Mechanics 0f Thought
Here I dissect one of Stuart Hameroff’s interviews and his criticisms of a functionalist perspective. I feel Hameroff grossly misrepresents the functionalist position and his arguments contain many logical flaws. He is still stuck in quasi-Cartesian thinking and his dialogue reflects these assumptions. I do not feel I took Mr. Hameroff out of context and would have addressed a few more of his points. I encourage you to check out the interview for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4y8mTRqXAo
Source
Oh boy, someone is Wrong on the internet again. And it is you dude.
Your sarcastic style weel fits a youtuber idiot though.
Just to show you dont have the slightest idea of what you are talking about and STILL doing a video, you are saying:
"Gödels theroem applies to any system"
so what about:
"The conclusions of Gödel's theorems are only proven for the formal theories that satisfy the necessary hypotheses. Not all axiom systems satisfy these hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry, of real closed fields, and of arithmetic in which multiplication is not provably total; none of these meet the hypotheses of Gödel's theorems. The key fact is that these axiomatizations are not expressive enough to define the set of natural numbers or develop basic properties of the natural numbers.
Gödel's theorems only apply to effectively generated (that is, recursively enumerable) theories. If all true statements about natural numbers are taken as axioms for a theory, then this theory is a consistent, complete extension of Peano arithmetic (called true arithmetic) for which none of Gödel's theorems apply in a meaningful way, because this theory is not recursively enumerable.
The second incompleteness theorem only shows that the consistency of certain theories cannot be proved from the axioms of those theories themselves. It does not show that the consistency cannot be proved from other (consistent) axioms. For example, the consistency of the Peano arithmetic can be proved in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZFC), or in theories of arithmetic augmented with transfinite induction, as in Gentzen's consistency proof."
Not to mention that when Hameroff says that the brain is not working as a computer, you try to refute it by "Yes it does" as it is functionally identical to a computer.
But ok, you are obiviously so full of yourself that doesnt worth commenting more.
It's a pity that all of your functionalist arguments have been rendered inadequate over time.
fuck dualists. shit i hate their crap. then there's postmodernism.
VOMITORIUM
objectivism, i can dig. is that pretty much materialism? I don't know the official academic stance of the latter…anyway. i can dig that and therefore feminism and individualism too.
The yin yang is a lie
@therazdow: components of the microtubule (filaments) are less than 10x the size of a chlorophyll molecule.
@LordImmolation "minds changing quantum fluctuations"."
What about Henry Stapp's work with the Zeno effect? If you combine Orch-OR with the Zeno effect then you get a sort of circular self-directing method of skewing the wave-function, similar to what Beck and Eccles call "quantal selection."
Now Hameroff did assume we have free-will, but I don't see this as particularly problematic. Free-will is a property of the mind we are self-aware of from the start. The whole point is to explain it.
"He is still stuck in quasi-Cartesian thinking"
But Cartesian thinking regarding consciousness (though not substance dualism) is correct A PRIORI. The reason for this is that it's the starting point for studying the mind. The mind = the Cartesian ego, so if you haven't explained the Cartesian ego you haven't explained the mind.
Now a lot of people deny the Cartesian ego exists, but then these same people can't claim to have explained the mind -they just denied it.
This guy is just a AI comic book reader, pay him no mind.
@LordImmolation You are absolutely right in my opinion. Living in a world of cause and effect, it seems that even in our will decisions, we are not free. However I still have a very strong feeling of freedom in my actions when it comes to good and evil, as long as I am in my right mind, under no influence of any sort. Have you come across any explanation of that, or do you think that we are not "free" beings?
if you arnt trying to make something very complex and then boom "have conciousness come into excistence" then you must be trying to make a robot taht is so complex in its apearence that eventhough it is not concious it is so complex that we cant tell the difference between it and a concious human beeing… leaving the only logical conclusion taht conciousness is the myth and we dont have it. do i have it right? if so, when you make it. wont you only be able to prove we can fake conciousness?
I agree that Hameroff should be alot more humbled by the fact that he is just theorising but he shouldnt be discouraged from trying to prove his hypothesis.
in the 1500 people had come up with very advanced mathematical formulas to describe how the sun moved around the earth… they all failed cause their initial hypothesis was false. perhaps we havnt been able to figure out conciousness yet because the basis for our idea about what conciousness is, is simply wrong… jsut a thought..
arent you just proving at this point with our knowledge of the universe that it is ridiculas to claim to know anything about conciousness?
we do not have free will… its very simple to prove this!
we can argue if there exists free choice… but also it is not fundamental.
we are a consequince of cause and effect.
i think you lost
So I have a simple question…what do you say about the behavior of the subatomic world under observation as opposed to not being observed. That is, why do we have the "collapse of a wave function"?
If you believe in the big bang, then you have to consider that if all things we know were created in the big bang, a singularity, then they are quantum connected. macro, micro, mega, all quantum connected.
Assuming we have free will? Are you saying we don't? it sounds like you are doing a lot more assuming then Hammeroff is.
Funny that you use the tornado model but you don't seem to know that a tornado is not subjective, it is objective, it IS a tornado not a wind. it is what wind and humidity turn into….
Gale winds and tornadoes are not perceptions. There is a huge difference and a gale wind doesn't always turn into a tornado unless all the other factors necessary for that transition, are in place.
Emergence is a physiological development driven by intense use of the consciousness and intellect. In young people, this happens with the sense of risk and value. The brains of young people are not yet developed physically to comprehend risk and value. As you use the brain there are dormant states that are only triggered to advance or develop when provoked.
It seems to me that consciousness is a product of certain complex forms of information processing. All information processing requires a substrate – be it a brain or microchip or some other thing.
As a dualist who believes in reincarnation – it seems to me that functionalism still holds true. If a component of your consciousness involves a soul, and thus the transfer of information between your brain and soul, this would just be a more complex set of functions that produce consciousness.
Some interesting points.
Some I dont agree with, most I do.
When I have time I´ll make videos on topics like religion and philosophy.
so tell me: if you don't have free will, what's the point of you trying to disprove Hameroff's theories in the first place? you would simply act, governed by whatever governs your actions, and none of your arguments or opinions would have any weight or meaning. so you're shooting yourself in the foot the same second that you try to have any opinion at all, and saying that you don't have free will.
so tell me: if you don't have free will, what's the point of you trying to disprove Hameroff's theories? you wouldn't have a choice about doing that in the first place, and simply follow whatever it is that governs your actions. so all the arguing is meaningless and your opinions don't have any weight.
@somethingirreversib
We assume it's globally stable?
Randomness isn't calculated. Sorry quantum physics
Good video
dude the fact that you have decided to assume we have no free will and Stuart doesn't shows we have free will