Chimp / Bonobo brains

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

come on. what do we have evidence of actually? how good is he at playing these instruments? we have evidence that the guy sat down for the very 1st time with a violin and immediately started playing paganini's caprices?

Derek Amato: Concussion turns Colorado man into musical genius aged 40 | Mail Online

i see people's take on it years later. the guy has had time to practice.

After years of failed jobs and homelessness, the 40-year-old is now enjoying a career in music and can play eight instruments - despite never having a lesson in his life.

a very talented guy doesn't need much. look at what mozart was doing by age 6. how did he do that when he never learned to do it?

Probably by furiously reading and writing music. Problem is, this guy doesn't even know how to read or write music.

sorry, no. we are not talking about everything. we are talking about a few very rare isolated cases of specifically the damage --> savant thing. and those particular cases are not enough to falsify brain based model.

So there has to be a certain amount of phenomena to become acceptable to us? Please, let us in on the threshold, and the like. I was under the impression that if a theory didn't encompass all phenomena, it wasn't an all encompassing theory. Feel free to let me know how many black swans are acceptable to prove than not all swans are white.

we are discussing that. i am perfectly open to "the way of the filter" when there will be something more than hand waving on the table. while one side hand waves with the filter indefinitely w/o proposing a single verifiable, falsifiable or useful hypothesis, the other side (neuroscience) at least has managed to get something out of it that has helped a lot of people (like all the ones who suffer brain damage and get worse, not better).

I wouldn't argue that its relative usefulness has any impact on whether or not the theory that brain=mind is correct. In fact, historically, depression medication is on par with placebos.

Do antidepressants work better than placebos? - CBS News Video

I agree that neuroscience has given us A LOT, but none of that has to do with the mind=brain theory.

i don't know why you are defending the brain = subspace transponder concept. you prefer idealism. which actually makes more sense to me.

Because I find it more viable than a mind=brain theory. ANYTHING is better than strong emergence, which is what I am arguing against.

[ncg]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

i am perfectly open to "the way of the filter" when there will be something more than hand waving on the table.

i don't know why you are defending the brain = subspace transponder concept. you prefer idealism. which actually makes more sense to me.

lol -- the way of the filter and subspace transponder - cracked me up.

I am not an idealist or panpsychist. I would defend a transformative model, as to information inbound to the human mind. So in this case - a software filter and signals from "sub-space" would need to be made naturalistic to communicate with you.

Do you buy that we have this "software filter" - as our character and ability to discriminate and decide what we want to do in life's simple and complex matters? That our reasoning can be shown to have logical and predictable patterns from this filter. (see game theory: Von Neumann and Nash)

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by ncg

lol -- the way of the filter and subspace transponder - cracked me up.

I am not an idealist or panpsychist. I would defend a transformative model, as to information inbound to the human mind. So in this case - a software filter and signals from "sub-space" would need to be made naturalistic to communicate with you.

Do you buy that we have this "software filter" - as our character and ability to discriminate and decide what we want to do in life's simple and complex matters? That our reasoning can be shown to have logical and predictable patterns from this filter. (see game theory: Von Neumann and Nash)

that is a software filter that can run on the hardware of the brain. so a model that requires the software to run elsewhere would need need to explain how that happens before i buy it.

i wouldn't buy that our reasoning would be exhausted by algorithmic model unless i saw a proof, bc of our ability to distinguish between true and provable results.

i am not an idealist either but i don't dismiss it outright. but when someone says that ANYTHING is better than emergence, clearly they have ruled it out. and at the same time ruled a whole bunch of nonsense in -- bc "anything" is a big word, includes filter, and a quantized version called the filtrino, with a supersymmetric partner filtrinino, etc. it's all better than emergence...

[4vektor]

Because I find it more viable than a mind=brain theory. ANYTHING is better than strong emergence, which is what I am arguing against.

all the clips and other stuff you posted does not bring anything new to the table. there is nothing there that falsifies the brain model. zero. and nothing in the filter model that makes it better. EDIT: filter concept. it is not a model.

btw -- in fact this guy seeing black/white squares when he plays music is consistent with my proposal that a different area of the brain may have become involved, possible the visual, in doing things it is not usually designated to do. flansburg's brain shows activity in the visual area when he does calculations (abnormal).

and i think your last sentence pretty well sums up your position and its inherent flaws.

[wildewurst]

wow... this discussion clearly shows, why one should take the effort to read about things before discussing them in a forum. And it also clearly shows, why one should not engage in discussion when there's no common basis. After your "go, read I.M." you should have stopped, Iyace. Engaging in this "come on, give it to me, explain it to me"-type of conversation rarely yields any reasonable result but almost always gets lost on some meaningless sidetrack.

I can only repeat, what Iyace already said. Go and read the book. It's 757 pages (including references) full of details. It relies heavily on the referenced literature. You can't expect anybody to summarize this for you in a meaningful manner. Becoming a physicist also requires oneself to prepare and learn once in a while, doesn't it?

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by wildewurst

wow... this discussion clearly shows, why one should take the effort to read about things before discussing them in a forum. And it also clearly shows, why one should not engage in discussion when there's no common basis. After your "go, read I.M." you should have stopped, Iyace. Engaging in this "come on, give it to me, explain it to me"-type of conversation rarely yields any reasonable result but almost always gets lost on some meaningless sidetrack.

I can only repeat, what Iyace already said. Go and read the book. It's 757 pages (including references) full of details. It relies heavily on the referenced literature. You can't expect anybody to summarize this for you in a meaningful manner. Becoming a physicist also requires oneself to prepare and learn once in a while, doesn't it?

we went over that already. why can i summarize higgs mechanism and he can't summarize this. i asked for summary, i got a lecture (now 2) on not asking for a summary, would be easier to give a summary. what i got is admission that there is no model there, but only phenomenological discussion, fine.

[wildewurst]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

why can i summarize higgs mechanism and he can't summarize this.

Because the higgs mechanism is much more simple than this.

Originally Posted by 4vektor

what i got is admission that there is no model there, but only phenomenological discussion, fine.

I would not trust this authority.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by wildewurst

Because the higgs mechanism is much more simple than this.

that's ridiculous. i would use a stronger word, but forum rules...

[wildewurst]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

why can i summarize higgs mechanism and he can't summarize this.

Additionally: You can summarize a lot of things in one or two sentences. E.g. quantum computation or the higgs mechanism. Or nuclear physics. Somebody who isn't trained in physics won't notice, that these two sentences basically tell nothing about the subject and that there are millions of pages written, thousands of strange effects nobody yet understands. Concerning non-material theories of conciousness the matter is the same. Anyhow most people tend to believe things are as simple as those two short sentences because there's no math involved. Still there's an ocean beneath.

[wildewurst]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

that's ridiculous. i would use a stronger word, but forum rules...

Notice to myself: Don't try to point out the pointlessness of pointless discussions. I'm back to read-only for the next year or so. Nothing against you personally, but for me this is leading nowhere and I just noticed again, that I'm even more bored from taking part in such discussions than from just reading them.