Current Events > Causality in Neuroscience: all our fiddling is supernatural

Topic List	Page List: 1
COVxy 07/20/18 8:14:05 AM #1:	https://medium.com/the-spike/some-limits-on-interpreting-causality-in-neuroscience-experiments-f777a63650c7 Youre doing an experiment to test causality. You turn on a bunch of neurons in Brain Area X using light, and see what the animal does in response. What you want to know is this: when I turn on those neurons, what does that look like to the brain does it look natural? You want to know this because, if you make the neurons do something they never do in the course of the whole of the animals life, then how can you make any sensible conclusions? Really nice popsci article on interpretation issues with some fundamental techniques in neuroscience. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905406892] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>https://medium.com/the-spike/some-limits-on-interpreting-causality-in-neuroscience-experiments-f777a63650c7 <quote>Youre doing an experiment to test causality. You turn on a bunch of neurons in Brain Area X using light, and see what the animal does in response. What you want to know is this: when I turn on those neurons, what does that look like to the brain does it look natural? You want to know this because, if you make the neurons do something they never do in the course of the whole of the animals life, then how can you make any sensible conclusions?</quote> Really nice popsci article on interpretation issues with some fundamental techniques in neuroscience.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 9:29:20 AM #2:	Up. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905409257] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>Up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#3	Post #3 was unavailable or deleted.
BlueJester007 07/20/18 9:41:31 AM #4:	Neuroscience only has nine years before it better get somewhere. Need me those Deus Ex limbs. --- Donald Trump is under your bed. <cite>BlueJester007 posted [p:905409664] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>Neuroscience only has nine years before it better get somewhere. Need me those Deus Ex limbs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 9:54:17 AM #5:	Asherlee10 posted... Are they trying to create 'brain states' and see what 'mental states' appear? Well, so some background is necessary: so a new technique (optogenetics) was developed so that you can genetically target certain cells and insert the expression of light sensitive proteins in the cell membrane. In response to a light stimulus, some let in ions that prevent neural activity, some let in ions that initiate neural activity. So, they typical experiment of causality in neuroscience using optogentics is: train animal to do x -> dampen or drive certain subsets of neurons during x -> observe effect on behavior. Now the point that the article is making is that the way we drive and dampen cell activity is outside the bounds of the normal functioning of the system, so exactly what this is telling us is unclear. However, I recommend reading the article, because he describes ideas in dynamics that are complex in really simple ways. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905410191] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>Asherlee10 posted...</cite> <quote>Are they trying to create 'brain states' and see what 'mental states' appear?</quote> Well, so some background is necessary: so a new technique (optogenetics) was developed so that you can genetically target certain cells and insert the expression of light sensitive proteins in the cell membrane. In response to a light stimulus, some let in ions that prevent neural activity, some let in ions that initiate neural activity. So, they typical experiment of causality in neuroscience using optogentics is: train animal to do x -> dampen or drive certain subsets of neurons during x -> observe effect on behavior. Now the point that the article is making is that the way we drive and dampen cell activity is outside the bounds of the normal functioning of the system, so exactly what this is telling us is unclear. However, I recommend reading the article, because he describes ideas in dynamics that are complex in really simple ways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:16:56 AM #7:	Who [deleted]? --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905413916] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>Who [deleted]?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 11:18:36 AM #8:	iyo how does consciousness come about? do you believe in a "self" or do you think it is an illusion? <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905414000] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>iyo how does consciousness come about? do you believe in a "self" or do you think it is an illusion?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:21:12 AM #9:	I don't think consciousness is a useful or necessary construct. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905414136] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>I don't think consciousness is a useful or necessary construct.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 11:22:05 AM #10:	do you believe qualia exist? <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905414186] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>do you believe qualia exist?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:26:27 AM #11:	I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905414435] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 11:28:25 AM #12:	COVxy posted... I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness. IYO where does consciousness come from? do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time? <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905414539] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness.</quote> IYO where does consciousness come from? do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:31:22 AM #13:	Romes187 posted... COVxy posted... I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness. IYO where does consciousness come from? do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time? Again, when I was saying consciousness there, I wasn't referring to the traditional sense of consciousness, because I think the traditional sense requires mysticism. I think working memory relies on prefrontal circuits that have particular cellular properties that allow for attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction, for example. I think cognitive neuroscience studies consciousness in the only way consciousness exists. Which is, more or less, non existing. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905414671] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness.</quote> IYO where does consciousness come from? do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time?</quote> Again, when I was saying consciousness there, I wasn't referring to the traditional sense of consciousness, because I think the traditional sense requires mysticism. I think working memory relies on prefrontal circuits that have particular cellular properties that allow for attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction, for example. I think cognitive neuroscience studies consciousness in the only way consciousness exists. Which is, more or less, non existing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 11:33:24 AM #14:	COVxy posted... Romes187 posted... COVxy posted... I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness. IYO where does consciousness come from? do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time? Again, when I was saying consciousness there, I wasn't referring to the traditional sense of consciousness, because I think the traditional sense requires mysticism. I think working memory relies on prefrontal circuits that have particular cellular properties that allow for attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction, for example. I think cognitive neuroscience studies consciousness in the only way consciousness exists. Which is, more or less, non existing. ah okay so you approach is with a strictly materialist viewpoint. do you find that there are more dualists in your field or more people that take your approach <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905414766] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think that's a question of science. More or less, my viewpoint is that cognitive neuroscience does research on consciousness every day, it just isn't mystical so people don't call it consciousness.</quote> IYO where does consciousness come from? do you meditate? do you think consciousness research can benefit from more...spiritual investigations into a researchers subjective experience? Or is it a waste of time?</quote> Again, when I was saying consciousness there, I wasn't referring to the traditional sense of consciousness, because I think the traditional sense requires mysticism. I think working memory relies on prefrontal circuits that have particular cellular properties that allow for attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction, for example. I think cognitive neuroscience studies consciousness in the only way consciousness exists. Which is, more or less, non existing.</quote> ah okay so you approach is with a strictly materialist viewpoint. do you find that there are more dualists in your field or more people that take your approach</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:34:04 AM #15:	Romes187 posted... ah okay so you approach is with a strictly materialist viewpoint. do you find that there are more dualists in your field or more people that take your approach There are pretty much no dualists in academic psychology or neuroscience. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905414806] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>ah okay so you approach is with a strictly materialist viewpoint. do you find that there are more dualists in your field or more people that take your approach </quote> There are pretty much no dualists in academic psychology or neuroscience.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 11:35:39 AM #16:	do you feel like it would enhance the field if there were or iyo is all that just a waste of time like I know it's p tough to scientifically prove anything resembling dualism...but do you think taking that perspective and approach could somehow open new doors we aren't thinking about currently? <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905414886] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>do you feel like it would enhance the field if there were or iyo is all that just a waste of time like I know it's p tough to scientifically prove anything resembling dualism...but do you think taking that perspective and approach could somehow open new doors we aren't thinking about currently?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:40:32 AM #17:	No, probably not. IMO it's a mystical position taken from a sense of narcicism, moreover. Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905415097] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>No, probably not. IMO it's a mystical position taken from a sense of narcicism, moreover. Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 07/20/18 11:42:28 AM #18:	COVxy posted... attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction what's this mean? --- Hey what's going on in this thread https://imgur.com/6fpKRW8 https://imgur.com/RNZi0gk <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:905415204] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction</quote> what's this mean?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 11:44:14 AM #19:	COVxy posted... Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting. do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought? <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905415303] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.</quote> do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:51:32 AM #20:	ThyCorndog posted... COVxy posted... attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction what's this mean? Here's one of the original papers, if you are interested: (apparently the link unpaywall gave me was temporary, you can go to this link and use unpaywall to get a free version) https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/9/910/289091 Essentially, given a certain set of organized connections and a certain balance between inhibition and excitation, you can design a network of neurons that once activated by a particular stimulus, maintains activity that encodes the stimulus across time. In this case, each neuron is tuned to a spatial location, and neurons that encode similar locations are most connected to each other, with randomly interspersed inhibitory neurons. When you provide this type of network with a spatial stimulus, it generates a "bump" of activity around the to be encoded stimulus, which is why they've been called "bump attractors". These aren't necessarily the only type of attractor systems you can produce from simple neuron systems that encodes information and is also resistant to distraction, but they are the most biophysically plausible of the bunch. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905415656] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction</quote> what's this mean?</quote> Here's one of the original papers, if you are interested: (apparently the link unpaywall gave me was temporary, you can go to this link and use unpaywall to get a free version) https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/9/910/289091 Essentially, given a certain set of organized connections and a certain balance between inhibition and excitation, you can design a network of neurons that once activated by a particular stimulus, maintains activity that encodes the stimulus across time. In this case, each neuron is tuned to a spatial location, and neurons that encode similar locations are most connected to each other, with randomly interspersed inhibitory neurons. When you provide this type of network with a spatial stimulus, it generates a "bump" of activity around the to be encoded stimulus, which is why they've been called "bump attractors". These aren't necessarily the only type of attractor systems you can produce from simple neuron systems that encodes information and is also resistant to distraction, but they are the most biophysically plausible of the bunch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 11:54:26 AM #21:	Romes187 posted... COVxy posted... Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting. do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought? I don't see why. I don't think there's anything special about my existence or my percepts. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905415816] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.</quote> do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought?</quote> I don't see why. I don't think there's anything special about my existence or my percepts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 07/20/18 12:09:25 PM #22:	COVxy posted... ThyCorndog posted... COVxy posted... attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction what's this mean? Here's one of the original papers, if you are interested: (apparently the link unpaywall gave me was temporary, you can go to this link and use unpaywall to get a free version) https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/9/910/289091 Essentially, given a certain set of organized connections and a certain balance between inhibition and excitation, you can design a network of neurons that once activated by a particular stimulus, maintains activity that encodes the stimulus across time. In this case, each neuron is tuned to a spatial location, and neurons that encode similar locations are most connected to each other, with randomly interspersed inhibitory neurons. When you provide this type of network with a spatial stimulus, it generates a "bump" of activity around the to be encoded stimulus, which is why they've been called "bump attractors". These aren't necessarily the only type of attractor systems you can produce from simple neuron systems that encodes information and is also resistant to distraction, but they are the most biophysically plausible of the bunch. I see. I'll give the paper a read, thanks. I think it's the terminology that's making it more complicated than it is. I don't know shit about neuroscience so is consciousness just a type of memory? I agree with you that people make it out to be mystical when it isn't because they want to feel special. I guess it's easier for people to live life thinking that way --- Hey what's going on in this thread https://imgur.com/6fpKRW8 https://imgur.com/RNZi0gk <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:905416530] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>attractor dynamics that are resilient to distraction</quote> what's this mean?</quote> Here's one of the original papers, if you are interested: (apparently the link unpaywall gave me was temporary, you can go to this link and use unpaywall to get a free version) https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/9/910/289091 Essentially, given a certain set of organized connections and a certain balance between inhibition and excitation, you can design a network of neurons that once activated by a particular stimulus, maintains activity that encodes the stimulus across time. In this case, each neuron is tuned to a spatial location, and neurons that encode similar locations are most connected to each other, with randomly interspersed inhibitory neurons. When you provide this type of network with a spatial stimulus, it generates a "bump" of activity around the to be encoded stimulus, which is why they've been called "bump attractors". These aren't necessarily the only type of attractor systems you can produce from simple neuron systems that encodes information and is also resistant to distraction, but they are the most biophysically plausible of the bunch.</quote> I see. I'll give the paper a read, thanks. I think it's the terminology that's making it more complicated than it is. I don't know shit about neuroscience so is consciousness just a type of memory? I agree with you that people make it out to be mystical when it isn't because they want to feel special. I guess it's easier for people to live life thinking that way</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BignutzisBack 07/20/18 12:14:51 PM #23:	Romes187 posted... COVxy posted... Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting. do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought? He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking. --- https://imgur.com/plA0Vg9 http://i.minus.com/iluvk8aR4mzC8.gif <cite>BignutzisBack posted [p:905416789] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.</quote> do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought?</quote> He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 07/20/18 12:35:00 PM #24:	BignutzisBack posted... Romes187 posted... COVxy posted... Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting. do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought? He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking. Well he just has a different perspective. Nothing wrong with that. I feel like consciousness is a little more "mystical" (to use tc's word) than he gives it credit for but its not like the materialist view of the world isn't highly popular among scientists...its what science does. <cite>Romes187 posted [p:905417737] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>BignutzisBack posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Consciousness needs to be mystical because the process of your own existence is so cool that it being just a physical property of the matter in your skull is conflicting.</quote> do you feel like there is any narcissism in this particular line of thought?</quote> He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking.</quote> Well he just has a different perspective. Nothing wrong with that. I feel like consciousness is a little more "mystical" (to use tc's word) than he gives it credit for but its not like the materialist view of the world isn't highly popular among scientists...its what science does.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 1:26:51 PM #25:	ThyCorndog posted... I think it's the terminology that's making it more complicated than it is. Yes, that is definitely the case. ThyCorndog posted... I don't know shit about neuroscience so is consciousness just a type of memory? The point I was making was that the mind is just the result of mechanistic processes like working memory, and that really when you study things like working memory, you are studying consciousness/the mind/whatever. People just defer to the consciousness process because mechanistic explanations of the mind don't have that mystical quality that matches up with their subjective sense of experience. Which is essentially what you were saying below. ThyCorndog posted... I agree with you that people make it out to be mystical when it isn't because they want to feel special. I guess it's easier for people to live life thinking that way --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905420453] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote>I think it's the terminology that's making it more complicated than it is.</quote> Yes, that is definitely the case. <cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote>I don't know shit about neuroscience so is consciousness just a type of memory? </quote> The point I was making was that the mind is just the result of mechanistic processes like working memory, and that really when you study things like working memory, you are studying consciousness/the mind/whatever. People just defer to the consciousness process because mechanistic explanations of the mind don't have that mystical quality that matches up with their subjective sense of experience. Which is essentially what you were saying below. <cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote>I agree with you that people make it out to be mystical when it isn't because they want to feel special. I guess it's easier for people to live life thinking that way </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlameAnesthesia 07/20/18 1:40:40 PM #26:	BignutzisBack posted... He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking. > Subscribes to a single psychologist's view from over 100 years ago > Is upset that modern developments haven't validated his outdated views empirically > Calls everyone else sheltered and narrow viewed to avoid admitting he doesn't know shit about modern psychology or neuroscience Strong work, BignutzisBack --- https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/watson_medical_algorithm.png <cite>BlameAnesthesia posted [p:905421075] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>BignutzisBack posted...</cite> <quote>He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking.</quote> > Subscribes to a single psychologist's view from over 100 years ago > Is upset that modern developments haven't validated his outdated views empirically > Calls everyone else sheltered and narrow viewed to avoid admitting he doesn't know shit about modern psychology or neuroscience Strong work, BignutzisBack</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 1:49:49 PM #27:	He's just a troll. It's someone's alt, but couldn't be arsed to even think about who. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905421547] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>He's just a troll. It's someone's alt, but couldn't be arsed to even think about who.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/20/18 3:20:43 PM #28:	This topic, uh, got away from me. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905426471] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>This topic, uh, got away from me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BignutzisBack 07/20/18 3:23:16 PM #29:	BlameAnesthesia posted... BignutzisBack posted... He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking. > Subscribes to a single psychologist's view from over 100 years ago > Is upset that modern developments haven't validated his outdated views empirically > Calls everyone else sheltered and narrow viewed to avoid admitting he doesn't know shit about modern psychology or neuroscience Strong work, BignutzisBack @BlameAnesthesia What is the point of this fabricated childish rant? I always give COVxy shit for completely dismissing Jung. You his mom or something? Jesus lol --- https://imgur.com/plA0Vg9 http://i.minus.com/iluvk8aR4mzC8.gif <cite>BignutzisBack posted [p:905426603] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlameAnesthesia posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BignutzisBack posted...</cite> <quote>He's a Carl Jung hater, TC is completely blind to consciousness discussions because of it, very sheltered in his way of thinking.</quote> > Subscribes to a single psychologist's view from over 100 years ago > Is upset that modern developments haven't validated his outdated views empirically > Calls everyone else sheltered and narrow viewed to avoid admitting he doesn't know shit about modern psychology or neuroscience Strong work, BignutzisBack</quote> @BlameAnesthesia What is the point of this fabricated childish rant? I always give COVxy shit for completely dismissing Jung. You his mom or something? Jesus lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/21/18 8:50:44 AM #30:	Up. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905464279] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>Up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Turtlebread 07/21/18 8:51:33 AM #31:	sounds pretty nerdy to me --- https://imgur.com/yCW15Zn <cite>Turtlebread posted [p:905464300] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>sounds pretty nerdy to me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/21/18 10:14:34 AM #32:	We're on a website called gamefaqs.gamespot.com --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905466618] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>We're on a website called gamefaqs.gamespot.com</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/21/18 10:57:09 AM #33:	Are there different kinds of causality in science? --- let's positive thinking [tell me about a complicated man] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:905468110] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>Are there different kinds of causality in science?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/21/18 11:23:05 AM #34:	There are different type of criteria for what is called "causality". But, they are all trying to get at the same concept, so I would say no, kinda. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905469021] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>There are different type of criteria for what is called "causality". But, they are all trying to get at the same concept, so I would say no, kinda.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/21/18 11:25:48 AM #35:	COVxy posted... There are different type of criteria for what is called "causality". But, they are all trying to get at the same concept, so I would say no, kinda. Scientists are certain that brain states precede physical action, right? I'm just wondering if Leibniz has been falsified --- let's positive thinking [tell me about a complicated man] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:905469118] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>There are different type of criteria for what is called "causality". But, they are all trying to get at the same concept, so I would say no, kinda.</quote> Scientists are certain that brain states precede physical action, right? I'm just wondering if Leibniz has been falsified</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/21/18 11:31:58 AM #36:	I don't think anything regarding the concept of "free will" is able to be falsified. Idk, the whole concept is wonky to me. Even if I could perfectly predict your actions based on your brain activity, and perfectly manipulate them by virtue of manipulating your brain, why would it matter? You are your brain. If your brain is controlling you, you are controlling you. I tend to stray away from these conversations because nothing is really meaningful. It seems like we just go around in circles playing word games as opposed to any real important reasoning. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905469342] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote>I don't think anything regarding the concept of "free will" is able to be falsified. Idk, the whole concept is wonky to me. Even if I could perfectly predict your actions based on your brain activity, and perfectly manipulate them by virtue of manipulating your brain, why would it matter? You are your brain. If your brain is controlling you, you are controlling you. I tend to stray away from these conversations because nothing is really meaningful. It seems like we just go around in circles playing word games as opposed to any real important reasoning.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/21/18 11:35:35 AM #37:	COVxy posted... I don't think anything regarding the concept of "free will" is able to be falsified. Idk, the whole concept is wonky to me. Even if I could perfectly predict your actions based on your brain activity, and perfectly manipulate them by virtue of manipulating your brain, why would it matter? You are your brain. If your brain is controlling you, you are controlling you. I tend to stray away from these conversations because nothing is really meaningful. It seems like we just go around in circles playing word games as opposed to any real important reasoning. If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess. --- let's positive thinking [tell me about a complicated man] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:905469468] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think anything regarding the concept of "free will" is able to be falsified. Idk, the whole concept is wonky to me. Even if I could perfectly predict your actions based on your brain activity, and perfectly manipulate them by virtue of manipulating your brain, why would it matter? You are your brain. If your brain is controlling you, you are controlling you. I tend to stray away from these conversations because nothing is really meaningful. It seems like we just go around in circles playing word games as opposed to any real important reasoning.</quote> If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 07/21/18 11:41:02 AM #38:	MedeaLysistrata posted... If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess. In terms of disbelieving free will, you mean? We have done those types of experiments since the 60's. But I mean, I don't think it actually addresses the question. I think, really, the important question to ask yourself is "what would the world need to look like for free will to be accepted?" I think this usually requires some nonmechanic mystical being, some form of dualism, to satisfy. Which means we can roughly assume that by the naive view of free will is incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. There was an article recently in Trends in Neurosciences regarding this: https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30155-3 (I think this may be free access, if you are interested and can't access it, let me know) Granted, I didn't read it, but it may provide insight for those interested. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:905469671] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess. </quote> In terms of disbelieving free will, you mean? We have done those types of experiments since the 60's. But I mean, I don't think it actually addresses the question. I think, really, the important question to ask yourself is "what would the world need to look like for free will to be accepted?" I think this usually requires some nonmechanic mystical being, some form of dualism, to satisfy. Which means we can roughly assume that by the naive view of free will is incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. There was an article recently in Trends in Neurosciences regarding this: https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30155-3 (I think this may be free access, if you are interested and can't access it, let me know) Granted, I didn't read it, but it may provide insight for those interested.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 07/21/18 12:09:20 PM #39:	COVxy posted... MedeaLysistrata posted... If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess. In terms of disbelieving free will, you mean? We have done those types of experiments since the 60's. But I mean, I don't think it actually addresses the question. I think, really, the important question to ask yourself is "what would the world need to look like for free will to be accepted?" I think this usually requires some nonmechanic mystical being, some form of dualism, to satisfy. Which means we can roughly assume that by the naive view of free will is incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. There was an article recently in Trends in Neurosciences regarding this: https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30155-3 (I think this may be free access, if you are interested and can't access it, let me know) Granted, I didn't read it, but it may provide insight for those interested. My views on free will are pretty mystical, I guess. Also I understand why you don't like engaging in word games >_> --- let's positive thinking [tell me about a complicated man] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:905470868] in Causality ... [t:76824886]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MedeaLysistrata posted...</cite> <quote>If I had a machine that could alter my brain states, and then my actions as a result, I would be pretty happy I guess. </quote> In terms of disbelieving free will, you mean? We have done those types of experiments since the 60's. But I mean, I don't think it actually addresses the question. I think, really, the important question to ask yourself is "what would the world need to look like for free will to be accepted?" I think this usually requires some nonmechanic mystical being, some form of dualism, to satisfy. Which means we can roughly assume that by the naive view of free will is incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. There was an article recently in Trends in Neurosciences regarding this: https://www.cell.com/trends/neurosciences/fulltext/S0166-2236(18)30155-3 (I think this may be free access, if you are interested and can't access it, let me know) Granted, I didn't read it, but it may provide insight for those interested.</quote> My views on free will are pretty mystical, I guess. Also I understand why you don't like engaging in word games >_></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Causality in Neuroscience: all our fiddling is supernatural (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Causality in Neuroscience: all our fiddling is supernatural