Jump to content

Calea catre... stiinta


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

mai, da' ce atata incrancenare?

e o simpla discutie, ce naiba..nu pot avea toti dreptate, pana la urma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

merge forumul asta ca naiba ...

postasem ceva inteligent, dar sa mor daca imi amintesc ce...

Link to post
Share on other sites

daca simti in urina ca ai zis ceva adinc... inainte sa apesi pe add reply apasa Ctrl+A si Ctrl+C macar.... daca nu sa dai si un Ctrl+V intr-un document text gol pe desktop... te poate salva de crize de nervi :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

stai usor, ca nu fac io crize pentru o simpla idee pierduta, vin altele..

cat despre save-uri..draq sta sa le mai caute...raman posteritatii

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://partialobjects.com/2011/04/is-scien...atter-of-faith/

 

Imi place cum puncteaza unele chestii articolul... Totusi tot trebuie sa spun ca desi cateodata nu inteleg ce spun oamenii de stiinta, tot pot lega unele idei si concepte biologie si fizica de clasa a 8a care stiu clar ca is chestii adevarate si functioneaza, doar le vad si simt in fiecare zi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://partialobjects.com/2011/04/is-scien...atter-of-faith/

 

Imi place cum puncteaza unele chestii articolul... Totusi tot trebuie sa spun ca desi cateodata nu inteleg ce spun oamenii de stiinta, tot pot lega unele idei si concepte biologie si fizica de clasa a 8a care stiu clar ca is chestii adevarate si functioneaza, doar le vad si simt in fiecare zi.

 

Mie-mi place commentul astuia ... si sunt de acord cu el :bounce:

 

ecco says:

April 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm

 

Science: The accumulated knowledge gained directly by humans over the centuries using research and the latest available technology. Knowledge that is continually challenged and corrected by people with better educations using more current technology.

 

Religion: (Judeo/Christian): Stories written by people 3000/2000 years ago who did not witness any of the events written about, who had no first-hand knowledge of the events, who based their writings on previous writings or stories down by word-of-mouth. Stories filled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

 

I “put my faith” in science, not through the process of belief, but through the process of reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un articol interesant: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/n...ll/nn.2795.html (si un sumar aici: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...erception.html)

Pe scurt, pentru psihologi si pentru cei care fac neurostiinte e un experiment interesant pentru ca pare sa raspunda la intrebarea daca perceptia este fundamental unitara de-a lungul tuturor simturilor, deci daca datele pe care ni le furnizeaza un simt pot fi traduse in date pe care sa le "inteleaga" un alt simt (teoria crosmodala a reprezentarii) sau daca, initial, simturile sunt autonome si se integreaza ulterior, in urma experientei noastre cu fiecare din ele in parte. E o chestie destul de interesanta si pentru filozofi, pentru ca tipi importanti ai domeniului, char si mai contemporani, au teorii care sunt (more or less) inca influente despre idei sau structuri de gandire, independente senzorial sau innascute. Si cred ca e importanta si pentru cei care sunt interesati de constiinta pentru ca ai putea sa spui ca pune problema calitatii experientei (ma gandesc de exemplu la experimentul mental al lui F. Jackson cu doamna Mary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room , care implica o teorie crosmodala) pur si simplu in termeni de achizitii de date senzoriale, nu de qualia. All in all, e un punct castigat cinstit de empiristi. Deci, cred ca e un articol care se potriveste pe un topic de stiinte unde se discuta despre fil si constiinta. ;)

 

Pe si mai scurt, zice cam asa, ca daca esti de exemplu orb ai o anumita reprezentare a lumii care ai crede ca se suprapune exact (ca continut) peste reprezentarea pe care si-o face un om care vede, deci daca stii cum e un obiect, la nivel de proprietati si asa, dar nu il vezi, l-ai putea totusi recunoaste dupa ce il vezi (ajutandu-te de informatia obtinuta prin atingere) langa o un alt obiect diferit. Well, nu chiar, zic astia. Acuma, si esantionul lor e mic, si obiectele folosite in experiment nu pareau sa fie radical diferite ca in intrebarea lui Molyneux (sfera si cub) si si intrebarea lui M. mi se pare insidios pusa pentru ca presupune deja ca exista o corespondenta de continut intre datele diferitelor simturi, ceea ce nu cred ca e adevarat. Dar e inca interesant.

 

Si, on the fun side: http://www.zlab.mcgill.ca/supplements/emotion_and_music.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cele doua emisfere cerebrale: stanga artistica, iar dreapta stiintifica. Practic avem nevoie de amandoua emisferele pentru o intelegere mai precisa.

 

articol din revista medicala faimoasa: The Lancet:

 

"The Art of Medicine

 

Paying attention to the bipartite brain

 

What I am going to say will appeal many right-thinking

scientists. I believe two things that put me beyond the

pale. First, I believe science is inextricably bound up with

philosophy—with questions such as who we are, what the

world is like, and how we should act—and can't be free of

it. The contrary position is itself just another philosophical

position, although a dangerously unexamined one. Worse,

I believe that we need crucially to attend to an aspect of

the structure of the brain: its bipartite nature.

If you are still reading, let me explain, since it has

consequences for the way we practice medicine and

think of ourselves, our minds, and bodies. I have been

studying the difference between the cerebral hemispheres

for 20 years. To do so is not to “dichotomize”. Nature

dichotomized before us, and even intensified the

division over the course of evolution—a strange thing

to do with an organ the purpose of which is to make

connections, unless the division is a sign of something

crucially important at stake. We can't afford to ignore it.

All that has been discovered in the past 40 years about

the way in which the two hemispheres work shows that

the difference does not lie, as once was thought, in what

either hemisphere does. Each hemisphere, we now know,

is crucially involved in absolutely everything, including

language, maths, reasoning, emotion, and visual imagery.

It turns out that it's not what it does, but the way it does

it, that matters. Each hemisphere has a different “take”

on the world, and that difference has many important

consequences.

Why has this come about? Imagine a chick, trying to

pick out a seed of corn against the background of gravel

on which it lies. For this it requires a certain kind of

attention: narrowly focused, guided towards something

that is known already to be of interest. But it also needs

to have a completely different attention to the world

at large, for whatever else may come along, without

preconception, be it friend or foe. Unless it can do both

at once, it will end up being someone Elset lunch while

it gets its own. It is virtually impossible to run these two

types of consciousness simultaneously in one “brain”.

Birds and animals, like us, solve this problem by using

the left hemisphere to provide narrow attention to what

we can use, our food or prey, and the right to provide the

broad sustained awareness of the whole picture. It is no

accident that for most of us it is the left hemisphere that

controls the hand with which we grasp things, and bring

to bear those aspects of language that are concerned with

pinning something down, so that we can grasp it.

Attention is reciprocally related to what exists: it's

not just that we attend differently depending on what

we find, but that what we find depends on the kind of

attention we pay. This means that the two hemispheres

produce nothing less than two kinds of world. In the one,

the world is present: we experience—the live, complex,

embodied, world of individual, unique beings, forever in

flux, a net of interdependencies, forming and reforming

wholes, a world with which we are deeply connected. In

the other the world is “re-presented”: we “experience”

our experience in a special way, rather like reading a map.

As with a map, less can be more. Here there are, for the

first time, static, separable, bounded, but essentially

fragmented entities, grouped into classes, on which

predictions can be based. This kind of attention isolates,

fixes, and makes each thing explicit by bringing it under

the spotlight of attention. In doing so it renders things

inert, mechanical, lifeless: it denatures them. But it also

enables us to learn more easily, and to see how to make

things by putting them together. This gives us power.

We need both types of attention. But their relation

is not symmetrical. Several different lines of argument

converge to show that the right hemisphere is aware

of, and understands, more than the left: but the left is

more able to articulate and use what it knows. The right

hemisphere grounds what then gets to be processed,

at an intermediate level, by the left hemisphere, before

returning to the right hemisphere for integration into

the rest of what we know, in order to make sense of it.

Take language. From David McNeil subtle, painstaking

observations of the relation between language and

gesture, it seems that thought originates in processes

which are best carried out in the right hemisphere, and

is then passed to the left for syntactical and semantic

processing. But expression is hugely enriched by what

is then added by the right hemisphere—tone, humor,

metaphorical understanding, and the implicit meaning

that makes up most of what we communicate when

we talk. So with everything, it seems: grounded in the

right, “unpacked” for practical purposes in the left, then

reintegrated into the whole picture by the right again.

I am reminded of the relation between Newtonian

and quantum mechanics. The “laws” that work well in

the middle ground, at the every day level, and which

seem so certain there, turn out to be false outside that

context. They are just useful approximations, that

help us manipulate the world, but radically mistake its

fundamental nature.

Each hemisphere delivers a vital aspect of experience,

and nothing good comes from relying over much on

one alone. But that itself is the view of only one of the

hemispheres. The other thinks that it can go it alone.

The catch is that the left hemisphere exists to make

things certain. It has a tendency to prioritize its theory

over experience, “re-presentation” over the presence of

things. It has a tendency, familiar to all who have cared for

patients with a right hemisphere stroke, to deny its own

limitations. It is not a reliable guide to the nature of the

world, ourselves or our bodies: it is literally most at home

with machines. Yet its mechanistic vision is seductive.

When we say we understand something, what we mean is

that we have likened it to something else that we think we

know better. In the case of the brain, or consciousness—

even of our bodies—it is not clear what that model should

be. If we don't think about it, we just assume the machine

model. The more we see that way, the more that is all that

we will see, and hence the better fit the world seems to

be to our model. We close down perception to a certainty,

instead of opening it up to possibility.

But the left hemisphere is not “science”. The origins

of science lie in open-mindedness, flexibility in applying

models, empirical observation of the world of experience,

what comes to us through our senses, understood as

part of the context in which it lies. Science, just as much

as the arts, starts with the processes best served by the

right hemisphere. Later, pieces of information—data—

are “verified” by repetition of certain procedures out of

context, a vitally important stage. But the information

is not any more than temporarily “verified”: it gives us

something to work on according to a certain model. But

change the model, change the context, and it too must

change. There just is no certainty.

What has this got to do with medicine? Everything.

Medicine is not about bodies, brains, or minds, but about

human beings, their lives and experience. If practiced

attentively, it will lead to lesser, rather than greater,

certainty about what on earth those bodies, brains,

and minds might really be like. Certainty is the badge of

ignorance. But in order to understand human beings,

we need to know something of what are still called the

humanities.

Some 50 years ago, C P Snow famously alerted us to the

growing division between the two cultures of science and

the arts. Does not the current interest in all things “neuron”

among those in the world of the arts, and the willingness

of doctors and scientists, myself included, to engage in

discussions with artists, signal a healthy rapprochement?

I fear not. It reminds me, sadly, of the bad old days of

colonialism, with the “natives” aspiring to dress like the

white-suited colonials in order to be taken seriously. It

is largely a one-way street, for all the rhetoric that may

suggest otherwise. And the arts must share the blame.

According to their postmodernist philosophy, there is no

truth. Apparently this doesn't stop us clutching at science

to fill the vacuum, and tell us what we are. Clearly both are

mistaken: there may be no single truth, but no single truth

does not mean no truth. It alerts us to be appropriately

tentative, careful, though nonetheless determined in our

search. But what we find cannot by nature ever be proved.

It can only be tested in the cauldron of human experience.

Medical education needs urgently to be brought back

to the humanities out of which it once arose. Doctors are

likely to be effective in proportion to the degree that they

are able to see the broader context in which the complaint

brought before them lies—nothing less than the whole

world of the patient in front of them. I remember with

chagrin how, on “take”, the wards would fill with patients

who had chest pain or abdominal pain, the majority sent

home without a diagnosis. No-one thought of—possibly,

it occurs to me now, no-one even knew how to—sit down

with them and ask about their lives.

Don't get me wrong: detailed scientific knowledge is

hugely important. We rely on such minute information

to inform the bigger picture. But it is a necessary, not

sufficient, condition, of being a good physician. Without a

way of understanding and interpreting it at a deeper level,

more detailed knowledge will achieve precisely nothing,

and will lead us ultimately to let our patients down. It will

close our reality down into what we imagine to be certain,

where an appropriate awareness of the limitations of our

knowledge would have liberated us and our patients into

a world much richer than we can suspect.

 

Iain McGilchrist"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cele doua emisfere cerebrale: stanga artistica, iar dreapta stiintifica. Practic avem nevoie de amandoua emisferele pentru o intelegere mai precisa.

.....

 

Cred ca era invers. :D Emisfera stanga era aia scortoasa, iar cea dreapta aia mai hip. De-asta atunci cand psihologii testau teoria asta, fizicienii, impotriva asteptarilor teoriei, ieseau ca sunt mai "de dreapta" (lucru care spune ceva si despre teorie si despre testele psihologice). Oricum, e o teorie gresita sau, in cel mai bun caz, o exagerare (chiar si in articolul domnului citat de tine el pare f. retinut sa vorbeasca despre o dihotomie asa clara). Sunt intr-adevar functii localizate si chiar lateralizate, dar ele nu au un statut asa autonom. Or tocmai asta sustine teoria asta cu stanga/dreapta, ca poti vorbi in mod autonom despre cum se comporta fiecare emisfera in parte. Ca si cum fiecare are o "personalitate" distincta (una e artistica, alta analitica si organizata si asa mai departe). Iar asta nu pare sa fie adevarat, cel putin in felul in care intelegem acum functionarea creierului (si chiar si independent de asta nu pare o idee plauzibila). Un argument este ca, de exemplu, in cazul unor oameni carora din motive medicale li se sectiona comisura dintre emisfere (corpus callosum), ei nu deveneau fie mai analitici, fie asa mai pasionali sau mai stiu cum, ci aveau probleme serioase la functii cognitive de baza. Deci, daca chiar e sa vorbesti de ceva, la nivelul creierului, care ne defineste in felul in care vrea teoria cu stanga/dreapta, ala e cortexul cerebral. Activitatea asta unitara a cortexului cerebral, de-a lungul ambelor emisfere e ce ne facem sa fim intr-un fel sau altul sau in toate felurile deodata, sa vrem, sa gandim, sa luam decizii, etc. So, sunt de acord cu ce spui ca avem nevoie de ambele emisfere, dar nu e ca si cum am putea alege. :P

 

;)

Edited by JohnDoe
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cred ca era invers. :D Emisfera stanga era aia scortoasa, iar cea dreapta aia mai hip. De-asta atunci cand psihologii testau teoria asta, fizicienii, impotriva asteptarilor teoriei, ieseau ca sunt mai "de dreapta" (lucru care spune ceva si despre teorie si despre testele psihologice). Oricum, e o teorie gresita sau, in cel mai bun caz, o exagerare (chiar si in articolul domnului citat de tine el pare f. retinut sa vorbeasca despre o dihotomie asa clara). Sunt intr-adevar functii localizate si chiar lateralizate, dar ele nu au un statut asa autonom. Or tocmai asta sustine teoria asta cu stanga/dreapta, ca poti vorbi in mod autonom despre cum se comporta fiecare emisfera in parte. Ca si cum fiecare are o "personalitate" distincta (una e artistica, alta analitica si organizata si asa mai departe). Iar asta nu pare sa fie adevarat, cel putin in felul in care intelegem acum functionarea creierului (si chiar si independent de asta nu pare o idee plauzibila). Un argument este ca, de exemplu, in cazul unor oameni carora din motive medicale li se sectiona comisura dintre emisfere (corpus callosum), ei nu deveneau fie mai analitici, fie asa mai pasionali sau mai stiu cum, ci aveau probleme serioase la functii cognitive de baza. Deci, daca chiar e sa vorbesti de ceva, la nivelul creierului, care ne defineste in felul in care vrea teoria cu stanga/dreapta, ala e cortexul cerebral. Activitatea asta unitara a cortexului cerebral, de-a lungul ambelor emisfere e ce ne facem sa fim intr-un fel sau altul sau in toate felurile deodata, sa vrem, sa gandim, sa luam decizii, etc. So, sunt de acord cu ce spui ca avem nevoie de ambele emisfere, dar nu e ca si cum am putea alege. :P

 

;)

 

Asa e, stanga e mai scortoasa:), insa pornind pe urmele autorului stiinta ar trebui sa fie mai flexibila, pe cand daca modelele se schimba certitudinea se micsoreaza.

"But the left hemisphere is not “science”. The origins

of science lie in open-mindedness, flexibility in applying

models, empirical observation of the world of experience,

what comes to us through our senses, understood as

part of the context in which it lies. Science, just as much

as the arts, starts with the processes best served by the

right hemisphere. Later, pieces of information—data—

are “verified” by repetition of certain procedures out of

context, a vitally important stage. But the information

is not any more than temporarily “verified”: it gives us

something to work on according to a certain model. But

change the model, change the context, and it too must

change. There just is no certainty."

Eu sper sa putem alege cat de cat, altfel de la spitalul cuiburilor de cuci nu ne mai salveaza nimeni:) desi am auzit ca samanii prin pase energetice mai scapa cate unul:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Topicul asta e din ce in ce mai popular... :)

 

Oricum, o scurta introducere in subiectul neurostiintelor: http://goo.gl/aYZGU (nu e cine stie ce, dar e cu Alan Alda).

 

Si, o imagine panoramica si interactiva a partii "noastre" din galaxie: http://goo.gl/UL2eg

 

Te uiti la haul asta si realizezi ca toata viata noastra (inclusiv dramele personale) e despre maruntisuri... praful de pe piciorul furnicii... ala drept din spate. Care furnica? pfff...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zaelu, tocmai ca eu am sentimentul exact opus. It's just fucking "idle" space. :)

 

De exemplu, oamenii se tot refera la fotografia aia celebra luata de Voyager 1 (poza), cu pamantul ca un exemplu de cat de neimportanti suntem (nu zic neimportanti ca marime fizica, ca aia e indiscutabil, dar asa ca semnificatie ontologica, sa zic asa). Eu nu reusesc sa vad asta. Faptul ca in tot haul asta viata e atat de rara, ca e super fragila cand te gandesti cate lucruri nasoale se pot intampla, ca e hiper localizata in sensul ca deocamdata asta e singurul loc din univers in care putem sta, mi se pare extraordinar (nu dau niciun sens teologic chestiei asteia, nu vorbesc deci de o semnificatie intrinseca a vietii omului). Gandeste-te la urmatorul scenariu, te plimbi prin univers si tot ce vezi in jurul tau sunt planete/galaxii fara viata iar la un moment dat dai peste o forma de viata inteligenta. In perpectiva asta imaginara, mi se pare ca suntem destul de importanti. Ca cele mai multe probleme de-ale noastre nu sunt la fel de importante ca statutul nostru in universul asta, sunt de acord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eu sunt de parerea lui Zaelu aici.

E interesant cum se schimba importanta umanitatii in functie de bagajul de cunostinte pe care-l acumulam. La inceput am fost motivul universului, apoi am fost stapanii, apoi centrul lui, acum ca am vazut ca nu suntem buricul macar ne putem consola cu faptul ca suntem "singurii". Urmeaza sa nu mai fim singurii dar sa fim cei mai importanti, pentru ca apoi sa ne descoperim a fi doar "unii dintre".

 

Natura ne invata ca acolo unde se creaza o nisha, ea va fi acoperita de forma care se potriveste optim. Exista pe planeta asta extrem de multe exemple de animale din clase sau ordine diferite, care acoperind aceeasi nisha ecologica in zone asemanatoare dar fara nici o tangenta, se aseamana pana la suprapunere. Astfel papagali care iau forma bufnitelor in zonele unde nu au existat bufnite ci doar papagali, marsupiale care iau forma lupilor acolo unde nu existau lupi sau forma aricilor unde nu existau arici.

De aici putem extrapola. E imposibil intr-un univers cu posibilitati tinzand spre infinit sa nu mai existe o multime de "nise" similare cu cea acoperita de viata sau inteligenta de pe Terra. Chiar daca viata acolo nu o sa aiba poate aceleasi baze , ea va fi prezenta si recognoscibila pentru noi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ce CALE mai urmeaza ???

 

Propun una pe care sa o intelegi si tu, macar partial: CALEA ferata ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shobolanu', inteleg ce spui dar e alta discutie. Faptul ca traim intr-un univers urias nu ne face nesemnificativi ci doar stabileste o relatie de marime relativa. Din asta nu pot sa infer nicio judecata de valoare despre viata sau oameni (cel putin eu nu vad o cale valida prin care se poate face asta). Cumva, daca inteleg bine, e tocmai ce reprosezi si tu de fapt: ca oamenii construiau valori despre ei sau despre rolul lor bazate pe o anumita topologie a spatiului sau pe ordine de marime. Deci, ca sa fii consecvent cu ce spui in textul tau, ar trebui tocmai sa nu fii de acord cu Zaelu. :)

 

Ce spuneam este ca felul in care se organizeaza materia in oameni mi se pare mai interesant decat felul in care arata materia din mare parte a universului pe care il stim. Asta nu tine de axiologie, asa cum tin exemplele tale, e pur si simplu un fapt autonom pe care il poti discuta. E o chestie pe care o spunea Sagan cred (nu sunt totusi sigur ca e sursa corecta) ca oamenii sunt felul prin care cosmosul se cunoaste pe sine (ok, e super metaforic deci probabil e Sagan). Si nu doar oamenii contribuie la asta, acelasi lucru il poti spune despre orice alta forma inteligenta de viata. Faptul ca in univers pot fi milioane de civilizatii nu mi se pare ca face mai putin importanta semnificatia noastra sau semnificatia lor. Ma pot gandi la o analogie posibila: daca furnicile ar fi fost inteligente/constiente ar fi trebuit sa aiba o perspectiva asupra lumii si un fel de a o intelege. Pot spune in cazul asta ca ele sunt neimportante doar pentru ca spre deosebire de un munte sunt mici? Tot ce spun deci, e ca in principiu ne-am uita (eu, cel putin) cu mai mult interes la o furnica, decat la un munte, daca furnica ar fi fost inteligenta/constienta.

Edited by JohnDoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Doe

 

Pai cred ca tot ai dat-o in teleologic putin. Ideea e ca daca faci abstractie de perspectiva proprie, privind la colosul asta numit univers nu poti sa nu te gindesti ca defapt... viata... inteligenta... democratia... glia stramoseasca... etc... nu sint decit pleava... zero importanta, (paradoxul din fraza asta e inevitabil dar... ma intelegi :) ). Viata pentru univers este fix pix. Asta daca anulam principiul "constiintei cunoscatoare" din dualismul Samkhya :D. Daca nu il anulam posibil sa se schimbe putin situatia...

 

 

Faptul ca te plimbi prin univers si dai peste doi oieri cu care poti schimba o vorba... nu e important decit pentru singuratatea ta de fiinta umana "limitata" la necesitatile ei... tipice. Printre care socializarea ar fi una. Daca ai fi dumnezeu... sigur i-ai gasi boring sau la fel de interesanti ca o piatra de pe fundu lacului...

 

 

parerea mea... :)

Edited by zaelu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


MOTOCICLISM.ro
Grup Facebook: +20 000 membri
Înscrie-te în grup
Discutii despre motociclism pe Facebook
 
BIKESHOP.ro
Grup Facebook: +17000 membri
Înscrie-te în grup
Anunturi de vanzare - cumparare pe Facebook.


×
×
  • Create New...