BM Brain Theory vs. Neuroscience

[Little Idiot]

I forget what the exact text of your axiom was but as I remember it lacked the persuasive axiomatic feature of being in general agreement as to it's putative truth.

I thus dismiss it.


But. Wasn't that the other threads purpose? This one is titled your NS vs. mine.

By which you mean what exactly? Care to explain in this or the other thread? I can put the axiom up again if you like.

Do so and copy this post over there.

Here you are.
Subject: On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[Little Idiot]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

Well if it can't account for the evidence then it is falsified.

Or I need to get out the mentalism handbookTM.
My top students in IBO who graduate in a few months cant supply all the answers to all the experiments, only last month they had not heared of the photo electric effect and could not have explained it. On your reasonoing, Physics would have been falsified had I asked them the wrong question

[Little Idiot]

Given that you claim, LI, that your model accounts for all the experimental evidence of NS, it would be good to look at your externalization idea with the Hermann grid illusion.

http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_ ... _black.jpg

How do you account for the black dots that aren't really there?

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.
I find it hard to believe thats what I said or meant.

But I will have a look at the illusion, and get back to you.

Hrmm, nice illusion.

Is it supposed to show anything special, apart from the un-real dots of course. I mean can we learn anything specific from it?

To me, its an example where the minds reconstruction can be seen to be different to the actual sensory input. The sensory input is not exactly replicated, rather the mind takes liberties and makes a 'good enough to get by' reconstruction. Like many illusions it shows that we do not experience what is actually causing the sense stimulus, and do not even get to experience an accurate copy.

We know there are no dots, but we still see them. Experience and knowing are not identical.

This is no mere illusion where the mind's construction fails. It's actually physically there. But only on the brain side of the retina. The four black corners are shutting down the white centers where you see the dots. They do this with something called lateral inhibition. This is a characteristic of the wiring of photoreceptor into a single ganglion which then delivers it's info to V1 in the brain. It is necessary for us to see the way we see. That is to be able to detect edges as clearly as we can.

So your brain is being lied to in this case and it is a necessary lie. The lie happens in a chain of events that is entirely in the physical realm. From truth to illusion.

But if the black squares are already mental in nature and in the BM then I can't understand why we perceive them as having circles between them when it is nothing but an artifact of physical processing.

Why would the neural structure of the visual system be externalized by the senses as you say? What exactly is being externalized here?

Thats a good question, one which I will sleep on and answer tomorrow, gotta go to bed now; Sunday is a working day here in Cairo.

[SpeedOfSound]

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 93#p400693

Does your 'model' account for all the evidence of neurology? Or do you claim it doesn't need to, because "it's all mental"?

Yes my model accounts for neurology.

Wibble and squiggle out of it now.

[SpeedOfSound]

Well if it can't account for the evidence then it is falsified.

Or I need to get out the mentalism handbookTM.
My top students in IBO who graduate in a few months cant supply all the answers to all the experiments, only last month they had not heared of the photo electric effect and could not have explained it. On your reasonoing, Physics would have been falsified had I asked them the wrong question [/quote]

I'm not talking about you answering questions I'm talking about the validity of your model with regard to evidence.

[GrahamH]

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 93#p400693

Does your 'model' account for all the evidence of neurology? Or do you claim it doesn't need to, because "it's all mental"?

Yes my model accounts for neurology.

Wibble and squiggle out of it now.

LI doesn't need to account for all of neuroscience right now, but he does have to account for some of it. Neuroscience doesn't have to account for every aspect of mind right now, but it does account for a lot of it. I don't recall LI accounting for any of these oddities of the mind/brain.

Even the seemingly most basic question is unanswered. Why do we have brains at all? The idea that the CNS externalises experience could be reasonable as far as accounting for sense organs. But what are brains for? Indeed, what is chemistry for? We don't experience it directly. We can only access it via science. We can envisage any number of worlds where there is rich experience but no chemistry and no brains, if 'its all mental'.

By way of analogy consider Second Life, or any other computer simulation of a world. Avatars have eyes, and the player/observer 'sees through them', but they don't need retinal neurons or optic nerves or brains in the simulation to do that.

Consider dreams. We experience an externalised world without using our eyes, retinas or optic nerves. If 'its all mental' we don't need these chemical/mechanical organs in order to experience.

So, LI, what are brains for, in your model? If we can sort that out we can start to discuss how your model accounts for any aspect of neuroscience.

[Little Idiot]

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 93#p400693

Does your 'model' account for all the evidence of neurology? Or do you claim it doesn't need to, because "it's all mental"?

Yes my model accounts for neurology.

Wibble and squiggle out of it now.

No need for wibble, no need for squiggle.
As I said would be the case;I claimed that the model accounts for it, but not therefore I can nesasarily account for it.
Given that I dont need to move one iota from my statement "And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence" I would not think that is wibbling nor squiggling out of anything.

[Little Idiot]

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 93#p400693

Does your 'model' account for all the evidence of neurology? Or do you claim it doesn't need to, because "it's all mental"?

Yes my model accounts for neurology.

Wibble and squiggle out of it now.

LI doesn't need to account for all of neuroscience right now, but he does have to account for some of it. Neuroscience doesn't have to account for every aspect of mind right now, but it does account for a lot of it. I don't recall LI accounting for any of these oddities of the mind/brain.

You may recall some of the past agrument I present are based on odities of the mind and brain, to show the 'external' world is not identical to the 'experienced' world.

Even the seemingly most basic question is unanswered. Why do we have brains at all? The idea that the CNS externalises experience could be reasonable as far as accounting for sense organs. But what are brains for? Indeed, what is chemistry for? We don't experience it directly. We can only access it via science. We can envisage any number of worlds where there is rich experience but no chemistry and no brains, if 'its all mental'.

Because the physical world is consistent. If we had cotton wool in our heads, the physical world would be inconsistent.
For what ever reason, our physical world is consistent down to very very fine scales of detail, and out to very massive scales of detail.

By way of analogy consider Second Life, or any other computer simulation of a world. Avatars have eyes, and the player/observer 'sees through them', but they don't need retinal neurons or optic nerves or brains in the simulation to do that.

We all agree its a virual world, and dont look inside our Second-Life heads to see whats inther, we know the answer already. Its not a consistent world to the same level as our.

Consider dreams. We experience an externalised world without using our eyes, retinas or optic nerves. If 'its all mental' we don't need these chemical/mechanical organs in order to experience.

Doesnt this go against your position, not mine?
How do we 'see' in dreams without physical eyes? Obviously this proves eyes are not required to see, but some kind of awareness is. Otherwise we would not be aware of our internal virtual world.

So, LI, what are brains for, in your model? If we can sort that out we can start to discuss how your model accounts for any aspect of neuroscience.

Brains are the CPU of the CNS, the whole show needs to be collected and processed in order to work. The brain does what a CPU does; processes data.

[SpeedOfSound]

Even the seemingly most basic question is unanswered. Why do we have brains at all? The idea that the CNS externalises experience could be reasonable as far as accounting for sense organs. But what are brains for? Indeed, what is chemistry for? We don't experience it directly. We can only access it via science. We can envisage any number of worlds where there is rich experience but no chemistry and no brains, if 'its all mental'.
...
Consider dreams. We experience an externalised world without using our eyes, retinas or optic nerves. If 'its all mental' we don't need these chemical/mechanical organs in order to experience.

So, LI, what are brains for, in your model? If we can sort that out we can start to discuss how your model accounts for any aspect of neuroscience.

I have been trying to close in on this with him for a very long time. All I get is that externalization thing and this insistence that there is no transform between types when it's all mental.

Yesterday with the lateral inhibition illusion I think for a moment I had a chance of breaking in his conceptual brick wall. He said he would sleep on it. I haven't read the post beneath yours. I'm too afraid. I don't know if I can take another disappointment...

[SpeedOfSound]

OMG! He just blew by it...

Because the physical world is consistent. If we had cotton wool in our heads, the physical world would be inconsistent.
For what ever reason, our physical world is consistent down to very very fine scales of detail, and out to very massive scales of detail.

So god took out the cotton and put in brains so that the physical world could be processed by brains... Hmmmm... and be a consistent representation....

[GrahamH]

Hold on a sec, I didnt say my model accounts for 'all the experimental evidence of NS', where did I say that? And if I were to do so I would not be claiming that I could explain all the experimental evidence, I dont know what experimental evidence there is, so I cant logical claim to be able to explain it all.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 93#p400693

Does your 'model' account for all the evidence of neurology? Or do you claim it doesn't need to, because "it's all mental"?

Yes my model accounts for neurology.

Wibble and squiggle out of it now.

LI doesn't need to account for all of neuroscience right now, but he does have to account for some of it. Neuroscience doesn't have to account for every aspect of mind right now, but it does account for a lot of it. I don't recall LI accounting for any of these oddities of the mind/brain.

You may recall some of the past agrument I present are based on odities of the mind and brain, to show the 'external' world is not identical to the 'experienced' world.

Yes, but that isn't explaining anything about differences and why perceptual mechanisms work as they do.

Even the seemingly most basic question is unanswered. Why do we have brains at all? The idea that the CNS externalises experience could be reasonable as far as accounting for sense organs. But what are brains for? Indeed, what is chemistry for? We don't experience it directly. We can only access it via science. We can envisage any number of worlds where there is rich experience but no chemistry and no brains, if 'its all mental'.

Because the physical world is consistent. If we had cotton wool in our heads, the physical world would be inconsistent.
For what ever reason, our physical world is consistent down to very very fine scales of detail, and out to very massive scales of detail.

What would be inconsistent if we had no brains? It would just be how things were and we would find nothing strange about it.
You need to say something about why we have brains.

By way of analogy consider Second Life, or any other computer simulation of a world. Avatars have eyes, and the player/observer 'sees through them', but they don't need retinal neurons or optic nerves or brains in the simulation to do that.

We all agree its a virual world, and dont look inside our Second-Life heads to see whats inther, we know the answer already. Its not a consistent world to the same level as our.

You must mean it is a less detailed world. There is no issue of consistency. Avatars could seem to contain a CNS. They could even do neuroscience on each other. But what would be the point of that? So that they did not 'know the answer' about their 'physical nature'?

Do you assume that it is an important factor that IMs don't know they are IMs and can suspect that brains are thinking machines? That seems problematic given that individuals have zero experience of their own brains and only very recently has the workings of brains bee revealed.

Consider dreams. We experience an externalised world without using our eyes, retinas or optic nerves. If 'its all mental' we don't need these chemical/mechanical organs in order to experience.

Doesnt this go against your position, not mine?
How do we 'see' in dreams without physical eyes? Obviously this proves eyes are not required to see, but some kind of awareness is. Otherwise we would not be aware of our internal virtual world.

No, it doesn't contradict my position. But the issue for you is why do we have a CNS when we cannot experience it?

So, LI, what are brains for, in your model? If we can sort that out we can start to discuss how your model accounts for any aspect of neuroscience.

Brains are the CPU of the CNS, the whole show needs to be collected and processed in order to work. The brain does what a CPU does; processes data.

Surely BM makes it all work. Are you saying that there are real functional brains (made of mental) that make minds work? From your last stament in seems clear you think brains are more than just experienced objects.

Explaining some details of the role of brains is good place for you to start in 'explaining neurology'.

[SpeedOfSound]

Explaining some details of the role of brains is good place for you to start in 'explaining neurology'.

Neurology seems to be a thorn in the sides of the CosmoCons doesn't' it?

I wonder. What would be a good strategy to get rid of those sciency assholes who want to fuck up our woo? I have an idea.

Let's create a strawman around this consciousness thing and then keep telling them they haven't explained it every time they do.
The secret is... we wont define it!!

That'll keep those fucking scientists busy.

[SpeedOfSound]

Shit. This is a little off topic. I had something wrong. I think I was actually led astray by some of the guys I respect the most. There is an inconsistency in some literature about the primary visual cortex.

Some of my heroes claimed there are not enough cortico-cortical fibers running backward to V1 to give a rich sense of visual consciousness at the receptive field level. Now I'm finding papers that say that there is massive feedback to V1 from secondary visual.

I had just learned to live with this idea that we are blind to the details and now I find that we may not be as blind as I had thought.

Anyway. It's good news for the C is physical team but I may have posted some shit that is wrong or misleading.

The news on inter-cortical connection just keep getting richer and richer. The more they look the more they find. The unfortunate part is that there is very little clear literature on the exact wiring diagram of the whole damned thing. You have to read and interpret thousands of papers.

Fuck.

Edit: Crick-n-Koch! Them bastards. They are the ones that I trusted on this V1 stuff. Turns out they have some pet theories. I'll have to investigate this shit.

[SpeedOfSound]

Check out this visual illusion!

http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/20 ... e_tony.php

This shows very clearly and shockingly that we use two entirely different brain modules for recognizing upright faces and other objects. When you switch the image around you switch modules. It's even scarier when you have a book and you know the computer isn't playing tricks on you.

[The Dagda]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

This ones my fave, large image though.

This is not a gif and those circles are not moving. Autistics interestingly cannot see optical illusions, which gives us insight into why the brain uses data as it does.