Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

 

On 11/6/2022 at 10:14 AM, Mike said:

Facebook groups have been a good place to discuss Dennett’s books. From them I have several friends who are researching with me.

 

 

19 hours ago, Mike said:

I was not publishing my book here, as I mentioned also.  It is not ready for that. It was discussion I was seeking, but it is pretty clear hardly anyone read hardly any of it. But that's ok, because I did get a few tips, and a few areas I will soon re-write.

On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer.  I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more.

 

Something is bugging me about your claim that you’ve posted your “chapters-book-theories-thesis” stuff in Facebook discussion groupsfor approximately 5 years now, maybe more” and they’ve taken you seriously - and from what I’ve gathered from other things you’ve alluded to – you’ve had mostly positive responses.

But the way you’ve been coming down on Grease Spotters for their  valid  questions, and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies   and challenging you for evidence/data as proof to support your hypotheses  - something doesn’t fit with your Facebook claims…

So, it makes me wonder that your fanbase on Facebook might have really poor cognitive skills and are unfamiliar with the basics of philosophical theories, neuroscience, the basics of the scientific method (like observation, experimentation), or a general understanding of freewill vs determinism.

I mean to say …there’s such big holes, contradictions and nonsense in the “chapters-book-theories-thesis” stuff you’ve posted here – that I can’t imagine how any of this stuff would have passed the smell on Facebook, unless they were incapable of logic, noticing obvious contradictions and inconsistencies…

is what you shared on Facebook totally different from what you have shared here on Grease Spot ?

But since I mentioned these inconsistencies - and knowing your tactics - you'll probably come up with a "reasonable explanation" that you can retrofit into your original claims. :wink2:

 

Edited by T-Bone
revision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, waysider said:

Once again. It's not a theory or thesis, it's a hypothesis. It's not provable nor repeatable. Your research methodology is, to state it kindly , completely flawed. You have presented an idea you believe to be true. And that's fine. We all have ideas. Sometimes they appear to be rational to ourselves but not to others. This is why we are tasked with providing evidence to support those ideas. There is a process for providing evidence that is generally accepted by most. It involves adherence to a set criteria of research methods. If you want anyone to accept your ideas and advance your hypothesis to a theoretical level, you need to follow that process. You need to compile data in an acceptable manner and allow for the possibility that you might have to entertain conflicting data. You might even have to change your position. If you can do that, perhaps you'll find an audience that is more receptive. However, this is something you seem to be unwilling or unable to do.

You would think an atom-smashing, neuroscientist would know such rudimentary principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rocky said:

OTOH, you did claim to not have PUBLISHED your book. But your description of having put it here on GSC for other readers to hopefully someday read it contradicts said claim.

My claim was "not for publishing, but for discussion" and that claim was made at the beginning of the thread, or near it, MANY PAGES AGO.

It is now, after I am finished "posting for discussion,"  ON THIS PAGE that I took consolation  in possible future readers.... again for discussion, and not a "publishing."

In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike said:

In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.

This would make an excellent dictionary entry giving a poignant example of rationalization. So, you're now rationalizing having PUBLISHED online your book for discussion, claiming it's NOT published because it's not public ENOUGH?

Mike, remember the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pub·lish

  (pŭb′lĭsh)

v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To prepare and issue (a book, music, or other material) for public distribution, especially for sale.
b. To prepare and issue a work or works by (an author).
2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.
v.intr.
1. To issue a publication.
2. To be the writer of works that are published.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.

Pure bullshonta. You published it here, making it public because you know that there are WAAAAYYY more lurkers around here than actual contributors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mike said:

In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.

My father-in-law wrote a fairly lengthy memoir of his WWII experiences as an Army officer. With the help of my wife, he self-published it. It was only intended for a small, family audience, to aid in documenting family history. I assure you, though, it most definitely is "published".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

Uncanny really how you claim to have communicated successfully, when you did NOT succeed in communicating at all. That is, according to communication theory, which posits that success in communication consists of encoding a message, sending it, then having it received and accurately decoded by the intended audience. YOU do not succeed until YOU receive acknowledgment that YOUR message was accurately decoded by the intended audience.

OTOH, you did claim to not have PUBLISHED your book. But your description of having put it here on GSC for other readers to hopefully someday read it contradicts said claim. That IS what publishing consists of.

IOW, Mike, we have plumbed the depths of your intentions and actions based solely on words that you posted responding to my probing challenges to you. 

Everybody except Mike got my point.

And publishing unofficially still publishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike said:

My claim was "not for publishing, but for discussion" and that claim was made at the beginning of the thread, or near it, MANY PAGES AGO.

It is now, after I am finished "posting for discussion,"  ON THIS PAGE that I took consolation  in possible future readers.... again for discussion, and not a "publishing."

In my mind publishing entails making it available publically.
This posting for discussion is a pretty small audience, and hardly the public in a publishing sense.

That's why there's always going to be that disconnect.  There's a discrepancy between what words and terms mean in regular usage and what they mean in his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

 

 

 

 

Something is bugging me about your claim that you’ve posted your “chapters-book-theories-thesis” stuff in Facebook discussion groupsfor approximately 5 years now, maybe more” and they’ve taken you seriously - and from what I’ve gathered from other things you’ve alluded to – you’ve had mostly positive responses.

But the way you’ve been coming down on Grease Spotters for their  valid  questions, and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies   and challenging you for evidence/data as proof to support your hypotheses  - something doesn’t fit with your Facebook claims…

So, it makes me wonder that your fanbase on Facebook might have really poor cognitive skills and are unfamiliar with the basics of philosophical theories, neuroscience, the basics of the scientific method (like observation, experimentation), or a general understanding of freewill vs determinism.

I mean to say …there’s such big holes, contradictions and nonsense in the “chapters-book-theories-thesis” stuff you’ve posted here – that I can’t imagine how any of this stuff would have passed the smell on Facebook, unless they were incapable of logic, noticing obvious contradictions and inconsistencies…

is what you shared on Facebook totally different from what you have shared here on Grease Spot ?

 

There's either a disconnect with what was presented, or who it was presented to.  It would not surprise me to find out there WAS no such group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WordWolf said:

That's why there's always going to be that disconnect.  There's a discrepancy between what words and terms mean in regular usage and what they mean in his mind.

Which is EXACTLY why I was asking for Mike to clearly define his terms from the very beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Which is EXACTLY why I was asking for Mike to clearly define his terms from the very beginning.

We've been asking for that from Mike since he first started posting. Good luck with that. Leopard, spots.   He's never going to define anything. When he gets caught with another mistake, he'll claim we misunderstood him and he never actually made a mistake. Leopard, spots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike said:


Contrary to the pop science articles that saturate the Internet, there IS determinism in Quantum Mechanics.  It does get tweaked a little, but it is still there.

I handle Quantum in Chapter 5 on determinism.  There I explain why I abandoned Heisenberg and Godel.  I also explain what kind of determinism survives Heisenberg. 

I can cite Penrose on this assertion of mine here: there is determinism in Quantum.  He says the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. 

When I was in High School A.P. Chemistry we saw how the solutions to the Schrodinger DETERMINED the shape of the electron orbitals and their exact energy levels for Hydrogen.

I rejected Quantum considerations in my minFW hypothesis, because the best I can see is that Quantum uncertainty can only contribute random "noise" to a functioning brain, much like radio static.   But for something smart to happen in a brain, smart static would be needed.  There is no such thing as smart static; it is all clueless and has no information in it.

What "determinism [is] in quantum mechanics"? The two are polar opposites: one states there is no certainty; the other, certainty. So, how does one square the circle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, So_crates said:

What "determinism [is] in quantum mechanics"? The two are polar opposites: one states there is no certainty; the other, certainty. So, how does one square the circle?

No, they are not polar opposites.  Quantum has LIMITED certainty for some things, like momentum and position.  Other things, like energy levels and orbital shapes are very certain.

There is no such statement or attitude in Quantum anywhere near "no certainty."

Determinism and certainty are modified in Quantum, but not eliminated.

If you want to read a good book on this, try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality."  The wikipedia article on it is excellent, and an education in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, they are not polar opposites.  Quantum has LIMITED certainty for some things, like momentum and position.  Other things, like energy levels and orbital shapes are very certain.

There is no such statement or attitude in Quantum anywhere near "no certainty."

Determinism and certainty are modified in Quantum, but not eliminated.

If you want to read a good book on this, try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality."  The wikipedia article on it is excellent, and an education in itself.

Maybe energy levels and orbital shapes and momentum, but on the quantum level, particles too are unpredictable. They're moving backward in time and being in more than one state and being two places at once. The quantum level of the universe is nothing like ours, hence the uncertainty.

A group of little changes on the quantum level create a big change on our level, again, hence the uncertainty.

As far as position: you can predict the position, but then you can't predict the speed. Predict the speed and you don't know the position.

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Maybe energy levels and orbital shapes and momentum, but on the quantum level, particles too are unpredictable. They're moving backward in time and being in more than one state and being two places at once. The quantum level of the universe is nothing like ours, hence the uncertainty.

As far as position: you can predict the position, but then you can't predict the speed. Predict the speed and you don't know the position.

The main goal of quantum mechanics is to explain the details in how stable atoms are formed, how they glow when heated up, and how they stick together in Chemistry.  Quantum has been successful at this to a GREAT degree of certainty.  

In fact, quantum is the MOST CERTAIN thing human beings have ever done, AND it has never been proved wrong in any experiment for almost 100 years now.

Yes, it is fascinating to see what uncertainties enter into the mix, but determinism does live (albeit slightly modified) at the quantum level.

I was focused on Quantum's uncertainties for almost 50 years as being useful in the study of the brain and free will. I failed at finding anything useful, and so did every scientist who tried their hand at this, including Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose.   I detail all of this in my chapter 5 on determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Reality

 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

The main goal of quantum mechanics is to explain the details in how stable atoms are formed, how they glow when heated up, and how they stick together in Chemistry.  Quantum has been successful at this to a GREAT degree of certainty.  

In fact, quantum is the MOST CERTAIN thing human beings have ever done, AND it has never been proved wrong in any experiment for almost 100 years now.

Yah, the certainty of uncertainty.

5 minutes ago, Mike said:


Yes, it is fascinating to see what uncertainties enter into the mix, but determinism does live (albeit slightly modified) at the quantum level.

I was focused on Quantum's uncertainties for almost 50 years as being useful in the study of the brain and free will. I failed at finding anything useful, and so did every scientist who tried their hand at this, including Physics Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose.  

Just because, you and the others have failed to find anything useful doesn't mean there isn't anything useful. What if Edison had given up after trying to make a light bulb 75 times? We'd all be watching tv by candlelight.

If I were to hazard a guess, your own opinion about your theories got in your way.

On a quantum level small changes occur, these lead to minor changes in the brain, which lead to changes in behavior.

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

I detail all of this in my chapter 5 on determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Reality

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Glad you brought PLAF up. I wonder where Mike puts believing in determinism.

I see determinism as a helper or a friend in all that our brain does, including believing.  We use determinism all the time in every technology.  Our brain uses determinism as a tool or a resource in making decisions, and we can control this to a limited extent.  The fact that we do have SOME control justifies the use of "free will" in describing our decision process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...