Birth of Jesus - Christmas

[Daylight63]

The issue I raised is that we don't know enough about conciousness and subjective psychological experience to explain the men and women of great historical fate and destiny.

And my point is that we are not as benighted as you seem to wish we were. And "destiny" really isn't a "thing" in my world.

Nothing anybody has written here is an explanation for that. Wetness doesn't tell me anything about the vision, motivation, and drive of Alexander the Great

So you are not one to ever utilize analogies to explain a point?

The thing you DEMAND from reality may very well NOT EXIST. Just as 'wetness' doesn't exist at the atomic level. Yet it is still very real.

Why is this difficult to understand?

It really feels like you need the "mystery" and "mystical" to be somehow present. Is that the case? You hate it when someone tries to rob a physical thing of it's magical nearly "supernatural" feeling? Is that why you lean toward "destiny" and "fate"?

My approach is to dispense with the mystical and magical and work with the things that we all can experience objectively the same. And it's done a pretty good job in getting to the bottom of a lot of things, IMHO.

 

[Cypress]

And my point is that we are not as benighted as you seem to wish we were. And "destiny" really isn't a "thing" in my world.



So you are not one to ever utilize analogies to explain a point?

The thing you DEMAND from reality may very well NOT EXIST. Just as 'wetness' doesn't exist at the atomic level. Yet it is still very real.

Why is this difficult to understand?

It really feels like you need the "mystery" and "mystical" to be somehow present. Is that the case? You hate it when someone tries to rob a physical thing of it's magical nearly "supernatural" feeling? Is that why you lean toward "destiny" and "fate"?

My approach is to dispense with the mystical and magical and work with the things that we all can experience objectively the same. And it's done a pretty good job in getting to the bottom of a lot of things, IMHO.

So explain to me in your own words at the level of nuerochemistry what gave Alexander the Great the motivation, personality, vision, and relentless drive that made him a figure of historical destiny in a way that totally set him apart from all his social peers and contemporaries.

 

[Cypress]

It's bad science to say that because we don't understand something it must be mystical.

Failure to admit lack of knowledge never serves science well.

In fact, the hallmark of good science is to admit we don't know something and be able to map out the boundaries of our ignorance.

 

[Daylight63]

So explain to me in your own words at the level of nuerochemistry what gave Alexander the Great the motivation, personality, vision, and relentless drive that made him a figure of historical destiny in a way that totally set him apart from all his social peers and contemporaries.

What a strange question. Can I choose to do so for another historical figure who has been set apart from all his social peers and contemporaries instead? (Sorry there's going to be a lot of words, and I know you don't like reading that much, but please try)

Elon Musk. The richest man alive. That's quite impressive, wouldn't you say? Let us explore the neurochemistry that DRIVES Elon, shall we? (I'm not a psychologist so I am not officially diagnosing him but this'll do...)

Elon Musk was born wealthy. For people who are born exceedingly wealthy (or powerful, as Alexander the Great was. Phillip, his father, was a king.) No doubt being raised instilled a sense of ENTITLEMENT in the young man. This training is a necessary establishment of the neural pathways that teach the young man to expect not only that he is worthy but deserving of the things which come to him. He has known little else.

But what's happening at the neuronal level?

1. The young man probably has a personality that is far LESS likely to undertake self-critical positions (personal insight tends to be less focused on finding one's own faults). fMRI studies find that shy people tend to have a difference in signals in the frontal cortex and amygdala (1). A direct physical effect.

2. Let us assume that Mr. Musk (and possibly Alexander, we don't know) is probably a psychopath. Psychopathy shows physical analogues in the physical brain (2)

NATURE AND NURTURE: we have two items here above that cover the nature of the brain to prime it for the later training the young man's life provided.

YOUR NEXT COMPLAINT: You are now going to complain that I've not "in my own words" explained what is going on at the neuron-synapse level, or at the atomic level or at the subatomic level. Of course I'm not a neurobiologist so I can't do that. And ironically you are going to somehow mysteriously conclude that no such explanation exists. It is flawed logic at best, disingenuous at worst.

 

[Daylight63]

It's bad science to say that because we don't understand something it must be mystical.

I didn't say anything was "Mystical". I said you seem to prefer the mystical. Since you push back in a very negative way against any and all attempts to explain these things using physical science.

Failure to admit lack of knowledge never serves science well.

And failure on your part to know that there actually is a goodly amount of science in this EXACT area doesn't serve your points very well.

 

[Cypress]

What a strange question. Can I choose to do so for another historical figure who has been set apart from all his social peers and contemporaries instead? (Sorry there's going to be a lot of words, and I know you don't like reading that much, but please try)

Elon Musk. The richest man alive. That's quite impressive, wouldn't you say? Let us explore the neurochemistry that DRIVES Elon, shall we? (I'm not a psychologist so I am not officially diagnosing him but this'll do...)

Elon Musk was born wealthy. For people who are born exceedingly wealthy (or powerful, as Alexander the Great was. Phillip, his father, was a king.) No doubt being raised instilled a sense of ENTITLEMENT in the young man. This training is a necessary establishment of the neural pathways that teach the young man to expect not only that he is worthy but deserving of the things which come to him. He has known little else.

But what's happening at the neuronal level?

1. The young man probably has a personality that is far LESS likely to undertake self-critical positions (personal insight tends to be less focused on finding one's own faults). fMRI studies find that shy people tend to have a difference in signals in the frontal cortex and amygdala (1). A direct physical effect.

2. Let us assume that Mr. Musk (and possibly Alexander, we don't know) is probably a psychopath. Psychopathy shows physical analogues in the physical brain (2)

NATURE AND NURTURE: we have two items here above that cover the nature of the brain to prime it for the later training the young man's life provided.

YOUR NEXT COMPLAINT: You are now going to complain that I've not "in my own words" explained what is going on at the neuron-synapse level, or at the atomic level or at the subatomic level. Of course I'm not a neurobiologist so I can't do that. And ironically you are going to somehow mysteriously conclude that no such explanation exists. It is flawed logic at best, disingenuous at worst.

That's not a scientific explanation. That is vague speculation and arm waving which does not even approximate a physical explanation at the level of chemistry and materialism.

 

[Cypress]

We fundamentally do not understand the mind and human consciousness, so we can't really say what drove the motivations and psychologies of Alexander the Great and Churchill, nor what gave them the leadership skills and gravitas which were lacking in their peers. Some people seem destined for greatness. What we do know is we can't point to the laws of physics, evolution, or chemistry to provide explanations.

Still no actual physical explanation for this anywhere on this thread.

 

[Cypress]

That's exactly my point; rational people have the ability to make rational choices. Results count and Alexander's results were pretty impressive.

According to historians, his death was equally impressive. Partly due to ignorance of people in ancient times.

Alexander the Great Died Mysteriously at 32. Now We May Know Why | HISTORY

“His death may be the most famous case of pseudothanatos, or false diagnosis of death, ever recorded.”

www.history.com

When Alexander the Great died in Babylon in 323 B.C., his body didn’t begin to show signs of decomposition for a full six days, according to historical accounts.

To the ancient Greeks, this confirmed what they all thought about the young Macedonian king, and what Alexander believed about himself—that he was not an ordinary man, but a god...

...But in one theory, a scholar and practicing clinician suggests that Alexander may have suffered from the neurological disorder Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), which caused his death. She also argues that people might not have noticed any immediate signs of decomposition on the body for one simple reason—because Alexander wasn’t dead yet.

As Dr. Katherine Hall, a senior lecturer at the Dunedin School of Medicine at the University of Otago, New Zealand, wrote in a 2018 article published in The Ancient History Bulletin, most other theories of what killed Alexander have focused on the agonizing fever and abdominal pain he suffered in the days before he died.

In fact, she points out, he was also known to have developed a “progressive, symmetrical, ascending paralysis” during his illness. And though he was very sick, he remained compos mentis (fully in control of his mental faculties) until just before his death....

...While historians have long speculated over what exactly killed Alexander, Hall suggests he might not even have died when people thought he did.

She argues that the increasing paralysis Alexander suffered, as well as the fact that his body needed less oxygen as it shut down, would have meant that his breathing was less visible. Because in ancient times, doctors relied on the presence or absence of breath, rather than a pulse, to determine whether a patient was alive or dead, Hall believes Alexander might have been falsely declared dead before he actually died.

"I wanted to stimulate new debate and discussion and possibly rewrite the history books by arguing Alexander's real death was six days later than previously accepted,” Hall said in a statement from the University of Otago. “His death may be the most famous case of pseudothanatos, or false diagnosis of death, ever recorded.”

Then we are basically on the same page.

Alexander had the drive, personality, motivation, and vision to Helenize the known world, but he had to take massive risks and make choices. I don't know if destiny is the right word for him, but it's close enough for me.

I think Alexander died in what we now call Iraq, and wonder if the dry desert air prevented decomposition for six days, or whether that's a legendary account?

 

[Daylight63]

That's not a scientific explanation. That is vague speculation and arm waving which does not even approximate a physical explanation at the level of chemistry and materialism.

I never claimed to be a neurobiologist so it will be impossible for me to explain to you at the level you demand (and by the same token there's nothing you can offer since you are similarly hampered).

I am merely pointing out to you that you are clearly unaware (and disinterested) in the actual work going on in this area.

I must admit that I am fascinated that you are unable to understand the concept of emergent properties (even with the examples I've given which are in no way "controversial" or even "questionable").

Not sure what the resistance is to engaging with the point but I will assume it is indicative of a personal dislike for things which strip away the "mystical" for you. And you are by no means alone in that. It is a common human behavior. And why it took so long for science to actually gain a foothold in our society over the centuries.

Maybe an overreliance on the physical explanation runs the risk of missing something, but approaching it from the position that something "mystical" could be in play is NOT a superior position. Science works so well because it builds the explanation from the ground up, not from the top down trying to justify the mystical feelings we all get from time to time.

 

[Daylight63]

Still no actual physical explanation for this anywhere on this thread.

Are you of the impression you are on a forum populated by neurobiologists? May I point out that your preference to just say "No one can explain it!" is useless in any discussion.

At least the scientific approaches provided so far provide a common understanding that all can observe objectively. Yours appears to be a wish-list for transcendence and not even an attempt to explain what is seen.

 

[Cypress]

Are you of the impression you are on a forum populated by neurobiologists? May I point out that your preference to just say "No one can explain it!" is useless in any discussion.

At least the scientific approaches provided so far provide a common understanding that all can observe objectively. Yours appears to be a wish-list for transcendence and not even an attempt to explain what is seen.

Admitting we don't know the answer is one of the most important acknowledgements in the scientific endeavor. If we knew the answer to everything we would be omniscient and have no need for science and philosophy.

No one here has to be a neurobiologist to explain the fundamental cause of conciousness and subjective mental experience. If the answer exists and is widely known, a well read layperson could explain it.

Intelligent laypersons can explain the basics of gravity, electromagnetism, earthquakes, evolution by natural selection without any specialized graduate school training whatsoever.

As such, if a widely accepted physical explanation for how human conciousness and subjective mental experience are caused and happen, it should be easy for the intelligent layperson to explain it in their own words

 

[Daylight63]

Admitting we don't know the answer is one of the most important acknowledgements in the scientific endeavor. If we knew the answer to everything we would be omniscient and have no need for science and philosophy.

No one here has to be a neurobiologist to explain the fundamental cause of conciousness and subjective mental experience. If the answer exists and is widely known, a well read layperson could explain it.

Intelligent laypersons can explain the basics of gravity, electromagnetism, earthquakes, evolution by natural selection without any specialized graduate school training whatsoever.

As such, if a widely accepted physical explanation for how human conciousness and subjective mental experience are caused and happen, it should be easy for the intelligent layperson to explain it in their own words

I understand that you don't actually want to discuss this topic so I'll go ahead and leave it there. But seriously, if you are ever actually interested in digging into a book check out some of the stuff out there about what neuroscientists are finding.

 

[Margot]

Admitting we don't know the answer is one of the most important acknowledgements in the scientific endeavor. If we knew the answer to everything we would be omniscient and have no need for science and philosophy.

No one here has to be a neurobiologist to explain the fundamental cause of conciousness and subjective mental experience. If the answer exists and is widely known, a well read layperson could explain it.

Intelligent laypersons can explain the basics of gravity, electromagnetism, earthquakes, evolution by natural selection without any specialized graduate school training whatsoever.

As such, if a widely accepted physical explanation for how human conciousness and subjective mental experience are caused and happen, it should be easy for the intelligent layperson to explain it in their own words

Somewhere along the line,you're going to have to step on through to the other dimension of the Universe the Spiritual side,which isn't subject to the laws of physics that control the physical universe!

 

[Cypress]

Somewhere along the line,you're going to have to step on through to the other dimension of the Universe the Spiritual side,which isn't subject to the laws of physics that control the physical universe!

The strict physical materialists get mad at me precisely because I say we do not live within a strictly materialist reality. Truth, mathematical laws, beauty exist objectively, independent of human opinion and perception.

 

[Daylight63]

Somewhere along the line,you're going to have to step on through to the other dimension of the Universe the Spiritual side,which isn't subject to the laws of physics that control the physical universe!

Cypress is much closer to that than some of us are. Many people are taken with the marvel and mystery of the universe. How the brain works is easily the most amazing and confusing things humans have ever tackled. But tackle it humans most assuredly are.

Scientists are not in the business of "disproving" the existence of mystical things. Science builds up explanations using the blocks available to all observers, which pretty much limits at least the STARTING position to be one of pure physicality.

Only when it is impossible to explain the effect using only physical features can one even start to imagine that there is something beyond reality. So far nothing has been shown to be at that level, but I'm sure maybe some day it might (?)

To look at mental states and, because no one can explain it in the way each individual wants, doesn't make the likely physical reason for mental states any less likely.

Science tends to suck the "joy" out of blue-sky conjecture. It makes everyone follow the same rules and that's not always popular. Properly done the resulting information is always as amazing as if it were somehow from outside of space and time.

And we literally have every single block necessary to explain it. We may not yet know how EVER aspect of it fits together, it is pretty clear that the brain's function can be explained without reliance on anything mystical or supernatural. Just plain ol' chemistry and physics and biology.

I'm dropping this point overall since it has almost nothing to do with the OP and clearly some on here are highly resistant to considering the possibility that the physical is all there really is. And I want to try to honor those hard limits some folks have.

 

[Daylight63]

The strict physical materialists get mad at me precisely because I say we do not live within a strictly materialist reality.

No one is getting "mad" at you. But you surely must understand how science works. Science doesn't ever START with the possibility that there's some as-yet-undiscovered concept that explains why an effect happens. It is always POSSIBLE but that isn't how the investigation starts.

For instance let's say I have a fluid mixture that should have a given shear-thickening property. But when I make it it comes out shear-thinning. Why? Do I immediately state: "There's a possibility that this fluid has somehow entered a multiverse where dilatent materials become thixotropic!". No the hypotheses are going to be very much more tied in only to the physical. Even though it COULD be that the fluid has somehow entered a different reality on the lab bench. It is not likely and it won't be a concept that ever starts in the scientist's mind.

The hypotheses that are initially proffered are always grounded in the factors we KNOW exist and we seek to explain the data with as little "residual" to the fit as we can muster.

The unexplained residuals on the regression line will hold both "error" as well as "unexplained variables".

Those unexplained variables MIGHT contain the "mystical" "non-physical" but since we have no actual experience of the non-physical in an objective fashion it can't really work as an explanatory variable anyway.

Truth, mathematical laws, beauty exist objectively, independent of human opinion and perception.

Yes. And that doesn't change anything about the concept that human thought may be nothing more than the output of a biological neural network.


(Sorry to bore you with the whole "science" thing. I sense that isn't one of the areas that you really dig, like reading too many words.)

 

[Margot]

The strict physical materialists get mad at me precisely because I say we do not live within a strictly materialist reality. Truth, mathematical laws, beauty exist objectively, independent of human opinion and perception.

My point is explore the other dimension

 

[Daylight63]

My point is explore the other dimension

How do people who are not you explore the same dimension as you are exploring?

 

[Margot]

How do people who are not you explore the same dimension as you are exploring?

One foot in front of the other

 

[Daylight63]

One foot in front of the other

Not an answer. A nice "aphorism" but nothing meaningful.

But it's honest. An honest answer to that sort of question will always HAVE to be meaningless aphorism. For we are in the land of POETRY.

Poetry has its place. Just not everywhere.