Anthropomorphism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327BqPL09So) - the notion of giving things that are not human, human qualities

Mechanomorphism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bp0C4vhKEQ)- the notion of giving things that are not mechanical, mechanical qualities.

Atheists contend that theists are anthropomorphizing nature when they talk of god

Theists contend that atheists are mechanomorphizing god when they talk of nature

There is no evidence that nature is anthropomophic, lightgigantic.

I think he's talking about human psychological phenomena for anthropomorphization. Like 'mother' nature, 'father' time, 'death' (the boney guy in robes), bugs bunny, etc.

I think that mechanimorphization might not be a real psychological phenomena.

Mechanomorphism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bp0C4vhKEQ)- the notion of giving things that are not mechanical, mechanical qualities.

Theists contend that atheists are mechanomorphizing god when they talk of nature

What the Hell are you talking about?
The definition I found of mechanomorphism is:

the doctrine that the universe is fully explicable in mechanistic terms.
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mechanomorphism)

And I had to look the term up, because, despite having taken part in hundreds of philosophical debates and reading thousands of them, I have never heard anyone use the term before.
Theists say that atheists are ascribing mechanical properties to God?
What does that even mean?

And why does the word link to some goofy dancig girl on YouTube?

There is no evidence that nature is anthropomophic, lightgigantic.


There's tons of evidence that many parts of nature - many animals, for example - are very similar to us. It used to be taboo in science to refer to the emotions and intentions (etc) of animals, but scientists slowly pulled themselves out of the mechanistic and solisistic assumptions that seem to go back to Descartes.

What the Hell are you talking about?



I thought it was actually a rather elegant juxtapostion on lightgigantic's part. for a long time it was scientific holy notion that animals were simply complex machines - in distinction from us even - and only seemed to possess qualities like emotions and thought, etc. This has changed. Though there has also been a trend to include us amongst the machines.

The word 'reductionism' is often used in these debates.

There is an explaining away process where life forms and patterns are seen by scientists or rationalists are essentially dead: very complicated newtonian patterns. In other words: machines.

Of course not all scientists do this and there are other options.

And as a pagan I truly appreciate reading those two ____morphisms juxtaposed.

Yeah, I like the term.
Dawkins said "Pantheism is just sexed-up atheism" but maybe he's got it wrong and "atheism is just sexed-down pantheism."

What the Hell are you talking about?
The definition I found of mechanomorphism is:

the doctrine that the universe is fully explicable in mechanistic terms.
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mechanomorphism)

And I had to look the term up, because, despite having taken part in hundreds of philosophical debates and reading thousands of them, I have never heard anyone use the term before.
Theists say that atheists are ascribing mechanical properties to God?
What does that even mean?

And why does the word link to some goofy dancig girl on YouTube?

yes mechanomorphism is the view of a reductionist universe - mechanomorphizing God involves that you remove the issue of consciousness from the universe - in other words there is no purpose or intention behind existence (except for our own delightful purpose of course - although if you take it to its extreme, even mechanomorphism can rule that out to issues of mechanical laws of environment). This is frequently done by taking nature as an end in itself.

to use an analogy, suppose a person was driving a car - you could examine the nature of their movement in two ways

1) there is a person driving the car according to their desire
2) the car is accelerating or decelerating according to the gear ratio and fuel and turning left or right due to a steering mechanism

If you were trying to understand the future movements of the vehicle, what do you think would be the best means?

As for the dancing girl, I thought it was a good contrast to the talking burger, and it sums up the essence of mechanomorphic view - I am a machine. You are a machine - we are all machines ..... but some of us dance better than others

:D

There is no evidence that nature is anthropomophic, lightgigantic.

You mean there is evidence (as opposed to concepts) that nature is the cause unto itself?

Crunchy Cat

I think he's talking about human psychological phenomena for anthropomorphization. Like 'mother' nature, 'father' time, 'death' (the boney guy in robes), bugs bunny, etc.

I think that mechanimorphization might not be a real psychological phenomena.
you mean there is no evidence of applying mechanical qualities on things that are not mechanical?

What do you make of Grantwanty’s suggestions?


Isn't the opposite extreme of anthropomorphization the absence of anthropomorphization? It's not clear how mechanomorphism works... do you mean like a 'political machine'?

there is no such thing as one extreme – there is always two
(heat/cold – high/low – right/wrong – happy/sad – etc/etc)
Mechanomorphism works by taking something that isn’t mechanical and giving it mechanical properties – what this practically means in science, is taking a phenomena and reducing it down to some core materials , and saying that the phenomena is (in its entirety) these core materials


Actually, I am saying that 'God' is the result of anthropomorphizing reality (not nature... leave that one to 'Mother nature').
that’s begging the question – precisely whether this “reality” is mechanical or conscious is the issue at hand


Also, wouldn't mechanomorphizing a sentient life form be the same as applying the features of that sentient life form on a machine? That's pretty much anthropmorphization. Transformers, Gobots, Hal...
at one point you have people acting like machines and at another point you have machines acting like people – even though categories get blurred in the medium of fiction, we can still maintain such distinctions easily (for instance if I said you were abusing your transformer by not being sensitive to its needs I don’t have a legal foot to stand on – however if I said you were abusing your young sister – even though she acts like a robot- there could be consequences)



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You challenge that anthropomorphism is objective
”
Evidence for it exists in abundance in that link provided.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I challenge that it is subjective
”
If I show you a piece of paper with 3 dots and an arc, I can guarantee you will see a happy face... as will everyone else who sees it. That's pretty objective that its a real psychological phenomena in humans. Go to this URL:

http://www.chevron.com/products/

and take a look at the car. Do you see a car or see a sentient life form?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
who will resolve these issues?
(certainly not any medium within the realm of duality)
”
I don't think there is any resolving to do with anthropmorphization. It is what it is and there is evidence abound. The only resolving that makes any sense is providing evidence that mechanomorphism as a real human psychological phenomena really exists.
If you took such a car (with big eye balls) and left it out in the weather, kicked it, never checked the oil and pushed it off a cliff your neighbors would probably think that you were an idiot for ruining your car.

If you took a dog (and dressed it up as a car) and left it out in the weather, kicked it, never fed it and threw it off a cliff your neighbors would probably think you were a cruel man.

In other words, despite all appearances of so-called sentience and non-sentience, something that actually belongs to either of the said categories remains so steadfastly.

Yeah, I like the term.
Dawkins said "Pantheism is just sexed-up atheism" but maybe he's got it wrong and "atheism is just sexed-down pantheism."

Some people have a harder time acknowledging the intelligence and existence of other life forms. Some men even deny women of their own race status as sentient. Some the women of their own race but not people of other races. Some homo sapians, but not animals. And so on. Some experience a great deal more kinds of life and sentience than are currently accepted by most scientists. But the trend in science is a good one. I just can wait around for technology and 'open-mindedness' to 'prove' what I already experience.

Crunchy Cat

you mean there is no evidence of applying mechanical qualities on things that are not mechanical?

What definition of mechnical is being used? Also, I have seen no evidence of a some global human psychological phenomena that results in people putting pistons on christmas ornaments.

At this point mechanimorphism sounds more like a 'political' ploy to take focus off of anthropomorphism with an artifical pole.


What do you make of Grantwanty’s suggestions?


Its not clear what definition of the word 'machine' he is using and what animals are being viewed as alternatively.


there is no such thing as one extreme – there is always two
(heat/cold – high/low – right/wrong – happy/sad – etc/etc)

heat/cold - subjective tolerance to objective presence / absence of heat energy.

high/low - subjective tolerance to presence / absence of vertical distance.

right/wrong - subjective tolerance to objective behavior and events.

happy/sad - subjective creation of poles for presence of objective happiness and presence of objective sadness (notice that absence or presence of both are missing)

In other words, I think you are confusing objective presence / absence with opposite objective state (ex. positive charge / negative charge).


Mechanomorphism works by taking something that isn’t mechanical and giving it mechanical properties – what this practically means in science, is taking a phenomena and reducing it down to some core materials , and saying that the phenomena is (in its entirety) these core materials

It sounds like you are saying that mechanimorphism doesn't take into account things like animal consciousness being an effect of some 'spiritual' dimension vs. the brain. If that's the case then like I said... it sounds like a political invention rather than a human pschological phenomena.


that’s begging the question – precisely whether this “reality” is mechanical or conscious is the issue at hand

Why is 'mechanical' the opposite of 'conscious'? Wouldn't that question really be if 'reality' is sentient or not sentient? There is no evidence that reality is sentient and there is evidence that reality is not sentient. What I can say is that humans project eyes, eyebrowse, a mouth, etc. onto reality and it magically becomes sentient in their minds.


at one point you have people acting like machines and at another point you have machines acting like people – even though categories get blurred in the medium of fiction, we can still maintain such distinctions easily (for instance if I said you were abusing your transformer by not being sensitive to its needs I don’t have a legal foot to stand on – however if I said you were abusing your young sister – even though she acts like a robot- there could be consequences)

That sounds like anthropmorphism.



If you took such a car (with big eye balls) and left it out in the weather, kicked it, never checked the oil and pushed it off a cliff your neighbors would probably think that you were an idiot for ruining your car.

If you took a dog (and dressed it up as a car) and left it out in the weather, kicked it, never fed it and threw it off a cliff your neighbors would probably think you were a cruel man.

In other words, despite all appearances of so-called sentience and non-sentience, something that actually belongs to either of the said categories remains so steadfastly.

If you took Herbie and abused it, your neighbors would call Amnesty international on you :). I do agree, it is generally easy for an adult to distinguish between anthropomorphic cars and real sentient life forms. It's even easier for an adult to project human qualities ontothat which is not human. A toaster, country, political party, planet, etc. You get the point.

Crunchy Cat

you mean there is no evidence of applying mechanical qualities on things that are not mechanical?
”
What definition of mechnical is being used?
distinct from sentient

Also, I have seen no evidence of a some global human psychological phenomena that results in people putting pistons on christmas ornaments.
but there is evidence of mechanistic ideologies on how things should be rationalized (as in the case of reductionism in science) or how society should be organized (as in the case of communism)

At this point mechanimorphism sounds more like a 'political' ploy to take focus off of anthropomorphism with an artifical pole.
only if one works out of the paradigm that reductionism is the foundation for objectivity, and thus a girl dancing like a robot is not essentially different from a robot dancing like a robot

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
What do you make of Grantwanty’s suggestions?
”
Its not clear what definition of the word 'machine' he is using and what animals are being viewed as alternatively.
it was the view of Descartes that when an animal shrieks it in not actually feeling pain but is acting in a mechanical fashion - much like you a spring will pop out of a clock if you tap it in the right spot
Thus nailing a chair together and nailing a dog to a piece of wood for dissection and investigation are in the same category

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there is no such thing as one extreme – there is always two
(heat/cold – high/low – right/wrong – happy/sad – etc/etc)
”
heat/cold - subjective tolerance to objective presence / absence of heat energy.

high/low - subjective tolerance to presence / absence of vertical distance.

right/wrong - subjective tolerance to objective behavior and events.

happy/sad - subjective creation of poles for presence of objective happiness and presence of objective sadness (notice that absence or presence of both are missing)

In other words, I think you are confusing objective presence / absence with opposite objective state (ex. positive charge / negative charge).
I think you are just trying to extrapolate from what I indicated as the nature of dualistic phenomena - the issue still arises, regardless whether they are discerned to be objective or subjective
for instance regardless whether you are terming heat in terms of one's subject liking or in terms of the presence of energy, the dualistic extremes still exist

eg - "I feel hot/I feel cold"
- "energy is present/ energy is not present"

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Mechanomorphism works by taking something that isn’t mechanical and giving it mechanical properties – what this practically means in science, is taking a phenomena and reducing it down to some core materials , and saying that the phenomena is (in its entirety) these core materials
”
It sounds like you are saying that mechanimorphism doesn't take into account things like animal consciousness being an effect of some 'spiritual' dimension vs. the brain. If that's the case then like I said... it sounds like a political invention rather than a human pschological phenomena.
there is clear evidence that a living person exhibits qualities that a dead person does not despite being materially identical (in terms of organic and inorganic compounds).
In other words if I say that life is essentially carbon and a few other chemicals, and if I cannot produce life from these said few other chemicals and carbon, I certainly am exhibiting a human psychological phenomena

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
that’s begging the question – precisely whether this “reality” is mechanical or conscious is the issue at hand
”
Why is 'mechanical' the opposite of 'conscious'? Wouldn't that question really be if 'reality' is sentient or not sentient? There is no evidence that reality is sentient and there is evidence that reality is not sentient. What I can say is that humans project eyes, eyebrowse, a mouth, etc. onto reality and it magically becomes sentient in their minds.
and as illustrated by descartes, one can also project reductionist notions on to sentient life and it magically becomes non sentient
(BTW - what body of work are you referencing to say that reality is not sentient? Ever heard of the wave/particle duality?)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
at one point you have people acting like machines and at another point you have machines acting like people – even though categories get blurred in the medium of fiction, we can still maintain such distinctions easily (for instance if I said you were abusing your transformer by not being sensitive to its needs I don’t have a legal foot to stand on – however if I said you were abusing your young sister – even though she acts like a robot- there could be consequences)
”
That sounds like anthropmorphism.
throw your transformer out the window and throw your sister out the window and analyze the different consequences ....
in other words anthropomorphism operates when the object is essentially not conscious (or human) and mechanomorphism operates when the object is essentially non-sentient


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you took such a car (with big eye balls) and left it out in the weather, kicked it, never checked the oil and pushed it off a cliff your neighbors would probably think that you were an idiot for ruining your car.

If you took a dog (and dressed it up as a car) and left it out in the weather, kicked it, never fed it and threw it off a cliff your neighbors would probably think you were a cruel man.

In other words, despite all appearances of so-called sentience and non-sentience, something that actually belongs to either of the said categories remains so steadfastly.
”
If you took Herbie and abused it, your neighbors would call Amnesty international on you . I do agree, it is generally easy for an adult to distinguish between anthropomorphic cars and real sentient life forms. It's even easier for an adult to project human qualities ontothat which is not human. A toaster, country, political party, planet, etc. You get the point.
and also equally easy is to project non-sentient qualities on that which is sentient

Crunchy Cat
distinct from sentient

I don't get why a word such as 'mechanical' would be overloaded to mean non-sentient... unless its intentionally being done that way so nothing could ever be mechanical AND sentient.


but there is evidence of mechanistic ideologies on how things should be rationalized (as in the case of reductionism in science) or how society should be organized (as in the case of communism)

I don't get it. Isn't scientific reductionism a process that is validated by reality as objectively working? How does that become an objective psychological phenomena... i.e. can you take a group of 100 children of age 5 and show they all practice scientific reductionism? Also, how does reductionism in science or social organization become the opposite of anthropomorhic?


only if one works out of the paradigm that reductionism is the foundation for objectivity, and thus a girl dancing like a robot is not essentially different from a robot dancing like a robot

Isn't reality the foundation for objectivity and reductionism a tool to expose its components? I don't get how a girl dancing like a robot or vice versa is mechanimorphic... it seems very anthropomprhic.


it was the view of Descartes that when an animal shrieks it in not actually feeling pain but is acting in a mechanical fashion - much like you a spring will pop out of a clock if you tap it in the right spot
Thus nailing a chair together and nailing a dog to a piece of wood for dissection and investigation are in the same category

Odd view. It would be the view of most modern scientists that when an animal shrieks it is feeling pain and is nonetheless a collection of atoms in a mass of complex relationship.


I think you are just trying to extrapolate from what I indicated as the nature of dualistic phenomena - the issue still arises, regardless whether they are discerned to be objective or subjective
for instance regardless whether you are terming heat in terms of one's subject liking or in terms of the presence of energy, the dualistic extremes still exist

eg - "I feel hot/I feel cold"
- "energy is present/ energy is not present"


What I was trying to do is show often one side of a subjective pole is objective absence and often one side of a subjective pole is an unrelated objective presence. This applies to anthropomorphism. It's objective poles are presence and absence. Mechanimorhphism is being positioned as an objective pole to anthropomorphism when it is clearly not.



there is clear evidence that a living person exhibits qualities that a dead person does not despite being materially identical (in terms of organic and inorganic compounds).

There are MASSIVE differences in chemistry, atomic structure, electrical activity, etc. between live and dead people.


In other words if I say that life is essentially carbon and a few other chemicals, and if I cannot produce life from these said few other chemicals and carbon, I certainly am exhibiting a human psychological phenomena

You can do more than produce simple life. Ever hear of sex? I suspect that if someone takes the simplest bacterium and sees it consume energy and reproduce then the psychological phenomena is observation. If the observer lacks the technology to replicate a bacterium then I would not classify that as a psychological phenomena.


and as illustrated by descartes, one can also project reductionist notions on to sentient life and it magically becomes non sentient

I've honestly never seen a single person in modern science (or otherwise) turn sentience into non-sentience by some kind of 'projection'.


(BTW - what body of work are you referencing to say that reality is not sentient? Ever heard of the wave/particle duality?)

Astro-physics, chemstry, ... any body of science would do. Yes, of course I have heard of wave / particle duality.


“
throw your transformer out the window and throw your sister out the window and analyze the different consequences ....
in other words anthropomorphism operates when the object is essentially not conscious (or human) and mechanomorphism operates when the object is essentially non-sentient

I bet if I throw something out the window that vaguly resembles a person, an observer will anthropomorphize the rest. I really honestly have never seen the removal of sentience phenomena you are talking about.


and also equally easy is to project non-sentient qualities on that which is sentient

Try as I might, I cannot do so... whether it be people, cats, dogs, lizards, etc. You should make a poll to see if people really do that.

I don't get why a word such as 'mechanical' would be overloaded to mean non-sentient... unless its intentionally being done that way so nothing could ever be mechanical AND sentient.
I suppose you could make a case for both at once, but the issue historically separates them. Descartes thought of animals as simply machines that seemed on occasion to behave as if they had emotions. This idea of them as machines held sway for a long time and we were told that to think animals had emotions and intentions or were even subjects was called anthropomorphism. The scientific community is moving away from this horror.


I don't get it. Isn't scientific reductionism a process that is validated by reality as objectively working?

It's not the reductionism is wrong. It is that it is used as a way to find the ultimate truths. It makes claims that the simple levels are the true ones and other seemingly more complicated phenomena are really ONLY these minute phenomena. More than one truth can describe the same phenomenon. Reductionists think their reduced concepts eradicate all other interpretations.



Odd view. It would be the view of most modern scientists that when an animal shrieks it is feeling pain and is nonetheless a collection of atoms in a mass of complex relationship.

Actually a fairly recent improvement. Even 30 years ago asserting that the animal was in pain would be moving into questionable turf.




I've honestly never seen a single person in modern science (or otherwise) turn sentience into non-sentience by some kind of 'projection'.

It was the rule. It is also happening in the neurosciences today. Look at the way our problems are no longer seen as psychological but biochemical. Solutions like talk therapies are seen as mystifications.



I bet if I throw something out the window that vaguly resembles a person, an observer will anthropomorphize the rest. I really honestly have never seen the removal of sentience phenomena you are talking about.

Look at the way a scientist would react to various pagan indigenous beliefs now. In history this happened between racial groups, from men to women, humans to animals.

I suppose you could make a case for both at once, but the issue historically separates them. Descartes thought of animals as simply machines that seemed on occasion to behave as if they had emotions. This idea of them as machines held sway for a long time and we were told that to think animals had emotions and intentions or were even subjects was called anthropomorphism. The scientific community is moving away from this horror.

Actually a fairly recent improvement. Even 30 years ago asserting that the animal was in pain would be moving into questionable turf.


I am glad that was before my time. I think modern science tends to view many life forms as both sentient and mechanical... sentience arising due to the activities of the brain.


It's not the reductionism is wrong. It is that it is used as a way to find the ultimate truths. It makes claims that the simple levels are the true ones and other seemingly more complicated phenomena are really ONLY these minute phenomena. More than one truth can describe the same phenomenon. Reductionists think their reduced concepts eradicate all other interpretations.


Is there something wrong with removing interpretation?


It was the rule. It is also happening in the neurosciences today. Look at the way our problems are no longer seen as psychological but biochemical. Solutions like talk therapies are seen as mystifications.

I don't think neuroscience removes sentience. It does make an effort to objectify the mind. Allthough many problems may be addressable with psycholgical inputs, if they can be addressed with biochemical inputs much more accurately then what would be the issue? Take schizophrenia for example. Various drugs / magnetic field treatments may eliminate symptoms in the future. Biotechnology might even be able to cure it.


Look at the way a scientist would react to various pagan indigenous beliefs now. In history this happened between racial groups, from men to women, humans to animals.

How does a scientist react to various pagan beliefs?

Crunchy Cat
distinct from sentient ”
I don't get why a word such as 'mechanical' would be overloaded to mean
non-sentient... unless its intentionally being done that way so nothing
could ever be mechanical AND sentient.
how is a sentient thing mechanical?
(the terms are as mutually distinct as a dead person and a living person)


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but there is evidence of mechanistic ideologies on how things should be
rationalized (as in the case of reductionism in science) or how society
should be organized (as in the case of communism) ”
I don't get it. Isn't scientific reductionism a process that is
validated by reality as objectively working?
scientific reductionism is a process that accepts at its foundation that the cause is objective and that the senses can reveal the cause - if you want to call such a process "validated by reality as objectively working" you would have to explain how the senses (which are inherently subjective) can reveal the objective.

To say the least, persons in the field don't vouch for such definitions, but rather opt for a more apologetic

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

That sums up the view of the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), who argued that science cannot verify anything. It is only able to falsify, to disprove claims of knowledge. A truly scientific statement is one that gives a high degree of information and is subjectable to rigorous attempts to disprove it. As long as it passes the tests, it may be called knowledge, although it can never be absolutely true. Sooner or later, as testing methods advance, the statement will be proved false.

How does that become an
objective psychological phenomena... i.e. can you take a group of 100
children of age 5 and show they all practice scientific reductionism?
if they act like cars during lunch break when they play games, yes


Also, how does reductionism in science or social organization become
the opposite of anthropomorhic?
they become mechanistic when they take something established in sentience and reduce it down to non-sentient (or overly simplified) elements that don't fully accommodate for the sentient object - for instance if you say that a cockroach is a certain combination of organic and inorganic compounds, if you cannot create a living cockroach from such a collection of compounds, it is obvious that something got lost in the process of reductionism



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
only if one works out of the paradigm that reductionism is the
foundation for objectivity, and thus a girl dancing like a robot is not
essentially different from a robot dancing like a robot ”
Isn't reality the foundation for objectivity and reductionism a tool to
expose its components? I don't get how a girl dancing like a robot or
vice versa is mechanimorphic... it seems very anthropomprhic.
a robot dancing like a girl is anthropomorphic (ie qualities of sentience are super-imposed on an object that is not sentient)
a girl dancing like a robot is mechanomorphic (ie qualities of non-sentience are super-imposed on an object that is sentient)


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it was the view of Descartes that when an animal shrieks it in not
actually feeling pain but is acting in a mechanical fashion - much like
you a spring will pop out of a clock if you tap it in the right spot
Thus nailing a chair together and nailing a dog to a piece of wood for
dissection and investigation are in the same category ”
Odd view. It would be the view of most modern scientists that when an
animal shrieks it is feeling pain and is nonetheless a collection of
atoms in a mass of complex relationship.
its not clear how you are offering an alternative to what Descartes suggested


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think you are just trying to extrapolate from what I indicated as the
nature of dualistic phenomena - the issue still arises, regardless
whether they are discerned to be objective or subjective
for instance regardless whether you are terming heat in terms of one's
subject liking or in terms of the presence of energy, the dualistic
extremes still exist
eg - "I feel hot/I feel cold"
- "energy is present/ energy is not present" ”
What I was trying to do is show often one side of a subjective pole is
objective absence and often one side of a subjective pole is an
unrelated objective presence. This applies to anthropomorphism. It's
objective poles are presence and absence. Mechanimorhphism is being
positioned as an objective pole to anthropomorphism when it is clearly
not.
what are the objective poles of anthropomorphism and how are they distinct from the objective poles of mechanomorphism?
in other words how does a robot acting like a girl somehow suggest that a girl acting like a robot is not the polarized opposite?


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there is clear evidence that a living person exhibits qualities that a
dead person does not despite being materially identical (in terms of
organic and inorganic compounds). ”
There are MASSIVE differences in chemistry, atomic structure,
electrical activity, etc. between live and dead people.
the atomic structure of a dead person deteriorates due to chemical influences, similarly so does the electrical activity - what are the chemicals that a living person has that a dead person does not? (and why can't a dead person be brought to life by injecting those chemicals?)


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In other words if I say that life is essentially carbon and a few other
chemicals, and if I cannot produce life from these said few other
chemicals and carbon, I certainly am exhibiting a human psychological
phenomena ”
You can do more than produce simple life. Ever hear of sex?
certainly
but since that involves working with "laboratory equipment" not of mortal construct, its not clear why you bring it up - IOW if we neither manufacture semen nor eggs for fertility, its not clear how its relevant

I suspect
that if someone takes the simplest bacterium and sees it consume energy
and reproduce then the psychological phenomena is observation. If the
observer lacks the technology to replicate a bacterium then I would not
classify that as a psychological phenomena.
if they want to argue that bacterium equals whatever it is composed of chemically plus energy, then it certainly is a psychological phenomena, since there is no practical evidence for such a claim outside of the observer's sphere of psychological influence


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and as illustrated by descartes, one can also project reductionist
notions on to sentient life and it magically becomes non sentient ”
I've honestly never seen a single person in modern science (or
otherwise) turn sentience into non-sentience by some kind of
'projection'.
then you must be blind to it
what do they use lab rats for?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(BTW - what body of work are you referencing to say that reality is not
sentient? Ever heard of the wave/particle duality?) ”
Astro-physics, chemstry, ... any body of science would do. Yes, of
course I have heard of wave / particle duality.
how does astro physics or chemistry determine a state of non-difference between a living person and a dead one (if it is as you say, reality is non-sentient)?
Furthermore why does the role of the observer play such a confounding role in discerning whether matter is ultimately a particle or a wave? (Of course this question is rhetorical - unless sciforums becomes the origin for reconciling all the conflicting ideas on the topic - needless to say, you have no substance to back up your claims on what reality is or isn't, since the answer to such a question is not even on the horizon of empirical inquiry)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
throw your transformer out the window and throw your sister out the
window and analyze the different consequences ....
in other words anthropomorphism operates when the object is essentially
not conscious (or human) and mechanomorphism operates when the object
is essentially non-sentient ”
I bet if I throw something out the window that vaguly resembles a
person, an observer will anthropomorphize the rest.
well throw something out the window that actually is a person and compare the results

I really honestly
have never seen the removal of sentience phenomena you are talking
about.
that is because you are so heavily steeped in mechanomorphist ideology, you are blind to it (just like a child has never seen the super-imposition of sentience on mechanical things - for them it is just as important to talk to their teddy bear as it is to talk to their parents)


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and also equally easy is to project non-sentient qualities on that
which is sentient ”
Try as I might, I cannot do so... whether it be people, cats, dogs,
lizards, etc. You should make a poll to see if people really do that.
people do it all the time - especially scientists - I've given several clear examples in this post already

I am glad that was before my time. I think modern science tends to view many life forms as both sentient and mechanical... sentience arising due to the activities of the brain. There's a double trend. Animals are now acknowledged to be like us, but we are now also being defined more and more as biochemical machines.



Is there something wrong with removing interpretation?
Sure. If I treat you as a batch of organic compounds and use you to make soap, perhaps I have left out other interpretations of 'you' that are also correct.


I don't think neuroscience removes sentience. It doesn't have to. But when you get down in the biochemical levels and then say that the higher levels are not different in kind, you end up viewing humans as machines and many neuroscientists do. Many are determinists, for example.

How does a scientist react to various pagan beliefs? I think you know how the majority view them.

Crunchy Cat
how is a sentient thing mechanical?
(the terms are as mutually distinct as a dead person and a living person)


Quite simple. The brain is probably something you consider 'mechanical'. It results in sentience.


scientific reductionism is a process that accepts at its foundation that the cause is objective and that the senses can reveal the cause - if you want to call such a process "validated by reality as objectively working" you would have to explain how the senses (which are inherently subjective) can reveal the objective.

Senses aren't subjective. Interpretation of sensory information might be. The very fact that you can survive is evidence that your senses reveal the objective.


To say the least, persons in the field don't vouch for such definitions, but rather opt for a more apologetic

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

That sums up the view of the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), who argued that science cannot verify anything. It is only able to falsify, to disprove claims of knowledge. A truly scientific statement is one that gives a high degree of information and is subjectable to rigorous attempts to disprove it. As long as it passes the tests, it may be called knowledge, although it can never be absolutely true. Sooner or later, as testing methods advance, the statement will be proved false.

I get the impression that Popper was very confused between the relationship of theory and new information vs. dropping a rubber ball off the balcony and always seeing it bounce.


if they act like cars during lunch break when they play games, yes


That's anthropomorphism.


they become mechanistic when they take something established in sentience and reduce it down to non-sentient (or overly simplified) elements that don't fully accommodate for the sentient object - for instance if you say that a cockroach is a certain combination of organic and inorganic compounds, if you cannot create a living cockroach from such a collection of compounds, it is obvious that something got lost in the process of reductionism

I don't get it, how do non-sentient components that result in sentience when working in specific configurations somehow eliminate the fact that the result is sentience? I also don't see how its an opposite of anthropomorphism. Also, technological limitation to put together a cockaroach from scratch doesn't seem related to anything in the conversation.



a robot dancing like a girl is anthropomorphic (ie qualities of sentience are super-imposed on an object that is not sentient)
a girl dancing like a robot is mechanomorphic (ie qualities of non-sentience are super-imposed on an object that is sentient)

Huh? Both are anthropomoprhic.


its not clear how you are offering an alternative to what Descartes suggested


'Mechanical' AND Sentient.


what are the objective poles of anthropomorphism and how are they distinct from the objective poles of mechanomorphism?

Anthropomorphisms poles are presence and absence. I suspect the same is true for mechanomorphism, but again... I still don't see it as being some built in psychological phenomena so its hard to say.


in other words how does a robot acting like a girl somehow suggest that a girl acting like a robot is not the polarized opposite?

A robot acting like a girl is a result of human programming obviously with anthropomorphism in mind. A girl actling like a robot is no different than cheetah man actling like a cheetah. It's also antrhopomorphic.


the atomic structure of a dead person deteriorates due to chemical influences, similarly so does the electrical activity - what are the chemicals that a living person has that a dead person does not? (and why can't a dead person be brought to life by injecting those chemicals?)

How those 'chemicals' are arranged in relation to each other are what matters most. Ever seen entropy in mitochondira? If the structure is too far gone then the function can no longer be performed. You could probably bring a dead person back to life if you could fix all the broken structures and undo any state problems that resulted from death (ex. blood coagulation). Humans don't posess that kind of control over reality.



certainly
but since that involves working with "laboratory equipment" not of mortal construct, its not clear why you bring it up - IOW if we neither manufacture semen nor eggs for fertility, its not clear how its relevant

It's relevant because humans can create humans using nothing but chemicals (sperm and eggs). It validates the idea. Cloning validates the idea as well.


if they want to argue that bacterium equals whatever it is composed of chemically plus energy, then it certainly is a psychological phenomena, since there is no practical evidence for such a claim outside of the observer's sphere of psychological influence

Its not true. Get a microscope and a chemical analyzer and go wild with paramecium.


then you must be blind to it
what do they use lab rats for?

Perhaps I have a blind eye to it... and perhaps its just non-existent in my circles. Lab rats are used for all sorts of experimental goodness. I also don't know any scientists whom view rats as non-conscious entities. Something you might not understand is that people will choose to do things to rats that make them suffer in order to further scientific advancement.



how does astro physics or chemistry determine a state of non-difference between a living person and a dead one (if it is as you say, reality is non-sentient)?

We know by observation that sentient life forms make choices. Reality doesn't make choices. A photon in empty space will not suddenly choose to move a different direction. Two galaxies on a collision course will not choose to avoid each other. Buckminsterfullerines will not choose to become asymetrical. You get the point.


Furthermore why does the role of the observer play such a confounding role in discerning whether matter is ultimately a particle or a wave? (Of course this question is rhetorical - unless sciforums becomes the origin for reconciling all the conflicting ideas on the topic - needless to say, you have no substance to back up your claims on what reality is or isn't, since the answer to such a question is not even on the horizon of empirical inquiry)

The observer does not have to be sentient. It's a mistake often made by people whom want reality to be sentient when trying to understand wave collapse. An observer means any construct which would have a relationship with what is being observed. Sir Arthur Penrose has made alot of progress on understanding this and I would recommend reading his research which shows evidence that wave collapse applies to all matter/energy.


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
well throw something out the window that actually is a person and compare the results

Are you volunteering?


that is because you are so heavily steeped in mechanomorphist ideology, you are blind to it (just like a child has never seen the super-imposition of sentience on mechanical things - for them it is just as important to talk to their teddy bear as it is to talk to their parents)

I seem to know that you are sentient (and I use that term loosely ;)) and I seem to know that your sentience is a result of your brain. Again, it sounds like this whome mechanomorphism thing is just an artificial pole.


people do it all the time - especially scientists - I've given several clear examples in this post already

The only examples you gave were anthropomorphism. The example that GrantyWanty gave seemed valid, but it was born of theistical beliefs (that people had souls and other animals didn't). I suspect that the Descartes phenomena ultimately spawned from anthropomorphism. Either way, I don't find mechanimorphization easy at all. I don't know any scientists (and I know a few) whom hold the mechanimorphic view. I don't know any children whom think dogs are non-sentient.

I can (and probably have) shown evidence that ALL humans anthropomorphize up the wazoo... humans of any age, race, or background. You have not done the same for mechanimorphism... let alone show its a pole of anthropomorphism.

There's a double trend. Animals are now acknowledged to be like us, but we are now also being defined more and more as biochemical machines.

I don't see any issue with being defined as biomechanical machines whose mechanics give rise to sentience. It would appear to be correct.



Sure. If I treat you as a batch of organic compounds and use you to make soap, perhaps I have left out other interpretations of 'you' that are also correct.

I don't get how me being a batch of chemical compounds somehow doesn't make me sentient? I don't think reductionism is precluded from AND statements. I am a collection of biomechanics AND I am sentient.


It doesn't have to. But when you get down in the biochemical levels and then say that the higher levels are not different in kind, you end up viewing humans as machines and many neuroscientists do. Many are determinists, for example.

I don't see any issue with viewing humans as biomechanical machines. I've seen alot of neuroscience research and I have never once seen an assertion that humans are not sentient.


I think you know how the majority view them.

They scrutinize / falsify their claims of objective reality?

Crunchy Cat
how is a sentient thing mechanical?
(the terms are as mutually distinct as a dead person and a living person)
”
Quite simple. The brain is probably something you consider 'mechanical'. It results in sentience.
sorry - that is a classic case of mechanomorphism

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
scientific reductionism is a process that accepts at its foundation that the cause is objective and that the senses can reveal the cause - if you want to call such a process "validated by reality as objectively working" you would have to explain how the senses (which are inherently subjective) can reveal the objective.
”
Senses aren't subjective.
really?
How do you know that your seeing the colour blue is the same as my seeing of the colour blue?

Interpretation of sensory information might be.
how on earth do you determine a sense separate from its ability to interpret information?

The very fact that you can survive is evidence that your senses reveal the objective.
not at all - in indicates your senses reveal something relative

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
To say the least, persons in the field don't vouch for such definitions, but rather opt for a more apologetic

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

That sums up the view of the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), who argued that science cannot verify anything. It is only able to falsify, to disprove claims of knowledge. A truly scientific statement is one that gives a high degree of information and is subjectable to rigorous attempts to disprove it. As long as it passes the tests, it may be called knowledge, although it can never be absolutely true. Sooner or later, as testing methods advance, the statement will be proved false.
”
I get the impression that Popper was very confused between the relationship of theory and new information vs. dropping a rubber ball off the balcony and always seeing it bounce.
if you want to take the view that reality is essentially composed of push/pull forces, as you did with your opening about sentience being the net result of a mechanical set up we call the brain, you have just tarred yourself with the same state of confusion

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if they act like cars during lunch break when they play games, yes
”
That's anthropomorphism.
no
that is mechanomorphism (sentience imposing non-sentient values)
herbie is an example of anthropomorphism (non-sentience imposing sentient values)


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
they become mechanistic when they take something established in sentience and reduce it down to non-sentient (or overly simplified) elements that don't fully accommodate for the sentient object - for instance if you say that a cockroach is a certain combination of organic and inorganic compounds, if you cannot create a living cockroach from such a collection of compounds, it is obvious that something got lost in the process of reductionism
”
I don't get it, how do non-sentient components that result in sentience when working in specific configurations somehow eliminate the fact that the result is sentience?
the problem is that such a model of sentience (ie the net result of a mechanical combination) is purely theoretical - IOW there is no result (indicated bold)

I also don't see how its an opposite of anthropomorphism.
anthropomorphism takes something non-sentient and gives it sentient qualities (herbie is a car that acts like a human)
mechanomorphism takes something sentient and gives it non sentient qualities (a child acting like a car during lunch break)

Also, technological limitation to put together a cockaroach from scratch doesn't seem related to anything in the conversation.
You can argue that a chair is essentially made of wood, nails and glue - the evidence is that you can take wood nails and glue and make a chair - if you want to argue that sentience is essentially composed of a set series of mechanical components (and thus make the term "mechanomorphic" obsolete), if you cannot evidence this, the issue still stands that sentience bears a unique difference to reductionism/mechanomorphism


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a robot dancing like a girl is anthropomorphic (ie qualities of sentience are super-imposed on an object that is not sentient)
a girl dancing like a robot is mechanomorphic (ie qualities of non-sentience are super-imposed on an object that is sentient)
”
Huh? Both are anthropomoprhic.
How so?
One can be evidenced as mechanical and the other cannot.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its not clear how you are offering an alternative to what Descartes suggested
”
'Mechanical' AND Sentient.
once again, arguing that sentience is contingent on mechanical structures is exactly what Descartes was on about so its not clear how you are offering an alternative

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what are the objective poles of anthropomorphism and how are they distinct from the objective poles of mechanomorphism?
”
Anthropomorphisms poles are presence and absence. I suspect the same is true for mechanomorphism, but again... I still don't see it as being some built in psychological phenomena so its hard to say.
it appears that the reason that you have trouble distinguishing between anthro/mechanomorphism is that you are of the belief that the ultimate field of expression of mechanical or sentient qualities is mechanical - the introduction of the term "mechanomorphism" suggests that there are two fields of expression - the sentient and the non-sentient - in other words non sentient expression on the field of non -sentience (aka herbie) becomes anthropomorphism and non-sentient expression on the field of sentience (aka boy acting like a car) becomes mechanomorphism

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in other words how does a robot acting like a girl somehow suggest that a girl acting like a robot is not the polarized opposite?
”
A robot acting like a girl is a result of human programming obviously with anthropomorphism in mind. A girl actling like a robot is no different than cheetah man actling like a cheetah. It's also antrhopomorphic.
so you are arguing that a cheetah and a robot are identical in terms of sentience?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the atomic structure of a dead person deteriorates due to chemical influences, similarly so does the electrical activity - what are the chemicals that a living person has that a dead person does not? (and why can't a dead person be brought to life by injecting those chemicals?)
”
How those 'chemicals' are arranged in relation to each other are what matters most. Ever seen entropy in mitochondira? If the structure is too far gone then the function can no longer be performed. You could probably bring a dead person back to life if you could fix all the broken structures and undo any state problems that resulted from death (ex. blood coagulation). Humans don't posess that kind of control over reality.
such is the limitations of reductionism


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
certainly
but since that involves working with "laboratory equipment" not of mortal construct, its not clear why you bring it up - IOW if we neither manufacture semen nor eggs for fertility, its not clear how its relevant
”
It's relevant because humans can create humans using nothing but chemicals (sperm and eggs). It validates the idea. Cloning validates the idea as well.
once again, to call on the analogy of a chair - if say it is essentially wood, nails and glue and can evidence it, my statement is sound - if you argue that chemicals are what eggs/semen are actually composed of and such combinations is what enables life it is up to you to evidence it

as for cloning, that involves taking an existing life form to create life, which adds to the argument that life comes from life as opposed to challenging it

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if they want to argue that bacterium equals whatever it is composed of chemically plus energy, then it certainly is a psychological phenomena, since there is no practical evidence for such a claim outside of the observer's sphere of psychological influence
”
Its not true. Get a microscope and a chemical analyzer and go wild with paramecium.
once again, if you can't take chemicals and energy to manufacture bacteria, all that can be seen is the certainly of a psychological phenomena, since there is no practical evidence for such a claim outside of the observer's sphere of psychological influence

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then you must be blind to it
what do they use lab rats for?
”
Perhaps I have a blind eye to it... and perhaps its just non-existent in my circles. Lab rats are used for all sorts of experimental goodness. I also don't know any scientists whom view rats as non-conscious entities. Something you might not understand is that people will choose to do things to rats that make them suffer in order to further scientific advancement.
thus rats are "reduced" to something else to serve a purpose- ie mechanomorphism


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how does astro physics or chemistry determine a state of non-difference between a living person and a dead one (if it is as you say, reality is non-sentient)?
”
We know by observation that sentient life forms make choices. Reality doesn't make choices. A photon in empty space will not suddenly choose to move a different direction. Two galaxies on a collision course will not choose to avoid each other. Buckminsterfullerines will not choose to become asymetrical. You get the point.
matter doesn't make choices but sentience does - its not clear why you exclude sentience from your make up of reality, particularly since it is you making the claim

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Furthermore why does the role of the observer play such a confounding role in discerning whether matter is ultimately a particle or a wave? (Of course this question is rhetorical - unless sciforums becomes the origin for reconciling all the conflicting ideas on the topic - needless to say, you have no substance to back up your claims on what reality is or isn't, since the answer to such a question is not even on the horizon of empirical inquiry)
”
[QUOTE]The observer does not have to be sentient.
if reality (ie matter) doesn't make choices how is it possible for it to observe anything
:confused:

It's a mistake often made by people whom want reality to be sentient when trying to understand wave collapse. An observer means any construct which would have a relationship with what is being observed. Sir Arthur Penrose has made alot of progress on understanding this and I would recommend reading his research which shows evidence that wave collapse applies to all matter/energy.
first you say matter can't make choices and now you say it can observe
-please explain


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
well throw something out the window that actually is a person and compare the results
”
Are you volunteering?
no
but if you are eager to volunteer, just grab any nearby relative

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
that is because you are so heavily steeped in mechanomorphist ideology, you are blind to it (just like a child has never seen the super-imposition of sentience on mechanical things - for them it is just as important to talk to their teddy bear as it is to talk to their parents)
”
I seem to know that you are sentient (and I use that term loosely ) and I seem to know that your sentience is a result of your brain. Again, it sounds like this whome mechanomorphism thing is just an artificial pole.
the italics is inductive (You assume that i am alive much like you are alive)
the bold is a mechanomorphic theory
big difference



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
people do it all the time - especially scientists - I've given several clear examples in this post already
”
The only examples you gave were anthropomorphism. The example that GrantyWanty gave seemed valid, but it was born of theistical beliefs (that people had souls and other animals didn't). I suspect that the Descartes phenomena ultimately spawned from anthropomorphism. Either way, I don't find mechanimorphization easy at all. I don't know any scientists (and I know a few) whom hold the mechanimorphic view. I don't know any children whom think dogs are non-sentient.
taking the view that sentience is contingent on mechanical constructs is the basis of mechanomorphism - the more you try to distance yourself from Descartes the further you position yourself in the fold of it. Issues of mechano/anthropomorphism belong to the parent of science, philosophy, hence its not so surprising that science doesn't deal with it - BTW I posted another thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71804) on the topic which you might be interested to read the OP of

I can (and probably have) shown evidence that ALL humans anthropomorphize up the wazoo... humans of any age, race, or background. You have not done the same for mechanimorphism... let alone show its a pole of anthropomorphism.

Crunchy Cat

sorry - that is a classic case of mechanomorphism


I still don't see how a biomechanical structure resulting in sentience is a human behavior of projecting the non-sentient on the sentient.



“
really?
How do you know that your seeing the colour blue is the same as my seeing of the colour blue?

I don't see how that is relevant. Your seeing blue is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Mine is the same. We can both look at blue and verify that it is blue. It really doesn't matter if we see or don't see identical shades and intensity.


how on earth do you determine a sense separate from its ability to interpret information?

As an exercise look at a green light and state what you see and nothing else. If you do that then your response will be a 'green light'. If you don't do that then your response might be 'magic', 'god', 'the green lantern', 'happiness', etc.


not at all - in indicates your senses reveal something relative

relative isn't non-objective.


if you want to take the view that reality is essentially composed of push/pull forces, as you did with your opening about sentience being the net result of a mechanical set up we call the brain, you have just tarred yourself with the same state of confusion

How so?


no
that is mechanomorphism (sentience imposing non-sentient values)
herbie is an example of anthropomorphism (non-sentience imposing sentient values)

anthropomorphism takes something non-sentient and gives it sentient qualities (herbie is a car that acts like a human)
mechanomorphism takes something sentient and gives it non sentient qualities (a child acting like a car during lunch break)

How so?
One can be evidenced as mechanical and the other cannot.


It sounds like you're limiting the definition of anthropomorphism so you can turn mechanomorphism into a distinct psychological behavior. Let me be a little more explicit and complete about anthropomophism.

Anthropomorphism takes human qualities and applies them to non-human entities. The result is an imaginary entity (it doesn't really exist). Anthropomorphism also takes non-human qualities and applies them to humans. The direction of application doesn't matter one bit. The end result is always a hybrid of human and non-human... and is completely imaginary. This is a real psychological behavior of all humans (no exceptions).

Your original definition of mechanimorphism was taking sentience and giving it qualities that were not sentient. There has been no evidence that it is an opposite of anthropomorphism or a psychological behavior inherint in all humans. The only evidence related to this was Descartes view which removes sentience from all life forms except humans... but that doesn't abide by your definition (or any newer ones). Descartes removed sentience from the sentient.

Your updated definition of mechanimorphism is taking something that is sentient (vs. sentience itself) and giving it non-sentient qualities. Thats a small cross section of anthropomorhpism.


the problem is that such a model of sentience (ie the net result of a mechanical combination) is purely theoretical - IOW there is no result (indicated bold)

Its not pure theory. Its well supported theory... so much that we can say it is true and we just don't understand all the 'mechanics' of it yet.


You can argue that a chair is essentially made of wood, nails and glue - the evidence is that you can take wood nails and glue and make a chair - if you want to argue that sentience is essentially composed of a set series of mechanical components (and thus make the term "mechanomorphic" obsolete), if you cannot evidence this, the issue still stands that sentience bears a unique difference to reductionism/mechanomorphism

The only thing it bears is that humans are technilogically limited.


once again, arguing that sentience is contingent on mechanical structures is exactly what Descartes was on about so its not clear how you are offering an alternative


This is incorrect. Descartes thought that sentience was a result of a soul interacting with the pineal gland. He thought that all animals were soul-less and therefore not sentient because he thought they didn't have a pineal gland. In either case in Descartes world, biomechanics didn't result in sentience... the soul was sentience.

What I am asserting is that sentience is an effect of the brain which is not even remotely close to Descartes view.


it appears that the reason that you have trouble distinguishing between anthro/mechanomorphism is that you are of the belief that the ultimate field of expression of mechanical or sentient qualities is mechanical - the introduction of the term "mechanomorphism" suggests that there are two fields of expression - the sentient and the non-sentient - in other words non sentient expression on the field of non -sentience (aka herbie) becomes anthropomorphism and non-sentient expression on the field of sentience (aka boy acting like a car) becomes mechanomorphism

Perhaps; allthough, the evidence doesn't seem to support that.


so you are arguing that a cheetah and a robot are identical in terms of sentience?

I am arguing that each instance is a hybrid of human and non-human qualities... which is anthropomoprhism.


such is the limitations of reductionism

Yep. Perhaps one day we'll have that kind of technology.


once again, to call on the analogy of a chair - if say it is essentially wood, nails and glue and can evidence it, my statement is sound - if you argue that chemicals are what eggs/semen are actually composed of and such combinations is what enables life it is up to you to evidence it

We can observe the composition of the construction of chairs and the interaction of eggs and semen. That is evidence. Chairs are simple human inventions. Eggs and semen are the complex result of biological process and we lack the technology to make such things from scratch.


as for cloning, that involves taking an existing life form to create life, which adds to the argument that life comes from life as opposed to challenging it

It doesn't matter where it comes from. The point is we can take chemicals and produce life in an alternative fashion.


once again, if you can't take chemicals and energy to manufacture bacteria, all that can be seen is the certainly of a psychological phenomena, since there is no practical evidence for such a claim outside of the observer's sphere of psychological influence

I don't know why you are going down this path of 'if you can't make it' then it is a psychological phenomena. Even you must recognize the fallacy.


thus rats are "reduced" to something else to serve a purpose- ie mechanomorphism

That doesn't make any sense. The rats are used to serve a purpose. Sentience is not magically removed from them.


matter doesn't make choices but sentience does - its not clear why you exclude sentience from your make up of reality, particularly since it is you making the claim


When we talk about reality we are talking about it as a while (not just cross sections like humans are). Reality doesn't make choices, it doesn't learn, it doesn't defend itself, it doesn't laugh, ... it should be very clear.


if reality (ie matter) doesn't make choices how is it possible for it to observe anything
:confused:

first you say matter can't make choices and now you say it can observe
-please explain


It doesn't 'observe'. You're operating off of an anthropomorphic view of an observer. The definition is different as I have outlined. To illustrate the point, smack two pieces of wood together. Each piece of wood has a relationship with the other. That is what the quantum mechanics 'observer' is.


no
but if you are eager to volunteer, just grab any nearby relative

Sorry, I've already tossed them all out the window for othe reasons. Sure you don't want to be my huckleberry?


the italics is inductive (You assume that i am alive much like you are alive)
the bold is a mechanomorphic theory
big difference

The bold doesn't detract from your sentience. It makes it possible.


taking the view that sentience is contingent on mechanical constructs is the basis of mechanomorphism - the more you try to distance yourself from Descartes the further you position yourself in the fold of it.

I've already shown how my views and Descartes views are significantly different.


Issues of mechano/anthropomorphism belong to the parent of science, philosophy, hence its not so surprising that science doesn't deal with it - BTW I posted another thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71804) on the topic which you might be interested to read the OP of

Anthropomorphism is an aspect of human psychology. Mechanimorphism has been redefined two times in this thread. One definition doesn't appear to be a real. The other appears to be a subset of anthropomophism. Both are not opposites of anthropomorphism.

My take is that you're trying to invent something to polarize against so you don't have to acknowledge the very simple truth that 'God' is anthropomophization of reality.

yes mechanomorphism is the view of a reductionist universe - mechanomorphizing God involves that you remove the issue of consciousness from the universe - in other words there is no purpose or intention behind existence (except for our own delightful purpose of course - although if you take it to its extreme, even mechanomorphism can rule that out to issues of mechanical laws of environment). This is frequently done by taking nature as an end in itself.

to use an analogy, suppose a person was driving a car - you could examine the nature of their movement in two ways

1) there is a person driving the car according to their desire
2) the car is accelerating or decelerating according to the gear ratio and fuel and turning left or right due to a steering mechanism

If you were trying to understand the future movements of the vehicle, what do you think would be the best means?

As for the dancing girl, I thought it was a good contrast to the talking burger, and it sums up the essence of mechanomorphic view - I am a machine. You are a machine - we are all machines ..... but some of us dance better than others

:D

proximate vs. ultimate.

Science has been there and done that. Try and keep up, ja?

proximate vs. ultimate.

Science has been there and done that. Try and keep up, ja?
science has ultimately revealed the substance of reality to be mechanical only in the tomes of science fiction I am afraid ....http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive/PBF225-Casting_Call.jpg

Crunchy Cat

sorry - that is a classic case of mechanomorphism
”
I still don't see how a biomechanical structure resulting in sentience is a human behavior of projecting the non-sentient on the sentient.
if there is no body of peer reviewed work to validate that biochemical structure results in sentience what else can it be but a human behaviour?


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
really?
How do you know that your seeing the colour blue is the same as my seeing of the colour blue?
”
I don't see how that is relevant. Your seeing blue is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Mine is the same. We can both look at blue and verify that it is blue. It really doesn't matter if we see or don't see identical shades and intensity.
if you want to argue that the senses aren't subjective it is relevant
I can look at blue and verify that it is blue. You can look at blue and verify it is blue - But how can you verify that what I am discerning as "blueness" is the same thing that you are discerning?

Of course this is not possible
(How do you propose to see my mind with your sense of sight?)

Hence the senses are subjective and statements like this from einstein

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how on earth do you determine a sense separate from its ability to interpret information?
”
As an exercise look at a green light and state what you see and nothing else. If you do that then your response will be a 'green light'. If you don't do that then your response might be 'magic', 'god', 'the green lantern', 'happiness', etc.
but this is determining a sense according to its ability to interpret information

if you want to make statements like

Senses aren't subjective. Interpretation of sensory information might be.

once again, how on earth do you determine a sense separate from its ability to interpret information?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not at all - in indicates your senses reveal something relative
”
relative isn't non-objective.
:confused:
you made that suggestion that the senses are objective since we can survive in this world with them (to a greater or lesser extent)
for instance suppose one sees a sharp stick - on a microcosmic level it is composed of an uncountable ocean of molecular particles - on a macrocosmic level it is less than a drop in the ocean - on a mesocosmic level (ie relative) we can understand that it could hurt us if we get poked by it - thus the senses certainly are relative - and a relative thing is by necessity non-objective (the stick cannot poke a rhino and it can't poke a flea)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you want to take the view that reality is essentially composed of push/pull forces, as you did with your opening about sentience being the net result of a mechanical set up we call the brain, you have just tarred yourself with the same state of confusion
”
How so?
you have a theory that is not backed up by observation

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no
that is mechanomorphism (sentience imposing non-sentient values)
herbie is an example of anthropomorphism (non-sentience imposing sentient values)

anthropomorphism takes something non-sentient and gives it sentient qualities (herbie is a car that acts like a human)
mechanomorphism takes something sentient and gives it non sentient qualities (a child acting like a car during lunch break)

How so?
One can be evidenced as mechanical and the other cannot.
How is it that both can be evidenced as mechanical?
(I raised this earlier in the other thread - its the nature of dualistic claims that they cannot be resolved in the medium of duality)
”
It sounds like you're limiting the definition of anthropomorphism so you can turn mechanomorphism into a distinct psychological behavior.
it sounds like you are inflating the definition of anthropomorphism so you can turn mechanomorphism into an identical psychological behaviour (the duality continues ....)

Let me be a little more explicit and complete about anthropomophism.

Anthropomorphism takes human qualities and applies them to non-human entities. The result is an imaginary entity (it doesn't really exist). Anthropomorphism also takes non-human qualities and applies them to humans. The direction of application doesn't matter one bit. The end result is always a hybrid of human and non-human... and is completely imaginary. This is a real psychological behavior of all humans (no exceptions).
the founders of the term mechanomorphism disagree on the basis that some things are essentially sentient and some things are essentially non sentient

Your original definition of mechanimorphism was taking sentience and giving it qualities that were not sentient.
what gives you the impression I brought in a secondary definition somewhere?

There has been no evidence that it is an opposite of anthropomorphism
a girl dancing like a robot is not the opposite of a robot dancing like a girl?

or a psychological behavior inherint in all humans. The only evidence related to this was Descartes view which removes sentience from all life forms except humans... but that doesn't abide by your definition (or any newer ones). Descartes removed sentience from the sentient.
and what of children acting like cars?
or girls dancing like robots?

Your updated definition of mechanimorphism is taking something that is sentient (vs. sentience itself) and giving it non-sentient qualities.
how is that an updated version of
Your original definition of mechanimorphism was taking sentience and giving it qualities that were not sentient.

????

Thats a small cross section of anthropomorhpism.
given that there are clear distinctions between sentience and non-sentience, others disagree - if you are reluctant to break down your favoured means of terminology, perhaps it would be more practical to work with the understanding that anthropomorphism can be broken down into two dualistic extremes
classical anthropomorphism - non-sentience acting like sentience
mechanomorphism - sentience acting like non-sentience

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the problem is that such a model of sentience (ie the net result of a mechanical combination) is purely theoretical - IOW there is no result (indicated bold)
”
Its not pure theory. Its well supported theory... so much that we can say it is true and we just don't understand all the 'mechanics' of it yet.
well, post dated cheques aside, a theory remains a theory until it has a body of evidence behind it - unless you want to start introducing occult concepts into science .....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You can argue that a chair is essentially made of wood, nails and glue - the evidence is that you can take wood nails and glue and make a chair - if you want to argue that sentience is essentially composed of a set series of mechanical components (and thus make the term "mechanomorphic" obsolete), if you cannot evidence this, the issue still stands that sentience bears a unique difference to reductionism/mechanomorphism
”
The only thing it bears is that humans are technilogically limited.
scientific fact operates when an understanding is arrived at through observation and evidence
scientific fallacy operates when evidence is misconstrued in the pursuit of an understanding
(ever heard of type I and type II errors?)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
once again, arguing that sentience is contingent on mechanical structures is exactly what Descartes was on about so its not clear how you are offering an alternative
”
This is incorrect. Descartes thought that sentience was a result of a soul interacting with the pineal gland. He thought that all animals were soul-less and therefore not sentient because he thought they didn't have a pineal gland. In either case in Descartes world, biomechanics didn't result in sentience... the soul was sentience.
thus your model of sentience is much like Descartes model of sentience in animals (ie - purely mechanical)

What I am asserting is that sentience is an effect of the brain which is not even remotely close to Descartes view.
and if the brain is a mechanical configuration according to the school of reductionism, how does this constitute a radical departure from what Descartes was advocating in regards to animals?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it appears that the reason that you have trouble distinguishing between anthro/mechanomorphism is that you are of the belief that the ultimate field of expression of mechanical or sentient qualities is mechanical - the introduction of the term "mechanomorphism" suggests that there are two fields of expression - the sentient and the non-sentient - in other words non sentient expression on the field of non -sentience (aka herbie) becomes anthropomorphism and non-sentient expression on the field of sentience (aka boy acting like a car) becomes mechanomorphism
”
Perhaps; allthough, the evidence doesn't seem to support that.
life coming exclusively from life doesn't support this (and conversely challenge your view)?


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
such is the limitations of reductionism
”
Yep. Perhaps one day we'll have that kind of technology.
and alternatively, perhaps it won't ...


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
once again, to call on the analogy of a chair - if say it is essentially wood, nails and glue and can evidence it, my statement is sound - if you argue that chemicals are what eggs/semen are actually composed of and such combinations is what enables life it is up to you to evidence it
”
We can observe the composition of the construction of chairs and the interaction of eggs and semen. That is evidence. Chairs are simple human inventions. Eggs and semen are the complex result of biological process and we lack the technology to make such things from scratch.
hence the reductionist view remains incomplete
Of course you can argue that in the future it will be known, but that merely reveals the polarization of your faith than anything intrinsically analytical or scientific

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as for cloning, that involves taking an existing life form to create life, which adds to the argument that life comes from life as opposed to challenging it
”
It doesn't matter where it comes from. The point is we can take chemicals and produce life in an alternative fashion.
no

the point is that we can take life and produce life from it
-hence cloning has a strong requirement for living cells as opposed to dead cells

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
once again, if you can't take chemicals and energy to manufacture bacteria, all that can be seen is the certainly of a psychological phenomena, since there is no practical evidence for such a claim outside of the observer's sphere of psychological influence
”
I don't know why you are going down this path of 'if you can't make it' then it is a psychological phenomena. Even you must recognize the fallacy.
its just logic

If you want to say X is essentially made up of A, B and C, yet cannot exhibit how one can arrive at X through combining A, B and C, it is you who has the fallacy

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
thus rats are "reduced" to something else to serve a purpose- ie mechanomorphism
”
That doesn't make any sense. The rats are used to serve a purpose. Sentience is not magically removed from them.
sentience is not magically imposed on herbie either (its not like he goes off to become an "actual" sentient thing)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
matter doesn't make choices but sentience does - its not clear why you exclude sentience from your make up of reality, particularly since it is you making the claim
”
When we talk about reality we are talking about it as a while (not just cross sections like humans are).
(I assume you meant "whole" instead of "while")

Its not clear what foundation you are drawing on for "reality" as a "whole" and why humans (or sentience) is somehow separate from it
remember, there is no evidence that sentience is mechanical (although there is plenty of ideas about it in the theories of science and the genres of science fiction)
there is however the peculiarity of the wave-particle duality .....

Reality doesn't make choices, it doesn't learn, it doesn't defend itself, it doesn't laugh, ... it should be very clear.
so what is it that distinguishes matter as either a wave or a particle?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if reality (ie matter) doesn't make choices how is it possible for it to observe anything


first you say matter can't make choices and now you say it can observe
-please explain
i am just trying to understand your statement

“
The observer does not have to be sentient.

if you want to argue that "reality" (ie "matter" for the reductionist) doesn't make choices, etc, yet call upon something that is not sentient (I guess that only leaves matter) as capable of observing something, I think you have to clear up such glaring contradictions
”
It doesn't 'observe'. You're operating off of an anthropomorphic view of an observer. The definition is different as I have outlined. To illustrate the point, smack two pieces of wood together. Each piece of wood has a relationship with the other. That is what the quantum mechanics 'observer' is.
suppose in a forest one piece of wood fell on another piece of wood - who or what does the observing in this scenario?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no
but if you are eager to volunteer, just grab any nearby relative
”
Sorry, I've already tossed them all out the window for othe reasons. Sure you don't want to be my huckleberry?
then it should be clear to you of the inherent differences between sentient and non-sentient things

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the italics is inductive (You assume that i am alive much like you are alive)
the bold is a mechanomorphic theory
big difference
”
The bold doesn't detract from your sentience. It makes it possible.
the bold doesn't detract from my sentience - the bold doesn't add to my sentience - the bold doesn't add or detract from anything since it is merely speculation - what else can an empiricist hope to change by knowing things that he cannot evidence?
“


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Issues of mechano/anthropomorphism belong to the parent of science, philosophy, hence its not so surprising that science doesn't deal with it - BTW I posted another thread on the topic which you might be interested to read the OP of
”
Anthropomorphism is an aspect of human psychology. Mechanimorphism has been redefined two times in this thread.

One definition doesn't appear to be a real. The other appears to be a subset of anthropomophism. Both are not opposites of anthropomorphism.
I think this has already been addressed
still I can't fathom on how two definitions of mechanomorphism have been presented
still I can't fathom how a girl dancing like a robot is not the opposite of robot dancing like a girl



My take is that you're trying to invent something to polarize against so you don't have to acknowledge the very simple truth that 'God' is anthropomophization of reality.
or alternatively you're trying to invent something to create uniformity (everything is materially reducible) so you don't have to acknowledge the very simple truth that 'God' is not an anthropomophization of reality.

(note the duality of the response)

Crunchy Cat
if there is no body of peer reviewed work to validate that biochemical structure results in sentience what else can it be but a human behaviour?


There are several bodies of work in the medical community which show strong evidence the brain results in sentience. How all the details work is unknown.


if you want to argue that the senses aren't subjective it is relevant
I can look at blue and verify that it is blue. You can look at blue and verify it is blue - But how can you verify that what I am discerning as "blueness" is the same thing that you are discerning?

Of course this is not possible
(How do you propose to see my mind with your sense of sight?)

What does it matter if we see blue in slightly different intensities and shades? We can both detect the same difference and that detection is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.


Hence the senses are subjective and statements like this from einstein

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.

There is no evidence that senses are subjective. sorry.


but this is determining a sense according to its ability to interpret information

if you want to make statements like

Senses aren't subjective. Interpretation of sensory information might be.

once again, how on earth do you determine a sense separate from its ability to interpret information?

Senses by themselves don't interpret information. Interpretation occurs when the information passes through your emotional center and cognitive geometry.

I also think you're asking the wrong question. What might be more beneficial to you is understanding how to recognize sensory experience and interpreted experience.


:confused:
you made that suggestion that the senses are objective since we can survive in this world with them (to a greater or lesser extent)
for instance suppose one sees a sharp stick - on a microcosmic level it is composed of an uncountable ocean of molecular particles - on a macrocosmic level it is less than a drop in the ocean - on a mesocosmic level (ie relative) we can understand that it could hurt us if we get poked by it - thus the senses certainly are relative - and a relative thing is by necessity non-objective (the stick cannot poke a rhino and it can't poke a flea)

Objective doesn't imply complete visibility. Relative also doesn't imply non-objective.


you have a theory that is not backed up by observation

When you have an intelligent discussion with the moon I will concede that my 'theory' is not backed up by observation.


How is it that both can be evidenced as mechanical?
(I raised this earlier in the other thread - its the nature of dualistic claims that they cannot be resolved in the medium of duality)
”

Hmm? Are you asking me a question about your statement? I could be magnanimous and provide an answer if you want...


it sounds like you are inflating the definition of anthropomorphism so you can turn mechanomorphism into an identical psychological behaviour (the duality continues ....)

You should make a poll and see which interpretation arises.


the founders of the term mechanomorphism disagree on the basis that some things are essentially sentient and some things are essentially non sentient

I have a hunch that they are also founders or the concept (rather than discoverers of a phenomena).


what gives you the impression I brought in a secondary definition somewhere?


The assertion that mechanomorphism takes something sentient and gives it non sentient qualities and the other assertion that mechanomorphism takes sentience and gives it non sentient qualities. I can post your quotes if needed.


a girl dancing like a robot is not the opposite of a robot dancing like a girl?

Nope. The opposite of a robot dancing like a girl is... Not robot not dancing not like not a not girl... whatver the heck that may be.


and what of children acting like cars?
or girls dancing like robots?

They are not removing sentience. They are applying human qualities to those items and acting the part. Anthropomoprhism.


how is that an updated version of
Your original definition of mechanimorphism was taking sentience and giving it qualities that were not sentient.

????

In one case the subject is sentience itself. In the other case the subject is something that is sentient.


given that there are clear distinctions between sentience and non-sentience, others disagree - if you are reluctant to break down your favoured means of terminology, perhaps it would be more practical to work with the understanding that anthropomorphism can be broken down into two dualistic extremes
classical anthropomorphism - non-sentience acting like sentience
mechanomorphism - sentience acting like non-sentience

It would be incorrect. Athropomorphism results in hybrids of human qualities and non-human qualities. The only poles would be presence and absence of the psychological phenomena.


well, post dated cheques aside, a theory remains a theory until it has a body of evidence behind it - unless you want to start introducing occult concepts into science .....

It's your choice whether or not to accept and work with existing medical and biological knowledge.


scientific fact operates when an understanding is arrived at through observation and evidence
scientific fallacy operates when evidence is misconstrued in the pursuit of an understanding
(ever heard of type I and type II errors?)

Agreed, and scientific failure operates when existing knowledge is swept aside.


thus your model of sentience is much like Descartes model of sentience in animals (ie - purely mechanical)

Animals are sentient and biomechanical. In Descartes view, animals are NOT sentient. We apparently don't share the same 'model'.


and if the brain is a mechanical configuration according to the school of reductionism, how does this constitute a radical departure from what Descartes was advocating in regards to animals?

Descartes said other animals were not sentient. That doesn't mean a bio-mechanical structure does not result in sentience.


life coming exclusively from life doesn't support this (and conversely challenge your view)?

The source of the chemicals is rather irrelevant. Consequently our earliest found ancestors are viruses. They aren't exactly 'alive'.


and alternatively, perhaps it won't ...

Lets hope that nutty beliefs don't retard our efforts ;)


hence the reductionist view remains incomplete
Of course you can argue that in the future it will be known, but that merely reveals the polarization of your faith than anything intrinsically analytical or scientific

Is it better to have a truthful incomplete answer or a made up complete answer?


no

the point is that we can take life and produce life from it
-hence cloning has a strong requirement for living cells as opposed to dead cells

I see what you're getting at. Well that's a limitation of current technology.


its just logic

If you want to say X is essentially made up of A, B and C, yet cannot exhibit how one can arrive at X through combining A, B and C, it is you who has the fallacy

I understand what you are saying. I do think its more of a refusal to follow the logic and evidence than a fallacy. I know the components that a buckminsterfullerine is made up (definitively), yet I lack the ability to produce one. That's not a fallacy. Thats a limitaiton.


sentience is not magically imposed on herbie either (its not like he goes off to become an "actual" sentient thing)

Have you ever seen a herbie movie?


(I assume you meant "whole" instead of "while")

Its not clear what foundation you are drawing on for "reality" as a "whole" and why humans (or sentience) is somehow separate from it
remember, there is no evidence that sentience is mechanical (although there is plenty of ideas about it in the theories of science and the genres of science fiction)
there is however the peculiarity of the wave-particle duality .....

Humans are literally cross sections of reality that are sentient. So are chairs, planets, galaxies, etc. Reality exhibits points of sentience and not sentience itself. And yes there is evidence that sentience is biomechanical (at least on Earth).


so what is it that distinguishes matter as either a wave or a particle?


So far, size, proximity to other entities, and temperature.


i am just trying to understand your statement

“
The observer does not have to be sentient.

if you want to argue that "reality" (ie "matter" for the reductionist) doesn't make choices, etc, yet call upon something that is not sentient (I guess that only leaves matter) as capable of observing something, I think you have to clear up such glaring contradictions
”

I would be happy to, but I don't know what contradictions you are speaking of?


suppose in a forest one piece of wood fell on another piece of wood - who or what does the observing in this scenario?

Each piece of wood is an observer.
Photons and radiation in the area are observers.
The air is an observer.


then it should be clear to you of the inherent differences between sentient and non-sentient things

Sentient things tend to make a mess when tossed out a window.


the bold doesn't detract from my sentience - the bold doesn't add to my sentience - the bold doesn't add or detract from anything since it is merely speculation - what else can an empiricist hope to change by knowing things that he cannot evidence?
“

That position only works if you abandon all medical and biological knowledge.


I think this has already been addressed
still I can't fathom on how two definitions of mechanomorphism have been presented
still I can't fathom how a girl dancing like a robot is not the opposite of robot dancing like a girl

Hopefully in earlier sub-posts that was addressed.


or alternatively you're trying to invent something to create uniformity (everything is materially reducible) so you don't have to acknowledge the very simple truth that 'God' is not an anthropomophization of reality.

(note the duality of the response)

The evidence is not on both of our sides however.

Crunchy Cat
if there is no body of peer reviewed work to validate that biochemical structure results in sentience what else can it be but a human behaviour?
”
There are several bodies of work in the medical community which show strong evidence the brain results in sentience. How all the details work is unknown.
so IOW you are arguing that the history of science indicates an inextricable link between anything that attained the status of having "bodies of strong evidence" behind it and firmly established and evidenced scientific facts?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you want to argue that the senses aren't subjective it is relevant
I can look at blue and verify that it is blue. You can look at blue and verify it is blue - But how can you verify that what I am discerning as "blueness" is the same thing that you are discerning?

Of course this is not possible
(How do you propose to see my mind with your sense of sight?)
”
What does it matter if we see blue in slightly different intensities and shades?
how do you know that the difference in subjectivity lies merely in slight differences of intensity and shades?

We can both detect the same difference and that detection is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.
we are both detecting the same object - whether the nature of our detection is the same, similar or vastly different you cannot say - the reason is because the senses are inherently subjective

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Hence the senses are subjective and statements like this from einstein

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.
”
There is no evidence that senses are subjective. sorry.
if you were writing a thesis, you would have just failed miserably ...

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
but this is determining a sense according to its ability to interpret information

if you want to make statements like

Senses aren't subjective. Interpretation of sensory information might be.

once again, how on earth do you determine a sense separate from its ability to interpret information?
”
Senses by themselves don't interpret information. Interpretation occurs when the information passes through your emotional center and cognitive geometry.
so everyone's eyeballs are practically identical?

maybe I am not being clear enough

the crux of your argument ("the senses are not subjective") depends on your ability to separate (in a very clear and evidential - as opposed to theoretical - manner) the sense from its interpretative facility

I also think you're asking the wrong question. What might be more beneficial to you is understanding how to recognize sensory experience and interpreted experience.
to get back to einsteins quote - it indicates that to think any sensory experience is not an interpreted experience is folly

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

you made that suggestion that the senses are objective since we can survive in this world with them (to a greater or lesser extent)
for instance suppose one sees a sharp stick - on a microcosmic level it is composed of an uncountable ocean of molecular particles - on a macrocosmic level it is less than a drop in the ocean - on a mesocosmic level (ie relative) we can understand that it could hurt us if we get poked by it - thus the senses certainly are relative - and a relative thing is by necessity non-objective (the stick cannot poke a rhino and it can't poke a flea)
”
Objective doesn't imply complete visibility. Relative also doesn't imply non-objective.
if you want to indicate something as objective one must be able to reference it
if you want to indicate a relative thing as objective you must be able to to reference it outside of your subjectivity
for a person who exclusively works with their mind and senses as absolute authorities, both of these proposals are impossible, hence statements by karl Popper and einstein which I have repeatedly posted

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you have a theory that is not backed up by observation
”
When you have an intelligent discussion with the moon I will concede that my 'theory' is not backed up by observation.
considering that it works on principles on par with talking to the moon, are you ready to concede?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
How is it that both can be evidenced as mechanical?
(I raised this earlier in the other thread - its the nature of dualistic claims that they cannot be resolved in the medium of duality)
”
”
Hmm? Are you asking me a question about your statement? I could be magnanimous and provide an answer if you want...
careful - if you provide an answer from the medium of duality you have just provided a script for its rebuttal
:p

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it sounds like you are inflating the definition of anthropomorphism so you can turn mechanomorphism into an identical psychological behaviour (the duality continues ....)
”
You should make a poll and see which interpretation arises.
so in other words its sufficient just to take a vote to determine the correct aspects of reality?
(BTW I did a thread on social truth and scientific truth)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the founders of the term mechanomorphism disagree on the basis that some things are essentially sentient and some things are essentially non sentient
”
I have a hunch that they are also founders or the concept (rather than discoverers of a phenomena).
once again, one can respond the same hunch seems to be true of the founders of the term anthropomorphism (after all - the mechanical truth of sentience still requires "a bit more work")

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what gives you the impression I brought in a secondary definition somewhere?
”
The assertion that mechanomorphism takes something sentient and gives it non sentient qualities and the other assertion that mechanomorphism takes sentience and gives it non sentient qualities. I can post your quotes if needed.
i still can't fathom the glaring difference

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a girl dancing like a robot is not the opposite of a robot dancing like a girl?
”
Nope. The opposite of a robot dancing like a girl is... Not robot not dancing not like not a not girl... whatver the heck that may be.
charming

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and what of children acting like cars?
or girls dancing like robots?
”
They are not removing sentience. They are applying human qualities to those items and acting the part. Anthropomoprhism.
how so, since they are down grading their sentience by mimicking the non sentient

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how is that an updated version of
Your original definition of mechanimorphism was taking sentience and giving it qualities that were not sentient.

????
”
In one case the subject is sentience itself. In the other case the subject is something that is sentient.
and that means?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
given that there are clear distinctions between sentience and non-sentience, others disagree - if you are reluctant to break down your favoured means of terminology, perhaps it would be more practical to work with the understanding that anthropomorphism can be broken down into two dualistic extremes
classical anthropomorphism - non-sentience acting like sentience
mechanomorphism - sentience acting like non-sentience
”
It would be incorrect. Athropomorphism results in hybrids of human qualities and non-human qualities.
on the medium of non sentience

The only poles would be presence and absence of the psychological phenomena.
or alternatively the poles could be the foundational quality (sentience or non-sentience) on which qualities are imposed

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well, post dated cheques aside, a theory remains a theory until it has a body of evidence behind it - unless you want to start introducing occult concepts into science .....
”
It's your choice whether or not to accept and work with existing medical and biological knowledge.
and its your choice whether or not bridge gaps in such knowledge with unsubstantiated claims

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
scientific fact operates when an understanding is arrived at through observation and evidence
scientific fallacy operates when evidence is misconstrued in the pursuit of an understanding
(ever heard of type I and type II errors?)
”
Agreed, and scientific failure operates when existing knowledge is swept aside.
what is there to sweep?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
thus your model of sentience is much like Descartes model of sentience in animals (ie - purely mechanical)
”
Animals are sentient and biomechanical. In Descartes view, animals are NOT sentient. We apparently don't share the same 'model'.

yes but you attribute such sentience to the mechanical structure of the brain - hence there is no radical departure

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and if the brain is a mechanical configuration according to the school of reductionism, how does this constitute a radical departure from what Descartes was advocating in regards to animals?
”
Descartes said other animals were not sentient. That doesn't mean a bio-mechanical structure does not result in sentience.
the reason he said they were not sentient was that they were mechanical - all you are rejecting descartes notion that humans were in a separate category to animals, my suggesting that humans too have a sentience of mechanical origins

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
life coming exclusively from life doesn't support this (and conversely challenge your view)?
”
The source of the chemicals is rather irrelevant. Consequently our earliest found ancestors are viruses. They aren't exactly 'alive'.
and why aren't viruses alive?
(in the formation of vaccinations, there are clear distinctions between living and dead viruses)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and alternatively, perhaps it won't ...
”
Lets hope that nutty beliefs don't retard our efforts
do you think your inability to jump over your knees is due to other people hampering your endeavors?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hence the reductionist view remains incomplete
Of course you can argue that in the future it will be known, but that merely reveals the polarization of your faith than anything intrinsically analytical or scientific
”
Is it better to have a truthful incomplete answer or a made up complete answer?
a truthful incomplete answer
lol - that was a classic!!
(and from your current vantage point how do you know it is true? )
---- the polarization of faith widens I'm afraid------

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no

the point is that we can take life and produce life from it
-hence cloning has a strong requirement for living cells as opposed to dead cells
”
I see what you're getting at. Well that's a limitation of current technology.
for the faithful no doubt

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its just logic

If you want to say X is essentially made up of A, B and C, yet cannot exhibit how one can arrive at X through combining A, B and C, it is you who has the fallacy
”
I understand what you are saying. I do think its more of a refusal to follow the logic and evidence than a fallacy. I know the components that a buckminsterfullerine is made up (definitively), yet I lack the ability to produce one. That's not a fallacy. Thats a limitaiton.
I may know that a chair is made of wood nails and glue but lack the skill to put it together - still I can take the raw materials to a carpenter and achieve the result
if you can't do it yourself or reference anyone who can, you are in the shadows of fallacy I am afraid

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sentience is not magically imposed on herbie either (its not like he goes off to become an "actual" sentient thing)
”
Have you ever seen a herbie movie?
yes
have you actually seen herbie in real life?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(I assume you meant "whole" instead of "while")

Its not clear what foundation you are drawing on for "reality" as a "whole" and why humans (or sentience) is somehow separate from it
remember, there is no evidence that sentience is mechanical (although there is plenty of ideas about it in the theories of science and the genres of science fiction)
there is however the peculiarity of the wave-particle duality .....
”
Humans are literally cross sections