Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[Siro]

Siro, I actually enjoy your valiant defense of materialism in the face of what you term my "subjective experience". Consciousness is "subjective experience" on the same level of definition as measurement, experiment, observation, and such. Wish I had more time right now to explore all this and discuss it with you.

Measurement, experiment, and such, are presented as information on objective phenomena that can be shared and manipulated by subjective observers. The subjectivity of the observers is irrelevant to the question of the ultimate objectivity of the information. The object exists without the subject. The openly shared processing of the objective information is what is central to the process, not the existence of subjective processors. Since the information does exist, objectively and separate from the observer, the process is all about eliminating the corruption in the translation from the objective to the subjective.

Your immaterialist approach, however, is wholly subjective, and thus wholly pointless to anyone outside of yourself.

 

[NAOS]

What compels us to reach for knowledge is, in part, the power it gives us. With computing knowledge, you can create machines that can solve equation that used to take a lifetime in a few seconds. With knowledge of nuclear physics you can create weapons that can level cities. And while I know there is something deeper about the compulsion, I don't think it's entirely separate. I don't know how it exactly arises, but I suspect it is an enviable consequence of being able to comprehend the existence of an explanation, or at the very least the existence of the question. The brain structure that gives rise to the compulsion is very probably the product of the same evolutionary mechanism that gave rise to our intelligence in the first place. What it is the evolutionary advantage of possessing enough intelligence if not to use it in practice? So I suspect the ability to use to technology is what drives the deeper compulsion to seek explanations for their own sake. But I do not know enough about the neurological structure of the brain to come up with a comprehensive hypothesis. I'm not even sure neuroscience is at that level yet.

I don't think I understand the second question. What do you mean by sides? We are able to see all the sides that we've learned about. Ones that have not been discovered, by definition, are outside of our current reach.

Good post. Your use of the words "power" and "technology" help me clarify my point. As you use them here, I would say these two terms (i.e. what is identified as "powerful", and what is recognized as "technological") cannot be abstracted from their human, instrumental means. What is powerful? What is technological? The answers to these questions are under constant variation and always depend on some present-moment context, some understanding of history, and some anticipation of the future. For example, in the past 500 years, it very hard to find interpretations of technology that don't have something to do modern, colonial contexts (even those that are crafted and pursued with apparent disinterest in the secluded dens of an ivy league schools).

This isn't an attempt, on my part, to pull you into some kind of discussion on "culture" any kind of idealism. I'm also a materialist at heart. I'm arguing for the inclusion of the material of the body, and, at another scale, the species. I'm pointing to the rushes of energy and waves of exhaustion that can be observed in them. I don't jive with materialisms that try to abstract themselves away from these elements. In fact, I'd call those materialisms closeted Idealisms. I don't think explanations "have their own sake"... if, by that, you mean sans "human matter."

It's pretty hard to speak about evolutionary advantages. Most of our advantages are unconscious. I don't think the brain is the only (or even the most compelling) place to look.

 

[Siro]

Good post. Your use of the words "power" and "technology" help me clarify my point. As you use them here, I would say these two terms (i.e. what is identified as "powerful", and what is recognized as "technological") cannot be abstracted from their human, instrumental means. What is powerful? What is technological? The answers to these questions are under constant variation and always depend on some present-moment context, some understanding of history, and some anticipation of the future. For example, in the past 500 years, it very hard to find interpretations of technology that don't have something to do modern, colonial contexts (even those that are crafted and pursued with apparent disinterest in the secluded dens of an ivy league schools).

This isn't an attempt, on my part, to pull you into some kind of discussion on "culture" any kind of idealism. I'm also a materialist at heart. I'm arguing for the inclusion of the material of the body, and, at another scale, the species. I'm pointing to the rushes of energy and waves of exhaustion that can be observed in them. I don't jive with materialisms that try to abstract themselves away from these elements. In fact, I'd call those materialisms closeted Idealisms. I don't think explanations "have their own sake"... if, by that, you mean sans "human matter."

It's pretty hard to speak about evolutionary advantages. Most of our advantages are unconscious. I don't think the brain is the only (or even the most compelling) place to look.

I define "power" simply as the ability to do something that you couldn't do, or do as well, otherwise. Thus, knowledge empowers, as it is confers a potential ability advantage over ignorance.

I agree with the rest of your post, except the last part about the brain. It is the organ that does all of the information processing, regardless of whether the output is made available on the conscious level or not.

 

[DutchJazzer]

with a totally unproven, wholly subjective, non-verifiable, non-replicable belief that has produced none of the benefits that science has, and which, in its application, as created untol misery, suffering, oppression, bad ideas, and so forth.

my faith has provided me with benefits like. by having faith and praying u sometimes lose anger, frustration, insecurity some people even lose their fear of death.

hell western morality is based on Abrahamic religion. the whole justice system YOU count on to keep you save has it roots entrenched in religion
the whole of western morality comes from religion. so thats a benifit for society as a whole including you.

it is not a religion vs science debate everybody who lives in those absolute is wholly ignorant.

they can coexist


*drops MIC

 

[NAOS]

Measurement, experiment, and such, are presented as information on objective phenomena that can be shared and manipulated by subjective observers. The subjectivity of the observers is irrelevant to the question of the ultimate objectivity of the information. The object exists without the subject. The openly shared processing of the objective information is what is central to the process, not the existence of subjective processors. Since the information does exist, objectively and separate from the observer, the process is all about eliminating the corruption in the translation from the objective to the subjective.

Your immaterialist approach, however, is wholly subjective, and thus wholly pointless to anyone outside of yourself.

measurement, experiment, phenomena, etc. aren't shared. Descriptions of phenomena are shared. The subjectivity of the observers and the describers is absolutely relevant to the whole event of information gathering.

agreed

how openly? Wouldn't a rough definition for this openness have something to do with culture, language, political economy, etc? How open?

However open it is, the descriptions emerge from the sum of individual processors and their tools. Descriptions are the miraculous element that is more than the sum of its parts. I say, don't get fooled by that miraculousness and start positing that it has nothing to do with subjective processors. Doing so just puts you in the same trap as Plato found himself.

you'll always find a nugget pessimistic psychology in a closeted idealism

 

[NAOS]

I define "power" simply as the ability to do something that you couldn't do, or do as well, otherwise. Thus, knowledge empowers, as it is confers a potential ability advantage over ignorance.

I agree with the rest of your post, except the last part about the brain. It is the organ that does all of the information processing, regardless of whether the output is made available on the conscious level or not.

fans of the brain are like fans of the Lakers or Yankees: most of the time they're bandwagoners or pretenders. "Processing" is a total corporeal experience; the brain is a busy area, but grey matter exists all the way down the spine. And there are other busy areas, too, if you know how to look and measure.

 

[Siro]

measurement, experiment, phenomena, etc. aren't shared. Descriptions of phenomena are shared. The subjectivity of the observers and the describers is absolutely relevant to the whole event of information gathering.

Presented as information to be shared. Science is in the presentation, not the subjective experience of taking measurements or conducting experiments. I addressed what you said about the subjectivity of the observer. Progress toward an objective must be done through the evaluation of many subjective interpretations. This is part of why I consider science to be the sincere effort at objective knowledge, while individual-based approaches, like Eastern Enlightenment, are not. I don't disagree that subjectivity is relevant to the interpretation. It is, however, irrelevant to the existence of an object outside of subjective experience. What is, is.

how openly? Wouldn't a rough definition for this openness have something to do with culture, language, political economy, etc? How open?

However open it is, the descriptions emerge from the sum of individual processors and their tools. Descriptions are the miraculous element that is more than the sum of its parts. I say, don't get fooled by that miraculousness and start positing that it has nothing to do with subjective processors. Doing so just puts you in the same trap as Plato found himself.

you'll always find a nugget pessimistic psychology in a closeted idealism

Again, you misunderstood my point. Openly means that any observer can validate the information through whatever tools that may be available. This is inherent to the nature of communicable information.

 

[Siro]

fans of the brain are like fans of the Lakers or Yankees: most of the time they're bandwagoners or pretenders. "Processing" is a total corporeal experience; the brain is a busy area, but grey matter exists all the way down the spine. And there are other busy areas, too, if you know how to look and measure.

Meh. I can say that you're being contrarian by denying the absolutely dominant role of the brain in information processing. I am sure some processing happens throughout the nervous system, but compare the volume of processing matter in the brain to the rest of the nervous system, which mostly consists of relays and sensors.

 

[Siro]

What a waste of a work day this has been!

 

[NAOS]

Presented as information to be shared. Science is in the presentation, not the subjective experience of taking measurements or conducting experiments. I addressed what you said about the subjectivity of the observer. Progress toward an objective must be done through the evaluation of many subjective interpretations. This is part of why I consider science to be the sincere effort at objective knowledge, while individual-based approaches, like Eastern Enlightenment, are not. I don't disagree that subjectivity is relevant to the interpretation. It is, however, irrelevant to the existence of an object outside of subjective experience. What is, is.

cool. that wasn't coming through for me. I agree with the bolded. For sure.

Again, you misunderstood my point. Openly means that any observer can validate the information through whatever tools that may be available. This is inherent to the nature of communicable information.

I don't think I misunderstood you on this point. It was my intention to **** with the concept of "open", since that is a fashionable term right now and not nearly as explanatory as everybody is pretending it is.

Meh. I can say that you're being contrarian by denying the absolutely dominant role of the brain in information processing. I am sure some processing happens throughout the nervous system, but compare the volume of processing matter in the brain to the rest of the nervous system, which mostly consists of relays and sensors.

So what if I'm being a contrarian? I'm not wrong when I say that too many people laud the brain without knowing much about the experimental process and data gathering processes of the experiments. People are ****ing ready to tweet about how awesome the brain is. Being a contrarian in this atmosphere is totally acceptable, especially if you have good perspective.

The question was never about dominance (whatever that means). The question was about intrigue. The brain reacts; it is a great reactor in a total corporeal reaction. It is not a computer. What is it that commands brain action?

There are times when looking at the activity of the distal afferent nerves is way more telling (and, therefore, interesting!) than looking at the brain.

 

[♪alt13]

cool. that wasn't coming through for me. I agree with the bolded. For sure.





I don't think I misunderstood you on this point. It was my intention to **** with the concept of "open", since that is a fashionable term right now and not nearly as explanatory as everybody is pretending it is.



So what if I'm being a contrarian? I'm not wrong when I say that too many people laud the brain without knowing the experimental process and data gathering is all about. People are ****ing ready to tweet about how awesome the brain is. Being a contrarian in this atmosphere is totally acceptable, especially if you have good perspective.

The question was never about dominance (whatever that means). The question was about intrigue. The brain reacts; it is a great reactor in a total corporeal reaction. It is not a computer. What is it that commands brain action?

There are times when looking at the activity of the distal afferent nerves is way more telling (and, therefore, interesting!) than looking at the brain.

The brain is the least dispensable physical part of the self. I don't know how but I do know that without it I am not me. Every other physical part of me I can imagine being without. Losing some other parts may change me profoundly but I would still have something that I could call me.

 

[fishonjazz]

Siro, naos, hey hey, etc... Ya'll are smart mo fos.

I feel dumb reading your posts. I can't sling big *** words around on a level anywhere near you guys.


I'm glad I stayed out of this discussion. My brain hurts