Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

:up: :lol:

If there are brain scan hallmarks for autism maybe a therapy could help address it as well if brain manipulations like that become a possible therapy. — TiredThinker

From this paper:

In this paper, we summarized 47 literatures involved in fMRI data classification between ASD individuals and TCs. Most researchers expected to derive the biomarkers of ASD through classification studies and have made some progress in deed, but the overall assessment of classification of ASD using fMRI data thus far falls short of biomarker standards. Despite this, several work directions may need to be paid more attention by researchers...

There is evidence, that at least some percentage of autism, corresponds to variation in cortical minicolumn structure, which are variations with a feature size too small for current fMRI technology to detect directly.

One treatment that I am curious about, which appears to be beneficial in some cases, is treatment with the hormone oxytocin. I haven't looked into trying it myself though. Perhaps next time I go to the doctor...

What I find particularly fascinating, in reading through this thread, is the following:

In a letter to Mersenne, Descartes reveals:

...there are many other things in them; and I tell you, between ourselves, that these
six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But that must not be
spread abroad, if you please; for those who follow Aristotle will find it more
difficult to approve them. I hope that [my readers] will accustom themselves
insensibly to my principles, and will come to recognize their truth, before
perceiving that they destroy those of Aristotle.
– René Descartes to Mersenne, January 28, 1641, Œuvres de Descartes,
3:297–98, quoted and translated by Hiram Caton in The Origin of
Subjectivity, 17

Can anyone shed light on how Descartes would have meant with what is translated as "insensibly"? Might we translate it "subconsciously" today?

I see a certain merit to Descartes strategy, but my view is based on my understanding the relationship between our minds' intuitive faculties and the behavior of neural nets. I find it rather remarkable that Descartes recognized the potential effectivess of the communication strategy he describes, despite not having access to modern neuropsych. (Though of course he put a lot of thought into the nature of thought.)

Where in the animal kingdom does sentience begin? I find it plausible to think it begins with a CNS, which AIs currently lack.

Something to be aware of, in thinking about this subject, is that neuromorphic hardware seems to be rapidly approaching a level of technological development that will dramatically increase the cognitive power of AIs as well as dramatically reduce the power consumption of AIs compared to the sort of systems making news today.

It appears inevitable that at some point in the not too distant future physical systems which are much closer analogies to a CNS will be feasible to build.

I'm inclined to agree that sentience won't arise in the sort of systems we see today, but I think it is highly likely that we ain't seen nothin yet.

:up:

I'm only about halfway through this discussion, but I want to say thanks Fooloso4!

I am really appreciating your commentary.

I've never denied his talent for climbing the greasy pole of popular opinion. He gives the crowd what it wants. — apokrisis

Exactly.

We are biologically identical, to all intents and purposes. Sure, science can tell our DNA apart but from a biological perspective, we're both members of the same species, and all our fundamental biological traits are identical. — Wayfarer

Awfully loose usage of "identical" there.

You can do the same for, the famous example being, a bat.

I think there is an important sense in which this isn't true. Yes, in principle we could learn all sorts of details, but I think it most likely that forming a comprehensive mental model of something as complicated as the processes occurring in the brain of a bat are well beyond the cognitive faculties of humans.

I'm speaking as an electrical engineer who has designed a system that other engineers find very difficult to wrap their head around, but that system is utterly trivial by comparison with a mammalian brain. I don't think there is any good reason to credit humans with the capacity to fully grasp what is going on in such complicated systems as the brains of mammals.

Amen! I'd add, develop some expertise in some aspect of interacting with the natural world, whether that be fly fishing, growing bonsai trees, sailing, or motorcycle maintenance.

Of course, many people disagree with Penrose, but at least the debate shows that the question of the algorithmic nature of consciousness is, well, debatable.

My understanding of Penrose's view is that he thinks some element of quantum computation is needed for consciousness, but that seems a different matter than consciousness being non-algorithmic. (Though I don't see "algorithmic" as particularly useful terminology in thinking about the information processing that occurs in our brains.) In any case I don't see any reason to think some form of quantum computation is needed to explain consciousness, and I think Penrose is generally seen as somewhat of a crackpot on this topic.

I am interested in the transition from unconscious algorithmic thinking to conscious thinking. How does consciousness emerge from a algorithmic basis?

That's something I am very interested in as well, but at present it is only something we can speculate about. You could look up "Integrated Information Processing" as one line of speculation that I think might be on the right track to some degree.

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest that in mammals it is a matter of the neocortex having the ability to monitor and to some degree control older brain regions. In the process of monitoring the goings on in older brain regions I think the neocortex is able to integrate the information extracted from older brain regions to construct a (somewhat real time) model of the world. The massively parallel information processing available in the neocortex, observing this model of the world, simply is what consciousness is.

In evolutionary terms, I think the evolution of the neocortex provided the ability to think outside the box that you mentioned, by enabling more neurologically advanced species some ability to imagine alternative ways of modelling the world. Eventually, the evolution of linguistic faculties in the neocortex enabled our ancestors to communicate about their mental modelling of the world. Thus The Philosophy Forum.

If there is a cure, should parents of autistic children be forced to give it to their kids?

I don't think there is an objective fact of the matter, but I think it would be rather cruel not to, particularly in a society where the cure was widely used.

Interpretation necessarily involves imposing some sense of wisdom and logic upon the text in order to obtain palatable results.

Why interpret the text with a goal of palatable results? Seeking palatable results sounds to me like a recipe for appeals to consequence.

Something you might be interested in looking into, as a candidate for your "Initial Alteration" , is the ARHGAP11B mutation.

You can find some relevant links in this discussion on another forum. (That discussion did go on for a long time, and is to a significant degree an atheist vs theist discussion between people with a long history that devolved into a flame war, but I think you can find the most informative links in the first page of the discussion.)

The different person argument is invalid. No one is the same person throughout their life, everything changes.

There is a matter of degree that is of relevance here. There are the typical day to day and year to year changes we experience in ourselves and see in others. Then there are much more extreme changes as in the case of Phineas Gage:

Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman remembered for his improbable[B1]: 19  survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe, and for that injury's reported effects on his personality and behavior over the remaining 12 years of his life‍—‌effects sufficiently profound that friends saw him (for a time at least) as "no longer Gage".

Autism resulting from the sort of differences in neural interconnections discussed here if 'cured' would result in a change in the person more akin to the change in Phineas Gage than to the normal year to year change in people.

I think it likely that Daniel Geshwind is correct in saying, "I prefer to call it “the Autisms,” because it’s not one thing, and no two autistic children or adults are exactly alike even though they may share basic features." So perhaps there are some autisms that are more 'curable' than others, but I haven't seen any good reason to think that is the case.

Darkneos,

I'm on the spectrum as well, but admittedly I'm one of the lucky ones, in that I have some strengths to go with my weaknesses. I well recognize that many others on the spectrum have a lot more challenges than I do. So I hope anything I say on the topic doesn't come across as patronizing. (But I won't be too surprised if it does.)

I don't really forsee any hope for a cure. At best I think better treatments applied early enough in childhood to make a significant difference might be something to hope for. It doesn't make any sense to me though to say, "There should be a cure for adults." when I don't think that is really a possibility.

The way I think of it is that if there was some means of restructuring my brain so that it was no longer an autistic brain, applying such a technique to me would at best result in there being a different person in place of me. Not to say that there isn't anyone who wouldn't consider that an improvement, but I don't see someone else existing in place of me as desireable.

The only thing I can say that seems like it might be helpful to you, is that having a good therapist with significant experience working with autistic people has made a real difference for me.

Hang in there.

Very good OP, and I largely agree. I do want to quibble with the following though:

What he is able to perceive of it is limited by his perceptual periphery, the fact that most of his sense organs point outwards toward the rest of the world and not inwards towards the mass where all the business of “experience” is occurring.

It is not unreasonable to look at every synapse impinging on a neuron as a sense organ which that neuron uses to detect the state of the neurons providing the outputs to those synapses. If 'sense organ' is broadly construed in such a way, then much of what is being sensed by neurons is the result of earlier information processing by other neurons, and there is much 'internal sensing' going on.

I'm fairly confident that such a neuron by neuron quanitification of sensing would lead to the conclusion that there is actually more sensing of internal than external going on, and I think such is necessary for our phenomenal consciousness.

Given that our species nature is real (i.e. the fact that there are things which are bad, harmful, suffering-inducing to do to our kind), acting towards one another in harmony with our species nature is 'moral realism', no?

I'm inclined to think so, but I'm not well enough informed about the way vocabulary is used by philosophers discussing ethics to feel confident making an argument for it.

Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?

Recognize that it is an aspect of humanity's evolved nature, for things to matter to people, and that the nonexistence of moral facts doesn't change the fact that things matter to people. Then act in harmony with your nature. (Not necessarily the way I would put it to a psychopath.)

Afaik, protestants do not believe in the trinity.

I'm fairly certain the majority of protestants in the US are trinitarians, though some protestant denominations are not.

If you are interested in the history of how trinitarian beliefs evolved, Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God is pretty good.

Thoughts?

I realize your question wasn't directed at me, but my $0.02 anyway...

Provided your "computational" is meant to be construed broadly enough to include connectionism that sounds good to me.

When this kind of thing comes up in a thread, I generally make my case once or twice and then bow out. I don't see any reason to disrupt the conversation. Please don't take that as criticism of you.

I can't say that I don't recognize the wisdom in that, but sometimes I am not so wise. :wink:

Science is actually about articulating a rational explanation to counter someone's views rather than saying "that's just pseudoscience".

Let's look at a definition of science. The first one to pop up as a result of my Google search was from The Science Council:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

Note that only the last item in the list involves "articulating a rational explanation" and there can be a whole lot of doing science apart from "articulating a rational explanation". And as scientific articulation goes, sometimes doing science is saying "Bullshit!" at the back of the crowd listening to the snake oil salesman.

One operates off rational thought, the other off personal bias.

False dichotomy.

I'm all ears for a cohesive reasoning as to why it's pseudoscience. I'm not all ears however for unsupported determinations of pseudoscientifism.

It is pseudoscience becauses it is a grossly simplistic gloss over an enormously complex set of processes which is apt to lead uninformed people to false impressions about scientific understanding.

If you want to have better scientific understanding, you will need to look into sciences more deeply.

For you to establish anything as definitively "pseudoscience" that requires you to be the ultimate and unquestionable "scientist." Knowing all and everything that could possibly be considered scientific.

No, that's a ridiculous criteria which would make it impossible for anyone to point out pseudoscience.

I don't think I'm providing any positive contribution to this thread, so I'll bow out.


FWIW, I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contribution.

Exactly. It's not 'like' anything else... which is the point.

:up:

I believe suffering is an evil and we should do everything in our power to eradicate most of it. I thinking coexisting with suffering is problematic unless you become apathetic and just focus on making your own life as liveable as possible.

I see no need to become apathetic at all, but it's important to keep in mind that you are only Human.

I believe that the Nazis, The Holocaust and World War Two were evil. Man made evils with malice and intent and not natural accidents. Deliberate destruction and torture.

I find much about those events abhorrent. However I consider it important to try to keep in mind the human propensity for black and white thinking and try to avoid a simplistic way of looking at things. For example, Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party. Was Schindler evil?

I'd ask you to consider the possibility that assigning blame is something that was adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors, in that seeing others as to blame (and dishing out punishment as a result) was part of what has made primate social groups work for a very long time. It is natural for us to blame, and we all do it, and perhaps human society would collapse if somehow we all miraculously lost our instnctive tendency to blame. However, there are big downsides to not being able to recognize the 'monkey minded' nature of blaming, and recognize how being in a blaming state of mind tends to foster black and white thinking, and other ugliness.

Consider... What role did Hitler's blaming play in what you refer to as evil above?

Certainly, any philosophy has to be able to deal with empirical discoveries, and certainly the background worldview of the ancients was hardly scientifically informed by today's standards - but if you consider the main subjects of interest in the Platonic dialogues, many of them - the nature of love, of justice, of wisdom, of courage - are hardly affected by that.

I'll leave discussion of Plato's dialogs to people better informed than I.

However, I'd suggest some study of evolutionary psychology and game theory *might* disabuse you of the belief that understanding of the nature of love, justice, wisdom, and courage are hardly affected by knowledge of science.

Anyway, I'm letting myself get too absorbed with discussions on the forum. So I'm going to try to resist getting too sucked into this one.

Thanks for the discussion.

I don't see the benefit to explaining evil by dispensing of God/gods.

I dispense with evil (as something objective) as well. Certainly we form subjective judgements that certain acts are evil, but I'd say it is mistaken to not recognize such judgements as psychological reactions we have which were adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors.

So I'd say that on naturalism there is no evil in need of explaining.

That aside, what you have presented as reasons to reject naturalism amount to an appeal to consequences fallacy.

On the other hand, I think philosophy should provide the ability to explore the matter directly without needing to rely on neuroscientific research. After all, Socrates was recommended to 'know thyself' by the Oracle of Delphi, and I don't know if his endeavours were hampered by the absence of modern neuroscience.

Can you provide additional reasoning for why you think "philosophy should provide the ability to explore the matter directly without needing to rely on neuroscientific research." After all, Socrates was a rather enigmatic figure who is said to have said:

"For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..." (Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966). [c/p from wikipedia]

Furthermore, neuroscience points to us being much too complex to know ourselves in a comprehensive sense.

Another thing to bear in mind are the discoveries of neuroplasticity and how neural configurations can be changed 'top-down' so to speak. Neuroplasticity has shown that mental activity influences brain structure, that engaging in specific mental activities, such as learning a new skill or practicing a particular cognitive task, can lead to structural changes in the brain. For example, studies have shown that individuals who learn to juggle experience an increase in gray matter volume in areas involved in motor control. Another fascinating study showed that subjects who learned to practice piano in their minds (i.e. no actual piano!) showed neurological changes similar to those who practiced with a piano (ref).

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I suppose cultural conditioning might also affect neural configurations and not necessarily in a good way.

Certainly cultural conditioning affects neural configurations in what we would judge to be good and bad ways. However, fMRI doesn't have nearly the spatial resolution required to be able to measure the changes, except in cases of relatively extreme repetition (like the 'piano practice'). So I don't expect neuroscientists to be able to detect the neurological results of exposure to a meme via fMRI anytime soon. At this point in time it would take more invasive technologies and some degree of luck to detect such subtle changes without causing brain damage.

We're very much conditioned to be oriented with respect to the objective domain - the process of 'objectification'. It's woven into the fabric of the culture. If you read some of the idealist philosophers - Berkeley and Schopenhauer, for example - you will see they are quite sane and sober individuals.

The process of objectification goes deeper than cultural conditioning. It is a function of how our brains work:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk

Something that occurs to me in respect of this argument: when people say they're 'sceptics' in this day and age, you can bet your boots they generally mean 'scientific sceptics', i.e. they will question anything for which there isn't or may not be scientific evidence. Yet 'scientific scepticism' generally starts with the firm belief that the 'sensory domain' (a.k.a. 'the natural realm') is inherently real. They're never sceptical about the obvious reality of the sensory domain in a manner that is very different to the ancient sceptics

I see skepticism as something needing a degree of balance, and think there is a tendency for some philosophers (or philosophy fans) to go off the skeptical deep end.

For me personally, I've studied too much about sensation and perception, and neuroscience more generally, to be naive about the degree to which we can grasp reality as it truly is. On the other hand, as an electrical engineer, it seems rather ludicrous to think that we are having a discussion via the internet, yet there is no external reality.

Idealism seems to me an example of philosophy poisoning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_qualification

Property qualification seems like an example of your latter scenario.

Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p92)

Sounds like an interesting book.

A common natruralisuts argument says that evil is expected under naturalism, becazuse of processes like natural selection. The suffering due to naturaal selection is good explanation fo rwhy there is evil in the world, because without the suffering, there would be no flourishment.

That's not an argument any well informed naturalist would make, and I recommend you consider it a straw man, and get a better handle on evolutionary theory before trying again.

Recently, I was thinking of how when I first started to post online it was the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, and that was 25 years ago!

It's interesting that both of us have been reminiscing similarly. We were at RFForums for a looong time. I was recently thinking of my internet history going back to before most people (outside of DARPA and various engineers and computer scientist) had ever heard of the internet. My interests at the time were more sexual than secular though, and in those early days I spent most of my internet discussion time on the Usenet group soc.singles.

It's ironic you should say that. I think the same can be said for feminism.

Well I'd say looking at things simplistically and assigning blame on the basis of our simplistic 'understanding' of things is just something all of us social primates do, at least from time to time.

Whether it is incels, feminists, or anyone else wallowing in such a state of mind, it is unfortunate.