Kuhn and geniuses getting lost within their own mindscape

Okay, so it’s true of most everyone. They just get to throw so much more ego behind it, (that self importance) . I’m pretty tired so will come back tomorrow to see how much damage I’ve done and clean up if necessary. :wink:

A description of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of the paradigm shift, as described in his 1962 book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. No expense was spared in the making of this video.

Written, directed, edited and narrated by Nathan Radke (nradke)

One way to look at scientific progress is to see the world as a collection of facts represented by these pom-poms.
We may observe these facts and add these observations to those we have already made and so it appears that progress is a process of addition.
However the philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued that observations do not exist in a vacuum instead they are contained within a theory.

Here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about with ‘getting lost within one’s own mindscape.’ Kuhn hasn’t taken a moment to consider the Physical Reality beyond the scope of his ability to think about it. It’s all about our intellectual capacity and never a moments thought for the physical realm out there simply IS, while remaining outside of our ability to fully understand it.

Like what’s wrong with wanting to bring it back to an Evolutionary perspective?
Consciousness didn’t begin with human bellybutton gazing!
There’s better than a billion years of cell evolution before cells started organizing and then over a half billion years of ever more complex creatures evolving out of simpler forms. Each of them living in dynamic environments that required observation, prowess, leaps of faith, success and failure and time carried the pageant ever forward.

Trying to develop a theory of consciousness based on modern humans is a farce, it’s anthropology and not a study of creature consciousness.

The theory is a story which explains the meaning or significance of the observations. The dominant theory in a discipline at any given time is called a paradigm and the observations are placed within that paradigm.

Sure human stories are ‘theories’ and they’re set within specific paradigms, what’s being left out is recognizing the dynamics between object, observer, and the perceived.

Each animal is a perceiving instrument of its own variety, each will perceive different aspects of the same physical world, as to their needs.

Human are another step up the complexity pageant, our magic grew out of the mammalian brain, and ignoring* that reality has totally warped humanity’s general mindset in very destructive ways.
(as in actually incorporating the intellectual philosophical model of the evolutionary process that was required for the modern human mind and consciousness to appear.)

A problem occurs when observations are made that do not fit into the paradigm.

Sure, a fancy way of saying new information modifies what you know. We then confirm or refute information based on our needs and knowledge, all of which is intimately tied to what kind of body “we” inhabit. “We” as in thoughts, our mind if you will.

A crisis is reached when too many of these new observations do not fit into the old paradigm.

The crisis is reached by ignoring our Evolutionary roots, and never climbing out of our heads to check out our bodies and how related we are to everything else, and how our welfare depends on their welfare.

A new theory is then proposed if this new theory contains the observations better than the old theory then there is a paradigm shift the old theory is then destroyed and replaced by the new theory.

Don’t get me wrong, I love learning about Earth and me and the universe beyond, I love science!

It’s our stupid addiction to feeding our egos and careers before all other concerns, that is too much. And ultimately will be fatal to all we hold dear.

To Thomas Kuhn scientific progress is as much about destruction specifically the destruction of the old’ theory or paradigm as it is about the addition of new observations and even this new paradigm will only last until it suffers its own crisis

A child of his age, drill and blast.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American philosopher of science whose 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.

Kuhn made several claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic “paradigm shifts” rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community.

Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon “objectivity” alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants.

1 Like

*Watched a bit of David Chalmers, always good for getting my blood boiling, just what I needed to get me to try a little more writing on this. I think it’s an improvement. *

  • Trying to focus.*

It’s not just about our personal relationship with the knowledge we possess.
But also appreciating that “we” actually do inhabit this reality.
That universal reality, had/has infinite potentials, still has been flowing down one particular path. Simply the fact of us being here is proof positive of that fundamental fact of our human condition.

Kuhn defines knowledge as though our intellect creates “reality” and that science is some sort of intellectual battle field.

Then Chalmers comes along with this “Hard Problem” of consciousness:

Explaining why and how we have qualia or phenomenal experiences. This is in contrast to the “easy problems” of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth.

It’s an intellectual contrivance that has manufactured an expectation that biology alone can’t be enough to explain the experience of being conscious and aware. A grand argument built upon an edifice of rigorous “logical” arguments - as if logic can define the parameters of physical and biological reality.

Seems to me Chalmers is trapped within a western religious hangover - at the heart of it is our age old human self-absorption and expectation that something as magnificent as we, must require a God to create. Same old message, simply cloaked in fancier work-smithing, we humans simply must be superior in god’s eye, his chosen creatures.

It illustrates how philosophers remain unable to appreciation the significance that Earth’s Evolution is what created life, and life is what created cellular awareness and then onto increasing levels of consciousness as life evolved through the eons into ever more complex and competent creatures.

Consciousness is life’s creation, it’s the result of creatures interacting with their respective environments. How many have given the factual reality of consciousness any thought? Consider there is no consciousness in the future or the past. Or?

Think about it, consciousness is all about living and the present, this moment.

If you could view the Big Bang and then Earth from an outside god’s eye view of the full span of time, Earth’s consciousness would be like a spark racing through the generations with their births and deaths of the generations, all happening right here on Earth.

Before the talking heads dismiss biology explaining consciousness, at least become acquainted with current understanding.

To me learning (and its grown up version, science) is all about accumulating evidence and understanding, punctuated by leaps in connecting dots, where new levels of appreciation (and control) for this reality we exist within emerge and come into better focus. Seems to me Kuhn added some new perspectives to consider, but didn’t negate the traditional perception of science, both apply in their time and place.

It’s Kuhn’s total self-absorption that assumed we create the outlines of reality, rather than doing it’s best to recognize what is out the there, is what I want to point a spotlight on.

Perhaps that’s the key to what I’m trying to get across.

“This reality we inhabit”

Possessing an awareness that “we” - our thoughts, the me, myself and I - our human mind and consciousness inhabits a “physical reality” that exists on the other side of some ephemeral intellectual divide between our mind, and our brain, body, its biological functions and sensory abilities, and extends out into the environments and landscapes we navigate.


It starts with your body, it’s physical, it’s biological, alive, ever changing, everything you eat and drink and inhale, your body must process. Your body encapsulates the “best” most complex creature Earth’s Evolution produced, but you wouldn’t be here, if not for all the rest of it. Not just within your body, but around your body, your environments and the tribes you belong to.

Your consciousness didn’t start when you woke up this morning, nor when you were born, it started half a billion years ago when creatures first had to start perceiving the world they were born into. That trend continued with ever increasing abilities appearing within the Earth’s animal and plant kingdoms.

One must have a modicum of appreciation for that Physical Reality background before any of the rest can actually make sense. Especially the part about consciousness and hell yes the mind can be understood as a biological product of our bodies! Just need to start studying evolution and get caught up on the state of brain/mind science!

The notion of consciousness as universally fundament seems childish in the extreme to me.

Instead I appreciate consciousness as a product of living organisms inhabiting an environment. Is there any evidence to the contrary, beyond stories people tell each other?

That’s philosophical.

What do you mean by Earth’s consciousness?

I kinda see where you’re going with this, but I define consciousness as something that begins and ends with each life. It has roots in deep time, but needs a fully formed being to happen in.

It’s late. We’ll see what dreams this creates

I didn’t Earth has a consciousness.
I mean only that consciousness is the property of living breathing creatures interacting with their environment. Outside of that consciousness doesn’t exist.

“Earth” created environments and life,
and that life is what possesses the consciousness.
Once dead it has no more consciousness.

{About a year ago I was jolted by the notion of Earth through deep time, and consciousness only existing within the present moment, racing to keep up with time. It’s sort of a mind-boggling image when it springs from inside. A cascading consequence of the paradigm shift that came with my Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide realization.}

Does it make any sense?

I absolutely agree with that.
Though we could perhaps quibble, is a memory of what you did last year “conscious”? :wink:
I see it more as a thing of the moment, which makes that ‘god’s of view’ such a trip, consciousness as a spark racing through time.

Memories do not exist independent of a body. A memory is like a frozen data set contained by a neuron or a cell, or a set of cells (body).

I think of microtubules as capacitors that require ;

10 seconds is the time it takes most capacitors to discharge enough for the electronics they’re powering to stop working . That’s why when you turn your PC off at the wall, things like an LED on your motherboard take a few seconds to disappear.

This discharge of energy already happens in inanimate objects. An elastic band has shape memory.
In animate organisms, this discharge is accompanied by action potentials that have a cascading effect throughout the entire set or system and each constituent part helps reinforce the “experience”, even if it is unconscious.

Tegmark gave a very simple but persuasive argument of an “engram”, a piece of data inscribed in a substrate.

He gave an analogy between a name inscribed in a wedding band that can last 100 years, but if you inscribe your name in a puddle of water it won’t last a second.

Apparently, neurons have the ability to store memories for a long time and allow for cognitive recall that allows us to compare new information against old via differential equations .

Memory is Dependent on Synapses Between Engram Cells

What’s the science?

Memory is thought to be encoded in the brain by a set or pattern of dispersed neurons in the brain called an ‘engram’. It has also been suggested that changes in the strength of the connections between neurons (i.e. synapses) in the brain is how memories are formed.

And as usual, it is the microtubules that are the transport and access mechanism \\


When comparing engram-engram synapses versus synapses that involved non-engram cells (which were not labeled as active during fear conditioning), they found that dendritic spines were larger and more numerous on engram cells receiving input from other engram cells only. This indicates that synapses activated between engram cells during fear conditioning could cause synaptic connectivity between these cells to strengthen. When assessing the relationship between synaptic strength and memory, the authors found that synapses between engram cells were stronger and denser after receiving a stronger shock versus after receiving a weaker shock . This indicates that strength of a memory (due to strength of a foot shock) is related to synaptic connectivity and the strength of connections between engram cells in the hippocampus.

The neurons that store memories are called “pyramidal” neurons.

The actual name of the neuron is The “purkinje” neuron and it is the most complex neuron that forms an incredibly large neural network of trillions of synaptic connections, interacting when stimulated.


Confocal microscope image of cerebellar Purkinje cells expressing tdTomato

These cells are some of the largest neurons in the human brain (Betz cells being

Jezus Christ, can’t you even recognize a rhetorical question?

This has nothing to do with making or storing memories!!!
This is about The Act Of Being Consciousness - that is a thing of the moment
and not an inhabitant of the past or the future.

This is supposed to be a thread about Philosophers, those intellectual entertainers, such as Kuhn and how he described what human knowledge and science is. Or Dennett with his endless story telling about consciousness, but in actually it’s all about what we people think about consciousness and very little about actually consciousness as a result of biology and evolution history.

He seems to think along with most of them, that this is all something that must unfold within their genius minds, which in turn is a result of their fabulously organized brains, (which doesn’t actually correlate to wisdom) - yet they never give Earth or biological evolution a serious thought (as in actually incorporating it into their ideas) when creating who/what we are, that any real explanation requires.

It’s always about our wonderful thoughts, and believe I can appreciate that, I been living within my thoughts too, but I made a grand leap to recognized and appreciation it for the isolated unit it is - rather than living with the God hangover of thinking something the answer to us is in something bigger greater out there, where ever the heck that is.

My mind is navigating a physical reality - it’s mind to understand and not to define.

But my question, Mr. Kuhn and Dennett, et al., is pure brain power enough, if you can’t get it outside the glow of your own ego?

Write, I love ya, but this thread is NOT about the biological mechanics of the brain/body which produces the mind, and or memories, and or dreams.

Not sure I get the “wink” after this. If it’s rhetorical, are you saying that a memory is not consciousness? Since you later talk about being in the moment, I’m going with “yes”. But then, how does it (consciousness) race through time? Is that the evolution part? That somewhere back there, some mind reflected on itself, looked at its past and turned that around to imagine a future?

I guess I am.
Memory is a record of a conscious moment.

We can’t inhabit our memory,
best we manage is superficial glimpses through memories.

Well that was more a “God’s Eye” omnipresent reflection.

Time races ever forward, consciousness rides that wave of the present moment.

Well, isn’t Evolution doing the same thing?
Racing ever forward within the NOW.
Cumulative change over time.

Folds within folds of cumulative harmonic poetry (¿mathematics :slight_smile:) flowing down the cascade of time.
And it is a cascade when you think of all the things that happened, with a new day always dawning after the previous day and night had passed, yet leaving behind its record and a legacy that the new day took on anew. Billions of years worth of one moment giving way to the next.

We live in a physical universe, upon this Earth, it started at a defined moment, that spark in time kept rushing forward, leaving behind a specific history.

That is religion and human needs and Abrahamic Mindset writ large.

We are the mind that is capable of reflecting on itself, nothing like that ever existed and could ever have existed without an Earth to give it birth and nurture.

We are the Eyes of the Universe
and that’s something to ponder
and it’s something capable of putting glory and a hero adventure into one’s life.

Thanks you very much Lausten, you don’t know how nice it is to be offered questions I can actually work with.

I am merely adding that part of the Earth (physical world) that is the mechanism used in all the lofty exclamations.

Perhaps I was trying to keep it “down to earth”, but if you want your mind to fly, have at it…

You’re being downright silly.

As some point we need to translate all that knowledge we collect into something we can use to inform our actual day to day existence.

You also conveniently forget that I don’t dispute any of the information provided by those papers that describe microtubules -
Point is that we’ll never understand ourselves, keeping our imagination within the most microscopic realm of quantum weirdness and the most fundamental biological components of cells at the edge of physicality, that are invisible to us Sure all that is important, but there’s more to humanity than microtubules and neurons.

I have absolutely no problem in translating my existence. I find nothing mysterious about the emergence of life and consciousness, given the natural potentials of the Universe.

I consider myself lucky to have been one of the fortunate relatively few humans to have actually experienced life on Earth , but from what I have learned I would think that life is abundant in the universe.

As Gervais says, the “Why is unimportant”. What is useful is “knowing the How”. That is knowledge we can use, if we don’t kill ourselves before then.

Why are you doing this?
Why are you making it personal and about you?
Heck it’s like you’re playing right into that Abrahamic mindset metaphor.

Why the platitudes.
Obsessing over the microscopic and never reckoning with the evolving organism and real world ways and mean and emerging abilities building upon established ways, won’t get us anywhere either.

Okay. How? Please explain the connect.
Look at the state of disconnect from Earth’s basic realities that we as a society are.
Truth doesn’t mean squat anymore. That’s worth trying to challenge, one way or another.
Technology has become an all consuming entity, that has no goals beyond endless growth and increasing profit. That’s not going to work.

What are you advocating anyways. How are you going to make your microscopic resonate with people?*

Oh, and the question of why as been all important to the human spirit since forever, jokes not withstanding.

Oh and where the heck to you get off implying that my perspective is void of that? But we gotta keep some perspective have some benchmarks to keep us grounded, and microtubules in and of themselves will never do that, no matter how ubiquitous and important they may turn out to be, they are still widgets among many, in a universe of billions of synchronized widgets working together to create something greater. Or sometimes, happy with holding it’s own.

And that is exactly why!

Why the platitudes.
Obsessing over the microscopic and never reckoning with the evolving organism and real world ways and mean and emerging abilities building upon established ways, won’t get us anywhere either.

It depends on what one considers to be platitudes or the “real” world.

Technology has become an all consuming entity, that has no goals beyond endless growth and increasing profit. That’s not going to work.
What are you advocating anyways. How are you going to make your microscopic resonate with people?*

I don’t want to understand why it all works and how to “change” it.
I want to understand how it all works and why we don’t seem to be able to change it.

I don’t need to fret about the “why”. The “how” (natural selection) will take care of that.
For all we know we may be an evolutionary dead-end.

George Carlin explained the why better than all the philosophers.

He is an Entropy fan
(warning, crude language)

The one in your head?

Or Physical Reality?

It’s like

Why we can 't change it, is because we’ve got our heads so firmed planted up our keisters!

Recognizing where your mind stops and physical reality begins is a good starting point, THAT DOESN’T HAVE TO DO WITH ANY “WHY” QUESTION -

But you can’t handle that so instead you seem to have this need to twist what I’m saying so that it comes out incomprehensible. Man, can you only hold one thought at a time? You really think microtubules are all there is to understanding lives secrets?

Also worth noting is that you still haven’t written a single original paragraph that makes any attempt at explaining where you imagine the significants of this Microtubule profundity that you see.

How do you scale it up into the lives we actually live and
to higher thought process, or for that matter lower thought process?
What is the lesson “it” has to teach us.

All you’ve done is point at black boards and exclaim can’t you see it. But I am looking at it, I don’t deny a dang thing about what scientists have uncovered regarding microtubules and posted.

It’s like you have filled your head with facts, but haven’t ever made the leap to any appreciation that you can convey,
so your stuck hitting me with straw men and misunderstanding while constantly implying I don’t see “it” or implying I’m lost in some mystical realm, when that’s utter bullshit, just read my words and not your one-sided imagination.

I’m thinking about and attempting to discuss how to arrive at a better appreciating of the relationship we, as individual apes, have with the knowledge we’ve accumulated.

Why not just trying to chew on that a while.

and save your distractions for some place else.

*Then you pollute this conversation with that crap from Carlin, isn’t that great let’s just celebrate our willful ignorance and happy road to self-indulgences and self-destruction. Have you seen the news of Europe past couple days, no not Russia, the Earth news, so I’m not in the mood for groovies with superior cynicism . . . whatever the f¶¢k it is he’s doing there, and I don’t mind saying 2:38 was my limit. *
You can share the punchline from your perch, then explain why you think it’s so funny.

Wow, I am the one who posited (along with abundant scientific evidence) that the brain can only make a best guess of what sensory information it is receiving, being totally isolated from the exterior and not possessing any actual sensory abilities itself.

If I recall you disagreed with that observation made by Anil Seth and it is you who insisted that the brain has direct access to the exterior world, by some other mechanism than via the neural network. That snacks of a metaphysical mystery.

And exactly what is it that you recognize? All I hear is that you are making unnecessarily complicated assumptions. “Life’s secrets”? What does that even mean ?

There are no secrets, it’s just that the entire history is unknown and most likely unknowable, given that the universe keeps no memories of history except those events that can be deterministically (mathematically) traced backwards in time.

I believe that in a deterministic Universe, life was an inevitable result of “necessity” given that there were “sufficient” chemical resources and dynamical potentials on earth and most likely on many other planets, making it a probabilistic necessity that life would evolve during some favorable condition in time and space.

This notion that the universe is fine-tuned for life is totally exaggerated. There needed to be only a nanoscale location where conditions were “favorable” (fine-tuned) for the emergence of the self-organization of a little biochemical machine to emerge that made the internal distribution of information and self-replication possible and the natural selective process of continued survival potentials to start the process of dynamical biological patterns emerging from dynamical chemistry, i.e. Abiogenesis!

p.s. IMO, there is no “forward in time”. Time, being an emergent chronological collection of present “nows”, does not yet exist in the future. It is created when physical existence “occupies a present space at a present now” and creates a spacetime coordinate. The Universe itself is constantly changing and evolving!

No, think back, if you’ll recall, I disagreed with him sexing up his talk and the gratuitous use of “hallucination” when he could have really demonstrated his brilliance by coming up with a more appropriate term. Since the Physical Reality we exist within is anything but a hallucination.

Meaning Seth leaves the door open for his audience coming up with all sort misleading ideas, winding up with some like Hoffman another genius who’s totally fallen off the rocker. That is my complaint.

Now of course, humans are social creatures and when it comes to assessing each the minds and emotions and strategies of other humans and situation, I’d have to agree that hallucinating our thoughts, is as appropriate as anything.
But there is a significant difference between assessing players in physical reality and understanding players within our human mindscape. So there is that.

A recognition and appreciation for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, isn’t any unnecessary complication. It a fundamental sobering recognition. Why are you being so obtuse about it?

Where the hell did I use “Life’s secrets”?

Of course, there’s a secret and that secret is recognizing how totally self-centered our thinking process are. Being so obsessed with our grand human specialness, that we forget to actually consider what’s on the outside of our thoughts.

Coming to terms with our individual relationship with the information we’ve accumulated.

Why not take apart that sentence… so much more … but just came back from town and Maddy is demanding her another walk. I’m my own master but slave to dog and duties. Go figure. Oooommmm.

Parting thought before running off. I already asked you if you ever feel like your self (thoughts, mind) inhabits your body. You know, kinda sorta that 2 beings reside within you. Actually more, since your mental world is inhabited with all sorts of archetypes, in fact that some of your best qualities might be intimately wound up with your worst qualities and so forth.

That is if you allow yourself the mysticism of contemplating your own SELF and its thoughts. :wink:

How about Hume? This article came up in my “Humanize Me” feed. It’s a subtle statement on the hubris of leadership today, and how some “uncommon sense” could be applied to combat it.

Hume rather brilliantly anticipated evolution and and neuroscience. Quotes are from Hume,

Most of our ‘reasoning’ is little more than an almost-instinctive ‘association of ideas’. Learning from experience is ‘a species of Analogy’ in which we expect similar things to have similar effects. That’s why Hume had no problem attributing reason to animals. They too evidently ‘learn many things from experience, and infer, that the same events will always follow from the same causes’. We do not of course think that this learning involves ‘any process of argument or reasoning’. But then, neither does most of the learning of human beings – even philosophers. We are guided primarily by ‘custom and habit’.

Humean humans are therefore creatures of flesh and blood, of intellect and instinct, of reason and passion. The good life is therefore one which does justice to each of these characteristics. Hume never explicitly articulated what such a life would consist of, but he arguably did even better: he showed it by his own example. He studied and wrote, but he also played billiards and cooked a sheep’s head broth that had guests talking days later.

Then you misconstrued what Seth said.
Seth explained the concept of Descartes’ “brain in a vat”, in that our mental experience of reality is a “controlled hallucination”, not that physical reality itself is hallucinatory in essence.

But there is a significant difference between assessing players in physical reality and understanding players within our human mindscape. So there is that.

A recognition and appreciation for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, isn’t any unnecessary complication. It is a fundamental sobering recognition. Why are you being so obtuse about it?

I am not obtuse. The assignment of the term “controlled hallucination” is the only correct definition of human mental experience and applies to all humans. This is why there are so many interpretations of reality. Each brain interprets the incoming data in its own unique way.

Only when humans agree on their interpretation of the secondary data, do we call it reality. This very discussion is illustrative of that truth.

What is our perception of reality?

Image result for individual interpretation of physical reality

Each individual has his or her own perception of reality. The implication is that because each of us perceives the world through our own eyes, reality itself changes from person to person. While it’s true that everyone perceives reality differently, reality could care less about our perceptions.

The appreciation of the human mindscape is exactly as explained by Anil Seth. It is a controlled hallucination and it is so for all brained observers. This is how every living thing experiences reality differently.

Human reality is by common agreement. Reality itself doesn’t give a hoot what anybody thinks of it. The only tool we have about the true character of reality is mathematics.

Repeat that all you want, it’s still void of any deep appreciation for the outside world and the reality of consciousness being an interaction.

This isn’t about me denying the facts Seth present so much as his presentation, feeding the crowd what they want and overlooking much that shouldn’t be overlook.

I notice how you’re never ready to look at how the state of current human affairs is an indication of how well our genius philosophers with all their philosophies and just so story telling have done. The verdict looks more like gross failure, rather than any rational march towards understanding and clarity.

Write: The assignment of the term “controlled hallucination” is the only correct definition of human mental experience and applies to all humans.

But it obscures the fact that consciousness is an interaction with the environment you exist within, and you’ll never get very far without incorporating that partner in your conceptions.

It’s that constant looking from the inside out and so rarely wondering about the outside, in and of itself.

Not to mention the smug sense of having it figured out, like there won’t be any surprise on the horizon to Neurobiology and Neuropsychoanalysis