The title of this topic is "holistic learning", and I think this is the only way to achieve a useful and (hopefully) complete understanding of something. Not just to understand the thing itself, but to understand how it connects to the rest of Life, the Universe and Everything. Only then can we properly understand our subject.

This kind of understanding is difficult and time-consuming to achieve. But those who have done it - as I have, in some limited areas (e.g. firmware design) - will tell you it's the only way to achieve a useful understanding. Knowing about a few details is only a starting point. But maybe this is enough for many areas of learning: we don't have time to reach a full understanding of everything. Our lives don't last long enough. :wink: It's those areas which interest us personally, maybe emotionally, and significantly, to which we apply the effort to achieve real understanding. :chin:

What exactly is global learning though?

I would say it is when one's classification or understanding of a particular phenomenon is informed by its relationship to the whole/greater system in which it is situated/functions/interacts/evolved. Knowing the outcomes or function or purpose of a system can make it easy to anticipate the outcomes, functions, or purposes of its various parts. (i.e: if you're trying to fix a broken machine, it's very helpful to know beforehand what that machine actually does). This is a kind of teleological approach to classification and anticipation, and it seems to make the most sense when applied to complex systems with clearly discernible evolved or designed purposes. Here we derive general rules to anticipate parts from what we know about the whole. The limitation of this approach is that we're more or less stuck generalizing about sub-components (which could be observed, described and understood with greater precision) from our initial assumptions about the whole. — VagabondSpectre

I can't disagree with any of this, but I would observe that it seems to address only some types or forms of learning. When it comes to learning difficult things, it can get more difficult.

"Difficult things?" I hear you ask? :wink: I mean those things that are general and vague, things that aren't computable or listable, and to which the application of this (above) type of logic achieves little. Your approach is, it seems to me, an exclusively scientific one. It doesn't work if you're trying to learn (for example) about fine art or music.

↪Pattern-chaser
Neither the 'big picture' nor the 'granular' approach are exclusive, and we combine them all the time. — Bitter Crank

Yes, we do. :up: But we still need, in practice, to start with the details and expand from there. Once we're going, we switch from top-down to bottom-up, and often middle-out too. I certainly did when designing programs. The only exception is if we are lucky enough to learn as a Student, from a Master. With a mentor, directed learning can be ten times faster, or even better than that. Such a shame that this way of learning has almost died out. It's a very good way of learning (some things; maybe not all?). :chin:

I would prefer the big picture first, but in practice I need to start with the details and move toward the big picture as my understanding grows. It can be frustrating. :wink:

What should i read to know how to live my life, to know what the good life is and how to acquire it? — Johnpveiga

There are many, many, useful responses to your question. Of them all, the most valuable is this:

If I told you, I'd have to kill you.

I'll have to get back to you on your other inquiries. — raza

I look forward to it. :smile:

One cannot be a thing other than what is occurring. — raza

This looks interesting, but I can't quite see what you're getting at. Care to expand?

No physical thing exists if it is not perceived. — raza

I wonder if you over-estimate your own importance in this? A thing exists only if you perceive it? [Yes, I know you meant any/all of us, not just you. :wink:] Are there no things that have human-independent existence, then? Or maybe I should ask if there are things that have perception-independent existence? :chin: Are you offering a QM perspective here, or something different? :chin:

[I'm not offering my view here, just inquiring about yours. :up:]

More than a few people said I was cold because I was considering science and rationality to be above all else. — Terran Imperium

Well I can't argue with that, as I'm putting the human-centric view, and "cold" is a very human reaction to what you say. :smile: But I do not criticise you for your view; I just think it is incomplete and unbalanced. Science and rationality are powerful tools, whose utility and usefulness is proven. But that doesn't make them universally applicable. In the current discussion, for example, science and rationality have nothing useful to offer. It is a human issue, a socio-cultural issue. Different tools are appropriate. :up:

She becomes the world's foremost expert on redness... — Relativist

No, I don't think so. As you say, she has never experienced the seeing of something that is red.

And as for Harry and Sherlock, I have many times (not on this forum) suggested that they are real, and even alive, in a way. But not quite the same way you and I are. And my point in using this example was to point out the weakness of your argument. Existing in the minds of humans is not really existing in the real physical world, although pedantically, of course, you are correct. And existing in the minds of humans is a correct and valid form of existence. But let's not confuse it with other things? :up: :smile:

And this post should be read in a tone of voice that is somewhat contemptuous of the able bodied telling the disabled what they can and cannot do. — Banno

:up: The autistic community gets impatient with ablism too. Thanks for your words. :smile:

But your constrained results have already ignored all other meanings and uses to which humans put the term "red". The results from your limited and constrained case cannot extend to cover the things you have intentionally excluded. You can have your cake, or you can eat it. Choose one.

America [...] preserves and attempts to foster the attributes of freedom before those of dependence. — Marcus de Brun

The vocabulary mandated (by all Americans) for discussions of this type requires that you call it "dependence", I know. But "support" would do as well, without picturing the recipient as a scrounger and a drain on the resources of decent people. Welfare concerns are like an insurance policy. We all take part, not knowing which of us will need help, and which will not. But those of us who need a helping hand, get it. From each according to their means; to each according to their needs. Can such a common sense statement really be opposed? :chin: :smile: :up:

Support first (and for all); freedom later. :up: [The freedom's for all, too. :wink:]

so I ignore those other uses — jkg20

Then your constrained researches will return constrained results. :up:

for every dollar invested into 'socialism' another dollar will be required to ameliorate the 'dependence-effect' caused by the preceding dollar — Marcus de Brun

I know this view is prevalent in America, a country that has never had, or even aspired to, a socialist government. Some countries who have actually tried it have had better, if not perfect, results. :wink:

It appears to me that the left right divide is an illusion. It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree. — Marcus de Brun

And I think it is anything but illusory, because (as you say) "It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree". :smile: :up: There is also the social/individual balance, where the left give a little more emphasis to society while the right concentrate more on individual freedom. [N.B. Only the extreme (authoritarian) ideologies favour only society (left) or only individual freedom (right).]

The Amazon write-up implies that socialism seeks to "insert the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life", which I believe to be incorrect. An extreme left-wing position might well do such a thing, just as an extreme right-wing position might do the same. But socialism is society-ism; that's what it means, and it can be seen and followed as a moderate political position, as well as an extreme one. A similar argument can be put forward for right-wing positions too, of course.

Socialism can also be seen as very similar to christianity (small "c"), in terms of care and concern for others less fortunate than ourselves, and so on. I think the bad press that socialism still gets is down to the 'reds under the bed' McCarthy-ist approach in 1950s America. They were referring to Soviet communism anyway, and just wanted to be sure that all left-wingers were tarred with the same brush, whether extreme or moderate. The intention, I think, was to make it so that only right-wing ideologies could even be considered for general acceptance. America is still a very (very, very) right-wing nation.

So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. — TheMadFool

I don't see why not. Actually, I do, for pedantic reasons: we can't criticise logic; it is what it is. But we can criticise the use of logic, which I think is your intention anyway. :wink: Logic should only be used where it is applicable, useful and helpful. Use of logic outside these constraints is wrong, unjustified, and unjustifiable. There, I criticised a particular way of using logic. :smile: :up: ...and I did it using logic! :blush: :smile:

Well, if you eliminate the warmongering, the idolatry or cult of the leader, and all those nasty things that Nazism was associated with, you're left with a fairly liberal and likable ideology. Yes? — Posty McPostface

Yes. If you remove all the authoritarian aspects of an authoritarian political position, what's left (next to nothing?) is more or less acceptable. Your joke is in dubious taste, I suggest? :wink:

fascism is national socialism — Posty McPostface

I don't think their choice of name reflected their ideology as well as we might hope. Perhaps they intended to disguise their true aspirations? :chin: :wink:

Irony.... erm, at least I hope it is! — 0 thru 9

I rather think it isn't (irony). That's the joy of an extreme ideology: every perceived problem is solved with an application of authoritarian brutality. [N.B. My use of "joy" was ironic. :wink:] If you disagree with me, you will be hurt or killed. That's the underlying philosophy of all extreme political viewpoints, I think. :chin: :worry:

I always thought fascism was socialism taken to the extreme. — Posty McPostface

Funny, that. :wink: I always thought that socialism was a left-wing political movement, while fascism exists at the other, right-wing, end of the political spectrum. But I also think that socialism is a mainstream view, like, say, capitalism. While fascism is a more extreme position. There are extreme left-wing positions too, of course, but does socialism describe them? I don't think so.

The extremes of political opinion seem to be authoritarian, each in their own way. They constrain the individual to act as a member of the pack, and follow their rules. This is their main failure: to neglect the necessary balance that must be found between the individual and the society they belong to. All workable (left- and right-wing) political movements achieve a balance of this kind. The extreme ones substitute authority for freedom, sometimes even when freedom would not oppose the views of the ruling, er, dictators.

Just my two pennyworth. :smile:

This reminds me of Pirsig's rephrasing, whereby "A causes B" becomes "B values pre-condition A". Both are valid expressions of the same thing. Perhaps consciousness and neural activity are the same? — Pattern-chaser

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. — Marcus de Brun

Sorry, my mistake. :blush: I meant to convey that perhaps consciousness and neural activity could be linked and 'reversible', in the same way as the two quotes from Pirsig are. I didn't mean

consciousness = neural activity

although (in theory) this might well be the case. :chin:

the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span — Pattern-chaser

I disagree, and think the distance is not big. — Tyler

You think, then, that we can easily - intuitively and usefully - express human experience(s) in terms of neural activity? How is that? If I experience a boat trip on the Thames, can you express the feeling of trailing my hand in the water as we proceed, in terms of neural responses? OK, perhaps you can, but will it account for the human experience I have described? The feel of the water as my hand passes through it. The trees on the bank, and the rustling sound of their leaves blowing in the wind? The smell of a local brewery nearby, and the imagined pleasure of drinking a pint of beer, that might soon follow...? In other words, the whole experience, as a human experiences it. Can you describe that adequately and usefully in terms of neural activity? I don't think that's possible, is it?

By "experience" do you mean specifically the more conscious aware experience, or any experience? — Tyler

I am not aware of any human experience that is not a "conscious aware" experience. Perception precedes experience, as it must, but the human does not experience the experience (sorry! :wink:) until it reaches our conscious minds, and then we become aware of it.

If you consider different experiences in different degrees of conscious vividness, then an experience with very minimal or no conscious vividness, should have basically no figurative distance to span, from neural activity to experience. — Tyler

I think you're saying here that an experience that barely (or doesn't?) registers in our awareness is closer to "neural activity" than one which engages our attention thoroughly? I think you are not referring to what I would call a human experience. I mean much more by 'experience' than mere sensation. I refer to the whole process of human perception, followed by the thoughts and feelings that come with the experience once it enters our conscious awareness. The whole thing.

It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. — Pattern-chaser

If the stream of bytes was measurable and detailed to the same degree that neuroscience is, then by testing the comparison of reaction between the bytes and the alterations on the screen, I think it would be helpful to understand it as a word processor. — Tyler

The bytes are the Word program, not its active (RAM) memory, or the document it's operating on. These bytes don't change with the screen display. They are the instructions that cause the computer to execute word processing functions. Just like (in a very general way :wink:) the DNA in your cells programs your growth. And I contest your assertion that neuroscience is "detailed". The problem here, with the abstract distance between neural activity and human experience, is that the gap between the two is huge, and not yet understood or "detailed".

How does my experience of joy, fear or grief affect my neural activity (or vice versa, if you prefer :wink:)? What combination of neurons fire in these circumstances? What are the weightings that cause them to fire in this way, not another? And what is your detailed description of how the firing of these particular neurons gives rise to these experiences?

Back to the Word example: you need to monitor the program bytes in order to correlate the bytes accessed with the change in the screen display. In theory, this can be done. But in practice, the incredible difficulty of doing this is down to the abstract distance between understanding the program in terms of its executable bytes and the resulting word-processor display on your screen. Do you see?

Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. — Pattern-chaser

like what for example? If science explains the functional processes of the neurology involved with an experience (such as the eye measuring light, coding it into neurons, then accessing those neurons), then what more is there that science does not detect? — Tyler

I think your appreciation of human perception (according to our current understanding) might be somewhat lacking. There is much more to it than mere sensation. Yes, we could reasonably see the eye as measuring light, but it does not code "it into neurons". The optic nerve itself begins the neural processing, even before the data reaches the brain proper. Then the perception process begins in earnest. It is not sense - store - recall - review. It is more like sense - perceive - associate - interpret - integrate into worldview - conscious awareness. [No, let's not argue about trivial details. It's something along those general lines. Thanks. :smile:] Note in particular that only at the final stage, when perception is effectively complete, is the information passed to our conscious awareness. Prior to that, there is no conscious input to the process whatever. Not even the tiniest bit. Perception is pre-conscious. And it is much more than detecting light, and storing the fact that we detected it.

Science does not acknowledge or detect (using the red snooker ball example) the wealth of meaning contained within the human concepts of "red" "snooker" and "ball", all of which are recalled from memory as part of the perceptive process, along with others such as (I'm guessing here!) "billiards", "pool", "sphere", "cue", "trajectory", "collision", and so on (and on). Each of these concepts brings with it considerably more than a simple dictionary definition of the words we use to label them. And this is just a tiny fraction of what perception involves. I know I have described it as an ignorant layman might, because that's what I am when it comes to human perception. I think you probably are too. It's a complicated subject, of which we know only the most basic details, as yet. But current knowledge definitely indicates that you underestimate or misunderstand what human perception involves. :chin:

It seems to me you're the one who does most of the 'veering'. First it's red and redness, then it's that red is an external thing, and now ... what? And what about my observation that "red" is as ambiguous as most English words, and your approach ignores all but one of its possible meanings? :chin:

someone suggested that the quest to defeat chaos is the primary task of mind. Would you agree that this is true in some sense? — frank

In the sense that a mind is ordered, and counters entropy in some simple and temporary way, I would agree that it is strictly true. But that the purpose of mind is to defeat chaos is not really true either, even though I just admitted it is (in a way). We have no idea of the purpose of mind, body or Universe, do we? Your speculation is ultimately unhelpful, I suggest. :chin:

I can't reconcile the notion that consciousness and neural activity could be the same thing. Neural activity is a sequential process with action potentials travelling along axons and awaiting action potentials etc, it (neural activity) is temporal. The relationship appears only to make sense if we consider consciousness the cause and neural activity the secondary effect.. — Marcus de Brun

My best guess - and I am happy to observe that this is not proven, just a summary of our current beliefs - is that neural activity eventually gives rise to consciousness and thereby to experience. Just as you, a thinking, feeling, person, are composed of quarks. Somehow those tiny and fundamental particles are arranged in such a way that this becomes possible. But it is far from intuitive, I admit. :wink: :up:

Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. — Pattern-chaser

The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm not sure. But you could ask Helen Keller (if she was still alive), who managed to teach deaf, dumb and blind subjects to communicate and interact with other humans in the real world. This is an astonishing achievement, in my view, which just shows how very good humans are at understanding stuff (at least in this particular way). :smile:

Seems to me it makes no sense to stipulate that the Conscious experience ever happens before the Neural Activity in this logical chain of events. — SteveKlinko

Yes, the whole process of human perception, starting with sensation, and including all the other stuff that comes with perception, is pre-conscious, chronologically. The final result of the perception process is passed, complete, to the conscious mind. This then results in experience, yes? :chin:

And yet Steve's point remains unanswered: scientists do not have a method for studying the Experience or the Experiencer. — Pattern-chaser

If the experience etc. is simply neural activity, then I believe we do have a method for studying it, as we have studied lots of neural activity. — Tyler

This is a difficult one. To the extent that neural activity gives rise to consciousness, and thereby experience, it is correct to observe that experience reduces to neural activity, as you say. But today, with our current understanding, the abstract distance between neural activity and experience is just too big to span. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's just too difficult for human minds to appreciate experience in terms of neural activity. It's like trying to appreciate Microsoft's word processor as a stream of bytes. It is a stream of bytes, but this does not help us to understand it as a word processor. The abstract distance is just too large. In the same way, seeing experience in terms of neural activity is not useful or helpful to humans attempting to reach some sort of understanding.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that we investigate the way that humans experience the real world using science ("...we have studied lots of neural activity"). :chin: Human experience is mostly composed of stuff that science discards, or does not detect/acknowledge in the first place. Science is not the right tool for this job, I don't think.

Humans are part of the physical universe, so this suggests redness (that thing we perceive and contemplate) is part of the physical world. — Relativist

This is like saying that Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes exist in the real world, because the books and films that represent their adventures exist in the real world. I don't think this argument holds water. :chin:

(2) the human physical capacity to see, and remember, this aspect of physical objects

I assume you're claiming there to be something about #2 that is non-physical. Is that correct? — Relativist

Not really, no. [Not that I deny the above; it's just not exactly what I'm saying. :wink:] I'm getting at something along these lines:

The definition you use for "red" is unusual, and does not include many or most of the shades of meaning used by humans when they say "red". — Pattern-chaser

My view is broader, and tries to embrace all of the meanings that humans conventionally use "red" for. — Pattern-chaser

But the direct realist usage conforms precisely to the main dictionary definition under which (in the example given on the link you gave) lips are red... — jkg20

This isn't a surprise; it isn't incompatible with my beliefs either. But that wasn't the point. I'm sure I said that.

The definition you use for "red" is unusual, and does not include many or most of the shades of meaning used by humans when they say "red". — Pattern-chaser

Oh yes, I did. :up: :wink: [Underline added.]

Assuming we have reached the core of this sub-thread, and the topic you wish to discuss is direct realism, I think we are down to definitions, and to the meaning and the context, intended by both of us. My view is broader, and tries to embrace all of the meanings that humans conventionally use "red" for. Yours is more focussed, and considers only the direct realism perspective. I'm afraid I still don't see any room here for manoeuvre, or for further discussion. I think you see little use or point in a more inclusive definition of "red". :meh:

Consciousness is the cause and neural activity is the determined effect. — Marcus de Brun

This reminds me of Pirsig's rephrasing, whereby "A causes B" becomes "B values pre-condition A". Both are valid expressions of the same thing. Perhaps consciousness and neural activity are the same? :chin:

Interesting. Made me think. Thank you for that. :smile:

But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning of the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers. — Pattern-chaser

Correct. And this is the main point of the OP; that words that have the potential to be ambiguous should be defined at the start of the discussion. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think this might be too restrictive. For a start, almost all English words have more than one meaning: they are (nearly) all ambiguous. It is impractical to define every word that is scheduled for use in a given discussion. There are just too many of them, and too many different meanings. In some discussions, some words will be used to carry several different meanings. It is pointless to moan about this. It's just a fact of life, and we need to accept it as it is, and deal with it (also as it is). English words are ambiguous. Fact. This is how human language works, right or wrong. I think you are preoccupied with "ought" instead of "is"? :chin:

All we can, and should, do is to attempt to communicate as clearly as we can, and that will sometimes require that we define some of the terms we are going to use, as a courtesy to our fellow debaters. I think that's as close as we can approach your preferred course.

I can't let the feelings of others affect my view on reality or science facts. The world and society won't bend to accommodate them. They cannot impose on me to use the pronoun 'he', 'she' or 'they' when it doesn't just fit. — Terran Imperium

In this matter, I wonder if your view on reality might be blinkered by your reliance on "scientific facts" in an area where there is (I think) more than just science going on. Here, we are very firmly in the realm of human culture, where the thoughts and feelings of individuals are the primary determining factors. Science places humans into the role of impartial observers, and that just won't do in a matter like this. Here, humans are active participants, and must be treated as such.

The first thing I remember when I call trans-gender issues to mind, is that a man would not consider doing to themselves what gender correction surgery does unless they felt they had a really good and strong reason. You might consider them delusional, but they just feel they are bringing their emotional and physical sides into alignment with one another. I see no way to disprove one side of the argument or the other, and I see no profit in even pursuing that argument. No harm is done to the individual or society. There is no case to answer, IMO.

Perhaps the most important point is this: is anyone harmed by someone asking to be addressed as "she", even though you feel that form of address to be inappropriate? No. Is anyone mislead? No. Does it matter at all what form of address I prefer? [Let's assume I remain consistent, and don't alternate between "he" and "she".] No. Is there any negative consequence at all? No, there isn't. So let's allow anyone and everyone to nominate their preferred form of address. And when they have done that, let's show them the simple respect of using it. The world and society will bend to accommodate them. Why wouldn't it? :chin:

No harm; no problem. :smile:

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

you have been much cleverer than I first thought. You have crafted an alternative definition for "red" that defines it as an intrinsic property of objects out there in the real world. — Pattern-chaser

Not really - right from the beginning my use of the word "red" corresponds precisely to the way it is used by the position known as direct realism — jkg20

OK, so direct realists did this, not you. My point stands. The definition you use for "red" is unusual, and does not include many or most of the shades of meaning used by humans when they say "red". As I said,

You have changed the word to suit your needs. Unless I change it back to suit mine, we have reached an impasse. — Pattern-chaser

Edited to add: this page gives an idea of some of the different meanings conventionally used for "red". It is a dictionary, so it's not authoritative (nothing is!), but it gives the basic idea. In China, "red" also stands for prosperity. There's a lot your different-and-constrained redefinition misses out.

Harry Hindu

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu


I like your definition very much and would like to ask if you can explain a bit further in terms of abstracts or principles and how they are represented in our day to day business. For example, "how and why does the cause assign meaning to the effect? What is the end game (if any)? Or rather, how should we perceive the whole mechanism of cause and effect in relation to meaning?" — BrianW

[My emboldening.]

Read what Harry said again. Carefully. The cause does not assign meaning to the effect. Harry defines meaning to be the relationship between cause and effect. This is what you and I call "a cause-effect relationship". Harry calls it "meaning".

Yes, I'm baffled too. :chin:

A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe

Ask a blind man. He knows the meaning, but cannot appreciate that meaning as you (a sighted person) can. I know the meaning of X-ray, although I will never sense one directly, as I don't have that ability.

A being is a thing, in the sense that that-which-is-not-a-being is nothing. As such, a being needs not be a concrete object like a horse or a ball, but may also be a more abstract thing like an action, feeling, state of mind, relation between objects, property, etc. because even these abstract things are not nothing. — Samuel Lacrampe

Really? :chin: A being is a living thing; a thing may be living or not. As you say, "thing" is the most general term, while being is more constrained (to living things). Of course, I only observe how these terms are conventionally used. There is no absolute authority on word definitions, and this is probably a Good Thing. But it is equally true to observe that, if we all just change the meaning if the terms we use, to suit our current needs, communication suffers.

Few people would agree that an action is a being; most people would agree that an action is a thing. :chin:

I gained a worthwhile understanding of the nonconscious mind from "Hare brain, tortoise mind" by Guy Claxton.

But I wonder if a simpler observation might also be helpful: the nonconscious mind takes care of any/all mental activities that happen outside of awareness. Thus it is nonconscious by definition. Being such a catch-all term, the nonconscious mind contains lots of disparate parts. There is the hind-brain stuff, keeping you breathing and your heart beating. There is the bit that executes oft-repeated habitual acts. There is the bit that mulls over problems that you have/face, and sometimes presents you with a solution. And so on.

The oddest thing I have ever come across while discussing these matters is the concept that "My consciousness is me; any other part of my mind is a malevolent invader, and not part of me at all." This is a common attitude that's always puzzled me. :chin:

By being yourself. You have a self-image, we all do, but it is not you, and it cannot and does not compel you to act. You take note of things that happen, and things that are said, and sometimes your way of behaving (acting) changes as a result. But it is you who decide to change, and it is you, not your self-image, that acts.

Just my two pennyworth. :wink: