tjohnson Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Actually a PET scan only shows brain waves. To use your standard, you only presume these waves are related to thinking since the actual thinking does not show up.How does a PET scan show "brain waves"? What do you mean by brain wave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 Actually a PET scan only shows brain waves. To use your standard, you only presume these waves are related to thinking since the actual thinking does not show up.How does a PET scan show "brain waves"? What do you mean by brain wave?A PET scan picks up positron concentrations in the blood. A radioactive trace element is injected and the trace elements concentrate in those areas of the brain where there is increased neurological activity. What it comes down to is that the blood goes where the thinking is going on and it shows up on the scan. It can be seen in real time, so in a sense one can see himself thinking. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Bob,In a sense!!???You mean like something a mind would imagine?Tsk, tsk, tsk... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 GS,If you want to play brainwaves, go here (for a very brief introduction). If you want a toy to play with, go here. It's free for a month. After that there is some nagware added before you can use it if you do not register. Al least it used to be that way.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Does you're thinking show up on a scan? No! Then you're brain does not think - Right? Sure your brain does specific kinds of things. Some of these are explained as being done by its mind function.Actually "thinking" does show up as increased blood flow or metabolism at certain sites in the brain, if I am not mistaken. It is physically impossible for any activity attributed to "the mind" to not occur in the brain.When it became obvious that the human brain functions significantly differently from any other brain that created a need for a new word to designate that fact. That word is - mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 When it became obvious that the human brain functions significantly differently from any other brain that created a need for a new word to designate that fact. That word is - mind.I use the word 'mind' all the time. What's on your mind? But I know it's only an expression and there is no physical thing called "the mind". One could easily say "what do you think?" instead. This statement doesn't imply existence of an object, "a mind", but rather a process which, of course, occurs in the brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?Or is it merely a subjective judgment on the way someone lives, thinks, expresses him/her self? Ba'al ChatzafTry this experiment.Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence. The existence of Life is independent of consciousness. What you may instead be asking is "what emotion is naturally associated with knowing that life exists?." Or it may have to do with "is another acting properly with respect to what life is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.The baby (if it is alive) will piss in your hand. The rock won't.In addition to which the baby is 70 percent water and the rock is not.Next question?Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that, that difference exists? We sense its existence.The baby (if it is alive) will piss in your hand. The rock won't.In addition to which the baby is 70 percent water and the rock is not.Next question?Ba'al ChatzafI didn't ask a question. I made a statement. See the blue highlight above. Do you agree with that statement or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 6, 2008 Author Share Posted March 6, 2008 Try this experiment.Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Try this experiment.Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses.Ba'al ChatzafSee the blue highlight above. That's what I said!Your origional question was: "What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?""Agreement" has nothing at all to do with determining whether or not someone knows what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 7, 2008 Author Share Posted March 7, 2008 Try this experiment.Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses.Ba'al ChatzafSee the blue highlight above. That's what I said!Your origional question was: "What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?""Agreement" has nothing at all to do with determining whether or not someone knows what they are talking about.People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.Ba'al ChatzafWhat do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality! It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.Ba'al ChatzafWhat do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality! It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter.To measure is to know. How do you think we know anything about the world? We look. We measure. Let me guess. You do NOT do any kind of scientific work for a living. Did I get that right?Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.Ba'al ChatzafWhat do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality! It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter.To measure is to know. How do you think we know anything about the world? We look. We measure. Let me guess. You do NOT do any kind of scientific work for a living. Did I get that right?Ba'al ChatzafWhy does being characterized as a 'scientist' matter? I'm a degreed mechanical engineer from MSU and retired from GMC dept. of manufacturing engineering. You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring. If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring. If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences.Really? How do you know how long your bookshelf is? Answer: You measure it.How do you know how much money there is in your wallet? Answer: You look in your wallet and count what is there.Look/feel , measure, compare, contrast. That is how we come to know stuff. We also learn from listening, tasting and smelling but vision/touch are the major senses.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleJim Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring. If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences.Really? How do you know how long your bookshelf is? Answer: You measure it.How do you know how much money there is in your wallet? Answer: You look in your wallet and count what is there.Look/feel , measure, compare, contrast. That is how we come to know stuff. We also learn from listening, tasting and smelling but vision/touch are the major senses.Ba'al ChatzafCan you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No! You must first know that something exists prior to being able to measure what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) On measurement of moral character and knowing that it exists, see this excellent Interfluidity blog post on JP Morgan the man (not the firm). Bad protection drove out good, with three buckets of evidence totalling about $2 trillion: wannabe triple A, no-buyer-for triple A, and BS-on-a-stick.W. Edited March 15, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!No, no, no. The bookshelf does not have a length, what it has is enough rigidity and permanence that we are able to measure it and select a number which we call it's 'length'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!No, no, no. The bookshelf does not have a length, what it has is enough rigidity and permanence that we are able to measure it and select a number which we call it's 'length'.Tragic really, your faith in subjectivism. The bookshelf has countable, finite, unchanging molecules -- length at mean temp/press. Here, son, chew on some more size, height, and depth in dollars and cents:New York Times:“You get to where people can’t trade with each other,” said James L. Melcher, president of Balestra Capital, a hedge fund based in New York. “If the Fed hadn’t acted this morning and Bear did default on its obligations, then that could have triggered a very widespread panic and potentially a collapse of the financial system." Already, investors are considering whether another firm might face financial problems. The price for insuring Lehman Brothers’ debt jumped to $478 per $10,000 in bonds on Friday afternoon, from $385 in the morning, according to Thomson Financial.AP via Globe & Mail:Federal Reserve officials likely were worried about a domino effect if Bear Stearns were to fall into bankruptcy, leaving other companies who have lent money to the investment bank in the lurch. That could cause a chain reaction, potentially threatening the financial system. Indeed, fears have grown that other financial firms could be at risk. "It's the cockroach theory: There's never [just] one," said Joan McCullough, an analyst with East Shore Partners Inc. in New York. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 The bookshelf has countable, finite, unchanging molecules -- length at mean temp/press.No it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 15, 2008 Author Share Posted March 15, 2008 Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!No, no, no. The bookshelf does not have a length, what it has is enough rigidity and permanence that we are able to measure it and select a number which we call it's 'length'.Tragic really, your faith in subjectivism. The bookshelf has countable, finite, unchanging molecules -- length at mean temp/press. Here, son, chew on some more size, height, and depth in dollars and cents:The quantum states of the electron in the molecules are constantly changing. This is because the material of the bookshelf is heated by radiation and conduction from the surrounding region of space. Not only that, but molecules of the air occasionally bind onto the material of the bookshelf and atoms from the bookshelf occasionally fly off. So the number of molecules and their quantum states is constantly changing. However, the changes are small enough so that a bookshelf has sufficiently rigidity to be measured by either a light signal or a sufficiently rigid measuring stick.A length with small variance can be measured. Matter is in constant motion. Even at (so-called) absolute zero there is motion (Google zero point energy). If you want to learn some physics (and you do need the lessons) you can get the best free physics book ever published at http://www.motionmountain.net/This book is a labor of love and for those who are not professionally involved in physics the mathematical level is reasonably manageable. Christopher Schiller, the author, dedicates an entire section to the fact that nothing anywhere is fully at rest. Furthermore the levels of action are quantified. There does not exist an infinitesimally small but non-zero level of action (measured as work x time). Which is why everything thing is jiggling. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 If you want to learn some physics (and you do need the lessons) Ba'al ChatzafNo. The 'jiggling' physical universe is rigid and Newtonian enough for my purposes. A few half-microns one way or the other doesn't bother me or Intel or anyone else who has to build, grow food, fly aircraft, keep the lights on -- and you know it. Argument from intimidation doesn't work on Objectivists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 16, 2008 Author Share Posted March 16, 2008 If you want to learn some physics (and you do need the lessons) Ba'al ChatzafNo. The 'jiggling' physical universe is rigid and Newtonian enough for my purposes. A few half-microns one way or the other doesn't bother me or Intel or anyone else who has to build, grow food, fly aircraft, keep the lights on -- and you know it. Argument from intimidation doesn't work on Objectivists. Newtonian Physics is not correct. It is Galilean Invariant and this has been empirically falsified. Newtonian Physics works when velocities and speeds are small compared to that of light and masses are not great. Newtonian Physics is fine for building bridges and sending probes to the outer parts of the solar system. Newtonian physics is false for describing atoms, does not address electromagnetic fields and does not correctly describe and predict gravitation. The falsification of Newtonian physics is not intimidation. It is Fact. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Newtonian Physics is fine for building bridges and sending probes to the outer parts of the solar system.Har de har har. Like you don't think bridges or communication satellites are important. Note also that probing Pluto is foremost in your manner of thought and expression. Lastly, let's discuss whether Einstein failed. Practical technologists built the atomic weapons you covet, doc.You know what? - I have to quit this. Arguing with you goes nowhere and does nothing. Never has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now