider it unfair to ask that you tell us more about the claim you make - with resources that are readily available and as good as you can in this situation?

[cleanhippie]

26. Check it our from your local library.

that costs nothing.

[cleanhippie]

24. Again, I agree with DS3

You should read the book and then we will all be on the same page for further discussion. If I attempt to answer you now, I am just going to have to look it up where I read it first, then regurgitate it to you. If you read it yourself, we can discuss the merits or any apparent dubious claims made.

[tama]

38. I rather google now

Philosophical background:
"(1) The human body is a material thing.
(2) The human mind is a spiritual thing.
(3) Mind and body interact.
(4) Spirit and matter do not interact."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-causation/
or for quick and short:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_mental_causation


***

Belief, motivation, and expectation are essential to the placebo effect. Together, they are referred to as the subject-expectancy effect. Classical conditioning and suggestion by an authoritative healer seem to be triggering mechanisms for the placebo effect (Bausell 2007: 131).
http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html


***


"Placebos are inactive treatments that shouldn’t, in some sense, have a real effect. And yet they often do. But the chemical basis of the placebo effect, despite its enormous importance, is still largely a mystery. A study published this week in Nature Medicine shows that cannabinoid receptors are involved in the placebo response to pain, which hasn’t been demonstrated before. The finding implies that the brain’s own endocannabinoids can fight pain, and actually do it via the same pathway as several compounds in the cannabis plant."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/07/the-brains-medicine-natural-marijuana-like-chemicals-play-important-role-in-placebo-effect/


***


"Mentalistic variables must be considered to reach a correct understanding of the neurophysiological basis of behavior in humans. Confusion regarding the relative importance of neurophysiological and mentalistic variables can lead to important misconceptions about causes and effects in the study of human behavior. In this article, we review neuroimaging studies of the effect of psychotherapy in patients suffering from diverse forms of psychopathology (obsessive–compulsive disorder, panic disorder, unipolar major depressive disorder, spider phobia). We also review neuroimaging studies of the placebo effect in healthy individuals (placebo analgesia, psychostimulant expectation) and patients with Parkinson's disease or unipolar major depressive disorder. Mental functions and processes involved in diverse forms of psychotherapy exert a significant influence on brain activity. With regard to the placebo effect, beliefs and expectations can markedly modulate neurophysiological and neurochemical activity in brain regions involved in perception, movement, pain and various aspects of emotion processing. The findings of the neuroimaging studies reviewed here strongly support the view that the subjective nature and the intentional content of mental processes significantly influence the various levels of brain functioning (e.g. molecular, cellular, neural circuit) and brain plasticity.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08039480802421182"


***

Conclusion: Placebo evidence seems to most strongly support the (3) Mind and body interact (consistent with the Quantum Mind hypothesis), but (1) The human body is a material thing (consistent with hypothesis that mental phenomena reduce to classical mechanics only) cannot be outright excluded based on this material and the view that there is no real mental causation, only conditioned expectations-reactions - but that leads to the classical chicken and egg problem and consequently to the "not even theory"-problem of impossibility of falsification.

[darkstar3]

41. 2) is a false premise.

But of course your focus here is the placebo effect. Allow me to simplify it for you.

1. The placebo effect deals entirely with symptoms, and not physical manifestations of disease. That means that the placebo effect alters only the patient's perception of the illness, and not the physical attributes or repercussions of the illness. A patient with a tumor treated with a placebo will still have the same exact tumor, but may experience a decrease in the severity of the symptoms of the tumor. To quote the American Cancer Society:

Even though placebos do not act on the disease, they seem to have an effect in about 1 out of 3 patients. A change in a person's symptoms as a result of getting a placebo is called the placebo effect. Usually the term "placebo effect" speaks to the helpful effects of a placebo in relieving symptoms.

2. The only way to experience symptoms of a disease, or in fact anything else, is with the brain.

3. The brain contains powerful ways of chemically altering its own processes by using dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, and other chemicals. Dopamine releases are known to relieve pain and anxiety, (two things patients in a drug study would have) and also known to happen as a result of the brain perceiving an action as a reward. Eating a small amount of chocolate after vigorous exercise, for example, would release dopamine and help to cope with muscle pain.

In conclusion, symptoms experienced by patients of a disease are simply a perception, and we have well documented ways in which that perception can be altered. The simple act of taking a bold step forward in your treatment and receiving what you think is a wonder-drug as a reward for that bold step could easily trigger a dopamine response, and that doesn't even get into the oddities of other neurotransmitters. And before you go off half-cocked on that word "could", keep in mind that the only reason we don't know this with 100% certainty is because there is no way to measure the current level of neurotransmitters in the brain of a double-blind study participant.

The human brain is a biochemical device, and while we don't know everything about it, we do know how to manipulate it, and the placebo effect is nothing more than that manipulation in action. This is a strong theory, backed by decades of biochemical and neuroscientific research in which patients' neurotransmitters have been purposely modified in order to determine, and then bring about specific effects. For you to dismiss neuroscience, and its clear and succinct explanation of faith and spirituality, simply because it has yet to answer 100% of the questions surrounding the human brain is merely an appeal to ignorance.

[tama]

47. Did you read before responding?

Claim 1) that the placebo effect deals entirely with symptoms, and not physical manifestations of disease, is simply not true, and I thought we were allready on same page with that. From the skeptical dictionary article linked above:

"The psychological explanation seems to be the one most commonly believed. Perhaps this is why many people are dismayed when they are told that the effective drug they are taking is a placebo. This makes them think that their problem is "all in their mind" and that there is really nothing wrong with them. Yet, there are too many studies that have found objective improvements in health from placebos to support the notion that the placebo effect is entirely psychological.

Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000).*"

Empirical data shows that placebo deals also with physical manifestations of disease.

Your claim 2), if I interpret correctly, is simply restating the philosophical hypothesis or presupposition of materialism/classical mechanics and dressing it up as a given fact. That is not empirical approach and as we have seen, not backed by empirical data.

The position that also mental causation happens and mind and matter interact, does not mean refuting neuroscience and the empirically very strong and plausible claim that all mental phenomena have also neurological correlate. The question is not about correlation but about causality when it is claimed that all mental experiences - including "spiritual experiences" - causally reduce to classical mechanics. Empirical evidence of placebo mental causation falsify the thesis of causal reduction of mental phenomena to classical mechanics.

Given all scientific progress available, the thesis that all human experience causally reduce to mere classical mechanics is hugely counterintuitive and bad science. To begin with, it fails to explain how human minds as mere epiphenomena of classical mechanics can formulate quantum mechanics. On the other hand, the persistent belief in causal reduction of mental phenomena to classical mechanics can be easily explained as just another manifestation of gullible brain.

[darkstar3]

52. I am fully aware that you reject the fact that the mind is contained within the brain,

but that rejection is based in nothing more than wishful thinking. Every single one of the minor diseases you talk about in this post is known to have a psychosomatic component, because we know that stress can contribute to or cause them all. Psychosomatic symptoms can be relieved by mental manipulation. Now read the ACS website and tell me that a placebo can actually ameliorate things like tumors, cists, arterial blockages, and so on. (Hint: it doesn't.)

The funny thing is, you reject the idea that the brain is a biochemical device while admittedly using chemicals to modify your perception.

[tama]

54. Calling your belief a fact

does not change the fact that it is a mere belief. And you refute it yourself: "stress can contribute to or CAUSE them all. Psychosomatic symptoms can be relieved by mental manipulation". What is that if not mental causation? (caps mine)

This is quite confusing. Perhaps there is some level of misinterpretation and misunderstanding towards what your actual position is concerning the mind-body question, reductionism, holism etc. For instance, the Hameroff-Penrose quantum mind hypothesis ("Orchestrated Objective Reduction") is consistent with the claim that "mind is contained within the brain"; on the other hand Bohmian approaches to the quantum mind hypothesis (Stapp, Sarfatti etc.) are not consistent with that claim but closer to holism and/or panpsychism, suggesting that rudimentary forms of consciousness are present already at the particle level.

To clarify your position, could you please tell me is your educated opinion that all mental phenomena causally reduce to classical mechanics and to classical mechanics only - and if so, what is mental causation if anything? Or if your position is something else, then what? If something else, do you have some fundamental objection to the view that there is no one way causally reductionist relationship between mind and neurology/classical mechanics, but mere aspectual difference reflecting some deeper level of nature? I would very much appreciate if you could answer these questions as clearly as you can leaving minimum room for misinterpretation from my part.


PS: Perhaps I may also try to clarify my position that I have no need to argue against the view that there is also some "woo", as you might want to call it, surrounding the quantum mind hypothesis, but that does not by any means undermine the fact that also serious scientific work and progress is being made in the field, both theoretical and empirical.

PPS: One more question about placebo, have you been following discussions about the recent observations that the placebo effect is getting stronger, and if so, what is your take on the matter?

[darkstar3]

55. Rejecting evidence does not make room for your belief.

Let me see if I have this clear: You believe that psychosomaticism is proof that the mind somehow reaches beyond the brain. Is that correct?

[tama]

56. To avoid talking pass each other

before I can answer your question I need the clarification what is your understanding of psychosomaticism. So could you please answer the questions in my previous post.

[darkstar3]

57. The questions in your previous post are garbled to an extent that makes any clear answer impossible.

I'm trying simplify the conversation by taking this one thing at a time. Psychosomatic has an accepted defintion. Now do you, or do you not, believe that the occurence of psychosomaticism is evidence that the mind somehow reaches beyond the brain?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

60. I just knew I should have stuck to #8.

[tama]

61. Sorry

The frustration overcame and lost my cool. Was hoping for a real discussion. Never mind.

[darkstar3]

59. .

[westerebus]

42. I'd say yes and yes.

Without the goo (classic mechanics) the reduction of or appearance of phenomena is nil on the personal level.

Thought not on the universal level.

The universe glows in color. No goo, no color as far as we couldn't process that exchange of information.

The mental process represents quantum function. Wave collapse.

So, yes and yes.

Not to go too far astray, eastern philosophy hasn't much of a problem with the heart/mind interface as does the west.

If, I'm incorrect, please understand I will take your explanation under consideration in the morning.

Have a good night.

[tama]

48. Thanks

and good morning. :)

In terms of interpretations of quantum mechanics, I'll go with Feynmann who calls "wave collapse" mysticism. Decoherence of quantum states into classical states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence) is not fully understood, but wave collapse does not need to be postulated.

[westerebus]

50. Good morning.

At least Feynmann had a sense of humor when he calls it as he sees it.

Even if he didn't actually see it. lol

;-)

[westerebus]

74. I got to your link.

After reading the back and forth between yourself and JIM_.

The best I can offer is there is a chicken and there is an egg.

You'll (plural) get to do the math.

I think a sense of humor explains more about our nature than does the esoterica of decoherence.

Now, multi worlds does ring some bells, particles at a distance and deep time are in there some place too.

I'm still scrubbing the rust off the physics file in the neural device.

Any thing current a layman might read?

[tama]

75. Still 70%-30%

Mental causation of obedience to authority vs. anarchy of heart. How about rEvolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/12/19/in-repeat-of-milgrams-electric-shock-experiment-people-still-pull-the-lever/

[westerebus]

76. Milgram.

Any particular reason for that choice?

Yes, I do know the history of the experiments.

[tama]

77. Reading V for Vendetta

The comic of these times. Milgram was mentioned in the book, thought about possible meanings of "rEvolution" and 99,999...%, testable scientific criteria of evolution of civil disobedience against authoritarian mental causation and anarchy of heart.

Maybe I should have posted this in R/T instead of editorials: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x631686

[Jim__]

62. Your statement #4 is a hypothetical.

I'd be amazed if anyone today had sufficient knowledge of brain function to make such a claim as: mental causation apparent in placebo effect is not consistent with the hypothesis that all mental phenomena reduce to classical mechanics. Are you just using that to establish rational boundaries for discussion? Or, do you know of someone who claims to have that type of knowledge?

[tama]

63. Both

Link to Henry Stapp's presentation was given earlier in this thread. Also the names Hameroff, Penrose, Bohm and Sarfatti have been mentioned.

Is it your view that all mental phenomena reduce to classical mechanics only, and if so, what is the place and meaning of mental causation inside that hypothesis?

[Jim__]

65. I read Penrose's book on the mind years ago and all I remember is being disappointed.

I've read other things of Penrose's and have tremendous respect for his opinion, but I thought his ideas about how quantum mechanics affects mental processes to be both incomplete and unjustified. Incomplete in that, IIRC, he did not fully explain how quantum mechanics could give rise to things like consciousness and unjustified in that he didn't show that it was required.

When you ask about mental phenomena, before we can begin to discuss such things as to whether or not it can be reduced to classical mechanics, we first have to have some sort of working definition, some limit, of what we mean by mental phenomema. Looking at the wiki entry you referenced on post #38, can we accept that by mental phenomena, we mean human intention, both intentional thoughts and intentional actions? Given that definition, and going back to your statement #4 and post #38, I don't really see any benefit to assuming that mental causation can't be reduced to classical mechanics. I don't believe we have enough understanding of human intentionality to actually begin to address its causes. My belief on this matter is that we need to have a better understanding of what processes, both physiological and neurological, are taking place while conscious subjects are engaging in intentional activity. At this point in time, I don't believe anyone has the foggiest notion of what is happening here.

[tama]

67. Agreed

Re Penrose-Hameroff, my opinion is that the Bohmian (in wide sense) approach is more fruitful avenue of research. We know that all our current theories are incomplete, and unificatory physicalist theory that would explain also mental phenomena needs to issue also the role and place of mathematics in mathematical physics, nature as whole AND human cognition - question that played central role also in Penrose's justification for quantum approach to consciousness. The question cannot be approached by empiricism only - mathematics is not empirical but cognitive science - and needs to be formulated with philosophical clarity before empirical approaches can be applied.

IMHO philosophically the strongest argument against reduction of mental phenomena including and especially mathematics to classical mechanics only is that human cognition is able to formulate mathematics that are not limited to classical mechanics but more fundamental than classical mechanics - mathematics of quantum mechanics that classical mechanics reduce to, or at least chemistry and electromagnetism. In philosophy of science and cognition - the two are inseparable - attempts to reduce mathematical cognition to classical mechanics only leads to contradictions and inconsistencies that can be very well described as the very confused bog of "foggiest notion".

IMHO the most philosophically consistent starting point or presupposition to these questions is Platonic realism, world of mathematical forms as the world of all possible worlds. And as we are having this discussion on R/T forum, it deserves to be mentioned that I have no problem identifying World of mathematical forms as Spinoza's God, what also Einstein and Gödel referred to in their use of the word.

IMHO there is also the justification related to the open vs. closed mind argument that could be defined as "experimentalist justification" for quantum approach, which is more personal and ethical consideration of the question. If brain and neuroplasticity is not considered the reductionistic source of cognitive experience but experimentalist stays open to the possibility that neuroplasticity acts more like filter of experience, hypothesis of quantum mind offers much less restricting neuroplastic filter to the experimentalist approach than the belief-filter of reduction to classical mechanics.

[Jim__]

69. There is a fundamental disagreement that may be difficult to resolve.

This is the nature of the mathematical world. Even taking Penrose's minimal description of the mathematical world having existence as an objective standard, I disagree. I believe that mathematics is a construct of the human mind and we judge its accuracy according to empirical standards. I don't know if that is an insurmountable object to our having a reasonable discussion. I will proceed under the assumption that it is not.

While I believe there may be a number of biological systems that use quantum mechanical properties in their processing, the most likely scenario is that these processes came about through evolution as classical processes then later stumbled into advantages using these quantum processes. There was an article in New Scientist recently, Quantum life: The weirdness inside us that talked about some of these biological processes that may make use of quantum properties.

One of the processes it talked about was the sense of smell:

Turin's idea is that when an odorous molecule lodges in the pocket of a receptor, an electron can burrow right through that molecule from one side to the other, unleashing a cascade of signals on the other side that the brain interprets as a smell. That can only happen if there is an exact match between the electron's quantised energy level and the odorant's natural vibrational frequency. "The electron can only move when all the conditions are met," Turin says. The advantage, though, is that it creates a smell without the need for an exact shape fit.

But my understanding here is the sense of smell would already have existed as a "lock and key" type of protein processing that is normal within biological systems, and the quantum processing would be an enhancement.

Another process is the cellular processing of ATP:

Smell is not the only thing that proponents of quantum biology think it might explain: there's also the mechanism that powers the entire animal kingdom. We all run on adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, a chemical made in cells' mitochondria by moving electrons through a chain of intermediate molecules. When we attempt to calculate how speedily this happens, we hit a problem. "In nature the process is much faster than it should be," says Vlatko Vedral, a quantum physicist at the University of Oxford.

Vedral thinks this is because it depends on the quality of "superposition" which allows the sort of quantum-mechanical wave that describes electrons to be in two places at once. He reckons quantum omnipresence might speed the electrons' passage through the reaction chain. "If you could show superposition is there and it's somehow also important for the electron flow, that would be very interesting," he says.

Again, the most natural process to me is that this would have evolved using classical processes and then any added efficiency from quantum processing would have been an adaptive add-on.

As to mathematics, the human mind seems to have an ability to abstract properties from events and to see that the same properties are found across many events. Number is one of these properties of an event. We saw 3 rabbits. We saw 3 tigers. Counting and more sophisticated mathematics can grow from these observations and the human imagination.

I'm not denying the possibility of quantum mechanical processing here, it just seems to me that the most natural way to approach it is by looking at the organic structures, analyze the processing within these structures, and then look at quantum processing as dictated by the analysis.

[tama]

70. You assume correctly :)

I recently stumbled upon the stanford article "Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/) which gave me great intellectual and aesthetic pleasure, and I agree with the article that Fictionalism ("mathematics is semantically true but abstract objects don't exist") is also philosophically consistent position on par with Platonic realism. The article about Fictionalism also helped me settle a disagreement with a close friend who is into narrativism and narrativist magik and power of imagination, I can now understand and accept his approach better. Cartoonist Alan Moore is his great hero and Moore's 'V for Vendetta' character has now very special place in what many are calling rEvolution.

However, the best argument against Fictionalism that comes to my mind is empirical. The empirical argument is stated in the title of the classic article by Eugen Wigner: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html). Ie., when pure mathematicians research the "Platonia" with purely aesthetic motivations and find new areas of pure mathematical beauty, those are very soon utilized by theoretical physicists in empirical research and then technological applications. And since the days of Wigner, the empirical evidence of "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics has hugely accumulated with progress in mathematics and theoretical physics - category theory and p-adic physics, just to give couple examples. Interestingly, the Fictionalist approach has been according to the article been able to describe newtonian mechanics fully without any mathematics, but the consensus seems to be that the same is not possible with quantum mechanics.

I believe that we agree that if the question can be settled, it will be done empirically. My favorite candidate for that purpose is TOE called TGD (http://matpitka.blogspot.com/) and though my amateur understanding of it is quite limited, personal discussions with Matti have convinced me that it is at least philosophically consistent Theory Of Everything. In terms of Platonic realism it could be called "extremist" as it can be described as generalized number theory - very advanced such, utilizing all known areas of number theory and adding more. Its predictions about Higgs and other particle masses are based on Mersenne Primes and according to the blog, results from LHC have so far supported TGD predictions instead of SUSY approaches.

It is very interesting that you quote about ATP, Matti brought the same problem as Vedral mentions to my attention couple years ago, thanks for that. Also, I find your idea about evolution from classical processes to quantum add-ons very interesting and promising.

[Jim__]

71. I read the articles at the links you provided.

Thanks for those links. I read the articles and they are all food for thought.

On the Fictionalism article, I don't accept that a choice between Platonic Realism and Mathematical Fictionalism establishes any type of dilemma. Certainly the rejection of Platonic Realism does not necessitate the conclusions implied by this paragraph:

Fictionalism, on the other hand, is the view that (a) our mathematical sentences and theories do purport to be about abstract mathematical objects, as platonism suggests, but (b) there are no such things as abstract objects, and so (c) our mathematical theories are not true. Thus, the idea is that sentences like ‘3 is prime’ are false, or untrue, for the same reason that, say, ‘The tooth fairy is generous’ is false or untrue—because just as there is no such person as the tooth fairy, so too there is no such thing as the number 3. It is important to note, however, that despite the name, fictionalist views do not have to involve any very strong claims about the analogy between mathematics and fiction. For instance, there is no claim here that mathematical discourse is a kind of fictional discourse. Thus, fictionalists are not committed to the thesis that there are no important disanalogies between mathematics and fiction. (We will return to this issue below, in section 2.4.) Finally, it should also be noted at the start that fictionalism is a version of mathematical nominalism, the view that there are no such things as mathematical objects.

I am willing to accept a type of Fictionalism that adheres to this defintion from wikipedia:

Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:

1.Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, true or false.
2.The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value--not reduced to meaning something else.
3.The aim of discourse in any given domain is not truth, but some other virtue(s) (e.g., simplicity, explanatory scope).

Under that definition, I most certainly can state that "3 is prime." Under that definition, I am free to derive mathematical truths based on the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms.

---

I have read Wigner's article before, and don't have the time or space to do it justice here. And while I respect Wigner's opinion, I do question some of what he says. For instance:

... The principal emphasis is on the invention of concepts. Mathematics would soon run out of interesting theorems if these had to be formulated in terms of the concepts which already appear in the axioms. Furthermore, whereas it is unquestionably true that the concepts of elementary mathematics and particularly elementary geometry were formulated to describe entities which are directly suggested by the actual world, the same does not seem to be true of the more advanced concepts, in particular the concepts which play such an important role in physics. Thus, the rules for operations with pairs of numbers are obviously designed to give the same results as the operations with fractions which we first learned without reference to "pairs of numbers." The rules for the operations with sequences, that is, with irrational numbers, still belong to the category of rules which were determined so as to reproduce rules for the operations with quantities which were already known to us. Most more advanced mathematical concepts, such as complex numbers, algebras, linear operators, Borel setsãand this list could be continued almost indefinitelyãwere so devised that they are apt subjects on which the mathematician can demonstrate his ingenuity and sense of formal beauty. ...

The complex numbers provide a particularly striking example for the foregoing. Certainly, nothing in our experience suggests the introduction of these quantities. Indeed, if a mathematician is asked to justify his interest in complex numbers, he will point, with some indignation, to the many beautiful theorems in the theory of equations, of power series, and of analytic functions in general, which owe their origin to the introduction of complex numbers. The mathematician is not willing to give up his interest in these most beautiful accomplishments of his genius. <4 The reader may be interested, in this connection, in Hilbert's rather testy remarks about intuitionism which "seeks to break up and to disfigure mathematics," Abh. Math. Sem., Univ. Hamburg, 157 (1922), or Gesammelte Werke (Berlin: Springer, 1935), p. 188.>

He notes that the concepts of geometry fall out of empirical observation. I'll note that the concept of number itself falls out of empirical observation. Given that mathematics is based on observation of the world, it is perhaps not so surprising that when we "play" with mathematical concepts, we discover things about the world. I also question his statement about the complex numbers: nothing in our experience suggests the introduction of these quantities. The question of complex numbers come up when we start to use algebra - a natural extension of numerical processing - as noted in this entry from wikipedia:

The impetus to study complex numbers proper first arose in the 16th century when algebraic solutions for the roots of cubic and quartic polynomials were discovered by Italian mathematicians (see Niccolo Fontana Tartaglia, Gerolamo Cardano). It was soon realized that these formulas, even if one was only interested in real solutions, sometimes required the manipulation of square roots of negative numbers.

---

I took a quick look at the TGD blog, but, I wasn't sure where to look to get a description of the theory, so I can't comment on this aspect of your post.

---

So, I guess where we are is that we can agree to disagree about the actual nature of mathematics and still continue to discuss why you think that mental causation requires that mental processes utilize quantum mechanical processing.

[tama]

73. I'll go along

and accept that there is no real dilemma between Platonic realism and Fictionalism. Contradictions between them, if there really are such, are not mutually exclusive but creative contradictions. Going along with the type of Fictionalism you accept I note that mathematical discourse is semantically richer and has thus wider explanatory power (thesis 3) than the truth-apt "true or false" (thesis 1). Classic example is Gödel's incompleteness theorem concerning the statement "3 is prime" which in Platonic discourse can be in some way ("realistically/ontologically/a priori/...") true but also unprovable as true or false in the context of Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms or any other finite set of axioms. This seeming self-contradiction is a creative contradiction leading to proof theory etc.

Another important question in Platonic discourse is the provability of Riemann hypothesis, also related to primes and quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93P%C3%B3lya_conjecture). It remains empirically unfalsified in millions of calculations and in the discourse of Platonic realism/mathematical physics it can be for good explanatory reasons (again, thesis 3) taken as formally unprovable fundamental axiom of empirically valid mathematical physics and a limit of classical worlds, ie. if quantum mechanics remains empirically true then in all possible classical worlds RH must be empirically true. From this also follows that the only possible distribution of primes is universally cognizable by platonic anamnesis. The empirical test to falsify (thesis 1) the platonic discourse of both RH and QM would be the ability to fiction alternative distribution of primes.

I hope these examples are enough to establish that the discourse of Platonic realism and mathematical physics has much more refined and nuanced notions of truth and false and provability and explanatory power than the thesis 1 alone, but that does not weaken the type of Fictionalism you accept. The apparent contradiction that mathematical discourse brings between thesis 1 and thesis 3 is not of the mutually exclusive type but creative and dynamical. Or as Plato himself stated in the dialogue titled 'Sophist', the ultimate nature of fundamental co-depenent categories is 'dynamis', creative potential and power.

***

As for geometry and number theory, you are correct at least in the sense that they are the same, as the concepts real *line* and complex *plane* show, and geometrically quaternions and octonions are exponential powers/dimensions of the 2-dimensional number theoretic plane. From the little that I understand about the geometry of the p-adic completion of rational numbers, it is extremely fascinating. The notion of empirical observation of world should not exclude the observing mind from the world but include also mental states observing mental states - thoughts about thoughts are just as much part of the world as preconseptual sensations and emotions.

Thoughts about thoughts of course include abstract philosophical notions like Fictionalism and Platonic realism and abstract theories like classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Fictionalist critique about existence of abstract concepts like mathematical concepts, AFAIK does not exclude similarly abstract notions of time, causality, testability, object, subject etc., which of course does not undermine the validity and fascination of conceptual discourses but also allows to bring those discourses closer to preconceptual being and experiencing. The most real question about mental causation in this body-mind or psychosomatic whole concerns the relation between conseptual discourse and feeling of well-being. So the best answer to your final question I can conseptualize is in form of question that in the end each of us can best answer by themselves: what forms of conseptual discourse as forms of mental causation relate best to well-being?

[westerebus]

72. That just expanded the reading list.

Thank you very much.

Adult discussion on r/t?

Platonic realism described as number theory and evolutionary possibilities of/in classical processes?

Who are you people! :rofl:

Very enjoyable.

[frogmarch]

3. Defiant Ignorance

In my husband's family there are defiant ignoramuses who (often literally) close their eyes, stick their thumbs in their ears and either hum loudly or quote Bible scripture when they hear something that goes against their religious beliefs.

[humblebum]

10. NOMA = most freedom of thought.

atheism = free from certain avenues of thought. IOW, limited thought

[laconicsax]

12. Uh huh.

[darkstar3]

13. NOMA is a ridiculous case of special pleading.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

15. What drugs do I need to ingest in order to percieve this other reality you inhabit?

This strange place where up is down, where left is right, where contradiction means confirmation...


Its like a William S. Burrows book come to life.


What the fuck, man?

[David Sky]

17. I think you religious folks have that flipped around. Only religious wishful thinking

clouds up the realities of scientific discipline and fact-finding.

History is replete with examples of this, and some posters here are acting like the Pope and Catholic church did with Galileo, condemning scientific approaches to the literal universe of discovery potentials there are before us.

Atheism has nothing at all to do with closed-mindedness. Religions throughout history are our best examples of closed-mindedness leading to suffering, misery, and worse, death to innocent victims of religious zealotry.

While religions pretend there is a tooth fairy, atheists are the dentists.

[tama]

19. Is it scientific truth

that atheist self-identification makes person immune to closed-mindedness?

[cleanhippie]

25. Did someone make that claim?

Not that I have seen.

[David Sky]

27. Nor did I. I also find the wording of the question rather strange.

"Scientific truth"? "immune"? Theist and atheist scientists are all human beings and thought processes can be more or less open-minded, it's a matter of degree. Closed-mindedness is not a virus or illness of any sort; it is a learned defensive human thought pattern.

Closed-mindedness is seen much more in theistic believers like Bill O'Reilly than in atheist folks like Richard Dawkins.
One can draw one's own conclusions as to the likelihood of which groups of people engage in more closed-minded patterns of thought.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIXdMG-nkPo&feature=related

[tama]

34. Thanks

The wording of this sentence made me want to ask if anything such was implied:

"Atheism has nothing at all to do with closed-mindedness. Religions throughout history are our best examples of closed-mindedness leading to suffering, misery, and worse, death to innocent victims of religious zealotry."

Now as we accept that both sides of the Eternal Holy and Unholy Fight between atheists (and/or members and supporters of skeptical movement) and religionists can be open- and closed-minded, to various degree, and assuming that we'd like to manifest more open-mindedness and less closed-mindedness, would you say that "Your side is more closed minded than our side"; "No, your side is more close-minded"; "No, you are close-minded" etc. etc. etc. is the most open-minded way to advance general open-mindedness, if that is what we desire?

To put it short, are blame games more open- or closed-minded?

[David Sky]

43. I see your agenda now. Observation of patterns of thinking in

human beings, watching someone like Bill O'Reilly versus someone like Richard Dawkins, that scientific approach to gathering data is not part of your approach to the issue. You prefer to call that observation and data collection a "blame game"?

Well, here's a "religionist" who has a problem understanding science. Tell me, please, what does one do with the data we collect about this award-winning gentleman's thought patterns?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcUo9Tk0A-s

[tama]

49. Nothing so complicated

I believe you know what blame game means and how they happen e.g. between husband and wife or two children arguing.

It's a closed circuit of very mechanical reactions, and as long as it continues it does not really matter which side is more wrong. What matters most is breaking the cycle and moving ahead.

This is how I see the whole situation of the two camps fighting, repeating same arguments over and over. I refuse to take sides in this fight and search for nuanced positions and common grounds.

I'd like to watch your link and comment it, but alas I have a computer problem and can't currently watch videos.

[tama]

51. Ouch!

Bill O'Reilly vid! Sorry but can't watch, afraid that watching it would drop my IQ.

[humblebum]

28. NOMA is scientific truth, too. And freedom to think and investigate

beyond its limitations makes it undoubtedly more "free thinking" that the limitations of "If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or physically touch something it doesn't exist." Or cannot, or probably doesn't ....

[skepticscott]

30. Except that no scientist or other rational person

holds the position that "If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or physically touch something it doesn't exist." Or cannot, or probably doesn't ....

Another one of your mantras that started to stink very soon after it was left in the pasture.

[humblebum]

32. Too bad not everyone else agrees with you. nt

[skepticscott]

35. Lame non-answer

The hallmark of someone with zero evidence to back up their claim. YOUR hallmark, in other words.

[laconicsax]

31. Where do you come up with this crap?

NOMA a scientific fact? :rofl:

I'm not sure if you haven't a clue as to what NOMA is, what constitute a scientific fact, or a combination of the two.

[humblebum]

33. I'm rather positive that you do not. nt

[laconicsax]

36. I take it you're proud of the fact that it's impossible to determine just how ignorant you are.

Well, if you ever decide to educate yourself, let me know. I enjoy debating educated opponents.

[humblebum]

37. Debate away. nt

[cleanhippie]

66. Your arguments have digressed to "nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo!"

:rofl:


It has been, if anything, interesting, to watch your downward spiral.

[tama]

39. What is NOMA? nt

[laconicsax]

40. Non-overlapping magesteria.

It's a concept dreamed up by Stephen Jay Gould to neatly package science and religion into separate containers. It basically states that religion has nothing to say about the scientific models of the universe and science has nothing to say about the religious.

Of course, it's wrong for two main reasons:
1) Many religions make claims that directly challenge the scientific models of reality as a matter of doctrine.
2) Science has plenty to say about religious issues when those issues make testable claims.

Basically, it's accomodationist drivel that denies reality in order to appease religious sensibilities. NOMA may be valid for certain theological/doctrinal issues such as the nature of a god or the existsnce of an afterlife, but as an overall concept it fails miserably.

[The Magistrate]

44. It Always Seemed To Me, Sir

The gentleman was simply trying to establish a play-room for the children, a tree-house, or a rumpus-room in the basement, where they could keep themselves amused and out from underfoot while the adults went about the business of investigation and understanding....

[laconicsax]

45. That may be, but I doubt it.

It's a constraint on the adults, not the children because the rumpus room isn't in the basement but the corner of the living room. Simply saying that the childrens' area is separate doesn't make it literally so, and declaring it off-limits to the adults allows the children to expand and interfere in the adults' business with impunity.

The excuse given becomes, "it's in my corner!"

[The Magistrate]

46. Whether Something Works Or Not, Sir, Is A Seperate Question From Why It Was Proposed

As has been pointed out already here, some religions, those of the 'Abrahamic' line in particular, do make definite claims regarding things that are certainly subject to scientific verification or disproof, so that the two things are not really seperate.

[laconicsax]

53. In that case your proposal seems valid. n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

64. I've met several fundies who don't want their kids to go to college.

I've asked them why do they want to handicap their kids? Why do they want them to be ditchdiggers, when they could get better jobs with some sort of education?

they are scared to death of the outside world.

[tama]

68. I've met several ecohippies

who don't want their kids to go to school, but to learn gardening etc. essential skills in home/ecocommunity school. I guess you could call those ecohippies "fundamentalists" of sorts, because they care more about fundamentals of being able to live in balance with nature than getting a "better job" like banker, lawyer etc. at the top of social hierarchy.

The fact that "ditchdiggers" who have know-how of primary production don't need those with "better jobs" for their livelihood, but those with "better jobs" can't survive without primary producers feeding them, is indeed fundamental.