Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on November 26, 2016, 06:21:49 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Most people would have heard of 'Karma'. It is a part of many Hindu spiritual philosophies and is also an important part of off shoot philosophies in Jainism and Buddhism. Since spiritual philosophy forms the base of Hindu religion, Karma is an important part of day to day Hindu religious beliefs and social life.
Karma is basically about 'what goes around comes around'....'what you do will come back to you'. This is the reason spiritual leaders often teach people to be good, charitable and forgiving.
Karma s not really about tit for tat, as many believe. It is really about accumulation of negative energies and imbalance....and the eventual correction.
If an object acquires some form of energy it becomes more unstable and will tend to eventually move towards equilibrium by losing that energy. This is Karma.
Another e way of looking at it is...when we behave in ways that go against the general smooth flow of energy, it is like swimming against the current. We will eventually be forced to move back and go with the flow. This correction or 'return to equilibrium' is what we normally experience as sorrow or suffering as a result of our karma.
Karma naturally works over many life times and not just over one life time. So...Karma and reincarnation go hand in hand. Some karmic corrections could happen immediately while others could take many years or lifetimes. It depends on ones spiritual level.
For people who are in lower spiritual levels, the correction will take place over many lifetimes because they have lots of accumulated negative energies. For people in higher spiritual levels, the karmic correction could take place within months or even days because they have less accumulated energy and instability.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Most people would have heard of 'Karma'. It is a part of many Hindu spiritual philosophies and is also an important part of off shoot philosophies in Jainism and Buddhism. Since spiritual philosophy forms the base of Hindu religion, Karma is an important part of day to day Hindu religious beliefs and social life.
Karma is basically about 'what goes around comes around'....'what you do will come back to you'. This is the reason spiritual leaders often teach people to be good, charitable and forgiving.
Karma s not really about tit for tat, as many believe. It is really about accumulation of negative energies and imbalance....and the eventual correction.
If an object acquires some form of energy it becomes more unstable and will tend to eventually move towards equilibrium by losing that energy. This is Karma.
Another e way of looking at it is...when we behave in ways that go against the general smooth flow of energy, it is like swimming against the current. We will eventually be forced to move back and go with the flow. This correction or 'return to equilibrium' is what we normally experience as sorrow or suffering as a result of our karma.
Karma naturally works over many life times and not just over one life time. So...Karma and reincarnation go hand in hand. Some karmic corrections could happen immediately while others could take many years or lifetimes. It depends on ones spiritual level.
For people who are in lower spiritual levels, the correction will take place over many lifetimes because they have lots of accumulated negative energies. For people in higher spiritual levels, the karmic correction could take place within months or even days because they have less accumulated energy and instability.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,.
Sriram
I give my dog better tripe than this load of old
ippy
-
That's a bit unfair Ippy.
Do you think that we should have another section on the forum, called "Sriram and Sparky"? It's purpose would be to allow discussion of ideas which do not fit into established scientific discourse. Sassy would bloom there.
-
Hi everyone,
Most people would have heard of 'Karma'. It is a part of many Hindu spiritual philosophies and is also an important part of off shoot philosophies in Jainism and Buddhism. Since spiritual philosophy forms the base of Hindu religion, Karma is an important part of day to day Hindu religious beliefs and social life.
Karma is basically about 'what goes around comes around'....'what you do will come back to you'. This is the reason spiritual leaders often teach people to be good, charitable and forgiving.
Karma s not really about tit for tat, as many believe. It is really about accumulation of negative energies and imbalance....and the eventual correction.
If an object acquires some form of energy it becomes more unstable and will tend to eventually move towards equilibrium by losing that energy. This is Karma.
Another e way of looking at it is...when we behave in ways that go against the general smooth flow of energy, it is like swimming against the current. We will eventually be forced to move back and go with the flow. This correction or 'return to equilibrium' is what we normally experience as sorrow or suffering as a result of our karma.
Karma naturally works over many life times and not just over one life time. So...Karma and reincarnation go hand in hand. Some karmic corrections could happen immediately while others could take many years or lifetimes. It depends on ones spiritual level.
For people who are in lower spiritual levels, the correction will take place over many lifetimes because they have lots of accumulated negative energies. For people in higher spiritual levels, the karmic correction could take place within months or even days because they have less accumulated energy and instability.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,.
Sriram
All very nice but it is all just woo. Well at least this part is woo :
Karma naturally works over many life times and not just over one life time
It is woo that does harm.
In many countries, the people who most need help, disabled people, frequently are barred from the help they need, suffering the additional burden of widespread prejudice, and this prejudice has its roots in a popular belief in karma - people born deformed or disabled are merely getting 'what comes around', it is a consequence of their previous lives. This is the ugly downside of entertaining superstitious beliefs - a simple homely 'what goes around comes around' becomes a justification for neglect and abuse when it is extrapolated into the woosphere.
-
So WHY is anyone born with 'disabilities', damaged limbs etc when they supposedly never done anything to warrant it, in YOUR opinion??
-
Careful Nick - asking unanswerable questions is bound to cause energy accumulation!
-
So WHY is anyone born with 'disabilities', damaged limbs etc when they supposedly never done anything to warrant it, in YOUR opinion??
Babies don't intentionally get born with birth defects, nobody chooses what parents to be born to or what the hormonal environment of mothers womb should be. Birth defects run at around 6% worldwide in humans and as far as I know that is similar to most other mammal species. It is a perverse obsession with apportioning blame that sees these unfortunate individuals being blamed for the own bad luck.
-
That's a bit unfair Ippy.
Do you think that we should have another section on the forum, called "Sriram and Sparky"? It's purpose would be to allow discussion of ideas which do not fit into established scientific discourse. Sassy would bloom there.
If it's unfair to call a spade a spade Harrow, you must be right.
As for Sparks and Sass, taken in isolation they're not bad people; it's a tendency for them to pass on these crack pot ideas, with vigour, on to the next up and coming lot, this bothers me more than themselves as individuals but not so much as to cause me any loss of sleep.
Fortunately every time I see the latest figures on the amount of relogioso's we have, at least here in the UK, they are exponentially on their way out.
Regards ippy
-
Obviously we are rapidly approaching the point, technically, where we can detect "birth defects" well before any birth, and so we ourselves could choose whether there are any people with birth defects or not.
hmm... would that be good karma or bad?
-
Karma is basically about 'what goes around comes around'....'what you do will come back to you'. This is the reason spiritual leaders often teach people to be good, charitable and forgiving.
A rather obvious problem with this is that it assumes the 'you' of one lifetime is the same in some significant respect as the 'you' of another lifetime within the same karmic stream. It's difficult enough to locate an enduring self within a single lifetime. In what meaningful sense is some long expired blob from planet Zog now Rebecca from Dorking?
-
Surely you can just decode and check the block chain encoded in the accumulated karmic energy? This is quantum entangled allowing instant transference from Zog to Dorking. Simple :)
-
Karma s not really about tit for tat, as many believe. It is really about accumulation of negative energies and imbalance....and the eventual correction.
Oh good.
Karma is basically about 'what goes around comes around'....'what you do will come back to you'.
That sounds an awful lot like a dressed up tit for tat though!
Just some thoughts.
ST :)
-
Karma s not really about tit for tat, as many believe. It is really about accumulation of negative energies and imbalance....and the eventual correction.
Straight out of the New Age guide to babblespeak. Start with an undeniable common truism then use a few sciencey sounding words as cover for its unwarranted extrapolation into something utterly unscientific, hoping no one will notice the sleight of hand.
-
I think it works approximately for the individual. I mean, plonk some negative stuff on a child, and you will often get consequences later in life, for example, they might treat people badly. (However, they might not, so it's not predictive). However, this other stuff is unwarranted, going from life to life. As Udayana said, it's all quantum entanglement and action at a distance, with a liberal helping of astral travelling. I'm free!
-
It sort of gets back to the point that a system that is not falsifiable is of little actual use. May be good enough to stop children misbehaving or help you feel better in bad times, but not much more.
-
It sort of gets back to the point that a system that is not falsifiable is of little actual use. May be good enough to stop children misbehaving or help you feel better in bad times, but not much more.
This is interesting in relation to the psychological therapies, which are not predictive. You can't say, subject person X to such and such negative conditions in early life, and they will become a criminal or millionaire.
This is the basis of many criticisms of Freud, who over-hyped analysis. However, one can lower one's sights, since therapy is not scientific, but more of an interpretive art. Well, that is of course, just one view, amongst many.
-
Isn't this Karma idea supported by that religion that also has a belief in some kind of thing with a blue elephant's head and the body of a human?
ippy
-
All very nice but it is all just woo. Well at least this part is woo :
Karma naturally works over many life times and not just over one life time
It is woo that does harm.
In many countries, the people who most need help, disabled people, frequently are barred from the help they need, suffering the additional burden of widespread prejudice, and this prejudice has its roots in a popular belief in karma - people born deformed or disabled are merely getting 'what comes around', it is a consequence of their previous lives. This is the ugly downside of entertaining superstitious beliefs - a simple homely 'what goes around comes around' becomes a justification for neglect and abuse when it is extrapolated into the woosphere.
It is probably as much woo as Dark Energy or Parallel Universes.
It is basically philosophy and an attempt to explain life and its features that we can notice. Its obviously not physics that we can relate one to one and make accurate predictions.
So...we should stop trying to put everything into the physics (exact science) mold. We must also stop confusing philosophy with religion.
As far as evidence is concerned, Ian Stevenson has done some work on this. ...and there are many observed cases in Lebanon (a muslim country). People who have NDE's also often talk of reincarnation.
-
It is probably as much woo as Dark Energy or Parallel Universes.
Grossly incorrect.
Dark Energy and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics are products of science, not woo. Sometimes ideas are floated in science that are speculative in nature, that is normal. But that doesn't make them 'woo', it just means they are speculative currently until some or other evidence is found to either confirm to falsify them.
-
It is basically philosophy and an attempt to explain life and its features that we can notice. Its obviously not physics that we can relate one to one and make accurate predictions.
Can you name any reputable philosopher that takes ideas of karma seriously ?
Most philosophers take due account of the findings of science. Science has shown that persons are not immortal, neither are geese or dung beetles or snow leopards; the only thing that is arguably immortal is energy and it is a sorry state of affairs when people disadvantaged by birth defects have to suffer the further humiliation of discrimination born of this 'philosophy'. It's not philosophy, it is fantasy beliefs and superstition legitimising prejudice.
-
Can you name any reputable philosopher that takes ideas of karma seriously ?
Most philosophers take due account of the findings of science. Science has shown that persons are not immortal, neither are geese or dung beetles or snow leopards; the only thing that is arguably immortal is energy and it is a sorry state of affairs when people disadvantaged by birth defects have to suffer the further humiliation of discrimination born of this 'philosophy'. It's not philosophy, it is fantasy beliefs and superstition legitimising prejudice.
Bravo - well said. How anyone can still believe in this utter nonsense is absolutely astonishing.
Could anyone seriously believe that, for instance, my sight loss was because of some misdeameanour or crime committed by someone in the past? The reason why blood vessels clot at the back of the eye is becoming better and better understood and technology is coming up with new ways to overcome it. I would go so far as to say that to promote in any way the idea of karma is to be irresponsible.
-
Can you name any reputable philosopher that takes ideas of karma seriously ?
Most philosophers take due account of the findings of science. Science has shown that persons are not immortal, neither are geese or dung beetles or snow leopards; the only thing that is arguably immortal is energy and it is a sorry state of affairs when people disadvantaged by birth defects have to suffer the further humiliation of discrimination born of this 'philosophy'. It's not philosophy, it is fantasy beliefs and superstition legitimising prejudice.
Since western people are normally completely ignorant of Indian/Eastern philosophers and philosophies.....by 'reputed philosophers', I expect you mean Western Philosophers!!
Try Schopenhauer and Jung!
-
Bravo - well said. How anyone can still believe in this utter nonsense is absolutely astonishing.
He can't help it. It's just his karma ;)
-
Torridon,
British people in general seem to be especially of the 'Zoom -In' variety. More tuned towards details, materialism and empirical observation rather than metaphysics and spirituality.
Almost all British Philosophers from William of Ockham to Hobbes to Hume to Bertrand Russel seem to be material philosophers interested in politics, economics, logic, language, empirical methods and such matters. You don't find any metaphysics or mysticism. More into details and less into the Big Picture.
Maybe that is why the British were good engineers and scientists......but even after 300 years of colonizing India they learnt nothing of eastern philosophy. The Germans from Max Mulller to Schopenheuer were much better. In recent decades even the Americans seem to be more capable of understanding Indian philosophies.
Maybe it is something genetic!!
-
I hope all you doubting Thomas's are being careful because:
Instant Karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you off your feet
Better recognize your brothers
Ev'ryone you meet
Why in the world are we here
Surely not to live in pain and fear
Why on earth are you there
When you're ev'rywhere
Come and get your share
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Yeah we all shine on
Come on and on and on on on
Yeah yeah, alright, uh huh, ah
-
Torridon,
British people in general seem to be especially of the 'Zoom -In' variety. More tuned towards details, materialism and empirical observation rather than metaphysics and spirituality.
Almost all British Philosophers from William of Ockham to Hobbes to Hume to Bertrand Russel seem to be material philosophers interested in politics, economics, logic, language, empirical methods and such matters. You don't find any metaphysics or mysticism. More into details and less into the Big Picture.
Maybe that is why the British were good engineers and scientists......but even after 300 years of colonizing India they learnt nothing of eastern philosophy. The Germans from Max Mulller to Schopenheuer were much better. In recent decades even the Americans seem to be more capable of understanding Indian philosophies.
Maybe it is something genetic!!
A great western philosopher these days is likely as you say to be one working on economics or language/information.
-
Since western people are normally completely ignorant of Indian/Eastern philosophers and philosophies.....by 'reputed philosophers', I expect you mean Western Philosophers!!
Try Schopenhauer and Jung!
Jung didn't espouse karma. And I doubt if Schopenhauer did in it strict terms.
-
Jung didn't espouse karma. And I doubt if Schopenhauer did in it strict terms.
Your doubts about Schopenhauer are correct.
-
It is probably as much woo as Dark Energy or Parallel Universes.
It is basically philosophy and an attempt to explain life and its features that we can notice. Its obviously not physics that we can relate one to one and make accurate predictions.
So...we should stop trying to put everything into the physics (exact science) mold. We must also stop confusing philosophy with religion.
As far as evidence is concerned, Ian Stevenson has done some work on this. ...and there are many observed cases in Lebanon (a muslim country). People who have NDE's also often talk of reincarnation.
And we have pink elephants in the west, perhaps your blue ones could be taken in an exactly similar way we take our pink ones.
ippy
-
Since western people are normally completely ignorant of Indian/Eastern philosophers and philosophies.....by 'reputed philosophers', I expect you mean Western Philosophers!!
Try Schopenhauer and Jung!
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Granted, Schopenhaur warmed to elements of Eastern thinking finding unexpected similarities with his own, but he regarded Indian notions of karma as being a subtle use of myth and metaphor rather than reality; in his own words he referred to reincarnation as the myth of the transmigration of souls. Having myths and metaphors is fine, but the karmic myth results in defacto harm to many vulnerable people who need support and understanding not prejudice and isolation.
-
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Granted, Schopenhaur warmed to elements of Eastern thinking finding unexpected similarities with his own, but he regarded Indian notions of karma as being a subtle use of myth and metaphor rather than reality; in his own words he referred to reincarnation as the myth of the transmigration of souls. Having myths and metaphors is fine, but the karmic myth results in defacto harm to many vulnerable people who need support and understanding not prejudice and isolation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
********
Schopenhauer read the Latin translation of the ancient Hindu texts, The Upanishads, which French writer Anquetil du Perron had translated from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh entitled Sirre-Akbar ("The Great Secret"). He was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them "the production of the highest human wisdom," and believed they contained superhuman concepts. The Upanishads was a great source of inspiration to Schopenhauer. Writing about them, he said:
It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death.[89]
It is well known that the book Oupnekhat (Upanishad) always lay open on his table, and he invariably studied it before sleeping at night. He called the opening up of Sanskrit literature "the greatest gift of our century," and predicted that the philosophy and knowledge of the Upanishads would become the cherished faith of the West.[90]
Most noticeable, in the case of Schopenhauer’s work, was the significance of the Chandogya Upanishad, whose Mahavakya, Tat Tvam Asi is mentioned throughout The World as Will and Representation.
Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:
If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.
*********
No one can be so highly influenced by Hindu philosophy without accepting Karma and reincarnation because they form the foundation of Hinduism.
You wanted some western philosophers and I have given you. There is a thread on Tat Tvam Asi in the Eastern section.
-
And yet in all of Schopenhauer's writing there doesn't appear to be an acceptance of karma and reincarnation.
-
To be honest though i'm not sure that an idea needs acceptance by 'reputable' philosophers to be philosophy.
-
I wonder if Sriram can present just one item of Hindu philosophy which is not good old common sense, or sound advice, or golden rule, etc.
-
Susan,
I wonder if Sriram can present just one item of Hindu philosophy which is not good old common sense, or sound advice, or golden rule, etc.
The problem I think is that at its heart there's a grain of sense - the reciprocal altruism of "If I'm nice to people, they're more likely to be nice to me" - which serves tribal societies (of any species) well. What the Sriram's of this world then do is to dump onto that observable fact a whole wodge of nonsense about "karma", "energy", "spirituality" etc to gussy of a basic truth with any manner of woo that - at best - is just conjecture (where is this "energy"? What form does it take? How can we measure it? etc) and that - at worst - as torri notes leads to all sorts of contemptible conclusions about the disabled being as they because it's somehow their fault.
Didn't Glen Hoddle get the heave-ho from the England manager's job for spouting this kind unpleasant idiocy?
-
Susan,
The problem I think is that at its heart there's a grain of sense - the reciprocal altruism of "If I'm nice to people, they're more likely to be nice to me" - which serves tribal societies (of any species) well. What the Sriram's of this world then do is to dump onto that observable fact a whole wodge of nonsense about "karma", "energy", "spirituality" etc to gussy of a basic truth with any manner of woo that - at best - is just conjecture (where is this "energy"? What form does it take? How can we measure it? etc) and that - at worst - as torri notes leads to all sorts of contemptible conclusions about the disabled being as they because it's somehow their fault.
Didn't Glen Hoddle get the heave-ho from the England manager's job for spouting this kind unpleasant idiocy?
You can get the heave ho as a manager for walking on the cracks in the pavement.
-
Susan,
The problem I think is that at its heart there's a grain of sense - the reciprocal altruism of "If I'm nice to people, they're more likely to be nice to me" - which serves tribal societies (of any species) well...
To be generous to Sriram I would say the attractiveness of karma as a concept lies in its ability to mitigate the apparent unfairness of life; it posits a larger reference frame in which all wrongs can be righted and all debts repaid ultimately. Like many ideas, it has popularity because of its simple appeal in that sense. But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage, it is a win for naivety over understanding, it is a flight from reality into the arms of fantasy in ignorance of the respect that modern science is due. If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.
-
To be generous to Sriram I would say the attractiveness of karma as a concept lies in its ability to mitigate the apparent unfairness of life; it posits a larger reference frame in which all wrongs can be righted and all debts repaid ultimately. Like many ideas, it has popularity because of its simple appeal in that sense. But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage, it is a win for naivety over understanding, it is a flight from reality into the arms of fancy in ignorance of the authority that modern science is due. If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.
So according to you it is not courageous to fight injustice.
-
So according to you it is not courageous to fight injustice.
I don't see how you derive that. The doctrine of karma is a source of injustice that needs to be countered. I spent two years as a volunteer with an iNGO that specialised in providing advocacy support for people that were effectively victims of karma in Asia and Africa where disabled peoples often face the added burden of discrimination and prejudice because of this spurious belief.
-
I don't see how you derive that. The doctrine of karma is a source of injustice that needs to be fought. I spent two years as a volunteer with an iNGO that specialised in providing advocacy support for people that were effectively victims of karma in Asia and Africa. Disabled peoples often face the added burden of discrimination and prejudice because of this spurious belief.
Er, from what you wrote.
''But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage........ If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented invented to appease human sensibilities.''
-
Like many ideas.......... it is a flight from reality into the arms of fantasy in ignorance of the respect that modern science is due.
What on earth is this? When did science demonstrate that humans are completely directed deterministically and that this is all there is? That sounds more like scientism rather than science.
-
The doctrine of karma is a source of injustice that needs to be countered.
As is this''If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.'' Recognise it?
-
I wonder if Sriram can present just one item of Hindu philosophy which is not good old common sense, or sound advice, or golden rule, etc.
So....according to you...Karma and reincarnation are good old common sense??!! ???
-
Er, from what you wrote.
''But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage........ If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented invented to appease human sensibilities.''
Oh I see, this is you jumping in taking a line out of context without reading previous posts. What I meant was to have the courage to face truth rather than indulge fantasy beliefs that allow us to avoid truth. Karma is one such.
-
To be honest though i'm not sure that an idea needs acceptance by 'reputable' philosophers to be philosophy.
I certainly agree with that. But some people always seem to want some Authority in terms of name dropping. And who is 'reputable' is not clear. I consider many ancient Hindu sages as reputable philosophers. But most of you wouldn't know them at all.
I am sure that increasingly in many parts of the world, including the UK, Indian sages and philosophers are better known than the so called 'reputed' western philosophers. Who reads Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Schopenhauer and others? Millions in the west read the Gita, Upanishads, Ramana Maharishi, Buddhist sutras and listen to contemporary gurus.
-
Oh I see, this is you jumping in taking a line out of context without reading previous posts. What I meant was to have the courage to face truth rather than indulge fantasy beliefs that allow us to avoid truth. Karma is one such.
No...In your post you make it clear what human courage is...just accepting that life is unfair...
That is as dangerous as the doctrine of Karma which I oppose on several grounds which include a Christian view on the propensity of humans to take selfish advantage. I.e. anyone can do bad and put it down to being an agent of Karma...as anybody in power can say, I am doing this to you...it's unfair...but hey life's unfair!!! An attitude which I move governs the lives of possible more people than are in the domain of Karma......In fact you could slot life's unfair INTO a doctrine of Karma.
-
To be generous to Sriram I would say the attractiveness of karma as a concept lies in its ability to mitigate the apparent unfairness of life; it posits a larger reference frame in which all wrongs can be righted and all debts repaid ultimately. Like many ideas, it has popularity because of its simple appeal in that sense. But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage, it is a win for naivety over understanding, it is a flight from reality into the arms of fantasy in ignorance of the respect that modern science is due. If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.
Why is it a flight from reality? And what do you know of reality to be able to dismiss the concept of Karma outright?
You actually KNOW why we are born, why there are so many individual differences, what morality is....and many other such things?
You would probably just attribute it all to chance and evolutionary mechanisms. 'All these things just happen to exist and don't need any explanations at all'!!
Confusing mechanisms for goals is common in science.
-
No...In your post you make it clear what human courage is...just accepting that life is unfair...
That is as dangerous as the doctrine of Karma which I oppose on several grounds which include a Christian view on the propensity of humans to take selfish advantage. I.e. anyone can do bad and put it down to being an agent of Karma...as anybody in power can say, I am doing this to you...it's unfair...but hey life's unfair!!! An attitude which I move governs the lives of possible more people than are in the domain of Karma......In fact you could slot life's unfair INTO a doctrine of Karma.
I think you are reading some of your own prejudices into my post. I'm not advocating some disinterested attitude to suffering because, hey, shit happens, man. I am advocating facing up to reality rather than not facing up to reality; in the context of karma beliefs that means accepting the reality that birth defects happen through no fault of the person so afflicted and these people are needing support not the prejudice that flows from an unwarranted belief that this is some sort of cosmic justice being meted out.
-
That is as dangerous as the doctrine of Karma which I oppose on several grounds which include a Christian view on the propensity of humans to take selfish advantage. I.e. anyone can do bad and put it down to being an agent of Karma
Is that much different to 'anyone can do bad and put it down to being under the influence of Satan'? Karma is about action and its consequences, which seems to have an affinity to 'Whatever you sow, so shall you reap'. Karma yoga, amongst other things, is about purifying your actions so that they don't impinge upon later reincarnations as opposed to ending up in a Heaven or Hell.
-
Why is it a flight from reality? And what do you know of reality to be able to dismiss the concept of Karma outright?
You actually KNOW why we are born, why there are so many individual differences, what morality is....and many other such things?
You would probably just attribute it all to chance and evolutionary mechanisms. 'All these things just happen to exist and don't need any explanations at all'!!
Confusing mechanisms for goals is common in science.
It's not what I know, it is more what we have learned through hundreds of years of cumulative research in all flavours of science, none of which is consistent with a notion of reincarnation upon which karma depends. An honest thinker would want to take due account of what we have learned of the nature of life, of matter, of energy and incorporate that into their rationale. What enormous hubris is implied by the arrogant disdain for that body of understanding.
-
I think you are reading some of your own prejudices into my post. I'm not advocating some disinterested attitude to suffering because, hey, shit happens, man. I am advocating facing up to reality rather than not facing up to reality; in the context of karma beliefs that means accepting the reality that birth defects happen through no fault of the person involved and these people are needing support not the prejudice that flows from an unjustified belief that this is some sort of cosmic justice being meted out.
torridon,
You do not KNOW that... 'birth defects happen through no fault of the person involved'. Can you prove it? That is just your belief and that is the materialistic...'no purpose, no ultimate cause'.... philosophy that you subscribe to.
Similarly, Karma is a part of another philosophy which maintains that everything has a cause and a purpose. Karma is just the cause and effect mechanism.
You are talking as though you are somehow holding the CORRECT view and all others are having the WRONG view. Science has not found anything that disproves Karma or reincarnation and nor does any theory of science get affected because of the Karma hypothesis.
While you are free to subscribe to your philosophy, there is no conclusive evidence for your POV.
-
torridon,
You do not KNOW that... 'birth defects happen through no fault of the person involved'. Can you prove it? That is just your belief and that is the materialistic...'no purpose, no ultimate cause'.... philosophy that you subscribe to.
Similarly, Karma is a part of another philosophy which maintains that everything has a cause and a purpose. Karma is just the cause and effect mechanism.
You are talking as though you are somehow holding the CORRECT view and all others are having the WRONG view. Science has not found anything that disproves Karma or reincarnation and nor does any theory of science get affected because of the Karma hypothesis.
While you are free to subscribe to your philosophy, there is no conclusive evidence for your POV.
I'm surprised at you Sriram, another attempt to push the negative proof theory.
ippy
-
Sometimes birth defects happen because of things we do, we have seen that, Thalidomide comes to mind and there are other, negative things that affect a child in the womb.
I would find it difficult to accept that a child is responsible for their own defects because of things they did in a previous life.
At the same time, if I believed in reincarnation, I could accept that one could be improved, refined, for the next life, particularly if they had a difficult time in a previous life. I like the 'onwards and upwards' idea.
-
Sometimes birth defects happen because of things we do, we have seen that, Thalidomide comes to mind and there are other, negative things that affect a child in the womb.
I would find it difficult to accept that a child is responsible for their own defects because of things they did in a previous life.
At the same time, if I believed in reincarnation, I could accept that one could be improved, refined, for the next life, particularly if they had a difficult time in a previous life. I like the 'onwards and upwards' idea.
Yes...and all those things that we do to the child are part of the karmic effects. The 'child' is a child only in the new body. It is actually a person who has lived as an adult in another life and done certain things that are positive or negative. These energies affect its next birth.
According to the philosophy, our conscious mind is new and gets generated in the new body. But the unconscious mind is part of our spirit that remembers the past life. In fact its the unconscious mind/spirit that decides what form to take in the new birth so as to clean up and develop further.
All this is meant for erosion of our base nature and for development of the higher nature.
Here are cases of reincarnation ......(Ian Stevenson)
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false
Sorry that seems to be a long link...but it is a PDF file.
-
At the same time, if I believed in reincarnation, I could accept that one could be improved, refined, for the next life, particularly if they had a difficult time in a previous life. I like the 'onwards and upwards' idea.
It could also lead to procrastination or laziness .... I'll sort it all out in my next life.
-
It could also lead to procrastination or laziness .... I'll sort it all out in my next life.
We all know from modern science that the Conscious mind does not take most decisions. It is the unconscious mind that takes decisions.
So the conscious mind cannot possibly decide on such matters involving karma and self development. It happens automatically.
-
It is a not unpleasant idea.
-
I think you are reading some of your own prejudices into my post. I'm not advocating some disinterested attitude to suffering
I should hope not and accept your backpeddle.
-
It could also lead to procrastination or laziness .... I'll sort it all out in my next life.
Agreed.
-
We all know from modern science that the Conscious mind does not take most decisions. It is the unconscious mind that takes decisions.
So the conscious mind cannot possibly decide on such matters involving karma and self development. It happens automatically.
You seem to be identifying the soul with the subconscious mind, in contrast to Alan Burns who locates it in the conscious mind. Strange that.
Of course it is simplistic to think of them as being two entirely separate things, consciousness is something that admits of degrees, any anaesthetist will tell you that. You are happy to quote science only in so far as it supports your beliefs it seems to me.
-
Yes...and all those things that we do to the child are part of the karmic effects. The 'child' is a child only in the new body. It is actually a person who has lived as an adult in another life and done certain things that are positive or negative. These energies affect its next birth.
The real causes of birth defects are well understood by medical science - hormonal disturbance in the womb, poor health or lifestyle by the mother, drugs, alcohol, genetic factors, mother's age, chromosomal abberations, hypoxia at birth, the list goes on, but we don't need any woo to understand them, and none of them are attributable to the afflicted baby who is merely a victim in all this. Neither are any of these factors attributable to deceased persons who could have been the baby in a 'previous life'.
-
You seem to be identifying the soul with the subconscious mind, in contrast to Alan Burns who locates it in the conscious mind. Strange that.
Of course it is simplistic to think of them as being two entirely separate things, consciousness is something that admits of degrees, any anaesthetist will tell you that. You are happy to quote science only in so far as it supports your beliefs it seems to me.
I am not splitting hairs between subconscious and unconsciousness minds. I am treating them as one and the same.
I am also not identifying the unconscious mind with the spirit. Maybe they are one and the same... maybe they aren't. I am of the view that they are connected. That is all. This is unknown territory and it is wrong to be too sure of anything.
I can only say that the Mind has many layers. Some of the layers come in-built like the operating system of a computer. Some of it gets downloaded later.
Some of the layers have a local effect with limited awareness. Some of them can be universal with wide ranging awareness and influence.
Beyond it all, is the User...the subject...who drives the system and who decides how to use it.
-
The real causes of birth defects are well understood by medical science - hormonal disturbance in the womb, poor health or lifestyle by the mother, drugs, alcohol, genetic factors, mother's age, chromosomal abberations, hypoxia at birth, the list goes on, but we don't need any woo to understand them, and none of them are attributable to the afflicted baby who is merely a victim in all this. Neither are any of these factors attributable to deceased persons who could have been the baby in a 'previous life'.
You are going on and on about the mechanisms! Try to understand. Science has discovered nothing but the mechanisms and processes through which the physical world works. It is always about 'How' things happen not about 'Why' things happen.
Karma and reincarnation are about the 'Why'. These ideas do not conflict with the processes or mechanisms.
Obviously there is a gap between these philosophies and our understanding of the physical world. We don't know how they fit together. So what?!
We don't know how QM and Relativity fit together either. We don't dismiss either one of these theories because of that anomaly.
-
You are going on and on about the mechanisms! Try to understand. Science has discovered nothing but the mechanisms and processes through which the physical world works. It is always about 'How' things happen not about 'Why' things happen.
Karma and reincarnation are about the 'Why'. These ideas do not conflict with the processes or mechanisms.
Obviously there is a gap between these philosophies and our understanding of the physical world. We don't know how they fit together. So what?!
That is at the heart of your problem. Your 'philosophies' are not born of an honest understanding of the physical world, that is why there is a 'gap'. They are born of something other than a true desire to understand. True philosophy owes a debt to science otherwise it is just a pointless exercise remaining ignorant of facts. Whenever facts change, then so should our opinions and philosophies to reflect that. Karma and suchlike reflect an understanding of the facts about how things work that is now thousands of years out of date. Unless you are privy to some private insights not apparent to science about how this cosmic rebalancing mechanism could work across different people in different places at different times with no direct connections at the level that it is imagined. We cannot just make up beliefs in a vacuum and then claim them justified simply because they appear to fulfill a need to answer 'why' questions.
-
I should hope not and accept your backpeddle.
Very funny, Mr Time Waster
-
That is at the heart of your problem. Your 'philosophies' are not born of an honest understanding of the physical world, that is why there is a 'gap'. They are born of something other than a true desire to understand. True philosophy owes a debt to science otherwise it is just a pointless exercise remaining ignorant of facts. Whenever facts change, then so should our opinions and philosophies to reflect that. Karma and suchlike reflect an understanding of the facts about how things work that is now thousands of years out of date. Unless you are privy to some private insights not apparent to science about how this cosmic rebalancing mechanism could work across different people in different places at different times with no direct connections at the level that it is imagined. We cannot just make up beliefs in a vacuum and then claim them justified simply because they appear to fulfill a need to answer 'why' questions.
Of course....of course....most people in the world are privy to many private insights that are not apparent to science!! What do you think spiritual philosophies and religious experiences are all about?! That is what we keep arguing about. I am surprised you have not understood this all these years!
You just like to think that we are making up beliefs. They are real insights into the nature of the universe which is outside the scope of science. As simple as that.
-
Of course....of course....most people in the world are privy to many private insights that are not apparent to science!! What do you think spiritual philosophies and religious experiences are all about?! That is what we keep arguing about. I am surprised you have not understood this all these years!
You just like to think that we are making up beliefs. They are real insights into the nature of the universe which is outside the scope of science. As simple as that.
If these insights revealed some authentic objective truth then we could test for that with objective methods. And to some extent we have done that for instance with the blind trial studies that have been done on the power of prayer, But the most generous interpretation of these studies comes down to placebo effect and nothing more profound than that.
Further to that, if these insights revealed some profound but partly hidden objective truth, then there would be some worldwide consensus of such insights; however what we see is some measure of homogeneity yet also enormous diversity in the detail and interpretation, which is in line with what we would expect in our species - it echoes the diversity profile of other aspects of humans such as the taste in music or fashion or arts.
People who go around making grandiose claims of privileged insight are setting themselves above everyone else.
-
torridon,
You do not KNOW that... 'birth defects happen through no fault of the person involved'. Can you prove it? That is just your belief and that is the materialistic...'no purpose, no ultimate cause'.... philosophy that you subscribe to.
Similarly, Karma is a part of another philosophy which maintains that everything has a cause and a purpose. Karma is just the cause and effect mechanism.
You are talking as though you are somehow holding the CORRECT view and all others are having the WRONG view. Science has not found anything thatdisproves Karma or reincarnation and nor does any theory of science get affected because of the Karma hypothesis.
While you are free to subscribe to your philosophy, there is no conclusive evidence for your POV.
I listened to that rubbish - I wish I hadn't.
I hope you, Sriram, have read #63 and #66 several times at least and taken careful note.
-
If these insights revealed some authentic objective truth then we could test for that with objective methods. And to some extent we have done that for instance with the blind trial studies that have been done on the power of prayer, But the most generous interpretation of these studies comes down to placebo effect and nothing more profound than that.
Further to that, if these insights revealed some profound but partly hidden objective truth, then there would be some worldwide consensus of such insights; however what we see is some measure of homogeneity yet also enormous diversity in the detail and interpretation, which is in line with what we would expect in our species - it echoes the diversity profile of other aspects of humans such as the taste in music or fashion or arts.
People who go around making grandiose claims of privileged insight are setting themselves above everyone else.
torridon,
We have discussed this many times. You are just trying to circumvent the issue.
1. The fact is that there are many private insights that people are privy to that Science cannot with its current methods, verify. That is a fact.
2. It is also true that most such insights are common around the world....though their interpretations may vary.
3. There are now attempts being made to bring all such insights together to formulate a common foundation. This will gather steam in coming generations.
4. Getting such insights tested by science, while desirable, is not essential. No one is losing any sleep over the fact that science has not tested these insights.
5. Many individuals understand these experiences & insights... and there are very many groups all over the world that confirm and add to such insights. There are literally billions of people involved.
6. Science has its own little playground where it is useful. It is not useful everywhere. This is something a few wiise scientists of today are beginning to realize....and most normal folk have known for a long time.
7. There are some areas where science could possible do some testing....but due to hardheaded materialistic views among many scientists, these opportunities are being wasted away. But that does not mean that people with these insights will lose confidence and buckle down.
8. Science is not the be all and end all of life and the quest for knowledge. Science is only a very small peep hole into reality.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
1. The fact is that there are many private insights that people are privy to that Science cannot with its current methods, verify. That is a fact.
No it isn’t. There are many private beliefs – about all sorts of things – but if you want to claim them to be “insights” then you need a method of some kind to validate them.
2. It is also true that most such insights are common around the world....though their interpretations may vary.
No it isn’t. There’s a bewildering variety of personal beliefs, some of which become embedded at the tribal level. The only commonality concerns the human experience – we all for example grieve the loss of loved ones, so the wishful thinking that (say) they are reincarnated is comforting, and so finds traction with those unconcerned with logic or evidence.
3. There are now attempts being made to bring all such insights together to formulate a common foundation. This will gather steam in coming generations.
I’ll take your word for it that there are such attempts, but item one on their agenda should be to establish a method to distinguish their claims from woo. That these attempt will supposedly “gather steam” is just your assertion on the matter.
4. Getting such insights tested by science, while desirable, is not essential. No one is losing any sleep over the fact that science has not tested these insights.
And nor does the world of science lose an sleep over the fact that it’s all indistinguishable from woo – in other words, it’s not even wrong.
5. Many individuals understand these experiences & insights... and there are very many groups all over the world that confirm and add to such insights. There are literally billions of people involved.
There might be “billions” who have unsupportable beliefs but an argumentum ad populum doesn’t help you, not least in this case because those beliefs vary so hugely.
6. Science has its own little playground where it is useful. It is not useful everywhere. This is something a few wiise scientists of today are beginning to realize....and most normal folk have known for a long time.
“Science” claims only to address that with which it can engage – ie, the investigable. If you want to call that “its own little playground” that’s up to you, but I think you do it a disservice when you do that given the remarkable record of success and importance it's had in all our lives – which is you why you’d (presumably) take medicine to cure a serious illness rather than set fire to a bunch of sage leaves..
7. There are some areas where science could possible do some testing....but due to hardheaded materialistic views among many scientists, these opportunities are being wasted away. But that does not mean that people with these insights will lose confidence and buckle down.
Again it’s “beliefs” and not “insights”, and they probably won’t. And yes, science is “hardheadedly” materialistic because that’s all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. If you think there’s another method to investigate your claims, then tell us what it is.
8. Science is not the be all and end all of life and the quest for knowledge. Science is only a very small peep hole into reality.
That may or may not be true. Absent the methods of science though, what method would you propose instead to investigate your claims about this supposed “not science apt” reality?
-
Dear Sriram,
Thank you for this thread, I do like the concept of Karma but in a very Universal way, as in the whole Universe, trouble is we don't know enough about nature, we have only scratched surface of how it all fits together, it's like those scientists who look for The Grand Universal Theory ( GUT ) is it just, what goes around comes around.
I know that shit happens but is there a reason behind why shit happens, why are some babies born with defects or illness, I am optimistic that science will one day solve this puzzle, and in solving the puzzle it may give us some insight into the why.
Christians talk about the Sins of the Father, and I think there is a truth in that ( easy atheists, not the truth the whole truth, just a truth ) and it all goes back ( for me ) to what kind of world are we going to leave for our children, we need to be very careful how we conduct ourselves in this life as it will affect future generations, what goes around comes around, it would be better if we spread more good stuff that goes around, spread the good Karma get rid of the bad Karma. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
Thank you for this thread, I do like the concept of Karma but in a very Universal way, as in the whole Universe, trouble is we don't know enough about nature, we have only scratched surface of how it all fits together, it's like those scientists who look for The Grand Universal Theory ( GUT ) is it just, what goes around comes around.
I know that shit happens but is there a reason behind why shit happens, why are some babies born with defects or illness, I am optimistic that science will one day solve this puzzle, and in solving the puzzle it may give us some insight into the why.
Christians talk about the Sins of the Father, and I think there is a truth in that ( easy atheists, not the truth the whole truth, just a truth ) and it all goes back ( for me ) to what kind of world are we going to leave for our children, we need to be very careful how we conduct ourselves in this life as it will affect future generations, what goes around comes around, it would be better if we spread more good stuff that goes around, spread the good Karma get rid of the bad Karma.
Sriram’s problem is that he overreaches - hugely so. If, say, you help the little old lady next door across the road every day for twenty years and after she’s died you find she’s left you a little something in her will you may or may not want to call that “karma”, but essentially it’s a commonplace and there’s nothing mystical about it.
What Sriram then does though is to extrapolate from that an entire system of celestial checks and balances by which you’d also be more likely, say, to win the lottery for your kind deeds. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but mine would be a large dose of confirmation bias – “Fred’s a really nice guy, and he just won the lottery – see, karma!” combined with ignoring the silent evidence of all the times nice people don’t win the lottery, horrible people do win it etc.
-
torridon,
We have discussed this many times. You are just trying to circumvent the issue.
1. The fact is that there are many private insights that people are privy to that Science cannot with its current methods, verify. That is a fact.
2. It is also true that most such insights are common around the world....though their interpretations may vary.
3. There are now attempts being made to bring all such insights together to formulate a common foundation. This will gather steam in coming generations.
4. Getting such insights tested by science, while desirable, is not essential. No one is losing any sleep over the fact that science has not tested these insights.
5. Many individuals understand these experiences & insights... and there are very many groups all over the world that confirm and add to such insights. There are literally billions of people involved.
6. Science has its own little playground where it is useful. It is not useful everywhere. This is something a few wiise scientists of today are beginning to realize....and most normal folk have known for a long time.
7. There are some areas where science could possible do some testing....but due to hardheaded materialistic views among many scientists, these opportunities are being wasted away. But that does not mean that people with these insights will lose confidence and buckle down.
8. Science is not the be all and end all of life and the quest for knowledge. Science is only a very small peep hole into reality.
Cheers.
Sriram
Well knowledge gained through scientific means might not be the be all and end all, but it could be the best starting point. You know what they say about building your house on firm foundations, and knowledge gained through the discipline of scientific methods is less likely to be flaky than knowledge derived other ways.
And on 4/, I have already noted in a previous post, where scientists have bothered to take a look at claims such as the healing power of prayer or out of body experiences, the results have not validated the claims. What this evidence is telling us, is that such sensational claims are curious products of human mind and not some glimpse of an entire undiscovered realm of reality that is not consistent with findings from research. It is a foolishness to think we could throw out all that we have learned over the last three hundred years in favour some ancient flaky ideas from pre-science. People might have esoteric experiences from time to time but to understand these experiences we should not be so neglectful of the modern body of knowledge. I can understand the attraction of the idea of karma, we all feel a yearning for there to be some ultimate justice but reality is not going to arrange itself to appease such human sensibilities. Ultimately it is better that we face realities rather than indulge fanciful and baseless beliefs to hide our discomfort.
-
Dear Sriram,
Thank you for this thread, I do like the concept of Karma but in a very Universal way, as in the whole Universe, trouble is we don't know enough about nature, we have only scratched surface of how it all fits together, it's like those scientists who look for The Grand Universal Theory ( GUT ) is it just, what goes around comes around.
I know that shit happens but is there a reason behind why shit happens, why are some babies born with defects or illness, I am optimistic that science will one day solve this puzzle, and in solving the puzzle it may give us some insight into the why.
Christians talk about the Sins of the Father, and I think there is a truth in that ( easy atheists, not the truth the whole truth, just a truth ) and it all goes back ( for me ) to what kind of world are we going to leave for our children, we need to be very careful how we conduct ourselves in this life as it will affect future generations, what goes around comes around, it would be better if we spread more good stuff that goes around, spread the good Karma get rid of the bad Karma. ;)
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle,
There are many ways of understanding life. Science is only one of them. It has its scope, its methodologies, its benefits and its limitations.
But Life is much more than what we can see through a microscope or a telescope. That is the point.
Animals behave according to their instincts. We cannot moralize to a lion and ask it not to kill its rivals or its rivals cubs. But humans can and do have the capacity to move away from animal tendencies. That is morality. That is what self development is all about. That is what being civilized is all about. That is also what being a spiritually evolved person is all about. Its all the same thing....moving forward towards being more human or Divine...(as we want to call it).
Problem is that its not an simple one way movement. While humans can eliminate their animal tendencies, very often these forces are too strong and people tend to move backwards also. This is where the tussle begins. There are opposing forces pulling in opposite directions. One towards development and the other towards animal traits.
And this is where Karma comes into the picture.
If we succumb to the animal forces we go against the developmental forces and this will necessarily force a correction in the opposite direction. This is what is the effect of Karma.
People of science may not accept that there is anything like this kind of directed Self development or any Goal towards such development. For them everything is merely a process without any direction. Things just happen with no purpose or direction.
Well...they are welcome to their views...but people who believe in spiritual goals and in a divine purpose to life...they will be able to notice the forces of 'good and evil'....and the effects of Karma.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Well knowledge gained through scientific means might not be the be all and end all, but it could be the best starting point. You know what they say about building your house on firm foundations, and knowledge gained through the discipline of scientific methods is less likely to be flaky than knowledge derived other ways.
And on 4/, I have already noted in a previous post, where scientists have bothered to apply take a look at claims such as the healing power of prayer or out of body experiences, the results have not validated the claims. What this evidence is telling us, is that such sensational claims are curious products of human mind and not some glimpse of an entire undiscovered realm of reality that is not consistent with findings from research. It is a foolishness to think we could throw out all that we have learned over the last three hundred years in favour some ancient flaky ideas from pre-science. People might have esoteric experiences from time to time but to understand these experiences we should not be so neglectful of the modern body of knowledge. I can understand the attraction of the idea of karma, we all feel a yearning for there to be some ultimate justice but reality is not going to arrange itself to appease such human sensibilities. Ultimately it is better that we face realities rather than indulge fanciful and baseless beliefs to hide our discomfort.
The experiments on NDE's and healing have just begun. They have a long way to go. Don't start concluding on them just yet.
People said similar things about Yoga and meditations. People laughed at them just a few decades ago. Some people still do. But the benefits of such techniques are only now beginning to be understood.
Scientific experiments are not just mechanical techniques performed by robots. There are humans involved and their biases, prejudices and beliefs are of great importance on how the experiments are designed and how the results are interpreted. Only when scientists become mentally prepared to accept favorable results will the real results be seen.
Fortunately, coming generations will not be stuck with the 19th and early 20th century ideas of science and spirituality that many of you seem to be stuck with.
-
The experiments on NDE's and healing have just begun. They have a long way to go. Don't start concluding on them just yet.
People said similar things about Yoga and meditations. People laughed at them just a few decades ago. Some people still do. But the benefits of such techniques are only now beginning to be understood.
Scientific experiments are not just mechanical techniques performed by robots. There are humans involved and their biases, prejudices and beliefs are of great importance on how the experiments are designed and how the results are interpreted. Only when scientists become mentally prepared to accept favorable results will the real results be seen.
Fortunately, coming generations will not be stuck with the 19th and early 20th century ideas of science and spirituality that many of you seem to be stuck with.
We can accommodate an understanding of how yoga and meditation can benefit people without recourse to inventing entire new realms of reality. But reincarnation stands miles outside our understanding of how life works, how people develop from conception as a mixture of characteristics from male and female parents. If you want karma to be taken seriously why not sketch out a rationale for how reincarnation could work within the framework of our current understanding of biology ?
-
Sriram,
The experiments on NDE's and healing have just begun.
If there really are "experiments", that would be science.
Only when scientists become mentally prepared to accept favorable results will the real results be seen.
"Scientists" already are - that's what the scientific method entails. Are you "mentally prepared" to accept results that show your beliefs to be wrong?
Fortunately, coming generations will not be stuck with the 19th and early 20th century ideas of science and spirituality that many of you seem to be stuck with.
What idea of "spirituality" do you think you have that supersedes that?
-
We can accommodate an understanding of how yoga and meditation can benefit people without recourse to inventing entire new realms of reality. But reincarnation stands miles outside our understanding of how life works, how people develop from conception as a mixture of characteristics from male and female parents. If you want karma to be taken seriously why not sketch out a rationale for how reincarnation could work within the framework of our current understanding of biology ?
The point is very simple. Yoga and meditations have been developed in ancient days through a spiritual understanding of life. Not by scientists through a material understanding of life.
Spontaneous Healing is a similar phenomenon.
-
Sririam,
Spontaneous Healing is a similar phenomenon.
No it isn't - it's just regression to the mean in a medical context.
-
For people who are in lower spiritual levels, the correction will take place over many lifetimes because they have lots of accumulated negative energies. For people in higher spiritual levels, the karmic correction could take place within months or even days because they have less accumulated energy and instability.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,.
Sriram
Back to basics, Sriram. If Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the Divine 'soul' of the universe), how and when did each individual soul split off from the Godhead, to start acquiring negative karma? Are there Hindu stories about how this descent and division from supposed perfection was supposed to have happened?
-
Back to basics, Sriram. If Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the Divine 'soul' of the universe), how and when did each individual soul split off from the Godhead, to start acquiring negative karma? Are there Hindu stories about how this descent and division from supposed perfection was supposed to have happened?
If I remember rightly, one of the schools of thought is that Atman did not 'split off' from Brahman but the individual identified with Ahamkara, the ego/self, which is composed of descriptive characteristics like man, father, British, clever, dim and so on. This tends to make his actions 'self' centred and often in conflict with others equally self centred. The variety of Yogas tend to be methods to facilitate dis-identifying with Ahamkara and identifying with Atman and sustaining union with Brahman. Karma yoga is one of them.
-
Sriram,
No it isn’t. There are many private beliefs – about all sorts of things – but if you want to claim them to be “insights” then you need a method of some kind to validate them.
No it isn’t. There’s a bewildering variety of personal beliefs, some of which become embedded at the tribal level. The only commonality concerns the human experience – we all for example grieve the loss of loved ones, so the wishful thinking that (say) they are reincarnated is comforting, and so finds traction with those unconcerned with logic or evidence.
I’ll take your word for it that there are such attempts, but item one on their agenda should be to establish a method to distinguish their claims from woo. That these attempt will supposedly “gather steam” is just your assertion on the matter.
And nor does the world of science lose an sleep over the fact that it’s all indistinguishable from woo – in other words, it’s not even wrong.
There might be “billions” who have unsupportable beliefs but an argumentum ad populum doesn’t help you, not least in this case because those beliefs vary so hugely.
“Science” claims only to address that with which it can engage – ie, the investigable. If you want to call that “its own little playground” that’s up to you, but I think you do it a disservice when you do that given the remarkable record of success and importance it's had in all our lives – which is you why you’d (presumably) take medicine to cure a serious illness rather than set fire to a bunch of sage leaves..
Again it’s “beliefs” and not “insights”, and they probably won’t. And yes, science is “hardheadedly” materialistic because that’s all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. If you think there’s another method to investigate your claims, then tell us what it is.
That may or may not be true. Absent the methods of science though, what method would you propose instead to investigate your claims about this supposed “not science apt” reality?
All very well...but pure scientism i'm afraid.
You do not own science Bluehillside...you can only put in a hostile bid.
Another ''Gussy up'' of science and failed appropriation by accountancy.
-
In addition to the above:
Hi Gonners,
Sriram’s problem is that he overreaches - hugely so. If, say, you help the little old lady next door across the road every day for twenty years and after she’s died you find she’s left you a little something in her will you may or may not want to call that “karma”, but essentially it’s a commonplace and there’s nothing mystical about it.
What Sriram then does though is to extrapolate from that an entire system of celestial checks and balances by which you’d also be more likely, say, to win the lottery for your kind deeds. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but mine would be a large dose of confirmation bias – “Fred’s a really nice guy, and he just won the lottery – see, karma!” combined with ignoring the silent evidence of all the times nice people don’t win the lottery, horrible people do win it etc.
(emphasis mine)
Which is an interesting claim, because this is precisely what happens with certain evolutionary theories.
Evolution that is observable and works with what is already present is extrapolated therefrom, to create a whole discourse where it is claimed that all life descended from a single common ancestor.
More and more, it can be observed here that arguments used against various religious beliefs are (arguably) not only used incorrectly, they are true of the worldview of some that use them, so e.g. those claiming God of the gaps do so precisely because they are using evolution of the gaps, hoping that people will not notice the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.
-
Spof,
All very well...but pure scientism i'm afraid.
You do not own science Bluehillside...you can only put in a hostile bid.
Another ''Gussy up'' of science and failed appropriation by accountancy.
C'mere me old mucker - let me give you a bit of a man hug and some sound advice you'll thank me for one day. All comfy? Righto...
...if you want to accuse someone of "scientism", at some point you're finally gonna have to look up its actual meaning and then - now are you ready for this? Sure now? OK then - use it properly!
Yeah I know, it's radical, a big step, a major departure for you etc but, like I say, just imagine the freedom finally of not having to remember to use your own invented definition every single bloody time when instead all you'll have to do is use it the same way everyone else does.
The joy! The sunlit uplands! The Julie Andrews moment of running barefoot across the grassy alpine slopes of correct usage! FLY FREE MY YOUNG NEOPHYTE, FLY FREE I TELL YOU!
-
SOTS,
Which is an interesting claim, because this is precisely what happens with certain evolutionary theories.
Evolution that is observable and works with what is already present is extrapolated therefrom, to create a whole discourse where it is claimed that all life descended from a single common ancestor.
More and more, it can be observed here that arguments used against various religious beliefs are (arguably) not only used incorrectly, they are true of the worldview of some that use them, so e.g. those claiming God of the gaps do so precisely because they are using evolution of the gaps, hoping that people will not notice the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.
Oh dear....
-
Is that much different to 'anyone can do bad and put it down to being under the influence of Satan'?
Or my background and parents were shit. So it ain't my fault and I can't help myself in being bad.
-
Spof,
C'mere me old mucker - let me give you a bit of a man hug and some sound advice you'll thank me for one day. All comfy? Righto...
...if you want to accuse someone of "scientism", at some point you're finally gonna have to look up its actual meaning and then - now are you ready for this? Sure now? OK then - use it properly!
Yeah I know, it's radical, a big step, a major departure for you etc but, like I say, just imagine the freedom finally of not having to remember to use your own invented definition every single bloody time when instead all you'll have to do is use it the same way everyone else does.
The joy! The sunlit uplands! The Julie Andrews moment of running barefoot across the grassy alpine slopes of correct usage! FLY FREE MY YOUNG NEOPHYTE, FLY FREE I TELL YOU!
Hillside....I think you should have read the various definitions of insight before you claimed the word 'for science'. Insight might be staple of 'popular science' or 'science journalism' but the word comes from other domains of study other than science. Another case of linguistic piracy on your part me hearty.....
-
I'm surprised at you Sriram, another attempt to push the negative proof theory.
ippy
That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.
-
That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.
And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof
-
Yes...and all those things that we do to the child are part of the karmic effects. The 'child' is a child only in the new body. It is actually a person who has lived as an adult in another life and done certain things that are positive or negative. These energies affect its next birth.
According to the philosophy, our conscious mind is new and gets generated in the new body. But the unconscious mind is part of our spirit that remembers the past life. In fact its the unconscious mind/spirit that decides what form to take in the new birth so as to clean up and develop further.
All this is meant for erosion of our base nature and for development of the higher nature.
Here are cases of reincarnation ......(Ian Stevenson)
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false
Sorry that seems to be a long link...but it is a PDF file.
The karma idea could be seen as either as a personal one or as an impersonal one i.e. what is brought forward isn't a past life but just segments of past experiences that need dealing with. According to Jung, Buddha was asked about this twice by his disciples and he refused to give an answer on it, or side stepped the issue, implying he didn't really know. So I find it rather odd you are pushing one version of this.
-
And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof
Everyone around here has the burden of proof since no one actually holds a neutral position. Attempts at claiming the default position being eminently debateable.
-
Everyone around here has the burden of proof since no one actually holds a neutral position. Attempts at claiming the default position being eminently debateable.
prove it.
-
prove it.
Certainly.....would the person with the neutral position please stand up.
-
Never mind disproving karma, can anyone give a concrete example that demonstrates it? I'm not asking for proof, just something more concrete than all the waffle. So far, it reminds me of astral travelling, very vague and unspecified.
-
If these insights revealed some authentic objective truth then we could test for that with objective methods. And to some extent we have done that for instance with the blind trial studies that have been done on the power of prayer, But the most generous interpretation of these studies comes down to placebo effect and nothing more profound than that.
Further to that, if these insights revealed some profound but partly hidden objective truth, then there would be some worldwide consensus of such insights; however what we see is some measure of homogeneity yet also enormous diversity in the detail and interpretation, which is in line with what we would expect in our species - it echoes the diversity profile of other aspects of humans such as the taste in music or fashion or arts.
People who go around making grandiose claims of privileged insight are setting themselves above everyone else.
And that is exactly what you do with your science, and judging by the deep love you have for it that has been expressed in your previous posts it comes across as being your ideology and religion.
-
Hi Gonners,
Sriram’s problem is that he overreaches - hugely so. If, say, you help the little old lady next door across the road every day for twenty years and after she’s died you find she’s left you a little something in her will you may or may not want to call that “karma”, but essentially it’s a commonplace and there’s nothing mystical about it.
What Sriram then does though is to extrapolate from that an entire system of celestial checks and balances by which you’d also be more likely, say, to win the lottery for your kind deeds. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but mine would be a large dose of confirmation bias – “Fred’s a really nice guy, and he just won the lottery – see, karma!” combined with ignoring the silent evidence of all the times nice people don’t win the lottery, horrible people do win it etc.
The rain falls on the good as well as the bad, and likewise the sun shines on the bad as well as the good.
-
And that is exactly what you do with your science, and judging by the deep love you have for it that has been expressed in your previous posts it comes across as being your ideology and religion.
Well I wouldn't put it that way. I would see science as a tool, a means to an end; it is the end result that is important, an improved understanding of things. Having said that, science is broadly speaking the ethos that is focused on delivering that by diligent enquiry and I don't see any merit in sloppy work.
-
It seems odd to compare scientific enquiry to a religion, since scientific accounts are often falsified, which leads to new discoveries. Can we say this of religion? Science fails all the time, in some ways, it is designed to fail. Again, does religion do this?
-
Hillside....I think you should have read the various definitions of insight before you claimed the word 'for science'. Insight might be staple of 'popular science' or 'science journalism' but the word comes from other domains of study other than science. Another case of linguistic piracy on your part me hearty.....
In which ol' Spoofy just ignores the rebuttal of his abuse of the term "scientism" so as to keep it nice and dry for its next misbegotten outing, while lurching into another mistake by failing to grasp that "insight" needs a method to establish its bona fides if it isn't to be just white noise or guessing.
And so it goes....
-
JK,
That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.
It's still the NPF - arguing that "science" hasn't disproved it is an attempt at making a point. Otherwise why say it?
Why he thinks the indifference of science to assertions it finds to be not even wrong (because there's nothing to investigate) is anyone's guess, but attempt the NPF he does nonetheless.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I am not sure what point is finally being made by everyone. My point is clear.
1. Karma is a philosophical concept that explains the differences between people, the circumstances of their birth and their subsequent pattern of life. Merely attributing everything to chance is not philosophy.
2. Karma cannot be proved. Nor can it be disproved. It is believed to be a natural force that pushes individuals towards progress and development, freeing them from the influences of their inherent animal tendencies.
3. It usually works in the long term (over life times) and therefore cannot be identified specifically. All aspects of life are not physics for us to expect precise information, measurements and predictions.
4. Karma is not a theory that we can hope to use in our favor like we use other theories of science. It is fundamental and is probably used by our unconscious mind to direct our lives.
5. While evidence for Karma is almost impossible to come by because we don't know what exact outcomes it will have.....reincarnation had been studied and some evidence is available as I have linked earlier.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
It seems odd to compare scientific enquiry to a religion, since scientific accounts are often falsified, which leads to new discoveries. Can we say this of religion? Science fails all the time, in some ways, it is designed to fail. Again, does religion do this?
I wonder if SotS will read this post of yours? More importantly, will he read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of the conviction that his expressed views are superior to those of non-believers seems to me to be evident in every post.
-
1. Karma is a philosophical concept that explains the differences between people, the circumstances of their birth and their subsequent pattern of life. Merely attributing everything to chance is not philosophy.
It might not be philosophy to attribute everything to chance, but it might be realistic, and to that extent karma represents a flight from reality. a pretence of mind, a victory for self-deception over honesty. I think it infantile and inadequate to be substituting this baseless make-believe to shield our eyes from reality; it is only by understanding problems that we can hope solve solve them.
-
5. While evidence for Karma is almost impossible to come by because we don't know what exact outcomes it will have.....reincarnation had been studied and some evidence is available as I have linked earlier.
How is there evidence for reincarnation ? The link you posted earlier was broken so perhaps you could explain. This idea suggests that when a living organism dies, something of it does not die, but what exactly is it that persists ? For there to be evidence in support of reincarnation we need to be able to identify the unique thing inside so that it can be identified subsequently in another unique living organism.
-
It might not be philosophy to attribute everything to chance, but it might be realistic, and to that extent karma represents a flight from reality. a pretence of mind, a victory for self-deception over honesty. I think it infantile and inadequate to be substituting this baseless make-believe to shield our eyes from reality; it is only by understanding problems that we can hope solve solve them.
We have to be very careful with the idea of chance. Something that is not consciously directed does not therefore mean it is by chance in the sense of random. That sort of false dichotomy is used too frequently in terms of description of evolution.
That said, that there is no overall conscious direction is a perfectly sound philosophical view, and one that cannot be said to being not philosophy.
-
We have to be very careful with the idea of chance. Something that is not consciously directed does not therefore mean it is by chance in the sense of random. That sort of false dichotomy is used too frequently in terms of description of evolution.
That said, that there is no overall conscious direction is a perfectly sound philosophical view, and one that cannot be said to being not philosophy.
I suppose we could be more generous to the idea of karma by seeing it as an early recognition of determinism - there is really no such thing as good luck or bad luck because there is no such thing as true random and everything that happens is due to the operation of cause and effect at some profound level. I'm not sue that we can extrapolate from that to wrongs being righted or justice being served transcending human lifespans.
-
Oh well, Sriram has said that there is no evidence for karma. File along with being in the Matrix, the world being created last Thursday, and aliens are going to eat you for breakfast.
-
Certainly.....would the person with the neutral position please stand up.
Not really sure why you thought this relates to any sort of evidence for your statement, particularly as you have for some reason switched from 'a neutral position' to 'the neutral position'. What is 'the neutral position'?
Anyway first let's take Chomsky's syntactically correct but meaningless statement 'Colourless green ideas sleep furiously'. If someone were to claim that to me, then I might say that I didn't understand what they were saying and could they explain and justify the claim. I would not, however, claim that it was false so in that case I have a neutral position. The burden of proof remains with the claimant.
Next if we were to take a meaningful statement such as the claim that the total number of goals that will be scored in the EPL this season will be even, then I would take a position that that would need some evidence. I would not be taking a position that the claim is false. My position is a neutral one and the burden of proof remains with the claimant.
Now on god claims, since I have not seen a meaningful and logically consistent definition of god then my position is like the Chomsky example, and hence remains neutral. Even if we remove all definition to something such as a first cause, then my position is like the goals example and remains neutral. In both cases the burden of proof remains with the claimant.
Lastly, were someone to argue that the very idea of burden of proof was dependent on accepting certain common assumptions about logic and epistemology, then I would have to agree. It would, however, be necessary to point out that without those assumptions, the statements made would be denied inter subjective understanding and have merely a solipsistic meaning and thus would not be useful for discussion.
-
I suppose we could be more generous to the idea of karma by seeing it as an early recognition of determinism - there is really no such thing as good luck or bad luck because there is no such thing as true random and everything that happens is due to the operation of cause and effect at some profound level. I'm not sue that we can extrapolate from that to wrongs being righted or justice being served transcending human lifespans.
I'm not sure that it's about righting wrongs even though there seems to be a poetic justice in some interpretations of karma and samsara (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth). Karma yoga is more about actions freed from egotistical predispositions and whether these arise from 'sins of the father' or 'former lives' doesn't really matter as it is the effort applied in the present which counts. The scientific method is all very well but when the motives behind its use drive the production of better and better means of killing each other then, perhaps, a method to neutralise those motives would be worthwhile pursuing.
-
Sriram,
1. Karma is a philosophical concept that explains the differences between people, the circumstances of their birth and their subsequent pattern of life. Merely attributing everything to chance is not philosophy.
No. “Philosophy” requires rational argument. “Karma” on the other hand is wishful thinking, and it explains nothing. Inasmuch as people who are either kind or cruel are equally likely to win the lottery, to be involved in a car crash etc is an observable fact the acceptance of “randomness” on the other hand is a philosophy, albeit that the term “random” is used disingenuously here as the appearance of randomness is rather the outcome of unfathomably longs chains of cause and effect.
2. Karma cannot be proved. Nor can it be disproved. It is believed to be a natural force that pushes individuals towards progress and development, freeing them from the influences of their inherent animal tendencies.
No. It can be disproved at least in the sense that the positive claims made for it – that being nice to people makes you more likely to win a raffle etc – can be modelled and shown to be false.
3. It usually works in the long term (over life times) and therefore cannot be identified specifically. All aspects of life are not physics for us to expect precise information, measurements and predictions.
If you think it “works over the long term” then you’ll need to demonstrate that rather than just assert it to be so. I suspect however that the significance of looking for events over the long term is that it presents more opportunities for confirmation bias – “See, when Fred was a teenager he saved a kid from drowning, and now he’s a pensioner he’s won the lottery. Karma!” etc.
4. Karma is not a theory that we can hope to use in our favor like we use other theories of science. It is fundamental and is probably used by our unconscious mind to direct our lives.
It’s not a “theory” at all - it’s just the child-like conviction that there’s agency in the universe rather than blind cause and effect. Essentially “karma” is the same phenomenon as a six-year-old saying, “that branch hit me”.
5. While evidence for Karma is almost impossible to come by because we don't know what exact outcomes it will have.....
Or because it’s illusory…
…reincarnation had been studied and some evidence is available as I have linked earlier.
No it isn’t.
-
Oh dear .. what a load of rubbish on this thread.
Certainly we must dismiss the various pseudo-scientific babble and childish schema for "justice", punishment or reward and winning lotteries in this life or another.
The idea is not properly defined, there are multiple different definitions. The meaning it has is poetic, mythological, metaphysical (ie no longer considered even as philosophy). An idea that can be meditated on and understood personally but really not really communicated except through leveraging empathy. It offers no logic that can be understood to be true or false.
The Wikipedia entry on Karma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) is pretty good. It includes this poem, which seems to capture the essence ...
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be;
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;
And here they say that a person consists of desires,
and as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th Century BCE
It is not an answer to anything, not even attempting to define what "pure", "good", "bad" are, but only somewhere to start your own introspection.
-
It might not be philosophy to attribute everything to chance, but it might be realistic, and to that extent karma represents a flight from reality. a pretence of mind, a victory for self-deception over honesty. I think it infantile and inadequate to be substituting this baseless make-believe to shield our eyes from reality; it is only by understanding problems that we can hope solve solve them.
torridon,
There you go again. You are assuming something to be reality when it is merely your version or perception of reality. You don't KNOW that chance is the reality. It is just your philosophical view, if at all it is that.
you are free to have your opinion but that is not necessarily reality.
About reincarnation....here is the link again. It is a PDF file containng the work of Dr.Ian Stevenson.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false
The link works...I checked.
Your question about what persists after the body dies. We only know it as Atma/spirit/soul/consciousness. You can give it another name if you want.
You argument is backwards. You cannot insist that we should know everything about the thing that persists after the death of the body, before we can accept its existence. That is ridiculous!
We just have to know that there is enough reason to believe that something persists after the death of the body. That is all. What it is... we may get to know sometime or we may never know.
You don't insist on knowing everything about Dark Energy before you accept its existence. We have enough reason to believe that something possibly exists everywhere in the universe, though we don't know anything about it. Its just got a name ..Dark Energy... that is all. What is it? What are its properties? What is it made of? How did it arise? How does it work? There are any number of questions that you can't answer.
About the spirit....it is the same... only far more complex and subtle.
-
I suppose we could be more generous to the idea of karma by seeing it as an early recognition of determinism - there is really no such thing as good luck or bad luck because there is no such thing as true random and everything that happens is due to the operation of cause and effect at some profound level. I'm not sue that we can extrapolate from that to wrongs being righted or justice being served transcending human lifespans.
That is right! Determinism and Karma are connected concepts.
I did not say anything about 'justice'. Justice is relative just as good and bad are relative.
I said Karma is like a correction. If something is going in the wrong direction or is becoming unstable...it gets corrected eventually.
PS: You don't have to be patronizing about Karma or reincarnation. These are well accepted philosophical concepts among literally billions of people around the world. A few atheists not understanding it is neither here nor there. :D)
Even Christians and Muslims and Jews would accept these concepts if they only looked into their early secret teachings ie. gnosticism, Sufiism, Kabbala.
-
Sriram,
That is right! Determinism and Karma are connected concepts.
I did not say anything about 'justice'. Justice is relative just as good and bad are relative.
I said Karma is like a correction. If something is going in the wrong direction or is becoming unstable...it gets corrected eventually.
If by "wrong" you mean "variant from the norm", then what you meant all along then was just reversion to the mean - a statistical phenomenon.
Why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of relying on woo?
-
And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof
Not really. He is just asking you to keep an open mind whilst the issue is still in the air. Considering that science hasn't disproved it yet. And to keep you happy, neither has he or whoever have proved their case.
-
Well I wouldn't put it that way. I would see science as a tool, a means to an end; it is the end result that is important, an improved understanding of things. Having said that, science is broadly speaking the ethos that is focused on delivering that by diligent enquiry and I don't see any merit in sloppy work.
But it is not the only tool in the box, then other is ones personal experience of life and the values one acquired from these.
-
JK,
Not really. He is just asking you to keep an open mind whilst the issue is still in the air. Considering that science hasn't disproved it yet. And to keep you happy, neither has he or whoever have proved their case.
It's more nuanced than that. It's not that "science hasn't disproved it yet", it's that the conjecture isn't falsification apt. That is, it's not even wrong - it's just white noise. What he's attempting is a false equivalence - like someone saying, "science hasn't disproved the stork theory of baby arrivals yet", therefore keep an open mind...
-
JK,
But it is not the only tool in the box, then other is ones personal experience of life and the values one acquired from these.
If by "tool" you mean something like, "method to distinguish the claim from white noise, guessing etc" then yes it is - at least so far.
-
It seems odd to compare scientific enquiry to a religion, since scientific accounts are often falsified, which leads to new discoveries. Can we say this of religion? Science fails all the time, in some ways, it is designed to fail. Again, does religion do this?
Well yes. Once a religion becomes out of date for the human psyche it is dropped for something new. That's why we have a graveyard full of old religions.
-
I wonder if SotS will read this post of yours? More importantly, will he read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of the conviction that his expressed views are superior to those of non-believers seems to me to be evident in every post.
I wonder if SusanDoris will read this post of mine? More importantly, will she read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of the conviction that her expressed views are superior to those of believers seems to be to be evident in every post.
-
SOTS,
I wonder if SusanDoris will read this post of mine? More importantly, will she read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of the conviction that her expressed views are superior to those of believers seems to be to be evident in every post.
It's not arrogant to point out that your reasoning here is false.
-
#99
That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.
It's still the NPF - arguing that "science" hasn't disproved it is an attempt at making a point. Otherwise why say it?
Or perhaps it is to see where the confidence/surety of science comes from ...
If a statement X is true, one can attempt to prove it directly, or indirectly by showing that the converse is false. Where the truth (or otherwise) is hard to establish, some may keep an open mind either way (a third option you keep on ignoring).
The only person who needs to maintain (incorrectly!) that the NPT is being used is you, because you, as always are not able to defend your position without continually shifting the burden of proof. And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!
-
torridon,
There you go again. You are assuming something to be reality when it is merely your version or perception of reality. You don't KNOW that chance is the reality. It is just your philosophical view, if at all it is that.
you are free to have your opinion but that is not necessarily reality.
About reincarnation....here is the link again. It is a PDF file containng the work of Dr.Ian Stevenson.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false
The link works...I checked.
Your question about what persists after the body dies. We only know it as Atma/spirit/soul/consciousness. You can give it another name if you want.
You argument is backwards. You cannot insist that we should know everything about the thing that persists after the death of the body, before we can accept its existence. That is ridiculous!
We just have to know that there is enough reason to believe that something persists after the death of the body. That is all. What it is... we may get to know sometime or we may never know.
You don't insist on knowing everything about Dark Energy before you accept its existence. We have enough reason to believe that something possibly exists everywhere in the universe, though we don't know anything about it. Its just got a name ..Dark Energy... that is all. What is it? What are its properties? What is it made of? How did it arise? How does it work? There are any number of questions that you can't answer.
About the spirit....it is the same... only far more complex and subtle.
OK I had a look at the link; didn't read far to be honest, it was quite old, and as expected, anecdotal stories about past life regressions, I would be looking for something more substantive than anecdotal claims.
We accept dark energy although we don't know what it is, but there is evidence for something having an effect on galaxies, we just don't understand it yet. Is there any evidence for reincarnation beyond anecdotal claims ? Some things persist - energy is considered eternal perhaps, atomic matter, is for most intents and purposes, indestructible. But I don't see how we can get from energy to souls, or something similarly complex that would fit the reincarnation idea. In reincarnation, it is a person that is somehow reborn is it not ? or perhaps the essence of a person or creature. But how to define that essence. If I examine my self, I find I am made of the particularities associated by my private trajectory since conception, all my characteristics can be traced back to my biological parents and grandparents, this further coloured by my particular experiences through life. If I subtract all this in a effort to find some 'essence'. or soul, there is nothing left. I don't see what there is about me that does not come through this biological endowment.
-
Not really. He is just asking you to keep an open mind whilst the issue is still in the air. Considering that science hasn't disproved it yet. And to keep you happy, neither has he or whoever have proved their case.
No, because it asks for a disproof by science of something that is definably not anything to do with the methodology. It seeks to avoid any burden of proof of a claim. So as a reply it is exactly a switching of a burden of proof from the claimant.
-
SOTS,
Or perhaps it is to see where the confidence/surety of science comes from ...
No, it has nothing to do with that. And the confidence in science comes from the fact that it observably works. There is though no “surety” about that, which is why scientific theories include a falsifiability test: they’re provisional, subject to amendment or to scrapping if and when further and better information arises.
Claims of certainty about science are straw men arguments, of the type Vlad attempts when he re-defines “scientism” for his private use for example.
If a statement X is true, one can attempt to prove it directly, or indirectly by showing that the converse is false. Where the truth (or otherwise) is hard to establish, some may keep an open mind either way (a third option you keep on ignoring).
No I don’t. Anything might be – you’re problem though is to establish why your conjecture is epistemically different from any other "might be" conjecture.
The only person who needs to maintain (incorrectly!) that the NPT is being used is you, because you, as always are not able to defend your position without continually shifting the burden of proof.
That’s clearly not true, so why lie about it? I’m happy to take on the burden of proof when, say, I argue that germs cause disease or that babies emerge from their Mums. I merely ask the same of you when you want to argue for “God”, and repeatedly responding with “you can’t disprove it” is precisely shifting the burden of proof.
And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!
These conjectures are all examples of the outcomes when I use the arguments you attempt for “God” (NPF, argument from incredulity etc and wearily etc) to conjectures other than your god. That they “work” equally for those conjectures too should tell you something about your arguments. Find an argument that doesn’t work for leprechauns though and we’ll have something to talk about.
-
JK,
If by "tool" you mean something like, "method to distinguish the claim from white noise, guessing etc" then yes it is - at least so far.
So you use no personal experience, no inner value judgments, no emotional perspectives in your personal life then? No 'tools' like that? It is all scientifically analysed and assessed in a dry logical framework.
-
JK,
So you use no personal experience, no inner value judgments, no emotional perspectives in your personal life then? No 'tools' like that? It is all scientifically analysed and assessed in a dry logical framework.
Of course I use them. What I don't do though is to use those things as arguments for factual truths for other people.
That's the difference.
-
OK I had a look at the link; didn't read far to be honest, it was quite old, and as expected, anecdotal stories about past life regressions, I would be looking for something more substantive than anecdotal claims.
We accept dark energy although we don't know what it is, but there is evidence for something having an effect on galaxies, we just don't understand it yet. Is there any evidence for reincarnation beyond anecdotal claims ? Some things persist - energy is considered eternal perhaps, atomic matter, is for most intents and purposes, indestructible. But I don't see how we can get from energy to souls, or something similarly complex that would fit the reincarnation idea. In reincarnation, it is a person that is somehow reborn is it not ? or perhaps the essence of a person or creature. But how to define that essence. If I examine my self, I find I am made of the particularities associated by my private trajectory since conception, all my characteristics can be traced back to my biological parents and grandparents, this further coloured by my particular experiences through life. If I subtract all this in a effort to find some 'essence'. or soul, there is nothing left. I don't see what there is about me that does not come through this biological endowment.
The factors that are usually considered in this are psychological ones like mind, ideas, personality and character etc., dispositions and tendencies to certain ideas and skills or arts and so on.
-
But it is not the only tool in the box, then other is ones personal experience of life and the values one acquired from these.
Not all tools are equal though. Before we had science, we ran largely on personal experience : most beliefs owed to 'revelations' from individuals - soothsayers, gurus, shamans, priests, prophets ....
Personal experiences are just personal though; science aims to remove the personal to approach the objective. Persons are always full of particular biases.
-
The factors that are usually considered in this are psychological ones like mind, ideas, personality and character etc., dispositions and tendencies to certain ideas and skills or arts and so on.
Yes, these are attributes that I can trace back to my biological parents and formative life experience. Subtract these from 'me', and what is left ?
-
And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof
I don't have an urge to write umpteen pages of foolscap to make every point, you got it N S, thanks.
ippy
-
Not all tools are equal though. Before we had science, we ran largely on personal experience : most beliefs owed to 'revelations' from individuals - soothsayers, gurus, shamans, priests, prophets ....
Personal experiences are just personal though; science aims to remove the personal to approach the objective. Persons are always full of particular biases.
Oh and I suppose there was none of the interpersonal or inter subjective.
The problem with religion as a magisterium is when it is mediated by temporal authority and when it is totally unmediated.
The problem with science is similar when it is mediated by materialist popular science writers.
-
OK I had a look at the link; didn't read far to be honest, it was quite old, and as expected, anecdotal stories about past life regressions, I would be looking for something more substantive than anecdotal claims.
We accept dark energy although we don't know what it is, but there is evidence for something having an effect on galaxies, we just don't understand it yet. Is there any evidence for reincarnation beyond anecdotal claims ? Some things persist - energy is considered eternal perhaps, atomic matter, is for most intents and purposes, indestructible. But I don't see how we can get from energy to souls, or something similarly complex that would fit the reincarnation idea. In reincarnation, it is a person that is somehow reborn is it not ? or perhaps the essence of a person or creature. But how to define that essence. If I examine my self, I find I am made of the particularities associated by my private trajectory since conception, all my characteristics can be traced back to my biological parents and grandparents, this further coloured by my particular experiences through life. If I subtract all this in a effort to find some 'essence'. or soul, there is nothing left. I don't see what there is about me that does not come through this biological endowment.
You are the ultimate reductionist! You are missing out all the emergent properties that have arisen along the way!
We still don't know what the Mind is...much less what the Unconscious mind is.
To know oneself...there are other ways besides looking into our flesh and identifying the tissues, cells, DNA and atoms. ::)
The other way is introspection. Looking into the mind and identifying our motivations, thoughts and finally the inner self. Its a much bigger and complex world than the physical one.
In any case, all these are philosophical points that are not amenable to rigorous scientific inquiry under microscopes.
PS: In reincarnation and NDE research what do you expect except anecdote? You actually expect to see the soul through some instrument?
-
Sriram,
You are the ultimate reductionist! You are missing out all the emergent properties that have arisen along the way!
Torri is very aware of emergent properties, and to be “reductionist” there needs to be something to reduce from. Just claiming a conjecture for which there’s no evidence to be an “emergent property” in the hope of riding on the coat tails of phenomena that actually are emergent properties is cheating.
We still don't know what the Mind is...much less what the Unconscious mind is.
Actually we do know quite a lot about both these things, but yes – there is much to learn still about the nature of consciousness. That doesn’t though mean you can just drop in any woo that takes your fancy to plug the gap.
To know oneself...there are other ways besides looking into our flesh and identifying the tissues, cells, DNA and atoms.
The other way is introspection. Looking into the mind and identifying our motivations, thoughts and finally the inner self. Its a much bigger and complex world than the physical one.
First, what makes you think that these things aren’t “physical”?
Second, once you have done these things how would you propose to bridge the gap from impressions to verifiable facts?
In any case, all these are philosophical points that are not amenable to rigorous scientific inquiry under microscopes.
Science is about a lot more than “looking through a microscope” as you so dismissively put it, and if not for the methods of science what method would you propose instead to distinguish your claims from woo?
PS: In reincarnation and NDE research what do you expect except anecdote? You actually expect to see the soul through some instrument?
PS In research into the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns and the Man in the Moon what else do you expect except anecdote?
Why should anyone take anecdotes about NDEs any more seriously than they should take anecdotes about any of these things?
-
If I examine my self, I find I am made of the particularities associated by my private trajectory since conception, all my characteristics can be traced back to my biological parents and grandparents, this further coloured by my particular experiences through life. If I subtract all this in a effort to find some 'essence'. or soul, there is nothing left. I don't see what there is about me that does not come through this biological endowment.
What is the 'I' which does the subtracting and finds nothing (no thing)? What is the 'I' that doesn't see? What happens when these questions cease and there is stillness?
-
What is the 'I' which does the subtracting and finds nothing (no thing)? What is the 'I' that doesn't see? What happens when these questions cease and there is stillness?
I reckon you are either enlightened or dead. Maybe both? :)
-
You are the ultimate reductionist! You are missing out all the emergent properties that have arisen along the way!
We still don't know what the Mind is...much less what the Unconscious mind is.
To know oneself...there are other ways besides looking into our flesh and identifying the tissues, cells, DNA and atoms. ::)
The other way is introspection. Looking into the mind and identifying our motivations, thoughts and finally the inner self. Its a much bigger and complex world than the physical one.
In any case, all these are philosophical points that are not amenable to rigorous scientific inquiry under microscopes.
PS: In reincarnation and NDE research what do you expect except anecdote? You actually expect to see the soul through some instrument?
Reductionist, well I don't see how complex things can be understood other than by looking to how their simpler constituents are arranged. Maybe we analyse the same phenomena in different ways because we have different imperatives, mine being a desire to understand this booming buzzing confusion we are born into, maybe others prioritise deriving ways to best live it and enjoy it. You approach is maybe top down, start with the lived experience and imagine some underlying rationale for it without worrying about the nuts and bolts; for me it has to be derivable from the bottom up. Quantum theory is our best description of reality as it basest levels so anything than is not derivable from that is probably wrong and therefore just an entertaining diversion.
-
#124
And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!
These conjectures are all examples of the outcomes when I use the arguments you attempt for “God” (NPF, argument from incredulity etc and wearily etc) to conjectures other than your god. That they “work” equally for those conjectures too should tell you something about your arguments. Find an argument that doesn’t work for leprechauns though and we’ll have something to talk about.
Ok. State exactly what your reasons are for any your conjectures existing. What reasoning has led you to claim any knowledge of them? What evidence do you consider for their existence?
-
SOTS,
Ok. State exactly what your reasons are for any your conjectures existing. What reasoning has led you to claim any knowledge of them? What evidence do you consider for their existence?
That's called a non sequitur. I explained that, when the arguments you attempt for "God" work equally for conjectures you think to be ridiculous, then they're probably not good arguments. At no point did I claim to "have knowledge" of these things, let alone suggest that I had an argument that would mean that I was right about that.
Your choice at this point is either to amend the arguments on which you rely, or to junk them and to try something else. If you persist with them though, then you leave the rest of us no choice but to point and laugh - just as you would if I tried those same arguments for leprechauns.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
-
Ok. State exactly what your reasons are for any your conjectures existing. What reasoning has led you to claim any knowledge of them? What evidence do you consider for their existence?
Whoosh!
-
Gordon,
Whoosh!
About 32,000 feet I reckon.
-
Having just caught up - 'had '~this page can't be displayed' until ten minutes ago I am going to type the following with apologies to mods, even if I have to then apologise to SotS or be suspended for a week or something.!!
SotS's posts seem to me to show that he really does think he is so clever, don't they? :)
-
Hi Susan,
Having just caught up - 'had '~this page can't be displayed' until ten minutes ago I am going to type the following with apologies to mods, even if I have to then apologise to SotS or be suspended for a week or something.!!
SotS's posts seem to me to show that he really does think he is so clever, don't they? :)
With acknowledgement to Wiggs, he's a good example of this I think:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
PS -I don't se anything "Moddable" in your post.
-
Hi Susan,
With acknowledgement to Wiggs, he's a good example of this I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
PS -I don't se anything "Moddable" in your post.
you might want to edit that link
-
NS,
you might want to edit that link
Yeah thanks - I just noticed that I said he was an example of a small village in Scotland. I copied and pasted the link from Wiki - just tried it again and the same thing happened, so now I've tried it with a link to RationalWiki instead.
-
Hi Susan,
With acknowledgement to Wiggs, he's a good example of this I think:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
PS -I don't se anything "Moddable" in your post.
Thank you - I read the first part of the link and will read the rest later. (I have heard of the effect before but had not read up on the details.)
-
Reductionist, well I don't see how complex things can be understood other than by looking to how their simpler constituents are arranged. Maybe we analyse the same phenomena in different ways because we have different imperatives, mine being a desire to understand this booming buzzing confusion we are born into, maybe others prioritise deriving ways to best live it and enjoy it. You approach is maybe top down, start with the lived experience and imagine some underlying rationale for it without worrying about the nuts and bolts; for me it has to be derivable from the bottom up. Quantum theory is our best description of reality as it basest levels so anything than is not derivable from that is probably wrong and therefore just an entertaining diversion.
I have many times used the analogy of the Computer system. By examining the 'nuts and bolts' of the computer hardware we will never understand the messages that you and I write using it. The system consists of many different subsystems all of which work together. Hardware, Software, electricity, WiFi, and most importantly, the User.
Too much emphasis on the nature of the hardware and its evolution will not help in understanding the totality. We need a big picture view. Its about perception and view point....not about information.
-
Sriram,
I have many times used the analogy of the Computer system. By examining the 'nuts and bolts' of the computer hardware we will never understand the messages that you and I write using it. The system consists of many different subsystems all of which work together. Hardware, Software, electricity, WiFi, and most importantly, the User.
Too much emphasis on the nature of the hardware and its evolution will not help in understanding the totality. We need a big picture view. Its about perception and view point....not about information.
And you have many times been corrected on it because software, electricity etc are all natural phenomena - variously discovered, described or designed using the methods and tools of science.
Science does look at "the big picture", but you can't just invent stuff and claim it it be part of a bigger picture still until you finally come up with a method of your own to validate your conjectures.
Good luck with it though.
-
It's all a bit like Tommy Cooper again. There's hardware, software, the user, and the 'big picture' - just like that.
-
It's all a bit like Tommy Cooper again. There's hardware, software, the user, and the 'big picture' - just like that.
it's another case of argument by analogy, similar to the DNA is compared to a code so therefore it is a code
-
Wigs,
It's all a bit like Tommy Cooper again. There's hardware, software, the user, and the 'big picture' - just like that.
Quite so. It's a sort of Deepak Chopra-lite: "You know that software stuff? You can't weigh it or see it under a microscope can you? Well then Mr Know-It-All Scientist, that means that anything else I happen to dream up that can't be seen under a microscope must be real too!" etc.
That software and much else you can't see with a microscope are precisely the fruits of the scientific method seems to elude him entirely too.
Ah well.
-
I reckon you are either enlightened or dead. Maybe both? :)
... or as the Sufi poet Rumi said:
Die before you die, even as I have died before death and brought this reminder from Beyond.
Become the resurrection of the spirit so you may experience the resurrection.
This becoming is necessary for seeing and knowing the real nature of anything.
Until you become it, you will not know it completely, whether it be light or darkness.
:-\
-
And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!
These conjectures are all examples of the outcomes when I use the arguments you attempt for “God” (NPF, argument from incredulity etc and wearily etc) to conjectures other than your god. That they “work” equally for those conjectures too should tell you something about your arguments. Find an argument that doesn’t work for leprechauns though and we’ll have something to talk about.
Ok. State exactly what your reasons are for any your conjectures existing. What reasoning has led you to claim any knowledge of them? What evidence do you consider for their existence?
That's called a non sequitur. I explained that, when the arguments you attempt for "God" work equally for conjectures you think to be ridiculous, then they're probably not good arguments. At no point did I claim to "have knowledge" of these things, let alone suggest that I had an argument that would mean that I was right about that.
But there is a difference between what you are claiming as ridiculous and things that you have made up. Your 'Colin' / pixies dancing on keyboards are made up, therefore false by default. Therefore, how can any argument for God be compared with any argument for something for which there is no doubt that it is made up? How can they “work” equally for those conjectures too?
-
Well, you know, just possibly, God is made up?You could perhaps give this some consideration!
-
SOTS,
But there is a difference between what you are claiming as ridiculous and things that you have made up. Your 'Colin' / pixies dancing on keyboards are made up, therefore false by default. Therefore, how can any argument for God be compared with any argument for something for which there is no doubt that it is made up? How can they “work” equally for those conjectures too?
You really aren't getting this at all are you. Whether I happen to believe or not in pixies etc is entirely beside the point, as is whether or not they happen to be real or ridiculous. Try to focus here: this is just an issue about the quality of the arguments you attempt to demonstrate "God".
That's it.
Really, that's it.
For all I know there really are leprechauns and dancing pixies and I just happened to guess correctly as a matter of dumb luck. Either way though, it matters not a jot - if the arguments you try for "God" would work just as well for any other conjecture that may or may not be true, then they're bad arguments.
To put it another way, even if I just made up the dancing pixies and even if I hadn't just guessed right when I did it, that still wouldn't make the negative proof fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity etc into good arguments - they're bad arguments come what may.
Good grief!
-
But there is a difference between what you are claiming as ridiculous and things that you have made up. Your 'Colin' / pixies dancing on keyboards are made up, therefore false by default. Therefore, how can any argument for God be compared with any argument for something for which there is no doubt that it is made up? How can they “work” equally for those conjectures too?
How do you know 'God' isn't just as 'made' up as leprechauns since the arguments you've attempted in support of 'God', by dint of being fallacious, are the same as could be used for leprechauns?
Your notion that leprechauns are ridiculous but 'God' isn't looks like special pleading on your part (another fallacy by the way).
-
SOTS,
You really aren't getting this at all are you. Whether I happen to believe or not in pixies etc is entirely beside the point, as is whether or not they happen to be real or ridiculous. Try to focus here: this is just an issue about the quality of the arguments you attempt to demonstrate "God".
Ok, I'm focusing...
To put it another way, even if I just made up the dancing pixies
Whoa...stop right there!
Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up
-
Ok, I'm focusing...Whoa...stop right there!
Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up
You can't disprove pixies
I personally met a pixie
I have a book about pixies
Many people have believed in pixies
The world doesn't make sense without pixies
You are just pixie dodging
-
Ok, I'm focusing...Whoa...stop right there!
Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up
Because there is no evidence either exist.
-
Well, a lot of people say that God is made up.
-
Because there is no evidence either exist.
You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.
Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
-
SOTS,
Whoa...stop right there!
Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up
You need to focus harder. Whether or not I just made it up, "you can't disprove it" (to take one example from your armoury of bad arguments) would neither falsify nor validate the pixies I'd invented.
Keep trying.
-
You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.
Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
I thought that that was one of the points about the Spaghetti Monster, which is unfalsifiable. The fact that it's made up is irrelevant. It could be true.
-
You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.
Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
the point is that they are made up! If the arguments work just as well I.e. not at all for them as for your 'god' then they are bad arguments. It is a comment about the quality of the argument.
As a way to try and help you understand instead of pixie, leprechauns or teapots just insert hutrewdew for god. If the argument doesn't work for hutrewdew, it won't work for god
-
SOTS,
You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.
No, you have. Whether or not I made up my unfalsifiable claim (and whether or not I happened to guess right) would not make the bad arguments I used to validate it into good arguments for your unfalsifiable claim ("God").
Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
Of course there is: the "common frame of reference" is the argument. You're just assuming a priori that "God" isn't made up (or a mistake, or a delusion, or a etc), and then affording the claim special treatment into order to apply bad arguments to it.
Stop looking in the wrong place (whether or not I made it up) and concentrate on the right one: the quality of the argument you attempt.
-
You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.
Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up?
Well you seem to be assuming that pixies are made up.
There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
Why not? Given the arguments in favour of both are fallacious then they seem to belong in the class of fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agents.
What you are really indulging in here is additional fallacious argument of special pleading in favour of your preferred fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agent.
-
SotS
As far as many, many people, including me, are concerned, God is an entirely made-up concept, in the same way as pixies are a made-up concept.
What you need to do is to come up with one fact or argument to demonstrate that the God you believe in is not made up.
You will no doubt try to pour scorn on this post, which I think would say more about you than it does about others.
-
Actually, pixies are not recently made up, not even dancing ones. They may in fact be pre-Christian, and up to the 19th century, were seriously believed in in Devon and Cornwall. I think there is still a Pixie Day in some towns.
Of course, they are unfalsifiable, as everyone is saying. Lots of people believed in them, therefore they exist!
-
Surely all concepts are made up? Just that some are helpful some not. Some are useful at some points, but a hindrance at others.
-
Surely all concepts are made up? Just that some are helpful some not. Some are useful at some points, but a hindrance at others.
Okay! :) what word shall I use instead? Mind you, whether it will have any effect on SotS I'm not at all sure.
-
JK,
Of course I use them. What I don't do though is to use those things as arguments for factual truths for other people.
That's the difference.
I don't think the OP was saying this is the fact of the matter just that it is something to do with an issue (or at least related to it) of what it means to be human and the meaning of life etc. ignoring the popular versions of karma - which I would admit Sriram hasn't totally done.
-
Not all tools are equal though. Before we had science, we ran largely on personal experience : most beliefs owed to 'revelations' from individuals - soothsayers, gurus, shamans, priests, prophets ....
Personal experiences are just personal though; science aims to remove the personal to approach the objective. Persons are always full of particular biases.
But the objective is dead and soulless. It is just facts limited to the impersonal world of objects and things and takes no account of the human condition, especially personal element of it, and the value judgements that give substance to life.
-
Yes, these are attributes that I can trace back to my biological parents and formative life experience. Subtract these from 'me', and what is left ?
No you can't. Why do you have a propensity at doing some things well (a natural gift) and not others? Do you have siblings? Are they very much like you - many siblings can be the polar opposites of each other; even twins. In fact I believe the study of twins debunks your statement.
-
I thought that that was one of the points about the Spaghetti Monster, which is unfalsifiable. The fact that it's made up is irrelevant. It could be true.
When was spaghetti unfalsifiable?
-
When was spaghetti unfalsifiable?
When it forms into a flying monster, obviously.
-
Spoof,
When was spaghetti unfalsifiable?
Always.
-
When it forms into a flying monster, obviously.
When has spaghetti ever been falsifiable..........answer never........are we talking food fight in a trattoria or something here Blue?
-
Reductionist, well I don't see how complex things can be understood other than by looking to how their simpler constituents are arranged. Maybe we analyse the same phenomena in different ways because we have different imperatives, mine being a desire to understand this booming buzzing confusion we are born into, maybe others prioritise deriving ways to best live it and enjoy it. You approach is maybe top down, start with the lived experience and imagine some underlying rationale for it without worrying about the nuts and bolts; for me it has to be derivable from the bottom up. Quantum theory is our best description of reality as it basest levels so anything than is not derivable from that is probably wrong and therefore just an entertaining diversion.
Reductionism would reduce an old style watch down to its bits. And then what? You have lost the watch and the 'life' it had - the tick. Reductionism is the root ;) to meaningless and dearth.
-
Okay! :) what word shall I use instead? Mind you, whether it will have any effect on SotS I'm not at all sure.
SotS just has to tell us what use the idea of god is. It either works for others or it doesn't. Same goes for karma, souls, reincarnation and pixies and so on. People can still be emotionally moved by these ideas or attached to them, even if they are no use to anyone else.
-
Spoof,
Always.
Lol.
-
When was spaghetti unfalsifiable?
It's not spaghetti. It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and in some denominations, it is invisible and undetectable. Be careful, or you might be Touched by his Noodly Appendage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#/media/File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg
-
it's another case of argument by analogy, similar to the DNA is compared to a code so therefore it is a code
Why is it not a code of sorts? It acts like a code, looks like a code.....and swims like a cod.
-
It's not spaghetti. It's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and in some denominations, it is invisible and undetectable. Be careful, or you might be Touched by his Noodly Appendage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#/media/File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg
How do we know it's spaghetti if it is undetectable?
Isn't pasta theology old hat anyway and disappeared in the seventh century under Pope Linguinus XIV?
-
How do we know it's spaghetti if it is undetectable?
Isn't pasta theology old hat anyway and disappeared in the seventh century under Pope Linguinus XIV?
That's taking it a step too farfalle!
-
You can't disprove pixies
I personally met a pixie
I have a book about pixies
Many people have believed in pixies
The world doesn't make sense without pixies
You are just pixie dodging
Coming from you, NS, it must be true. How do I become a Pixien?
-
That's taking it a step too farfalle!
Apparently an atheist comedian couldn't go on stage because felt a little farfalle.
-
How do we know it's spaghetti if it is undetectable?
Isn't pasta theology old hat anyway and disappeared in the seventh century under Pope Linguinus XIV?
It seems pretty clear that if you partake of the Holy Rite of Carbonara, while the accidents of spaghetti still appear to the naked eye, actually the substance of spaghetti is changed irrevocably into the substance of the Flying Monster. Does this mean that the substance of the FSM lacks its usual accidents? Of course not, it just means that the accidents are hidden. Likewise with the sauce, while it may appear as an ordinary carbonara sauce, in fact, it has been transformed into a Noodliness which we can all partake of, and which joins us together in one substance. In fact, you and I become one with the Noodliness, and are each a strand of it, yet connected beyond time and space in infinite goodness and loveliness of Pastafarian Transformation. This is what the instructions on the packet say, anyway.
-
It seems pretty clear that if you partake of the Holy Rite of Carbonara, while the accidents of spaghetti still appear to the naked eye, actually the substance of spaghetti is changed irrevocably into the substance of the Flying Monster. Does this mean that the substance of the FSM lacks its usual accidents? Of course not, it just means that the accidents are hidden. Likewise with the sauce, while it may appear as an ordinary carbonara sauce, in fact, it has been transformed into a Noodliness which we can all partake of, and which joins us together in one substance. In fact, you and I become one with the Noodliness, and are each a strand of it, yet connected beyond time and space in infinite goodness and loveliness of Pastafarian Transformation. This is what the instructions on the packet say, anyway.
That's lovely Wiggs.
-
Apparently an atheist comedian couldn't go on stage because felt a little farfalle.
Bzzz, fail.
Repetition.
Or am I just being pici?
-
Bzzz, fail.
Repetition.
Or am I just being pici?
Don't you mean Bzzz, farfalle?
-
But the objective is dead and soulless. It is just facts limited to the impersonal world of objects and things and takes no account of the human condition, especially personal element of it, and the value judgements that give substance to life.
For 'objective', just read 'free of personal bias'.
-
No you can't. Why do you have a propensity at doing some things well (a natural gift) and not others? Do you have siblings? Are they very much like you - many siblings can be the polar opposites of each other; even twins. In fact I believe the study of twins debunks your statement.
well you are right in that even identical twins are not really identical; and even if a clone of me were made at birth, we would still be considerably different by now. That is why Ii included the phrase 'and formative life experiences'. What we are, is due to our biological inheritance, which may include some degree of mutation from our parental lineage, plus whatever developments accrue to us during life, in particular plasticity of mind is a major factor in this. If you subtract all these influences from what I am, there is nothing left to claim as some other 'person' from a previous life.
-
If you subtract all these influences from what I am, there is nothing left to claim as some other 'person' from a previous life.
The idea of karma/samsara is that these influences remain attached to the 'I am' and predispose you act similarly in a later reincarnation until you learn how to be free from such attachments. If you embed this idea into a caste system it makes for another way to control a population. In the democratic way of control you can see how attachments to the past causes problems without the need of personal reincarnation. You just need history books and people can become attached to their fantasies of the past without even having lived them. All it takes is a democratic referendum to bring the attachments to the surface. How to act without attachment is what karma yoga method aims for (as possibly Jesus did).
-
Hi everyone,
If we think of the world as a Simulation (as some scientists claim), then we can think of Karma as the principle that monitors the choices that we make while playing the game.
If we make certain 'wrong' choices or mistakes, we go back and have to play the game again or we lose some points etc. If we play the game as per the rules and make some difficult choices or make some extraordinary moves, we get additional points, we go further up the level, we get special privileges.
This principle is Karma. It enforces the rules (Dharma, Law, duty, righteousness) of the game.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
If we think of the world as a Simulation (as some scientists claim), then we can think of Karma as the principle that monitors the choices that we make while playing the game.
If we make certain 'wrong' choices or mistakes, we go back and have to play the game again or we lose some points etc. If we play the game as per the rules and make some difficult choices or make some extraordinary moves, we get additional points, we go further up the level, we get special privileges.
This principle is Karma. It enforces the rules (Dharma, Law, duty, righteousness) of the game.
If we think of the world as a simulation, we can think of anything that takes our fancy running it. Your problem though is to explain why your particular guess about that – “karma” – is any more or less likely to be true than any other guess.
Good luck with it though.
-
Sriram,
If we think of the world as a simulation, we can think of anything that takes our fancy running it. Your problem though is to explain why your particular guess about that – “karma” – is any more or less likely to be true than any other guess.
Ok. Here's my guess:
I think that a china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, with the inscription The fallacy of the negative proof fallacy is responsible for it.
Is Sriram's guess (as you so pejoratively called it) more likely than mine?
-
SOTS,
Ok. Here's my guess:
I think that a china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, with the inscription The fallacy of the negative proof fallacy is responsible for it.
Is Sriram's guess (as you so pejoratively called it) more likely than mine?
Nope, and why do you think "guess" is pejorative? Absent any logic or evidence for "karma", what else would it be?
-
Guessing is fine. There is a famous Feynman film where he talks about guessing in science, but of course, the guesses here are tested. The audience laughs when he uses the word 'guess', but he explains it to them. I suppose religion is guessing without testing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
-
For 'objective', just read 'free of personal bias'.
As I said a dead and soulless world of dry inane facts. Where's the human and humane element in all your science and intellect?
-
As I said a dead and soulless world of dry inane facts. Where's the human and humane element in all your science and intellect?
and I get ad consequentiam and begging the question in fallacy bingo
-
and I get ad consequentiam and begging the question in fallacy bingo
Have you been to the doctor about these as you seem to be prone to such ailments, and there doesn't seem to be a plausible cause for them? Could be psychosomatic....?
-
Have you been to the doctor about these as you seem to be prone to such ailments, and there doesn't seem to be a plausible cause for them? Could be psychosomatic....?
fallacies a bit hard for you?
-
fallacies a bit hard for you?
I find them a bit too chewy for my false teeth.
-
JK,
As I said a dead and soulless world of dry inane facts. Where's the human and humane element in all your science and intellect?
As someone once said, a garden is no less beautiful for knowing about photosynthesis. You seem to think that it's a binary facts vs aesthetics choice, whereas I see no reason for the former to detract from the latter - quite the opposite in fact.
-
JK,
As someone once said, a garden is no less beautiful for knowing about photosynthesis. You seem to think that it's a binary facts vs aesthetics choice, whereas I see no reason for the former to detract from the latter - quite the opposite in fact.
So how does science analyse what beauty is? Does it even have a definition and theory for it? Does beauty really exist as it can't be verified objectively? And can it be falsified?
-
So how does science analyse what beauty is? Does it even have a definition and theory for it? Does beauty really exist as it can't be verified objectively? And can it be falsified?
Well you know what they say about beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder, ie it is subjective, not objective. Likewise there is no objective evidence for god as god is all in the mind of the believer.
-
I find them a bit too chewy for my false teeth.
You cheeky thing! Despite the early hour, I get it.
Torridon, good morning to you, beauty is subjective and whilst I do not agree with you that God exists only in the mind, I see where you are coming from.
I'm going back to bed for a while, C U later.
-
ooh lucky you, I've got to go to work now and it's freezing and dark outside. Think I'll come and snuggle in with you ;)
-
JK,
So how does science analyse what beauty is? Does it even have a definition and theory for it? Does beauty really exist as it can't be verified objectively? And can it be falsified?
Actually, to a significant degree "science" can do that - we know that the golden ratio is pleasing to people the world over, we can measure brain changes in MRI scanners when the subject is shown images they find appealing etc, but that's not the point. Beauty is one of a group of phenomena that are subjective - beliefs that are often deeply held, perhaps shared commonly (who doesn't like a sunset?) etc but subjective nonetheless. Along wth language and morality aesthetics is variously what we intuit and reason our way towards, but it provides no basis for objectivity. No-one can say, "this is objectively beautiful, and therefore must be beautiful for you too".
And that's the point. Sriram think that "karma" is objectively true, whereas in fact it's no more true for anyone else than his opinion on the Mona Lisa would be true for anyone else.
-
JK,
Actually, to a significant degree "science" can do that - we know that the golden ratio is pleasing to people the world over, we can measure brain changes in MRI scanners when the subject is shown images they find appealing etc, but that's not the point. Beauty is one of a group of phenomena that are subjective - beliefs that are often deeply held, perhaps shared commonly (who doesn't like a sunset?) etc but subjective nonetheless. Along wth language and morality aesthetics is variously what we intuit and reason our way towards, but it provides no basis for objectivity. No-one can say, "this is objectively beautiful, and therefore must be beautiful for you too".
And that's the point. Sriram think that "karma" is objectively true, whereas in fact it's no more true for anyone else than his opinion on the Mona Lisa would be true for anyone else.
But how does science define the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? If everything is under the total control of the natural unguided laws of nature, what is the ultimate definition of a subjective chemical reaction and an objective chemical reaction? Are they not both produced by the same scientific laws - the end result of cause and effect events beginning with the big bang? Or is there something else involved which defines the subjective?
-
AB,
But how does science define the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? If everything is under the total control of the natural unguided laws of nature, what is the ultimate definition of a subjective chemical reaction and an objective chemical reaction? Are they not both produced by the same scientific laws, or is there something else involved which defines the subjective?
Yes they are defined by the same laws (and forces). “Objective” and “subjective” are just useful terms to describe the difference between phenomena we observe that are “out there”, and opinions and beliefs that are self-generated. Within the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will it’s a helpful distinction, and there’s no need for an “ultimate” therefore.
-
Subjectivity can be related to the first person, or point of view. I can't see any reason in principle why these cannot be brain-generated concepts or frameworks. I suppose some theists will judge them to be 'mysterious' and therefore God-generated. However, that places them in the realm of the unknowable.
-
But how does science define the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? If everything is under the total control of the natural unguided laws of nature, what is the ultimate definition of a subjective chemical reaction and an objective chemical reaction? Are they not both produced by the same scientific laws - the end result of cause and effect events beginning with the big bang? Or is there something else involved which defines the subjective?
I would say the difference is one of aspect, or perspective. We live in a relative cosmos in which all matter and all coordinates stand in Euclidian relationship with the rest of the cosmos, but there is no ultimate objective reference frame and so true objectivity is unattainable. When we say we are being objective, what we are really saying is that we are minimising subjectivity. All this becomes pertinent when trying to understand mind - a mind is essentially a focussed nexus of subjectivity that procures a refined unique viewpoint on the rest of the cosmos for just one unique point in spacetime. Thus a mind is by definition a unique and subjective thing.
-
torri,
I would say the difference is one of aspect, or perspective. We live in a relative cosmos in which all matter and all coordinates stand in Euclidian relationship with the rest of the cosmos, but there is no ultimate objective reference frame and so true objectivity is unattainable. When we say we are being objective, what we are really saying is that we are minimising subjectivity. All this becomes pertinent when trying to understand mind - a mind is essentially a focussed nexus of subjectivity that procures a refined unique viewpoint on the rest of the cosmos for just one unique point in spacetime. Thus a mind is by definition a unique and subjective thing.
Nicely put. Just by way of a coda, even if there was such a thing as ultimate objective truth the problem with finding it wouldn't so much be an engineering one (ie, building a complex enough machine to find it) as a philosophical one (ie, how would we know that it is ultimate?).
This strikes me as another contradiction with the "god of the omnis" idea by the way: how would an omniscient god know that he is omniscient, that there isn't another reality (or another god for that matter) he's not equipped to know about?
-
Well you know what they say about beauty, it is all in the eye of the beholder, ie it is subjective, not objective. Likewise there is no objective evidence for god as god is all in the mind of the believer.
But you said that you could see beauty in things so you must believe it's true or real. If that is the case you need to investigate what it means to you and how and why you, your human nature, creates or needs to do this. Nothing comes out of a vacuum.
-
JK,
Actually, to a significant degree "science" can do that - we know that the golden ratio is pleasing to people the world over, we can measure brain changes in MRI scanners when the subject is shown images they find appealing etc, but that's not the point. Beauty is one of a group of phenomena that are subjective - beliefs that are often deeply held, perhaps shared commonly (who doesn't like a sunset?) etc but subjective nonetheless. Along wth language and morality aesthetics is variously what we intuit and reason our way towards, but it provides no basis for objectivity. No-one can say, "this is objectively beautiful, and therefore must be beautiful for you too".
And that's the point. Sriram think that "karma" is objectively true, whereas in fact it's no more true for anyone else than his opinion on the Mona Lisa would be true for anyone else.
Seeing something in a scan says nothing about beauty, just as seeing the wind blow my curtains about says nothing about the weather and its causes. All you can say is that this particular stimulus causes this type of response in the brain.
-
JK,
Seeing something in a scan says nothing about beauty, just as seeing the wind blow my curtains about says nothing about the weather and its causes. All you can say is that this particular stimulus causes this type of response in the brain.
Yes, and that particular "response in the brain" we call "beauty". Why is this a problem for you? You seem to be implying some sort of mystical "something" outwith the material that has a special status of beauty. Why?
I note by the way that you've just ignored the main point, namely that subjective opinions (about beauty or anything else) are just that - subjective - and so provide no basis to assert the objectively true.
-
Guessing is fine. There is a famous Feynman film where he talks about guessing in science, but of course, the guesses here are tested.
string theory,multiverse?
-
JK,
Yes, and that particular "response in the brain" we call "beauty". Why is this a problem for you? You seem to be implying some sort of mystical "something" outwith the material that has a special status of beauty. Why?
I note by the way that you've just ignored the main point, namely that subjective opinions (about beauty or anything else) are just that - subjective - and so provide no basis to assert the objectively true.
Something or someone has to make the value judgement that this sight is beautiful. All you are seeing on that scan are electric chemical signals. These don't say that, as you get these signals throughout the brain, they are ubiquitous and so meaningless. As I explained with the curtains blowing in the wind. It is like pondering a painting by looking at the individual drops of paint.
As for your second paragraph, this is pretty much besides the point. But, however, how does the brain take a subjective viewpoint? All it is is a mass of electrical chemical reactions.
-
JK,
Something or someone has to make the value judgement that this sight is beautiful.
Actually lots of “someones” – which in part at least is why we see such diversity of opinions on the matter. There also though seems to be a common intuitive sense of the beautiful – hence pretty much everyone liking the way sunsets look.
All you are seeing on that scan are electric chemical signals. These don't say that, as you get these signals throughout the brain, they are ubiquitous and so meaningless. As I explained with the curtains blowing in the wind. It is like pondering a painting by looking at the individual drops of paint.
But those “signals” tell us what happens in brains when someone experiences “beautiful”. Your analogy fails because, well, it’s not analogous. The full experience of “beauty” can be mapped (at least in principle), and presumably can be created artificially too given the right stimuli. So what?
As for your second paragraph, this is pretty much besides the point. But, however, how does the brain take a subjective viewpoint? All it is is a mass of electrical chemical reactions.
No, it is the point. And you’re attempting an argument from incredulity here but, nonetheless, what make you think that this “mass” of electro-chemical signals is insufficient to create a subjective experience?
You seem to be edging toward a Cartesian mind/body separation here.
-
No, it is the point. And you’re attempting an argument from incredulity here but, nonetheless, what make you think that this “mass” of electro-chemical signals is insufficient to create a subjective experience?
The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.
-
The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.
So there is an objective idea of beautiful? On you go, tell me about it.
-
So there is an objective idea of beautiful? On you go, tell me about it.
Non sequitur.
-
Non sequitur.
Go on. You know that you want to.
-
The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.
Not to a neuroscientist studying the 'mass of electrochemical signals' in a person's brain, I agree. But for the person who is that mass of electrochemical signals, that is subjective experience. The only way to experience something subjectively is to be it; subjectivity arises out of being. Cue solipsism.
-
But you said that you could see beauty in things so you must believe it's true or real. If that is the case you need to investigate what it means to you and how and why you, your human nature, creates or needs to do this. Nothing comes out of a vacuum.
I look at a daffodil and it triggers a response in me which we might broadly file under 'aesthetic'. A honey bee looks at the same daffodil and something similar is triggered in the bee's tiny brain. Hence pollination; hence ecosystems, hence people chatting on internet messageboards. You're right, nothing comes out of a vacuum, everything is interconnected. Physics tells us we need to abandon the whole concept of 'nothing'.
-
You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.
Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
The point of these pixie analogies is to demonstrate that god, too, is made up. It is just that we have a harder time recognising that because the notion of god is that much more deeply culturally embedded into the human psyche. There is no more factual evidence for gods than there is for spaghetti monsters, so why do humans believe in gods but not in flying monsters ?
-
AB,
Yes they are defined by the same laws (and forces). “Objective” and “subjective” are just useful terms to describe the difference between phenomena we observe that are “out there”, and opinions and beliefs that are self-generated. Within the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will it’s a helpful distinction, and there’s no need for an “ultimate” therefore.
So if subjectivity is based on the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will, would you say the concept of subjectivity itself is an illusion?
-
Not to a neuroscientist studying the 'mass of electrochemical signals' in a person's brain, I agree. But for the person who is that mass of electrochemical signals, that is subjective experience. The only way to experience something subjectively is to be it; subjectivity arises out of being. Cue solipsism.
So all being experiences itself then?
-
The point of these pixie analogies is to demonstrate that god, too, is made up.
Please demonstrate that pixies are made up.
Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up'' and also ''pixies are made up therefore spoons are not made up''...
-
AB,
So if subjectivity is based on the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will, would you say the concept of subjectivity itself is an illusion?
Depends what you mean by “illusion”. It serves well enough as a working delineation of “from the mind” as opposed to what’s “out there”. The arrangement of parts that makes up a rose for example is just “there” ("objective"); whether someone finds it beautiful or not on the other hand is his response to it ("subjective").
Whether ultimately (if there even is an “ultimately”) the separation is meaningful is anyone’s guess. A Buddhist for example might say that it’s all part of the same continuum, while Bishop Berkely posited that we create the “out there” for ourselves in any case – the “brain in a vat” idea - so it's all subjective in any case.
-
Spoof,
The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it.
Not to the person observing it, no.
Neither is anything it generates.
That's wrong. The thing it "generates" is you (and me), and we are subjective beings.
-
Spoof,
Not to the person observing it, no.
That's wrong. The thing it "generates" is you (and me), and we are subjective beings.
You used the word generates.
So what you are saying is that when enough physical components are put together then a non physical unmeasurable is generated?...
So you can be a being AND subjective then.
-
Spoof,
Please demonstrate that pixies are made up.
I can't - they're unfalsifiable. Just like "God".
Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...
That's not an argument that anyone has made.
....and also ''pixies are made up therefore spoons are not made up''...
And nor is that.
Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."
Thus if you want to try, say, "You can't falsify God, therefore God" you have no choice but to accept the same construction with "leprechauns" substituted for "God".
It really is that simple.
-
Spoof,
You used the word generates.
No, you did. Here in fact:
The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.
(Reply 220)
So what you are saying is that when enough physical components are put together then a non physical unmeasurable is generated?...
No-one has said that something "non-physical" is generated - that's something you've just made up.
So you can be a being AND subjective then.
You are a "being", you generate opinions and beliefs "subjectively". So what?
-
Spoof,
I can't - they're unfalsifiable. Just like "God".
That's not an argument that anyone has made.
And nor is that.
Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."
Thus if you want to try, say, "You can't falsify God, therefore God"
Nobody has said that.
-
Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."
Yes, you have chuffed on about this since I've known you.
But you haven't had the balls to explain how you are making a serious point rather than depending on ridicule.
In other words what is intrinsically different between this statement:
Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.
Leprechauns are unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.
Arguing Philosophical naturalism is respectable but leprechauns and God are not.
How then do you arrive at this?.....Find some ''cojones'' and report back to us if you please.
-
Spoof,
No, you did. Here in fact:
(Reply 220)
No-one has said that something "non-physical" is generated - that's something you've just made up.
I'm actually asking you a question....stop shuffling.
So you are saying that everything about a person, even his or her subjective being is measurable by science?
-
Spoof,
Nobody has said that.
If you insist on lying here, why do it about statements you've made that are so easily checked?
-
Spoof,
Yes, you have chuffed on about this since I've known you.
But you haven't had the balls to explain how you are making a serious point rather than depending on ridicule.
In other words what is intrinsically different between this statement:
Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.
Leprechauns are unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.
Arguing Philosophical naturalism is respectable but leprechauns and God are not.
How then do you arrive at this?.....Find some ''cojones'' and report back to us if you please.
First, it's impossible to have a conversation with you about "philosophical naturalism" as your version of it is a private definition used only by you in order to make a point, albeit a spurious one.
Second, as both "God" and "leprechauns" are unfalsifiable conjectures, surely even you can see that using their non-falsifiability as an argument for their existence existence is a bad idea can't you?
Can't you?
-
Spoof,
I'm actually asking you a question....stop shuffling.
No, you accused me of using a word ("generates") that was in fact a quote from a post of yours. Your correct reply here is to apologise for your mistake.
So you are saying that everything about a person, even his or her subjective being is measurable by science?
Depends whether you men "currently" or "in principle". If the former, I doubt it; if the latter, then as there's no cogent reason to think there to be a "non-physical" then potentially at least, yes.
-
#233
Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...
That's not an argument that anyone has made.
Erm…#226
... Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!
The point of these pixie analogies is to demonstrate that god, too, is made up. It is just that we have a harder time recognising that because the notion of god is that much more deeply culturally embedded into the human psyche.
Hence the question
Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...
-
Spoof,
"Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...
You still don't get it. You could just as well use "X" in place of "leprechauns" or "God" - the "you can't falsify it, therefore it's true" argument would still be a fallacious one for any outcome. The use of leprechauns, a celestial teapot etc merely accentuates the ludicrousness of that argument, but it's not pivotal to falsifying it.
That's why your "you've just picked something we all agree is made up" fails - it doesn't matter a jot what you pick: the NPF is a false argument regardless of its outcome, as for that matter is any other argument that appears to validate "leprechauns" as readily as it appears to validate "God".
-
Spoof,
No, you accused me of using a word ("generates") that was in fact a quote from a post of yours. Your correct reply here is to apologise for your mistake.
Depends whether you men "currently" or "in principle". If the former, I doubt it; if the latter, then as there's no cogent reason to think there to be a "non-physical" then potentially at least, yes.
My apologies I had failed to notice that you have in fact said that the subjective being just is without feeling the need to make the link between the collection of material and its organisation and the subjective being. That is the equivalent of crying uncle i'm afraid.
You have yet again confirmed your scientism too.
Since a claim that there is no cogent reason is a positive assertion feel free to justify. Unfortunately until they can transfer subjective being you remain the philosophical zombie and I the real deal.
-
Spoof,
My apologies I had failed to notice that you have in fact said that the subjective being just is without feeling the need to make the link between the collection of material and its organisation and the subjective being. That is the equivalent of crying uncle i'm afraid.
Presumably that random jumble of words meant something in your head when at least you typed it?
You have yet again confirmed your scientism too.
Not only haven't I "confirmed" its actual meaning, nor have I confirmed your personal straw man re-definition of it.
Since a claim that there is no cogent reason is a positive assertion feel free to justify.
You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you. If you want to assert the supernatural, the non-material etc then it's for you to make an argument for it. That no-one has ever managed it is a commonplace, but hey - who's to say that you won't be the black swan. Knock yourself out...
Unfortunately until they can transfer subjective being you remain the philosophical zombie and I the real deal.
Sadly, typing incomprehensible gibberish, re-defining words to suit your purpose, and and lying about the arguments that undo you does not make you a "deal" of any kind, let alone a real one.
Apart from that though...
-
Spoof,
You still don't get it. You could just as well use "X" in place of "leprechauns" or "God" - the "you can't falsify it, therefore it's true" argument would still be a fallacious one for any outcome.
You were told a few posts back that no one is saying that and here you are ''perpetuating the turd''.
-
Spoof,
You were told a few posts back that no one is saying that and here you are ''perpetuating the turd''.
That's exactly what you've said - every time you attack the use of leprechauns because they're more obviously made up than "God" in fact rather than grasp that the argument has nothing to do with that.
Still, god know that you're all shiny and polished now.
-
Spoof,
Presumably that random jumble of words meant something in your head when at least you typed it?
Not only haven't I "confirmed" its actual meaning, nor have I confirmed your personal straw man re-definition of it.
You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you. If you want to assert the supernatural, the non-material etc then it's for you to make an argument for it. That no-one has ever managed it is a commonplace, but hey - who's to say that you won't be the black swan. Knock yourself out...
Sadly, typing incomprehensible gibberish, re-defining words to suit your purpose, and and lying about the arguments that undo you does not make you a "deal" of any kind, let alone a real one.
Apart from that though...
Suggesting that putting a collection of material elements together in increasingly more complex ways and then hey presto the subjective being is no argument Hillside it's a lot of noise, fluff and guff and it's an intellectually slack way of statin' the bleedin' obvious.......particularly thin stuff on your part.
A bit of bob's your uncle and hand waving.
For good measure it would not make one iota of difference if a human was completely measureable since the Bible acknowledges we are all creations anyway. That the subjective being is physical is vital for you though but here's the rub.......until we can transfer and share the personal experience we aren't going to be sure.
-
Spoof,
That's exactly what you've said - every time you attack the use of leprechauns because they're more obviously made up than "God" in fact rather than grasp that the argument has nothing to do with that.
Still, god know that you're all shiny and polished now.
Actually I've always said Leprechauns are falsifiable....sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
JK,
Actually lots of “someones” – which in part at least is why we see such diversity of opinions on the matter. There also though seems to be a common intuitive sense of the beautiful – hence pretty much everyone liking the way sunsets look.
But those “signals” tell us what happens in brains when someone experiences “beautiful”. Your analogy fails because, well, it’s not analogous. The full experience of “beauty” can be mapped (at least in principle), and presumably can be created artificially too given the right stimuli. So what?
No, it is the point. And you’re attempting an argument from incredulity here but, nonetheless, what make you think that this “mass” of electro-chemical signals is insufficient to create a subjective experience?
You seem to be edging toward a Cartesian mind/body separation here.
Once again your types are missing my point.
'From incredulity' - ??? It is an argument not some ideological position.
-
Spoof,
I can't - they're unfalsifiable. Just like "God".
That's not an argument that anyone has made.
And nor is that.
Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."
Thus if you want to try, say, "You can't falsify God, therefore God" you have no choice but to accept the same construction with "leprechauns" substituted for "God".
It really is that simple.
You're a little two faced. A few posts up I used an analogy and you just dismissed it as, well, just an analogy but when you use one, i.e. the leprechaun thing that's valid....? >:(
-
Spoof,
No-one has said that something "non-physical" is generated - that's something you've just made up.
So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.
-
Spoof,
Suggesting that putting a collection of material elements together in increasingly more complex ways and then hey presto the subjective being is no argument Hillside it's a lot of noise, fluff and guff and it's an intellectually slack way of statin' the bleedin' obvious.......particularly thin stuff on your part.
A bit of bob's your uncle and hand waving.
Desperate stuff Spoof, desperate stuff. If you seriously think there's such a thing a the non-material then - finally - why not at least try to demonstrate it rather than just rely on your ignorance of the reason and evidence for what is known, and acting as if the huge challenges of establishing the non-material don't exist - the only "hand waving" on show here?
For good measure it would not make one iota of difference if a human was completely measureable since the Bible acknowledges we are all creations anyway. That the subjective being is physical is vital for you though but here's the rub.......until we can transfer and share the personal experience we aren't going to be sure.
Oh now I get it - all this time using reason and evidence and stuff when what I should have done was just to take your word for it because it's written in a book. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
-
Sppof,
Actually I've always said Leprechauns are falsifiable....
Saying something doesn't make it so. Knock yourself out trying though.
....sorry to piss on your bonfire.
Not even close.
-
JK,
Once again your types are missing my point.
'From incredulity' - It is an argument not some ideological position.
I’m not sure who you think “your types” to be, but the arguments from personal incredulity is a basic logical fallacy. It’s a bad argument.
You're a little two faced. A few posts up I used an analogy and you just dismissed it as, well, just an analogy but when you use one, i.e. the leprechaun thing that's valid....?
You’re not getting it. There’s nothing wrong with using analogies, but to be analogous there have to features in common that make the comparisons meaningful. Your problem was that your analogy wasn’t, well, analogous.
So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.
Seriously? Of course it’s “held by the brain”. Where else would it be held? Consciousness is an emergent property of the material stuff and forces of which the brain consists. You can’t just conjure up a separate “something” because it stretches too far your credulity that the brain is complex enough to do all these things and more.
-
So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.
Whether your eyes are open or closed makes little difference, seeing/imagining is still an internal neurological phenomenon happening in the occipital lobe; the eyes are merely outfacing sensors supplying novel information into that mix, but that 'mix' is mainly internally sourced from memory anyway.
There cannot be a master neuron, for the same base reason that there cannot be a god - they both fail in information theory terms, they are but naive attempts to head off an infinite regress.
-
There cannot be a master neuron, for the same base reason that there cannot be a god - they both fail in information theory terms, they are but naive attempts to head off an infinite regress.
You cannot fit facts to suit a theory. Change the theory please! :)
The idea of a master neuron is nonsense...but the Subject...the Self is a reality. All of us can experience it.
The brain is a piece of flesh that rots after a person dies. It cannot by itself be the 'God' in the system. The brain forms because of stem cells. The stem cells are driven by genes/DNA. What drives the DNA and why and how, is the question. The possible answer is Consciousness.
-
You cannot fit facts to suit a theory. Change the theory please! :)
The idea of a master neuron is nonsense...but the Subject...the Self is a reality. All of us can experience it.
The brain is a piece of flesh that rots after a person dies. It cannot by itself be the 'God' in the system. The brain forms because of stem cells. The stem cells are driven by genes/DNA. What drives the DNA and why and how, is the question. The possible answer is Consciousness.
Theory is born out of the marriage of observation and applied logic - it is an explanation of observed facts and we cannot change theory willy nilly just to appease cultural biases or to indulge flaky pseudoscience. Consciousness is an exotic and rare product of this cosmos not the cause of it. Not unless you are indulging some or other misdefinition of the word as happens in frequently New Age thinking and in panpsychicism
-
Theory is born out of the marriage of observation and applied logic - it is an explanation of observed facts and we cannot change theory willy nilly just to appease cultural biases or to indulge flaky pseudoscience. Consciousness is an exotic and rare product of this cosmos not the cause of it. Not unless you are indulging some or other misdefinition of the word as happens in frequently New Age thinking and in panpsychicism
You can't just stick labels, give names and categorize ideas to suit current scientific snobbery and then dismiss them all as irrelevant to reality. Some scientists are beginning to think laterally and many 'mainstream scientists' don't seem to like it! ;)
-
Spoof,
If you insist on lying here, why do it about statements you've made that are so easily checked?
Feel free to demonstrate that anyone has said seriously ''God is unfalsifiable therefore God''........apart from yourself.
-
You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you.
Enough to know that when you say ''there IS no cogent reason for'' something you make a positive assertion that needs to be demonstrated.
Can you also please back up your assertion (positive) that an argument for leprechauns which works for God is a bad one?
-
Sppof,
Saying something doesn't make it so. Knock yourself out trying though.
Not even close.
Alright then what is unfalsifiable about tiny irish people, ends of rainbows, and pots of gold and a combination of the three?
-
Spoof,
Feel free to demonstrate that anyone has said seriously ''God is unfalsifiable therefore God''........apart from yourself.
It’s called the negative proof fallacy, and we see it here regularly. Hope in particular is a big fan.
The point that you’ve just ducked again though is not the fact of the NPF, but rather that your attempt to critique it of, “but leprechauns are just made up” entirely misses the point. You can substitute any unfalsifiable conjecture you like for “God” or for “leprechauns” and end up with the same result.
If you want to shift ground now and rely on the notion that no-one does try the NPF you’d be wrong about that too, but it doesn’t get you off the hook of misunderstanding it too.
Oh, and I see that you've just walked away from your earlier claim that you could falsify leprechauns. Why is that?
Enough to know that when you say ''there IS no cogent reason for'' something you make a positive assertion that needs to be demonstrated.
You’ve tried that stunt before and failed with it then too. It is demonstrated, for the same reason that “there’s no cogent reason to think that storks fly babies through windows” is demonstrated.
Can you also please back up your assertion (positive) that an argument for leprechauns which works for God is a bad one?
Seriously? It’s a bad one because an argument that produces with equal facility an outcome we agree to be made up with one that only one of us thinks to be made up cannot be a bad argument for the former and a good one for the former when it's the same argument. Perhaps you might try Amazon for a basic primer on logic before you try posting again?
-
Spoof,
It’s called the negative proof fallacy, and we see it here regularly. Hope in particular is a big fan.
Yes.....but did he actually say it....or is it your inference?
-
Spoof,
It’s called the negative proof fallacy, and we see it here regularly. Hope in particular is a big fan.
The point that you’ve just ducked again though is not the fact of the NPF, but rather that your attempt to critique it of, “but leprechauns are just made up” entirely misses the point. You can substitute any unfalsifiable conjecture you like for “God” or for “leprechauns” and end up with the same result.
If you want to shift ground now and rely on the notion that no-one does try the NPF you’d be wrong about that too, but it doesn’t get you off the hook of misunderstanding it too.
Oh, and I see that you've just walked away from your earlier claim that you could falsify leprechauns. Why is that?
You’ve tried that stunt before and failed with it then too. It is demonstrated, for the same reason that “there’s no cogent reason to think that storks fly babies through windows” is demonstrated.
Seriously? It’s a bad one because an argument that produces with equal facility an outcome we agree to be made up with one that only one of us thinks to be made up cannot be a bad argument for the former and a good one for the former when it's the same argument. Perhaps you might try Amazon for a basic primer on logic before you try posting again?
Yep. Tiny Irishmen, upside down pipes being smoked, ends of rainbows and pots of gold and any combination are eminently testable Hillside.
Don't you have a better argument than to evoke ''The great NPF scare of 2016''?
-
Spoof,
Desperate stuff Spoof, desperate stuff. If you seriously think there's such a thing a the non-material then - finally - why not at least try to demonstrate it
Hillside since when have you got to demonstrate something to THINK something. You can't demonstrate that the subjective self will ultimately be measurable and yet it's ok for you to think it and propose it's potential to be the case.
ii) You are mistaking reason for physicalism.
-
Yep. Tiny Irishmen, upside down pipes being smoked, ends of rainbows and pots of gold and any combination are eminently testable Hillside.
How do you falsify a leprechaun? Give me a test that I can perform to show they are not real.
-
Sppof,
Yes.....but did he actually say it....or is it your inference?
He said it – often in fact, as have various others who come here. It’s an old trope too – which is why back in the day Russell came up with his celestial teapot as a counter to it.
Anyways, have you now formally abandoned your "the NPF is fine so long as it applies to my unfalsifiable conjecture, but not fine for any other non-falsifiable conjecture" effort in favour of, "no-one uses the NPF anyway"?
Yep. Tiny Irishmen, upside down pipes being smoked, ends of rainbows and pots of gold and any combination are eminently testable Hillside.
Don't you have a better argument than to evoke ''The great NPF scare of 2016''?
Yup, they’re my faith beliefs about them. Of course others of the more traditional wing think that they actually wear purple on Sundays and commit the mortal sin of hanging the loo rolls the wrong way around, but my faith is of the more liberal type.
Anyways, you were saying that you could falsify my faith belief in leprechauns. When exactly do you propose to do that, and how?
Hillside since when have you got to demonstrate something to THINK something. You can't demonstrate that the subjective self will ultimately be measurable and yet it's ok for you to think it and propose it's potential to be the case.
Since you’ve claimed it to be a fact. You can think anything you like, but if you want to assert into existence the non-material then you have all your work ahead of you still if you expect anyone else to think you’re right about that.
ii) You are mistaking reason for physicalism.
A statement you make presumably because you use almost none of the former and you don’t understand the meaning of the latter.
-
How do you falsify a leprechaun? Give me a test that I can perform to show they are not real.
Yes, I was just thinking that. You will hit the problem of induction. You could search Ireland for leprechauns, but if you don't find any, would that confirm their non-existence? Not really.
-
So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.
The way to approach this is to find a brain-dead person (rather tricky these days), and ask them what's in their mind's eye. If they reply tonight's dinner, or a pretty girl, you're in luck. Generally, when I've talked to corpses, they've been very reticent, but maybe I've had bad luck.
-
Wiggs,
The way to approach this is to find a brain-dead person (rather tricky these days)...
Have you read some of the posts here? :o
-
Wiggs,
Yes, I was just thinking that. You will hit the problem of induction. You could search Ireland for leprechauns, but if you don't find any, would that confirm their non-existence? Not really.
Yup - just as someone might have said, "I've looked at every swan I can find and they're all white. Therefore..."
Not to worry though. Vlad/Spoof tells us that he can falsify leprechauns so I've got in a case of Iron Bru and a jumbo pack of twiglets and I'm all settled in to watch him do it...
...should be any minute now I reckon...
...really, hang on - he'll be here soon I promise...
...er, Spoofy ol' son?
-
This fantasy that consciousness exists outside brains baffles me. Where does it come from? Is it some kind of protest against the physical world? I don't know. It can never point to anything concrete, just waffle.
-
This fantasy that consciousness exists outside brains baffles me. Where does it come from? Is it some kind of protest against the physical world? I don't know. It can never point to anything concrete, just waffle.
And near death experiences demonstrate that dead people can see and hear also. Not much point in being alive really, then. Who needs neurons anyway.
-
And near death experiences demonstrate that dead people can see and hear also. Not much point in being alive really, then. Who needs neurons anyway.
A robot might wonder how intelligence could exist outside the microprocessor! But it does exist. Similarly....intelligence and Consciousness could be fundamental properties of the life form that we call spirit.
-
Yeah, waffle could be part of wiffle.
-
A robot might wonder how intelligence could exist outside the microprocessor! But it does exist. Similarly....intelligence and Consciousness could be fundamental properties of the life form that we call spirit.
and if intelligence and consciousness can exist independently, what then is the point of having a body ? Why don't we just exist as spirit beings ? All those messy body parts ugh ...
-
I would say the difference is one of aspect, or perspective. We live in a relative cosmos in which all matter and all coordinates stand in Euclidian relationship with the rest of the cosmos, but there is no ultimate objective reference frame and so true objectivity is unattainable. When we say we are being objective, what we are really saying is that we are minimising subjectivity. All this becomes pertinent when trying to understand mind - a mind is essentially a focussed nexus of subjectivity that procures a refined unique viewpoint on the rest of the cosmos for just one unique point in spacetime. Thus a mind is by definition a unique and subjective thing.
I must admire this thoughtful response Torri. You appear to be using your considerable intelligence to shoehorn your perception of reality to fit in with the inherently lifeless deterministic activity derived from human scientific discovery. But can you not see that there is much, much more to reality than this?
-
Yes, I was just thinking that. You will hit the problem of induction. You could search Ireland for leprechauns, but if you don't find any, would that confirm their non-existence? Not really.
As Hillside will tell you the existence of leprechauns is probabilistic since they are tiny Irishmen found at rainbows with pots of Gold and since he is a rabid antichristian like yourself you would be confortable with that. But he and his little wizards are in trouble when suggesting a probability of God as you have suggested in the past but probably now accept the opposite.
-
Not to a neuroscientist studying the 'mass of electrochemical signals' in a person's brain, I agree. But for the person who is that mass of electrochemical signals, that is subjective experience. The only way to experience something subjectively is to be it; subjectivity arises out of being. Cue solipsism.
So being is subjectivity?
-
As Hillside will tell you the existence of leprechauns is probabilistic since they are tiny Irishmen found at rainbows with pots of Gold and since he is a rabid antichristian like yourself you would be confortable with that. But he and his little wizards are in trouble when suggesting a probability of God as you have suggested in the past but probably now accept the opposite.
That's pretty good. A giant non sequitur, with some mini ones tucked up inside, like Russian dolls. Complimenti.
-
That's pretty good. A giant non sequitur, with some mini ones tucked up inside, like Russian dolls. Complimenti.
Not really.....you could search the whole world and probably not find any Leprechauns.
-
Not really.....you could search the whole world and probably not find any Leprechauns.
What's the foolproof leprechaunometer?
-
So being is subjectivity?
Pretty much, yes. Every point of matter has a subjective aspect upon the rest of the cosmos, and there are objective aspects upon it from other places in the cosmos. Every thing in the cosmos has its own unique subjective aspect. The act of being something is to experience it's subjective aspect. If you are a hydrogen atom in interstellar space, your subjective experience of the rest of the cosmos is simple, but unique, consisting mainly in the base forces of attraction and repulsion. A brain is something that procures a highly enriched subjectivity for a local bounded system with the outcome that the experience of being a haddock or an estate agent is far richer than that of a hydrogen atom. Or something like that. Thinking out loud here ....
-
Pretty much, yes. Every point of matter has a subjective aspect upon the rest of the cosmos, and there are objective aspects upon it from other places in the cosmos. Every thing in the cosmos has its own unique subjective aspect. The act of being something is to experience it's subjective aspect. If you are a hydrogen atom in interstellar space, your subjective experience of the rest of the cosmos is simple, but unique, consisting mainly in the base forces of attraction and repulsion. A brain is something that procures a highly enriched subjectivity for a local bounded system with the outcome that the experience of being a haddock or an estate agent is far richer than that of a hydrogen atom. Or something like that. Thinking out loud here ....
But can a hydrogen atom experience its own subjectivity?
And the human brain comprises lots of individual molecules - are they all subjective to themselves?
-
What's the foolproof leprechaunometer?
Er, Bluehillside.....they love him....If you are hunting Leprechauns, take Bluehillside with you and they will stick to him like shit and a blanket.
-
Pretty much, yes. Every point of matter has a subjective aspect upon the rest of the cosmos, and there are objective aspects upon it from other places in the cosmos. Every thing in the cosmos has its own unique subjective aspect. The act of being something is to experience it's subjective aspect. If you are a hydrogen atom in interstellar space, your subjective experience of the rest of the cosmos is simple, but unique, consisting mainly in the base forces of attraction and repulsion. A brain is something that procures a highly enriched subjectivity for a local bounded system with the outcome that the experience of being a haddock or an estate agent is far richer than that of a hydrogen atom. Or something like that. Thinking out loud here ....
Don't you think this is a bit reductionist though, investing a kind of consciousness into the atomic level?
-
and if intelligence and consciousness can exist independently, what then is the point of having a body ? Why don't we just exist as spirit beings ? All those messy body parts ugh ...
You have not been paying attention ... no bodies no animal passions to overcome so not much fun ;)
-
Spoof,
As Hillside will tell you the existence of leprechauns is probabilistic since they are tiny Irishmen found at rainbows with pots of Gold and since he is a rabid antichristian…
That “hence” is quite some non sequitur, and the “he is a rabid antichristian” is a lie you’ve tried several times here. I’m not “rabidly” anything, and nor am I “antichristian” – I merely argue against Christians who overreach into demanding special privileges for their private faith beliefs.
…like yourself…
And nor of course is Wiggs “rabidly antichristian” ether.
… you would be confortable with that. But he and his little wizards are in trouble when suggesting a probability of God as you have suggested in the past but probably now accept the opposite.
Random word selection noted. What are you even trying to say here?
Not really.....you could search the whole world and probably not find any Leprechauns.
That’s probably true. Now then – about that falsification of leprechauns you claimed to be able to do, but now seem to have resiled from?
-
and if intelligence and consciousness can exist independently, what then is the point of having a body ? Why don't we just exist as spirit beings ? All those messy body parts ugh ...
torridon,
That is what spiritual philosophy is all about. We really are free independent beings. We DO exist as spirit beings. That is the point. NDE's are clear on that....as also most spiritual and religious texts.
Now...the question... WHY are we living in this body... is relevant...and that's the question most sages, philosophers have asked for thousands of years.
To find an answer for this you may have to study some spiritual philosophies, secret teachings of religions etc. You may have to meditate and live in seclusion for some time. The answers are all inside you.
To give you a simple outline....
1. Spirits have for some reason become tarnished, ignorant and unclean. They are enveloped by some form of 'dirt' which makes them individualistic and selfish.
2. The spirits are therefore born in bodies of various kinds beginning with the most ignorant lower level organisms.
3. Then through the process of evolution, the erosion of the 'dirt' begins and the inner consciousness slowly awakens. This obviously has several levels.
4. As we reach the human level, self awareness becomes more pronounced. This helps further in the process of spiritual development by consciously removing the 'dirt' and awakening the inner Self. Religious processes are also a part of this.
5. As we develop, we become more and more selfless, loving, universal which are the true qualities of the Spirit. It would be more correct to say that these qualities that are latent within us ...start surfacing.
6. Once we are cleansed of the 'dirt', we become free and are not born again. We then exist as spirit beings.
I know there are lots of questions and doubts and if's and but's. But this is only a simplistic and sketchy outline of the spiritual philosophy. If our understanding of the physical world of atoms, cosmos and genes can be so complicated that we have several questions that cannot be answered...it is bound to be only more so in the case of spiritual ideas.
No one will be able to give you a complete and comprehensive explanation of all this...all neatly tied up. As I said...each of us has to seek the answers inside ourselves. That is why introspection and inner development are considered so important in spiritual matters.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Don't you think this is a bit reductionist though, investing a kind of consciousness into the atomic level?
I don't buy into panpsychism if that is what you are thinking, it smacks of woo to me. Rather I would think that exotic emergent phenomena like consciousness and qualia must derive from the base laws of nature that we already know about, the same laws that describe the behaviour of fundamental particles. How do we get from particles to politics ? It's a real big story to be unfolded.
-
torridon,
That is what spiritual philosophy is all about. We really are free independent beings. We DO exist as spirit beings. That is the point. NDE's are clear on that....as also most spiritual and religious texts.
Now...the question... WHY are we living in this body... is relevant...and that's the question most sages, philosophers have asked for thousands of years.
To find an answer for this you may have to study some spiritual philosophies, secret teachings of religions etc. You may have to meditate and live in seclusion for some time. The answers are all inside you.
To give you a simple outline....
1. Spirits have for some reason become tarnished, ignorant and unclean. They are enveloped by some form of 'dirt' which makes them individualistic and selfish.
2. The spirits are therefore born in bodies of various kinds beginning with the most ignorant lower level organisms.
3. Then through the process of evolution, the erosion of the 'dirt' begins and the inner consciousness slowly awakens. This obviously has several levels.
4. As we reach the human level, self awareness becomes more pronounced. This helps further in the process of spiritual development by consciously removing the 'dirt' and awakening the inner Self. Religious processes are also a part of this.
5. As we develop, we become more and more selfless, loving, universal which are the true qualities of the Spirit. It would be more correct to say that these qualities that are latent within us ...start surfacing.
6. Once we are cleansed of the 'dirt', we become free and are not born again. We then exist as spirit beings.
I know there are lots of questions and doubts and if's and but's. But this is only a simplistic and sketchy outline of the spiritual philosophy. If our understanding of the physical world of atoms, cosmos and genes can be so complicated that we have several questions that cannot be answered...it is bound to be only more so in the case of spiritual ideas.
No one will be able to give you a complete and comprehensive explanation of all this...all neatly tied up. As I said...each of us has to seek the answers inside ourselves. That is why introspection and inner development are considered so important in spiritual matters.
Cheers.
Sriram
That's all very nice, but I think it creates more unanswered questions than it solves. It says nothing about what a spirit is, about where they came from, what their properties are, how many are there, are these spirits discreet and unique or are they all part of a greater whole, is the number of spirits constant over time, does each e-coli bacterium have a spirit of its own, do spirits exist in spacetime or do they transcend it in some way, would we expect there to be spirits on Mars and Europa ?
Could go on but you get the picture - I see this sort of top down rationale as creating more unexplained things than it explains, and for evidential support in the modern sense you end up having to rely on fragmentary and anecdotal claims of exotic aberrant phenomena like out of body experiences whilst ignoring the overwhelming bulk of insights accrued through mainstream research into the nature of life.
It's an interesting contrast to western traditional ways of thinking, but at the end of the day it seems to me to fly in the face of evidence more than it explains the evidence, and furthermore, like western judeochristian traditions, it is anthropocentric at heart, it starts from our human experience and extrapolates a universe from that. In contrast, modern research shows us a cosmos in which we are very much an exotic extreme rarity rather than the centre of things; and it is telling that your philosophy depends much on introspection paralleling the western traditions of meditation and prayer - by focussing on what is inside us we end up seeing the cosmos through a highly personalised human-centric lens rather than an objective view. These ways of thinking appeal to our narcissism, so they become popular. They also act to support our denial of mortality, again, an immensely seductive power.
-
We really are free independent beings. We DO exist as spirit beings. That is the point. NDE's are clear on that....as also most spiritual and religious texts.
Depends on what you mean by 'spirit' but if this is analogous with 'souls' then 'spirit' seems like wishful thinking dressed up in cultural clothing, such as the dogmas and routines of the various religions our species has come up with to date.
Now...the question... WHY are we living in this body... is relevant...and that's the question most sages, philosophers have asked for thousands of years.
'Why', in the context you are using, seems like an invalid question since it assumes there is an answer: it seems like an instance of begging the question (a fallacy).
To find an answer for this you may have to study some spiritual philosophies, secret teachings of religions etc. You may have to meditate and live in seclusion for some time. The answers are all inside you.
Aside from being a mix of confirmation bias and special pleading this again presumes a valid answer.
To give you a simple outline....
1. Spirits have for some reason become tarnished, ignorant and unclean. They are enveloped by some form of 'dirt' which makes them individualistic and selfish.
2. The spirits are therefore born in bodies of various kinds beginning with the most ignorant lower level organisms.
3. Then through the process of evolution, the erosion of the 'dirt' begins and the inner consciousness slowly awakens. This obviously has several levels.
4. As we reach the human level, self awareness becomes more pronounced. This helps further in the process of spiritual development by consciously removing the 'dirt' and awakening the inner Self. Religious processes are also a part of this.
5. As we develop, we become more and more selfless, loving, universal which are the true qualities of the Spirit. It would be more correct to say that these qualities that are latent within us ...start surfacing.
6. Once we are cleansed of the 'dirt', we become free and are not born again. We then exist as spirit beings.
There are probably a variety of fallacies in this little lot given the amount of undefined terms involved and how these are being used: but most of all it reads like an exercise in very loose wishful thinking.
I know there are lots of questions and doubts and if's and but's. But this is only a simplistic and sketchy outline of the spiritual philosophy. If our understanding of the physical world of atoms, cosmos and genes can be so complicated that we have several questions that cannot be answered...it is bound to be only more so in the case of spiritual ideas.
Which this time reads like an argument from personal incredulity.
No one will be able to give you a complete and comprehensive explanation of all this...all neatly tied up.
I don't think, though, that you've set out anything that is education-apt.
As I said...each of us has to seek the answers inside ourselves. That is why introspection and inner development are considered so important in spiritual matters.
If all you mean is that each of us has the capacity, thanks to our biology, to think abstractly then fine: we also have the capacity for imagination, and I suspect that what you deem as being 'spiritual' is an example of that.
-
Sriram,
That is what spiritual philosophy is all about. We really are free independent beings. We DO exist as spirit beings. That is the point. NDE's are clear on that....as also most spiritual and religious texts.
Using capital letters does not make something true. This’ll bounce off you because you’re so heavily invested in your beliefs, but your problem is that there’s no evidence of any kind to suggest that there is such a thing as “spirit”, let alone that we are “spirit beings”.
Torri makes a good point when he says:
“…like western judeochristian traditions, it is anthropocentric at heart, it starts from our human experience and extrapolates a universe from that.”
That’s true of most mystic traditions I think, yours included. To explain the universe, people started with themselves and looked for narratives to fit around their experiences. The genius of rational enquiry on the other hand is that it starts with the Universe, and as s footnote tries to work out where we happen to fit within it.
Now...the question... WHY are we living in this body... is relevant...and that's the question most sages, philosophers have asked for thousands of years.
“Sages” maybe, but not philosophers. Philosophy has long since moved on from pre-rationalist mythicism.
-
#267
re the poster Hope and the NPF:
Yes.....but did he actually say it....or is it your inference?
Sppof,
He said it – often in fact, as have various others who come here. It’s an old trope too – which is why back in the day Russell came up with his celestial teapot as a counter to it.
Then you will have no problem providing citations of where it has been used.
-
SOTS,
Then you will have no problem providing citations of where it has been used.
My problem would be trawling through his posts for your benefit. He's been called on it many times - if you're that interested, look for it yourself.
It's a secondary issue in any case: you (and Vlad) tried to critique the rebuttal of the NPF by complaining that leprechauns, the celestial teapot etc are obviously made up. You've had it explained to you several times now that that's irrelevant to the force of the rebuttal, so you seem now to have resiled to a position of, "Oh well, no-one uses the NPF anyway". Actually they do - a lot in fact - but even if no-one did, the rebuttal of it would stand regardless.
-
My problem would be trawling through his posts for your benefit. He's been called on it many times - if you're that interested, look for it yourself.
Your problem? You accuse someone of something and cannot even be bothered to cite a single example?
It's a secondary issue in any case: you (and Vlad) tried to critique the rebuttal of the NPF by complaining that leprechauns, the celestial teapot etc are obviously made up. You've had it explained to you several times now that that's irrelevant to the force of the rebuttal,
It is not a secondary issue as you are accusing people of using it when they are not. It therefore allows you to hide behind having to account for your own position.
-
Your problem? You accuse someone of something and cannot even be bothered to cite a single example?
It is not a secondary issue as you are accusing people of using it when they are not. It therefore allows you to hide behind having to account for your own position.
Utter nonsense: there are numerous instances of fallacy-peddling, including from your good self.
Do your own homework!
-
Utter nonsense: there are numerous instances of fallacy-peddling, including from your good self.
Do your own homework!
I'm so glad to read your post - I was in imminent danger of breaking my own rule of never being sarcastic!!
-
Do your own homework!
Your failure to provide any evidence to back up your point is duly noted...
Numerous instances eh? So numerous, you can't even find one
-
SOTS,
Your problem? You accuse someone of something and cannot even be bothered to cite a single example?
Yes, my problem if you want me to do the work for you on an issue that's pretty much irrelevant in any case. Hope has been called on it many times, but so have other posters here. So presumably did people attempt it in Russell's day, which is why he took the time to rebut it.
It is not a secondary issue as you are accusing people of using it when they are not. It therefore allows you to hide behind having to account for your own position.
It's precisely a secondary issue because it's irrelevant to the argument - namely that the NPF is fails because non-falsification is a necessary condition for a truth proposition but not a sufficient one. Russell's teapot accentuates the point by showing that the NPF can lead to "god" and to a celestial teapot with equal facility, and you fell of a cliff when you critiqued that by complaining that the teapot was obviously made up.
So rather than keep ducking and diving on an irrelevance, do you now grasp:
1. That the the NPF is a false argument (and why)?
2. That your critique of Russell's teapot misses the point of it entirely?
-
SOTS,
Your failure to provide any evidence to back up your point is duly noted...
Numerous instances eh? So numerous, you can't even find one
Again, who attempts it and how often wasn't the point at all. It was just a diversionary tactic by Vlad, and the actual point concerns the fallaciousness of the NPF and your failure to comprehend its rebuttal.
Why is this difficult for you?
-
Your failure to provide any evidence to back up your point is duly noted...
Numerous instances eh? So numerous, you can't even find one
Since you've been referring to fallacies, and it has been pointed to you that you have been using them and misunderstanding them since you arrived here, then I'd suggest you start by looking at responses to your own posts.
As I said - do you own homework. I'll also repeat what I said to you a while back: that if your going to get involved in issues related to philosophy in general (such as fallacies) then you need to do some homework there too else you'll continue to look ill-informed.
Since you are clearly evading much of what has been said directly to you, or you haven't understood it, then as far as incisiveness is concerned I'd say you were more 'Butter-knife' than 'Sword'.
-
#267
re the poster Hope and the NPF:
Yes.....but did he actually say it....or is it your inference?
Sppof,
He said it – often in fact, as have various others who come here. It’s an old trope too – which is why back in the day Russell came up with his celestial teapot as a counter to it.
Then you will have no problem providing citations of where it has been used.
Clearly, this is a problem, and not just for bluehillside.
I would suggest that the charge is erroneous and bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, ..., need to stop making it. The (partial) results of my homework ;)
From the AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence thread:
#176 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12806.msg643615#msg643615)
Then you think wrongly. Hope (and some others here) regularly use the NPF to imply that his/their conjecture "God" is thereby true. If he/they didn't think "but you can't falsify it" implied that why otherwise would they return to it over and over again?
imply. Sounds kind of subjective to me!
#178 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12806.msg643619#msg643619)
Yes. Hope and others imply that regularly. If that wasn't the implication, why bother with it?
Even more subjectivity!
#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12806.msg643631#msg643631)
What Hope and other actually do though is rely on the NPF to imply "God". They seem to think that non-falsifiability is an argument for something being true, when it's no such thing.
Three examples that illustrate that bluehillside is reading into the posts of others what they are not necessarily saying.
-
Three examples that illustrate that bluehillside is reading into the posts of others what they are not necessarily saying.
Or three examples of you not understanding the points being made by BHS.
-
That's all very nice, but I think it creates more unanswered questions than it solves. It says nothing about what a spirit is, about where they came from, what their properties are, how many are there, are these spirits discreet and unique or are they all part of a greater whole, is the number of spirits constant over time, does each e-coli bacterium have a spirit of its own, do spirits exist in spacetime or do they transcend it in some way, would we expect there to be spirits on Mars and Europa ?
Could go on but you get the picture - I see this sort of top down rationale as creating more unexplained things than it explains, and for evidential support in the modern sense you end up having to rely on fragmentary and anecdotal claims of exotic aberrant phenomena like out of body experiences whilst ignoring the overwhelming bulk of insights accrued through mainstream research into the nature of life.
It's an interesting contrast to western traditional ways of thinking, but at the end of the day it seems to me to fly in the face of evidence more than it explains the evidence, and furthermore, like western judeochristian traditions, it is anthropocentric at heart, it starts from our human experience and extrapolates a universe from that. In contrast, modern research shows us a cosmos in which we are very much an exotic extreme rarity rather than the centre of things; and it is telling that your philosophy depends much on introspection paralleling the western traditions of meditation and prayer - by focussing on what is inside us we end up seeing the cosmos through a highly personalised human-centric lens rather than an objective view. These ways of thinking appeal to our narcissism, so they become popular. They also act to support our denial of mortality, again, an immensely seductive power.
How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?
All that science and rational thinking produce are evidence for the working of the physical world. They say nothing about the spiritual world and its purpose.
It is like understanding what a car is made of and how it works. That is what science does. What I have written about on the other hand, is that the driver of the car is not a part of the car itself and is an independent entity who leaves the car when it crashes. It is something different and runs parallel to what science investigates, while also blending into it.
There is no conflict between the two.
You are probably confusing with religious mythology and dogma.
-
All that science and rational thinking produce are evidence for the working of the physical world. They say nothing about the spiritual world and its purpose.
I do not believe there is a 'spiritual world', let alone that such a thing has a purpose. If you do, where is it, what is it, how can I acquire any objective knowledge about it; I am not referring to imagined ideas about it, but actual knowledge?
-
You are probably confusing with religious mythology and dogma.
Just wondering how this is different from 'religious mythology and dogma':
1. Spirits have for some reason become tarnished, ignorant and unclean. They are enveloped by some form of 'dirt' which makes them individualistic and selfish.
2. The spirits are therefore born in bodies of various kinds beginning with the most ignorant lower level organisms.
3. Then through the process of evolution, the erosion of the 'dirt' begins and the inner consciousness slowly awakens. This obviously has several levels.
4. As we reach the human level, self awareness becomes more pronounced. This helps further in the process of spiritual development by consciously removing the 'dirt' and awakening the inner Self. Religious processes are also a part of this.
5. As we develop, we become more and more selfless, loving, universal which are the true qualities of the Spirit. It would be more correct to say that these qualities that are latent within us ...start surfacing.
6. Once we are cleansed of the 'dirt', we become free and are not born again. We then exist as spirit beings.
-
Bramble #307
It is really desperately worrying to think that there are thinking human beings who, in this day and age, believe that stuff you quoted.
-
JK,
1) I’m not sure who you think “your types” to be, but the arguments from personal incredulity is a basic logical fallacy. It’s a bad argument.
2) You’re not getting it. There’s nothing wrong with using analogies, but to be analogous there have to features in common that make the comparisons meaningful. Your problem was that your analogy wasn’t, well, analogous.
3) Seriously? Of course it’s “held by the brain”. Where else would it be held? Consciousness is an emergent property of the material stuff and forces of which the brain consists. You can’t just conjure up a separate “something” because it stretches too far your credulity that the brain is complex enough to do all these things and more.
1) If it is a bad argument you should be able to show it to be so, not to resort to unfounded assertions about it and ah hominen.
2) Yes it was. It was spot on.
3) You're not getting it at all. This statement of yours is just rhetorical waffle. Saying something, like a theist does, doesn't make it so. The image has to be somewhere, as an image, and viewed by a subject or entity of some fashion, as a process of subject-object relationship.
-
Whether your eyes are open or closed makes little difference, seeing/imagining is still an internal neurological phenomenon happening in the occipital lobe; the eyes are merely outfacing sensors supplying novel information into that mix, but that 'mix' is mainly internally sourced from memory anyway.
There cannot be a master neuron, for the same base reason that there cannot be a god - they both fail in information theory terms, they are but naive attempts to head off an infinite regress.
"information theory terms" - what is that suppose to mean?
But there is an image which is being observed i.e. there is a subject-object relationship, and the image is not found in the brain, for it only has a mass of neurons nothing else.
-
Bramble #307
It is really desperately worrying to think that there are thinking human beings who, in this day and age, believe that stuff you quoted.
I think what boggles me is that anyone might want to believe it. Why would anybody voluntarily imagine oneself as a 'dirty spirit' - 'tarnished, ignorant and unclean' - who had to go through goodness knows what rigours over innumerable lifetimes eventually to become 'free'. Some folk really do seem to hate themselves. Very sad.
-
and if intelligence and consciousness can exist independently, what then is the point of having a body ? Why don't we just exist as spirit beings ? All those messy body parts ugh ...
What is the point of a body? What is the meaning of life? What is the point of your life?
-
SOTS,
In Reply 303 you wrote:
I would suggest that the charge is erroneous and bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, ..., need to stop making it. The (partial) results of my homework
And then, just two posts later, Sriram gave us a doozy of an NPF with:
How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?
Genius! He sets up an unfalsifiable conjecture (“spirit”) and then demands the evidence that would falsify it.
How’s that “homework” of yours feeling now?
So enough of the ducking and diving. Again:
Do you now grasp -
1. That the the NPF is a false argument (and why)?
2. That your critique of Russell's teapot misses the point of it entirely?
Why so coy?
Three examples that illustrate that bluehillside is reading into the posts of others what they are not necessarily saying.
That'll be a big fat, 24 carat, fur-lined, ocean going "nope" then.
-
Sriram,
They say nothing about the spiritual world and its purpose.
For the same reason that it says nothing about the Loch Ness monster, voodooism or the Soup Dragon.
How does that help you?
-
And then, just two posts later, Sriram gave us a doozy of an NPF with:
Genius! He sets up an unfalsifiable conjecture (“spirit”) and then demands the evidence that would falsify it.
Blue,
Not really! Torridon mentioned that my ideas 'fly in the face of evidence'. I want to know how? It is not a NPF.
-
JK,
1) If it is a bad argument you should be able to show it to be so, not to resort to unfounded assertions about it and ah hominen.
You don’t understand the meaning of ad hominem (there wasn’t one), and the argument from personal incredulity is a bog standard logical fallacy. It’s easy enough to look up if you’re interested.
2) Yes it was. It was spot on.
Just asserting something doesn’t make it true. If you want to use analogies, that’s fine – just as long as they are analogous.
3) You're not getting it at all. This statement of yours is just rhetorical waffle. Saying something, like a theist does, doesn't make it so. The image has to be somewhere, as an image, and viewed by a subject or entity of some fashion, as a process of subject-object relationship.
But it’s not an “image” at all in the brain like some sort of internal cinema screen. The brain just processes the inputs from our various senses (essentially they’re all wavelengths) to make them comprehensible. There’s no little picture in there though (or anywhere else for that matter).
Good grief!
-
Sriram,
Not really! Torridon mentioned that my ideas 'fly in the face of evidence'. I want to know how? It is not a NPF.
Yes really. What you actually did (and I quote) was to ask for the “evidence…that conflicts with or negates what I have written?”
Setting up an unfalsifiable conjecture and then demanding the evidence that falsifies it is the NPF!
Game over. (Thank you though for saving me trouble of trawling through Hope's old posts just to satisfy SOTS's diversionary tactic).
-
Sriram,
Yes really. What you actually did (and I quote) was to ask for the “evidence…that conflicts with or negates what I have written?”
Setting up an unfalsifiable conjecture and then demanding the evidence that falsifies it is the NPF!
Game over. (Thank you though for saving me trouble of trawling through Hope's old posts just to satisfy SOTS's diversionary tactic).
Blue,
Nothing of that sort! I am not asking anyone to prove that my ideas are wrong. That would be a NPF. I am specifically asking torridon to explain his claim that my ideas fly in the face of evidence.
What evidence? And how do my ideas conflict with them?
-
You could say that the brain constructs representations of different kinds. There is plenty of research into this:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/decoding-space-and-time-in-the-brain/
-
The image has to be somewhere, as an image, and viewed by a subject or entity of some fashion, as a process of subject-object relationship.
When you dream, JK, do you recall this ever involving apparent images?
-
Sriram,
Nothing of that sort! I am not asking anyone to prove that my ideas are wrong. That would be a NPF.
Yes you are: that's what the words, "What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?" mean!
I am specifically asking torridon to explain his claim that my ideas fly in the face of evidence.
Even if you soften your NPF from "conflicts wth or negates" to "fly in the face of" it doesn't help you. Flies in the face of means:
"To openly flaunt or oppose, to violate normal rules or go against conventional wisdom. Derived phrases are flying in the face of, flies in the face of, flew in the face of and flying in the face of." (The first Google link I found)
That's precisely what your spirit conjecture does.
What evidence? And how do my ideas conflict with them?
And repeating an NPF won't help you either!
Incidentally, you're on hot form today. I was explaining false analogies to Jack Knave earlier, and you provided another doozy with your car/driver effort. "Science" has no problem with the fact of cars and of drivers. For an analogy with "spirit" though, you would have had to have come up with a car vs pixies in the boot or similar.
-
Sriram's framework is unfalsifiable, but Torri suggested it "flew in the face of evidence" thus, probably inadvertently, dignifying it as a possibility.
Obviously appealing to the "lack of evidence" or asking for evidence against an unfalsifiable proposition is falling into the NPF, as there can be no evidence for or against. However, the proponent may not accept that the proposal is unfalsifiable.
-
Not even wrong?
-
Wiggs,
Not even wrong?
Yup - he asked for evidence that he was wrong about a conjecture that's not even wrong.
Wasn't SOTS' diversionary, "no-one uses the NPF anyway" followed just two posts later with Sriram using the NPF a pearler though!
-
Look, I've found a leprechaun.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6j0f3WgAADU7V.jpg:large
-
Wiggs,
Look, I've found a leprechaun.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6j0f3WgAADU7V.jpg:large
Gotta love a man who goes to the trouble of writing a sign but can't be arsed to spell check "fulfil"!
Anyways, he can't be a leprechaun - Vlad/Spoof said he could falsify them (albeit that he left the scene immediately afterwards, presumably to change his trousers).
-
Wiggs,
Gotta love a man who goes to the trouble of writing a sign but can't be arsed to spell check "fulfil"!
Anyways, he can't be a leprechaun - Vlad/Spoof said he could falsify them (albeit that he left the scene immediately afterwards, presumably to change his trousers).
What does it say on the notice? I can see it is a notice in front of some trees.
-
Susan,
NIGEL FARAGE
WAS SENT BY
CHRIST
TO GET BRITAIN
OUT OF EUROPE
AND FULFILL
BIBLE PROPHECY
-
JK,
1) You don’t understand the meaning of ad hominem (there wasn’t one), and the argument from personal incredulity is a bog standard logical fallacy. It’s easy enough to look up if you’re interested.
2) But it’s not an “image” at all in the brain like some sort of internal cinema screen. The brain just processes the inputs from our various senses (essentially they’re all wavelengths) to make them comprehensible. There’s no little picture in there though (or anywhere else for that matter).
3) Good grief!
1) But you don't understand that what you are saying is wrong in both cases. Ad hominem was given on your part by making unfounded comments on what I had said accusing me of entertaining incredulity. I know what it means I just think you are seeing things in what I say, so claiming I'm postulating arguments for invalid reasons, which aren't there. Who are you to say I'm thinking this or that way?
2) The image, in the form of a picture, is there in your minds eye and you are looking at it as an observer would in the material world i.e. a subject and an object - things which are here (you) and which are there (the image). What is the you in this situation? which by definition of a subject-object set up can not be the same thing or item.
"...just processes the inputs..." A phrase that explains nothing but attempts to sweep away the nagging issue of what consciousness is by empty rhetoric, jargon and language.
And there is a picture in your minds eye because you can see it
3) Something wrong?
-
bluehillside
Thank you. :D I bet that that has had plenty of internet 'hits'.
-
When you dream, JK, do you recall this ever involving apparent images?
I don't follow what you are getting at, please explain.
-
I don't follow what you are getting at, please explain.
That our biology extends to being able to think in visual terms without an immediate visual stimulus: in your mind s eye, so to speak. I certainly thing I dream visually so that seems like an example of an emergent property, and I'd be interested to know if blind people who were previously sighted are still able to imagine in a visual sense.
I'll need to re-visit the post of yours I was responding to since I can't remember the detail and I'm on a hand-held right now.
-
1) But you don't understand that what you are saying is wrong in both cases. Ad hominem was given on your part by making unfounded comments on what I had said accusing me of entertaining incredulity. I know what it means I just think you are seeing things in what I say, so claiming I'm postulating arguments for invalid reasons, which aren't there. Who are you to say I'm thinking this or that way?
See my #303 to see where I have cited three examples of him doing something similar about the poster Hope.
This is what happens when posters like bluehillside fail to realise that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. He cannot defend his position because his defence is not based on properties of truth. He can't defend it (because it is not falsifiable), has to keep hiding behind the misuse of the NPF, therefore misrepresenting the views/intentions of those he is arguing against. As I said, there are three examples in my #303 and there are many more that could be cited!
This is what it has come down to with bluehillside: My conjecture is that there is a giant onion orbiting the sun between the sun and Mars, with the inscription, the fallacy of the negative proof fallacy. Now, according to bluehillside, any arguments used for God can also be used for my conjecture!
-
Spoof,
That’s probably true. Now then – about that falsification of leprechauns you claimed to be able to do, but now seem to have resiled from?
You know it doesn't work like that Blue.....We know that the Higgs boson had to be discovered within a range of energies. Leprechauns need to be discovered within a range of factors including being tiny, Irish, at the end of a rainbow and with pots of gold. They never have and just with the same faith that Higgs boson will always be found in that range Leprechauns will never be found in theirs.
-
Susan,
NIGEL FARAGE
WAS SENT BY
CHRIST
TO GET BRITAIN
OUT OF EUROPE
AND FULFILL
BIBLE PROPHECY
Farage is a Darwinian.
-
See my #303 to see where I have cited three examples of him doing something similar about the poster Hope.
This is what happens when posters like bluehillside fail to realise that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
You still don't get it: if your claim is fallacious it can be dismissed, and noting that you've use a fallacy is self-evident from the form of (bad) argument you've used.
He cannot defend his position because his defence is not based on properties of truth. He can't defend it (because it is not falsifiable), has to keep hiding behind the misuse of the NPF, therefore misrepresenting the views/intentions of those he is arguing against. As I said, there are three examples in my #303 and there are many more that could be cited!
All you've cited is that you understand neither fallacies nor BHS's posts.
This is what it has come down to with bluehillside: My conjecture is that there is a giant onion orbiting the sun between the sun and Mars, with the inscription, the fallacy of the negative proof fallacy. Now, according to bluehillside, any arguments used for God can also be used for my conjecture!
If they are fallacious then yes: your argument for God works as well as arguments for orbiting giant onions (or ordinary-sized teapots) when using the form of the NPF - this is basic stuff, but you seem impervious to it.
-
See my #303 to see where I have cited three examples of him doing something similar about the poster Hope.
This is what happens when posters like bluehillside fail to realise that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. He cannot defend his position because his defence is not based on properties of truth. He can't defend it (because it is not falsifiable), has to keep hiding behind the misuse of the NPF, therefore misrepresenting the views/intentions of those he is arguing against. As I said, there are three examples in my #303 and there are many more that could be cited!
This is what it has come down to with bluehillside: My conjecture is that there is a giant onion orbiting the sun between the sun and Mars, with the inscription, the fallacy of the negative proof fallacy. Now, according to bluehillside, any arguments used for God can also be used for my conjecture!
The patronising, one could say contemptuous, tone of your posts, especially as you consistently fail to understand the NPF, is making me really appreciate Vlad's posts.
-
How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?
All that science and rational thinking produce are evidence for the working of the physical world. They say nothing about the spiritual world and its purpose.
It is like understanding what a car is made of and how it works. That is what science does. What I have written about on the other hand, is that the driver of the car is not a part of the car itself and is an independent entity who leaves the car when it crashes. It is something different and runs parallel to what science investigates, while also blending into it.
There is no conflict between the two.
You are probably confusing with religious mythology and dogma.
Your ideas conflict with those from science. You claim life to be some manifestation of 'divine spark'; science says no, life is a process of replicating metabolism, a continuation of base principles of biochemistry, no 'spark' necessary. You claim a 'self' as some internal resident within a living being analogous to a driver within a car; science says no, a self is an emergent property of the car, to run with your analogy. You claim consciousness as being some ubiquitous fundamental property; science says no, consciousness is a neurological phenomenon that evolved on this planet in vertebrates 520 mya, before that there was no consciousness. Science says we stop living when we die; you say no, we just hop into some other body and carry on. You claim NDEs and OBEs are evidence of spirit worlds; the evidence from research suggests such peculiar experience claims are some sort of neurological artefacting.
These contradictions are just the tip of an iceberg of contradictions, the vast majority have yet to be revealed as despite many invitations to do so, you have never sketched out any detail for how these ideas could work - nothing on what spirits are made of, where they come from, by what mechanism do spirits attach to and interact with bodies etc etc. By steering clear of any meaningful detail you hope to stay clear of falsification by science.
-
What is the point of a body? What is the meaning of life? What is the point of your life?
Who says a body has to have a point ? Who says 'life' has to have a meaning ? Sounds like you're reverting to teleology.
-
"information theory terms" - what is that suppose to mean?
Complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way around. I have seen houses, and they are often made of little bricks; but I have never seen a little brick that was made of houses. The idea of god flouts this fundamental principle, it claims that everything is made ultimately by something more complex still. Back in reality, complex properties emerge from the combining of simpler underlying constituents; a flavour of which is also expressed by Orgel's Second Rule 'evolution is smarter than you are', in other words apparent design is a product of blind trial and error and selection.
But there is an image which is being observed i.e. there is a subject-object relationship, and the image is not found in the brain, for it only has a mass of neurons nothing else.
The 'image' in the brain is an biochemical analogue which we take to be the real thing. How come this analogue seems to have visual property ? Good question, I think we have to think in terms of information flow and not obsess about the wet organic substrates that host the information in a brain.
-
Your ideas conflict with those from science. You claim life to be some manifestation of 'divine spark'; science says no, life is a process of replicating metabolism, a continuation of base principles of biochemistry, no 'spark' necessary. You claim a 'self' as some internal resident within a living being analogous to a driver within a car; science says no, a self is an emergent property of the car, to run with your analogy. You claim consciousness as being some ubiquitous fundamental property; science says no, consciousness is a neurological phenomenon that evolved on this planet in vertebrates 520 mya, before that there was no consciousness. Science says we stop living when we die; you say no, we just hop into some other body and carry on. You claim NDEs and OBEs are evidence of spirit worlds; the evidence from research suggests such peculiar experience claims are some sort of neurological artefacting.
These contradictions are just the tip of an iceberg of contradictions, the vast majority have yet to be revealed as despite many invitations to do so, you have never sketched out any detail for how these ideas could work - nothing on what spirits are made of, where they come from, by what mechanism do spirits attach to and interact with bodies etc etc. By steering clear of any meaningful detail you hope to stay clear of falsification by science.
Where does science say all this? LOL! These are assumptions made by science!
Science merely finds that organisms evolve over time, consciousness exists to various levels in different organisms, the brain and neurological system aid consciousness....and so on. Which is fine.
Nothing discovered by science disproves or conflicts with the idea of a spirit or God or spiritual development.
As long as the idea of spiritual development can coexist with the discoveries made by science...there is no problem. We need to find how all these mesh in together, of course...which is a different issue altogether.
-
Sriram
torridon has set out what is known; and you try to handwave it away with guesswork.
This morning I have listened to a long article on another forum. The topic and the article might well appeal to you:
https://grahamhancock.com/gonzalob2/
As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly psycho-babble, but I did quite like the abstract paintings.
-
Nothing discovered by science disproves or conflicts with the idea of a spirit or God or spiritual development.
'Ideas' covers a multitude of sins though: some ideas could be science-apt even when first developed, say into a theory that then leads to a method for investigation etc. Other ideas may be profound in some ways but more abstract, such as dealt with by some philosophers, but some ideas may be no more than the capacity of the human brain to imagine stuff.
'God' and 'spirituality' seem to belong to the latter class since they aren't investigation-apt nor are they uniquely profound in comparison with, say, some philosophy. That 'God' and 'spirituality' appeal to some, and may be cloaked in centuries of cultural tradition, doesn't make them credible however personally important they are to their proponents. That the arguments advanced for them tend to be fallacious, as we see in this small corner of the internet, suggests that neither is a serious proposition.
As long as the idea of spiritual development can coexist with the discoveries made by science...there is no problem. We need to find how all these mesh in together, of course...which is a different issue altogether.
To 'mesh' you need more than one thing: we have the continuing science but, as yet, no good reasons to think that 'the idea of spiritual development' is anything other that how some people describe how they feel about life, the universe and everything. Science can't 'mesh' with any ideas that aren't in some way science-apt beyond, of course, studying the biology within which these ideas occur.
-
#313
How’s that “homework” of yours feeling now?
Pretty good, thanks for asking! :) Here's some more ...
I would suggest that the charge is erroneous and bluehillside, Gordon, SusanDoris, ..., need to stop making it. The (partial) results of my homework
Which relates to your accusation against Hope...an accusation you did not (to that point) provide any evidence for. Not that this will be clear from your post!
And then, just two posts later, Sriram gave us a doozy of an NPF with:
How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?
Which again ignores the context of Sriram's response, in order to misrepresent the point he is making. Here is Torridon's post that you left out!
That's all very nice, but I think it creates more unanswered questions than it solves. It says nothing about what a spirit is, about where they came from, what their properties are, how many are there, are these spirits discreet and unique or are they all part of a greater whole, is the number of spirits constant over time, does each e-coli bacterium have a spirit of its own, do spirits exist in spacetime or do they transcend it in some way, would we expect there to be spirits on Mars and Europa ?
Could go on but you get the picture - I see this sort of top down rationale as creating more unexplained things than it explains, and for evidential support in the modern sense you end up having to rely on fragmentary and anecdotal claims of exotic aberrant phenomena like out of body experiences whilst ignoring the overwhelming bulk of insights accrued through mainstream research into the nature of life.
It's an interesting contrast to western traditional ways of thinking, but at the end of the day it seems to me to fly in the face of evidence more than it explains the evidence, and furthermore, like western judeochristian traditions, it is anthropocentric at heart, it starts from our human experience and extrapolates a universe from that. In contrast, modern research shows us a cosmos in which we are very much an exotic extreme rarity rather than the centre of things; and it is telling that your philosophy depends much on introspection paralleling the western traditions of meditation and prayer - by focussing on what is inside us we end up seeing the cosmos through a highly personalised human-centric lens rather than an objective view. These ways of thinking appeal to our narcissism, so they become popular. They also act to support our denial of mortality, again, an immensely seductive power.
To which Sriram responded
How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?
One has to go a long way from a request to back up a statement, to what you are claiming is actually happening.
Now: If you can point out where specifically Sriram is claiming that any failure to disprove his beliefs on Karma means that they are therefore true, you will have a point. Otherwise I'll have to add his name to the growing list of people (that hold to a belief of some kind) that you are misrepresenting and accusing incorrectly.
-
Where does science say all this? LOL! These are assumptions made by science!
Science merely finds that organisms evolve over time, consciousness exists to various levels in different organisms, the brain and neurological system aid consciousness....and so on. Which is fine.
Nothing discovered by science disproves or conflicts with the idea of a spirit or God or spiritual development.
As long as the idea of spiritual development can coexist with the discoveries made by science...there is no problem. We need to find how all these mesh in together, of course...which is a different issue altogether.
Science also assumes that the universe was not created last Thursday with the false impression of great age by Kevin the magic pixie. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can postulate a layer of magic over what has been determined by empirical methods but what reason is there to take such musings seriously ? This is all your ideas boil down to, unfalsifiable add-ons.
-
SOTS,
1) But you don't understand that what you are saying is wrong in both cases. Ad hominem was given on your part by making unfounded comments on what I had said accusing me of entertaining incredulity. I know what it means I just think you are seeing things in what I say, so claiming I'm postulating arguments for invalid reasons, which aren't there. Who are you to say I'm thinking this or that way?
OK, so it seems I do need to explain “ad hominem” here then. An ad hom is a logical fallacy in which the protagonist attempts to rebut an argument by attacking the character, motive etc of the person making it rather than by addressing the argument itself. In this case I pointed out (rightly by the way) an attempt to argue from personal incredulity (yet another logical fallacy). That’s not an ad hom at all - it's just identifying bad reasoning, a standard rhetorical approach. If on the other hand I’d said something like, “SOTS smells of weasels”, or “SOTS has an unnatural interest in baked beans” that would been an ad hom.
Hope that clears it up for you.
See my #303 to see where I have cited three examples of him doing something similar about the poster Hope.
See the posts that follow it that rebut it.
This is what happens when posters like bluehillside fail to realise that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim....
You of all people are talking about the burden of proof? Good grief!
He cannot defend his position because his defence is not based on properties of truth. He can't defend it (because it is not falsifiable), has to keep hiding behind the misuse of the NPF, therefore misrepresenting the views/intentions of those he is arguing against. As I said, there are three examples in my #303 and there are many more that could be cited!
At what point I wonder should we conclude not only that you’re wrong but, having ignored the corrections, you’re also flat out lying?
Yet again:
1. Many here have attempted and continue to attempt the NPF, Hope being just one of them. Just two posts after yours for example, Sriram did it too. Anyone who’s spent any time here will have seen it many times. It’s a commonplace.
2. Whether some, none, or lots of people attempt it here is however entirely irrelevant to the argument. You can keep using its un/popularity as a diversionary tactic if you wish but it’s not reflecting well on you when you do. The fact remains that it’s a false argument regardless of how often it’s tried.
3. Your point of attack (on which you have now gone silent in favour of a diversion) was that the rebuttal of the NPF failed when leprechauns, celestial teapots etc are used as alternative outcomes to “God” because the former are obviously made up. For reasons that have been explained to you several times now, this line only betrays your failure to grasp the force of the rebuttal. It doesn’t mater a jot what the unfalsifiable conjecture happens to be – the point in logic remains that non-falsification is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a truth proposition. That the NPF produces leprechauns and celestial teapots with the same facility that it produces “God” just serves to highlight the ludicrousness of attempting it.
This is what it has come down to with bluehillside: My conjecture is that there is a giant onion orbiting the sun between the sun and Mars, with the inscription, the fallacy of the negative proof fallacy. Now, according to bluehillside, any arguments used for God can also be used for my conjecture!
Stop lying – it’s just boorish. “According to bluehillside”, only the argument “you can’t disprove my giant onion conjecture, therefore it’s true” (ie the NPF) is under discussion here. You may or may not have different arguments you think demonstrate “God”, but the only one we’re discussing here is a crock regardless of how much you fail to grasp its rebuttal and regardless oh how much you attempt to divert our eyes from it with irrelevancies.
-
Complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way around. I have seen houses, and they are often made of little bricks; but I have never seen a little brick that was made of houses. The idea of god flouts this fundamental principle, it claims that everything is made ultimately by something more complex still. Back in reality, complex properties emerge from the combining of simpler underlying constituents; a flavour of which is also expressed by Orgel's Second Rule 'evolution is smarter than you are', in other words apparent design is a product of blind trial and error and selection.
That may be true, but the ways of (let's call it) spirituality is to consciously realise the 'simplicity' within the 'complexity'. I think you should also be careful of the expression 'the idea of god' because your idea of god may be based upon how the Biblical God comes across rather than the Brahman of Hindu thought or the Tao of Taoism and where 'smartness' in any degree is not the goal.
-
Science also assumes that the universe was not created last Thursday with the false impression of great age by Kevin the magic pixie. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can postulate a layer of magic over what has been determined by empirical methods but what reason is there to take such musings seriously ? This is all your ideas boil down to, unfalsifiable add-ons.
torridon,
You are missing the point. You can argue all you want about spirit, karma, reincarnation and the evidence for such ideas. No problem. Whatever argument I have, I will present. You can disagree with it all you want.
But you claimed that these ideas 'fly in the face of evidence'....which means that you actually have some evidence (through science presumably) that conflicts with these ideas. I merely asked you what this evidence is.
You then presented a host of scientific assumptions as though they were discoveries. This is what I am questioning. Science has not discovered anything that conflicts with the idea of spirit or after-life or God or any such thing.
Science does have evidence against certain religious mythology, which I do concede. But this is not the same as evidence against spiritual philosophies that I am talking about.
-
SOTS,
Pretty good, thanks for asking! Here's some more ...
Really? So having tried a diversionary tactic of suggesting that people don’t use the NPF rather than address its rebuttal, and having then had someone attempt the NPF just two posts after you did it you still feel pretty good about things do you?
Really really?
Which relates to your accusation against Hope...an accusation you did not (to that point) provide any evidence for. Not that this will be clear from your post!
Which relates to your continued diversionary tactic of focusing on an irrelevance about how often a bad argument is made rather to the fact that it’s a bad argument at all. As Sriram did me the service of trying an NPF just two posts after yours though, your irrelevant “no-one uses the NPF anyway” lies at your feet now in any case.
Which again ignores the context of Sriram's response, in order to misrepresent the point he is making. Here is Torridon's post that you left out!
No it doesn’t. When Sriram said, “How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?” he was asking for evidence to negate his unfalsifiable conjecture; that’s what the NPF means!
Torri’s post doesn’t for one moment mean that Sriram wasn’t subsequently attempting an NPF, so why bother implying otherwise?
One has to go a long way from a request to back up a statement, to what you are claiming is actually happening.
No one doesn’t. He asked for evidence to negate his unfalsifiable conjecture: QED.
Now: If you can point out where specifically Sriram is claiming that any failure to disprove his beliefs on Karma means that they are therefore true, you will have a point. Otherwise I'll have to add his name to the growing list of people (that hold to a belief of some kind) that you are misrepresenting and accusing incorrectly.
Now: If you cannot now respond to the fact that Sriram precisely attempted an NPF, that the incidence of its use is in any case entirely irrelevant to the force of its rebuttal, and that the point of attack from which you now seem to have resiled regarding leprechauns/teapots being made up was wrong then it seems to me that your dishonesty will exit you from this discussion come what may.
-
Sriram,
But you claimed that these ideas 'fly in the face of evidence'....which means that you actually have some evidence (through science presumably) that conflicts with these ideas. I merely asked you what this evidence is.
I've already explained to you what "fly in the face" means, and it does not mean "negate" or "disprove". The stork conjecture of baby delivery "flies in the face" of the science that tells us where babies actually come from. As it offers nothing with which science can engage though, asking for science to negate or disprove it is a category error.
It's also an NPF.
-
Spoof,
You know it doesn't work like that Blue.....We know that the Higgs boson had to be discovered within a range of energies. Leprechauns need to be discovered within a range of factors including being tiny, Irish, at the end of a rainbow and with pots of gold. They never have and just with the same faith that Higgs boson will always be found in that range Leprechauns will never be found in theirs.
Yeah yeah, but your claim was that you could "falsify" leprechauns. When exactly do you intend to do that, and how?
Dammit man, I've got the twiglets in and everything!
-
Now: If you can point out where specifically Sriram is claiming that any failure to disprove his beliefs on Karma means that they are therefore true, you will have a point. Otherwise I'll have to add his name to the growing list of people (that hold to a belief of some kind) that you are misrepresenting and accusing incorrectly.
Sriram has given the dear old NPF an airing twice today, so far:
In #341Nothing discovered by science disproves or conflicts with the idea of a spirit or God or spiritual development.
Of course science doesn't deal in unfalsifiable conjectures anyway, so noting that science doesn't 'disprove or conflict' is indeed the case: the fallacy though is using this form or argument at all since replacing 'the idea of a spirit or God or spiritual development' with 'Goblins' (for a change) shows just how hopeless this form of argumentation is. Sriram seems to be implying here that his 'idea of a spirit or God or spiritual development' must somehow retain relevance in the absence of any science-based counter is, therefore, fallacious and can dismissed out of hand.
In #348But you claimed that these ideas 'fly in the face of evidence'....which means that you actually have some evidence (through science presumably) that conflicts with these ideas. I merely asked you what this evidence is.
This one is even more obvious, by asking for evidence to falsify something that is unfalsifiable.
You seem troubled with the idea that made up stuff like Goblins should equate with your notion of 'God' so I'll repeat what I said in #165: that 'since arguments in favour of both are fallacious then they seem to belong in the class of fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agents.
What you are really indulging in here is additional fallacious argument of special pleading in favour of your preferred fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agent'.
-
Dear Gordon,
What you are really indulging in here is additional fallacious argument of special pleading in favour of your preferred fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agent'.
That's easy for you to say :o Are you having a drink tomorrow, I will be asking you to repeat that after a couple of pints :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
That's easy for you to say :o Are you having a drink tomorrow, I will be asking you to repeat that after a couple of pints :P
Gonnagle.
I'll commit it to memory tonight: be word perfect by tomorrow (yep: I'm drinking, no motorcycles tomorrow) :)
-
Look, I've found a leprechaun.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6j0f3WgAADU7V.jpg:large
I believe it to be Neil Horan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Horan
-
Where does science say all this? LOL! These are assumptions made by science!
Science merely finds that organisms evolve over time, consciousness exists to various levels in different organisms, the brain and neurological system aid consciousness....and so on. Which is fine.
Theories in science are derived from evidence, not just assumptions. Everything I pointed up in my previous post was a conclusion from evidence, a product of research. You seem willing to take a blandly dismissive attitude towards the fruits of research in dismissing it all as just a bunch of assumptions.
-
Theories in science are derived from evidence, not just assumptions. Everything I pointed up in my previous post was a conclusion from evidence, a product of research. You seem willing to take a blandly dismissive attitude towards the fruits of research in dismissing it all as just a bunch of assumptions.
I am not dismissing any true findings of science.
That the Self is an emergent property of biology is not a proven fact. It is an assumption made by science because it has nothing else to say. In fact, the idea of 'emergent property' is itself iffy because no one knows why and how any emergent property arises. It is just a 'cure all' plug that you can shove in anywhere. It is a label we can fit onto anything that we don't understand.
Life is a product of chemistry is again an assumption made by science. Not a proven fact. This is an 'emergent property' too.
Science has not concluded or proved that consciousness is a product of the brain. It only assumes that because it has no other option, given its limited scope. Again an emergent property.
None of the above prove anything. Anything can be called an emergent property without the need to explain it further. A panacea for all ills!
Spiritual philosophy takes these matters several steps further back and tries to explain them. It does not contradict any of the legitimate discoveries of science. It also puts life in perspective and accounts for many paranormal phenomena, NDE's, explains why complexity has arisen, mystical experiences....and many other such. It also explains the Why instead of just the How.
-
Sriram,
I am not dismissing any true findings of science.
That the Self is an emergent property of biology is not a proven fact. It is an assumption made by science because it has nothing else to say. In fact, the idea of 'emergent property' is itself iffy because no one knows why and how any emergent property arises. It is just a 'cure all' plug that you can shove in anywhere. It is a label we can fit onto anything that we don't understand.
You're fundamentally wrong about that. Suggest you try Steven Johnson's "Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software" if you want to know why.
Life is a product of chemistry is again an assumption made by science. Not a proven fact. This is an 'emergent property' too.
Again, you misunderstand the terms "proven", "fact" and "theory" when used in a scientific context. Try any basic science primer for further info.
Science has not concluded or proved that consciousness is a product of the brain. It only assumes that because it has no other option, given its limited scope. Again an emergent property.
Science hasn't "proved" anything - that's why it has theories. There is however overwhelming evidence that consciousness in an emergent property of the brain, just as there's overwhelming evidence that gravity causes bodies with mass to attract, overwhelming evidence that germs cause disease etc. Moreover, there's no evidence whatever for "spirit", "karma" etc, and nor indeed for any other of the pre-rationalist tribal myths that still linger around the world.
None of the above prove anything. Anything can be called an emergent property without the need to explain it further. A panacea for all ills!
Wrong - there's lots of explanation and, again, science doesn't deal in proofs.
Spiritual philosophy takes these matters several steps further back and tries to explain them. It does not contradict any of the legitimate discoveries of science. It also puts life in perspective and accounts for many paranormal phenomena, NDE's, explains why complexity has arisen, mystical experiences....and many other such. It also explains the Why instead of just the How.
Utter nonsense for reasons that have been explained to you several times now, but that you ignore nonetheless. It only doesn't contradict the findings of science in the same way that the stork conjecture doesn't contradict the findings of a midwifery textbook. It also poses far more questions that it provides answers, and tells you nothing at all about a supposed "why".
-
I am not dismissing any true findings of science.
do you think science makes untrue findings?
-
I was walking through the woods this morning and bumped into a weird looking fella
I asked him if he was alright and he said no, I'm in hospital and I'm a NDE.
Just wondered if anyone else has ever met one .
-
Walter,
I was walking through the woods this morning and bumped into a weird looking fella
I asked him if he was alright and he said no, I'm in hospital and I'm a NDE.
Just wondered if anyone else has ever met one .
No, but I did once bump into a fella who was a Near Un-evidenced Death Experience. Turns out he was a member of a NUDE-ist colony too!
-
Walter,
No, but I did once bump into a fella who was a Near Un-evidenced Death Experience. Turns out he was a member of a NUDE-ist colony too!
was he called Sriram?
-
Walter,
was he called Sriram?
He's more logically naked than unclothed I'd have thought.
-
Walter,
He's more logically naked than unclothed I'd have thought.
Blue
you're right about that.
-
That our biology extends to being able to think in visual terms without an immediate visual stimulus: in your mind s eye, so to speak. I certainly thing I dream visually so that seems like an example of an emergent property, and I'd be interested to know if blind people who were previously sighted are still able to imagine in a visual sense.
I'll need to re-visit the post of yours I was responding to since I can't remember the detail and I'm on a hand-held right now.
Emergent properties are not conscious, just a higher arrangement of the base constituents. In this case neurons and electrical impulses; not consciousness.
-
There is however overwhelming evidence that consciousness in an emergent property of the brain, just as there's overwhelming evidence that gravity causes bodies with mass to attract
Bad comparison. Scientists can easily demonstrate that the force of gravity is directly linked to the mass of an object, and can use this relationship to accurately predict movements and orbits in the cosmos. There is no such demonstrable relationship to show that consciousness is defined by the physical brain. If conscious awareness is derived solely from physical brain activity it will be possible to replicate it, but science can't even define what conscious awareness is. Just labelling it as an emergent property does not define it. As I have said in earlier posts, conscious awareness would appear to be perception of brain activity. I leave it to you to ponder what it is that perceives the content of our brain cells.
-
Who says a body has to have a point ? Who says 'life' has to have a meaning ? Sounds like you're reverting to teleology.
That was a response to what you said about meaning which applies to your ideological view on life.
-
Complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way around. I have seen houses, and they are often made of little bricks; but I have never seen a little brick that was made of houses. The idea of god flouts this fundamental principle, it claims that everything is made ultimately by something more complex still. Back in reality, complex properties emerge from the combining of simpler underlying constituents; a flavour of which is also expressed by Orgel's Second Rule 'evolution is smarter than you are', in other words apparent design is a product of blind trial and error and selection.
??? I asked you what 'information' means in the technical way some use it here.
The 'image' in the brain is an biochemical analogue which we take to be the real thing. How come this analogue seems to have visual property ? Good question, I think we have to think in terms of information flow and not obsess about the wet organic substrates that host the information in a brain.
There you go again, 'information flow'....?
The thing is that image is being observed by you! There is a 'you' seeing an image in your mind's eye; a subject-object relationship. You can't get away from that. And that image can't be held in the brain/neurons because its make-up is not geared to display pictures.
-
OK, so it seems I do need to explain “ad hominem” here then. An ad hom is a logical fallacy in which the protagonist attempts to rebut an argument by attacking the character, motive etc of the person making it rather than by addressing the argument itself. In this case I pointed out (rightly by the way) an attempt to argue from personal incredulity (yet another logical fallacy). That’s not an ad hom at all - it's just identifying bad reasoning, a standard rhetorical approach. If on the other hand I’d said something like, “SOTS smells of weasels”, or “SOTS has an unnatural interest in baked beans” that would been an ad hom.
You can't do that without explaining in detail why and where the opponents argument falls down. You can't just claim its an argument from personal incredulity and leave it at that. A valid response to this would be two extended fingers!!! Your approach here is like Labour's when they just shouted racist at anyone who raised the issue of immigration and expected them to shut up so they didn't have to discuss the matter.
Neither can you throw in a load of jargon as if that clears things up. Something else politicians do: "We're progressive so that makes us good" >:(
Come on Blue you can do better than this.....yeah?
-
As I have said in earlier posts, conscious awareness would appear to be perception of brain activity.
This sounds circular: perception is a brain activity, which is one of the things active brains do.
I leave it to you to ponder what it is that perceives the content of our brain cells.
Our brains of course: there is no alternative. I suspect that you are committing the fallacy of division here.
-
Theories in science are derived from evidence, not just assumptions. Everything I pointed up in my previous post was a conclusion from evidence, a product of research. You seem willing to take a blandly dismissive attitude towards the fruits of research in dismissing it all as just a bunch of assumptions.
But this is a limited approach which only entertains a given range of items for consideration based on materialism and inter-subjective consensus on the matter. There are matter which lie outside the scope of science in the personal arena. And before you chirp up Sriram wasn't preaching at anyone to convert to his perspective on life just to open up that personal arena for others to contemplate and ponder on if they wished - putting aside that karma is a given in his culture.
-
I was walking through the woods this morning and bumped into a weird looking fella
I asked him if he was alright and he said no, I'm in hospital and I'm a NDE.
Just wondered if anyone else has ever met one .
Walter!? What have you been doing?
I've met the Grim Reaper. He wasn't too happy with me. I messed up his well scheduled plans...
-
Complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way around. I have seen houses, and they are often made of little bricks; but I have never seen a little brick that was made of houses.
But the presence of bricks and their functionality is no accidental emergence. Their specific arrangement and functionality are entirely due to the will of human beings and their intelligence - the complexity of which far exceeds that of the brick houses.
-
This sounds circular: perception is a brain activity, which is one of the things active brains do.
You are confusing perception with reaction. Perception is not defined by brain activity.
-
You are confusing perception with reaction. Perception is not defined by brain activity.
prove it
-
You are confusing perception with reaction. Perception is not defined by brain activity.
Not confusing at all, since my perception of something (say something visual) and my reaction to it both involve brain activity: there is nowhere else for me to process either perceptions or reactions. So you'll need to explain how I can perceive anything other than via the activity in my brain - do tell.
No doubt this where you throw in your favourite fallacious 'soul' assertion: we've been here before of course.
-
You are confusing perception with reaction. Perception is not defined by brain activity.
Perception is mediated by brain activity and all forms of perception derive ultimately from reactions that can be described at the simpler levels of biochemical and bioelectrical chains reactions. Imagine when a gazelle opens its eyes and sees a lion - it is a chain reaction starting from photons interacting with light sensitive proteins passing through levels of ganglia in the retina reaching the optic nerve where corresponding patterns of excitation are delivered ultimately into the mass of neurons in the occipital lobe. Visual perception is that flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain and although we might not understand the whole story as to how qualia emerge from this, the mechanisms are very well understood at the cellular level and we are gaining knowledge all the time at the structural levels that help us to understand how simple subconscious perception forms the basis of more cognitive perception. Humans process levels of perception in basically the same way as a gazelle as we have the same base brain structure just with added frontal cortex that underwrite our characteristically human propensities. All animals that can see, also do cognitive perception. There would be no point in having eyes otherwise.
-
Emergent properties are not conscious, just a higher arrangement of the base constituents. In this case neurons and electrical impulses; not consciousness.
Most examples of emergence are not conscious, but it would seem that consciousness is one such. Perhaps it is the flagship, the ultimate acheivement of the principle of emergence. I've got lots and lots of brain cells in my head and not a single one of them is intelligent. Somehow intelligence emerges out of their interaction.
-
Bad comparison. Scientists can easily demonstrate that the force of gravity is directly linked to the mass of an object, and can use this relationship to accurately predict movements and orbits in the cosmos. There is no such demonstrable relationship to show that consciousness is defined by the physical brain. If conscious awareness is derived solely from physical brain activity it will be possible to replicate it, but science can't even define what conscious awareness is. Just labelling it as an emergent property does not define it. As I have said in earlier posts, conscious awareness would appear to be perception of brain activity. I leave it to you to ponder what it is that perceives the content of our brain cells.
Yes, but that is just wrong. An apple falling on Newton's head does not prove gravity, it provides evidence for it. With neuroscience, we study neural correlates, again there is no proof that the correlation is cause, but as with gravity that is what the evidence suggests. We can always posit invisible magic beings pulling apples down off trees but this approach to enquiry will not prove fruitful, trust me on this; any puns here are purely unintentional.
-
??? I asked you what 'information' means in the technical way some use it here.
There you go again, 'information flow'....?
The thing is that image is being observed by you! There is a 'you' seeing an image in your mind's eye; a subject-object relationship. You can't get away from that. And that image can't be held in the brain/neurons because its make-up is not geared to display pictures.
We need to think outside the box somewhat. Does Stonehenge exist ? Well clearly yes, we can identify it's coordinates in spacetime, something of its mass, its constitution. Does Mahler's Second Symphony exist ? How much does it weigh, what is its temperature or its speed ? We can't put a finger on any of the traditional properties of existence for the Mahler 2 yet I am sure it exists, I have heard it many times, got recordings of it and have the score for it also. It exists in a sense, and that sense is in information terms; it is an information product, and to understand the subtleties of mental experience that seem to have no mass we have to think of mental experience as information flow across and through a brain. Conscious experience is what information feels like if you could touch it.
And although there is a compelling feeling of a being 'inside' us giving rise to an intuition of dualism, that feeling of agency and personhood is itself a complex product of subliminal processes of consciousness according to neuroscience. We know of this too from psychiatry - patients suffering from a breakdown of this process have a condition known as Cotard's syndrome, and they (quite wrongly) believe themselves to be dead, a most peculiar state of affairs, These people are in effect real life philosophical zombies. The mind is a focus of subjectivity and the sense of there being a 'person inside' arises from the brain's procurement, enrichment and synchronisation of that subjectivity.
-
I am not dismissing any true findings of science.
That the Self is an emergent property of biology is not a proven fact. It is an assumption made by science because it has nothing else to say. In fact, the idea of 'emergent property' is itself iffy because no one knows why and how any emergent property arises. It is just a 'cure all' plug that you can shove in anywhere. It is a label we can fit onto anything that we don't understand.
Life is a product of chemistry is again an assumption made by science. Not a proven fact. This is an 'emergent property' too.
Science has not concluded or proved that consciousness is a product of the brain. It only assumes that because it has no other option, given its limited scope. Again an emergent property.
None of the above prove anything. Anything can be called an emergent property without the need to explain it further. A panacea for all ills!
Since when did science claim to deal in proofs ? Science deals with evidence, with probabilities, but not certainties. Sure, science has not proved this, that or the other, but that is no excuse for failing to take account of what the evidence suggests. That's all you are doing, failing to do due diligence in respect of the body of knowledge that we have gained through enquiry and using the lack of total complete proof as your excuse for ignoring the evidence. Better to value what we have learned, put education to good use, rather than ignore it and hope it will go away.
-
Yes, but that is just wrong. An apple falling on Newton's head does not prove gravity, it provides evidence for it. With neuroscience, we study neural correlates, again there is no proof that the correlation is cause, but as with gravity that is what the evidence suggests. We can always posit invisible magic beings pulling apples down off trees but this approach to enquiry will not prove fruitful, trust me on this; any puns here are purely unintentional.
Where else would you find magical invisible beings pulling apples off a tree except in the post of a antitheist in need of a straw man?
-
JK,
Emergent properties are not conscious, just a higher arrangement of the base constituents. In this case neurons and electrical impulses; not consciousness.
The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells). Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, estimated to be equivalent to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor.
Why does it overstretch your credulity so much that from such astonishing complexity consciousness emerges?
-
JK,
You can't do that without explaining in detail why and where the opponents argument falls down. You can't just claim its an argument from personal incredulity and leave it at that. A valid response to this would be two extended fingers!!! Your approach here is like Labour's when they just shouted racist at anyone who raised the issue of immigration and expected them to shut up so they didn't have to discuss the matter.
First, what you accused me of was an ad hom, which I rebutted by explaining what the term actually means. As you’re now silent on that, I’ll take it that you’ve resiled from the charge.
Second, actually for the most part just identifying the logical flaw in an argument is sufficient. The assumption is that the protagonist knows enough logic to realise where he’s tripped over his laces and to withdraw. If you really want me to walk you through the logical fallacies you use when you use them though, I can readily do so. Your incredulity at consciousness emerging from the most complex structure in the universe we know of is a good example of one such.
Neither can you throw in a load of jargon as if that clears things up. Something else politicians do: "We're progressive so that makes us good"
Come on Blue you can do better than this.....yeah?
It’s hardly “jargon” I’d have thought, but ok. I’ll try to speak ore plainly in future.
-
Perception is mediated by brain activity and all forms of perception derive ultimately from reactions that can be described at the simpler levels of biochemical and bioelectrical chains reactions. Imagine when a gazelle opens its eyes and sees a lion - it is a chain reaction starting from photons interacting with light sensitive proteins passing through levels of ganglia in the retina reaching the optic nerve where corresponding patterns of excitation are delivered ultimately into the mass of neurons in the occipital lobe. Visual perception is that flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain and although we might not understand the whole story as to how qualia emerge from this, the mechanisms are very well understood at the cellular level and we are gaining knowledge all the time at the structural levels that help us to understand how simple subconscious perception forms the basis of more cognitive perception. Humans process levels of perception in basically the same way as a gazelle as we have the same base brain structure just with added frontal cortex that underwrite our characteristically human propensities. All animals that can see, also do cognitive perception. There would be no point in having eyes otherwise.
A computer can be programmed to react to image patterns just as a gazelle would, but there is nothing in the computer process which can be defined as conscious perception. The flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain just comprises lots of discrete chemical reactions. This "derivative information" can only be described as such by human perception and interpretation of these patterns of chemical activity. Human perception does not require physical reaction, just conscious awareness of what is in our brain.
-
JK,
The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells). Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, estimated to be equivalent to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor.
Why does it overstretch your credulity so much that from such astonishing complexity consciousness emerges?
Yes but you could have that complexity without consciousness. So the question is how does consciousness come into it.
Just saying complexity .......and then hey presto.....consciousness seems inadequate.
-
AB,
Bad comparison. Scientists can easily demonstrate that the force of gravity is directly linked to the mass of an object, and can use this relationship to accurately predict movements and orbits in the cosmos. There is no such demonstrable relationship to show that consciousness is defined by the physical brain.
No, it’s a good comparison. “Science” can observe the effects of gravity, just as it can now model at the quantum level cellular activity in the brain. The point though is that both are models, albeit hugely well supported by evidence. Science doesn’t deal in proofs.
If conscious awareness is derived solely from physical brain activity it will be possible to replicate it, but science can't even define what conscious awareness is.
That’s called a non sequitur. To duplicate the human brain we’d need a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor – something beyond our ability to construct just now.
Just labelling it as an emergent property does not define it. As I have said in earlier posts, conscious awareness would appear to be perceptionof brain activity. I leave it to you to ponder what it is that perceives the content of our brain cells.
It might well appear that way, but fortunately for human understanding those who actually study and think about these matters have long since realised that the Cartesian mind/brain separation is illusory.
-
Spoof,
Yes but you could have that complexity without consciousness. So the question is how does consciousness come into it.
Just saying complexity .......and then hey presto.....consciousness seems inadequate.
My advice to you is that same as that I gave to Sriram earlier on: try reading Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software”.
Seriously - it’s an entertaining read anyway, and it’ll also explain why your understanding of emergence is wrong. In short, there’s no Hey Presto! about it, for the same reason that termites don't need theodolites and blueprints (let alone a Hey Presto!) to build their mounds. I'll grant you that it's counter-intuitive to start with, but you'll get the hang of it I'm sure.
-
AB,
A computer can be programmed to react to image patterns just as a gazelle would, but there is nothing in the computer process which can be defined as conscious perception.
That's currently true, but probably wouldn't be if we had a computer complex enough to do the job. The human brain is essentially a meat computer - only a fantastically complex one.
-
AB,
That's currently true, but probably wouldn't be if we had a computer complex enough to do the job. The human brain is essentially a meat computer - only a fantastically complex one.
Blue
you meat head!
-
Spoof,
My advice to you is that same as that I gave to Sriram earlier on: try reading Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software”.
Seriously - it’s an entertaining read anyway, and it’ll also explain why your understanding of emergence is wrong. In short, there’s no Hey Presto! about it, for the same reason that termites don't need theodolites and blueprints (let alone a Hey Presto!) to build their mounds. I'll grant you that it's counter-intuitive to start with, but you'll get the hang of it I'm sure.
I don't believe I gave a definition of emergence Hillside. Hopefully your recommended reading is not a rehash of reduction gussying up the power of the previous level and getting emergence merely by piling on more atoms, molecules or even neurons.At least you are man enough to admit you aren't up to th job of explaining.
You seem to be saying that processing power equals consciousness. That is warmed over reductionism. Piling on extra bits.
If my maths is right today's computers need to have 200 times more power to be conscious.
It has been said that animals with far less brainpower have some consciousness. Why then do computers not have consciousness albeit lesser?
You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness. In other worlds how can you be certain that processing speed results in emergence of consciousness? I'm afraid You are relying on a hey presto.
-
Since when did science claim to deal in proofs ? Science deals with evidence, with probabilities, but not certainties. Sure, science has not proved this, that or the other, but that is no excuse for failing to take account of what the evidence suggests. That's all you are doing, failing to do due diligence in respect of the body of knowledge that we have gained through enquiry and using the lack of total complete proof as your excuse for ignoring the evidence. Better to value what we have learned, put education to good use, rather than ignore it and hope it will go away.
torridon,
You are still not getting the point.... :) Let me try one last time....
I have no problems with what science has discovered. I am not defending any religious mythology that conflicts with scientific findings.
I accept everything that science has to offer....but I don't think science has yet ...or will ever...find answers to questions that are fundamental. Now...please DON'T argue that... 'if science does not find suitable answers, then the questions themselves are wrong'. I cannot agree with that type of thinking. It has a fanatical ring to it that hardly does any credit to a person on a quest.
I am of the view that subjects like The Self, Consciousness, After-life, God etc. are not amenable for investigation by science...not just because we don't yet have the technology....but because they are fundamentally outside the scope that science has set for itself. But regardless of that, some overlapping areas can perhaps be touched by science and technology. NDE investigation, reincarnation surveys etc. are some examples of these overlapping areas.
Nobody has yet explained Consciousness or Self. Scientists just assume that it is something generated by the brain itself because that's all they can see. Just because you see your computer screen displaying my messages, it does not mean that your computer screen is generating these messages. There are lots of things that we cannot sense directly but which exist nevertheless.
Therefore, philosophical speculation (or even a hypothesis) is perfectly valid in such matters as long as they do not conflict with the findings of science.
As I have said earlier...Spirit/soul, God, After-life...are concepts that do not conflict with anything yet discovered by science. They however do explain many of our day to day experiences, as also many extraordinary ones like NDE's, spontaneous healing, paranormal phenomena, ESP and many other such things. Life and death acquire a meaning and purpose.
These concepts also explain many evolutionary, biological and physical observations ....such as....
1. DNA replication and the very existence of the survival, procreation and parental instincts.
2. The fact that tiny molecules such as DNA can perform such feats as we can see is a miracle in itself.
3. Arising of complexity...all the way up to humans.
4. The Unconsciousness mind and its powerful influence in our lives. The unconscious mind virtually leads and the conscious mind follows.
5. Bizarre quantum phenomena such as entanglement, non local influence, observation affecting quantum states etc.
6. The uncanny coordination and interdependence in the eco system
7. The Anthropic Principle and the fine tuning of the universe.
and many other observations...
Also, present day scientists are beginning to think of such ideas as Biocentrism, Participatory Anthropic Principle, Simulated universe etc...which lend support to the idea that the world is not what it seems. There are many underlying forces and influences that are not apparent to us and these cannot be explained purely by relying on the Brain, Natural Selection, Emergent property and such other simplistic cure-all explanations that mainstream scientists have hitherto managed with.
That is all I have to say in the matter.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
A computer can be programmed to react to image patterns just as a gazelle would, but there is nothing in the computer process which can be defined as conscious perception. The flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain just comprises lots of discrete chemical reactions. This "derivative information" can only be described as such by human perception and interpretation of these patterns of chemical activity. Human perception does not require physical reaction, just conscious awareness of what is in our brain.
Our current breed of desktops I agree fall way short of the complexity required for conscious perception, but that is because they are not architected and programmed with that end in mind. But things are moving in that direction; there are already companies that have an artificial intelligence machine on their board with equal voting rights to the human directors. There is nothing special about carbon compounds in their ability to host information flow which is what consciousness is at base. And in nature it is not a human-only thing; we are conscious because mammals are conscious and we are mammals and have a mammalian brain. Any gazelle that was incapable of conscious perception would quickly become lunch and exclude its genes from the pool. We share common ancestry with the gazelle and so have inherited the same base cognitive abilities that are widespread throughout the animal kingdom.
-
Also, present day scientists are beginning to think of such ideas as Biocentrism, Participatory Anthropic Principle, Simulated universe etc...which lend support to the idea that the world is not what it seems. There are many underlying forces and influences that are not apparent to us and these cannot be explained purely by relying on the Brain, Natural Selection, Emergent property and such other simplistic cure-all explanations that mainstream scientists have hitherto managed with.
Sriram
Maybe it is the 'simplistic' explanations that we should be seeking. In the sense that complexity arises from simpler origins, to understand something complex we need to understand its constituents. Long ago, we used to think that the diversity of life forms were too complex and too varied to be explained by anything other than divine intervention. But now we know that speciation happens through repeated simple insentient processes. In fact now we can admit that the wonders of life are too wonderful and complex to have been 'designed' by an 'intelligent designer' - this is known as Orgel's Second Rule - 'evolution is smarter that you are' meaning that design through blind trial and error and selection is better than design by intelligent thinking in the long run. This is such a profound insight and it speaks to the exact heart of why the entire concept of theism is wrong headed. It is to the simpler underlying processes we should be looking to understand rather than positing some impossible being or beings who made everything just because they are really really clever.
The concept of emergence too is related; it is not some convenient get out trick for diehard god-dodgers, it is fundamental to understanding why simpler things lead to more complex things and has wide application from biochemistry to cellular biology all the way up to the Gaia hypothesis, possibly. Because of emergence, a cosmos will tend to produce complexity in the short and medium term, this is a logical inevitability.
-
Maybe it is the 'simplistic' explanations that we should be seeking. In the sense that complexity arises from simpler origins, to understand something complex we need to understand its constituents. Long ago, we used to think that the diversity of life forms were too complex and too varied to be explained by anything other than divine intervention. But now we know that speciation happens through repeated simple insentient processes. In fact now we can admit that the wonders of life are too wonderful and complex to have been 'designed' by an 'intelligent designer' - this is known as Orgel's Second Rule - 'evolution is smarter that you are' meaning that design through trial and error and selection is better than design by intelligent thinking in the long run. This is such a profound insight and it speaks to the exact heart of why the entire concept of theism is wrong headed. It is to the simpler underlying processes we should be looking to understand rather than positing some impossible being or beings who made everything just because they are really really clever.
The concept of emergence too is related; it is not some convenient get out trick, it is fundamental to understanding why simpler things lead to more complex things and has wide application from biochemistry to cellular biology all the way up to the Gaia hypothesis, possibly. Because of emergence, a cosmos will tend to produce complexity in the short and medium term, this is a logical inevitability.
You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness.
Am I right in thinking though that consciousness is down to the organisation of neurons rather than number?
-
You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness.
Am I right in thinking though that consciousness is down to the organisation of neurons rather than number?
The two concepts are related and both are related to brain size to some degree. Consciousness is measured in neuroscience by the degree of integration of cross brain neural processes, known as the perturbational complexity index, or PCI for short.
-
That our biology extends to being able to think in visual terms without an immediate visual stimulus: in your mind s eye, so to speak. I certainly thing I dream visually so that seems like an example of an emergent property, and I'd be interested to know if blind people who were previously sighted are still able to imagine in a visual sense.
I am not totally blind, as you know, but some colours, even if I turn my head to the left so that they are right at the right-hand edge, are almost impossible to see. In dreams, the colours remain as bright as they were when I was sighted.
-
Spoof,
I don't believe I gave a definition of emergence Hillside. Hopefully your recommended reading is not a rehash of reduction gussying up the power of the previous level and getting emergence merely by piling on more atoms, molecules or even neurons.
There’s nothing “gussying up” about it. It’s an observable fact that complex arrangements come from simple but related components. If, say, you want to open a silk pyjamas shop you probably won’t want a rival silk pyjamas shop to open next door and taking some of your business. On the other hand, if people think the area is the one to go to for their silk pyjamas that’ll attract more customers in your general direction. The optimum therefore is to have a rival nearby, but not so nearby that he takes away business from you.
And that’s exactly what happens – over time complex patterns of retail locations will emerge (and maybe silk weavers will move it too, and then silk lingerie sellers and so on). And if demand in general is high enough, competitors will tend to be close to each other – think of the restaurants in Chinatown for example – and vice versa.
The point though is that no-one designs it that way. There’s no “reductionism” from a master planner – it’s all bottom up, which essentially is how emergence is defined.
At least you are man enough to admit you aren't up to th job of explaining.
Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve explained it to you several times, but you just ignore the explanations and repeat your misunderstanding of it. That’s why I pointed you to a book in the hope that it’ll finally sink in.
You seem to be saying that processing power equals consciousness. That is warmed over reductionism. Piling on extra bits.
It’s no such thing because there’s no need for anything to reduce from. Is the fact of sophisticated termite mounds made by much simpler components (the termites) “warmed over reductionism” in your view too?
Why not?
If my maths is right today's computers need to have 200 times more power to be conscious.
It has been said that animals with far less brainpower have some consciousness. Why then do computers not have consciousness albeit lesser?
First, that’s not the way computers have been designed (at least historically, though machine consciousness is an active area of research now) but second, it depends what you mean by “conscious”. We already have computers that are as “conscious” as, say, some insects, and there’s no reason to think that the trend won’t continue up the evolutionary scale.
You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness. In other worlds how can you be certain that processing speed results in emergence of consciousness? I'm afraid You are relying on a hey presto.
Then you’re afraid wrongly, as you’d know if you bothered reading about the subject. Emergence happens pretty much everywhere you look where there are connected simple components – insects, city planning, software heuristics, you name it. It’s a well-understood and well-evidenced phenomenon, and there’s evidence for it too in simple forms of consciousness. It provides a perfectly rational and comprehensible model for human consciousness, and the objections to it seem to be to be solipsistic and romanticised: “But I can’t be just an arrangement of stuff. I’m me!” etc.
However much incredulity and misapprehension you throw at it, and however much you have not one jot of reason or evidence for something instead to reduce from, them’s the facts nonetheless.
-
Being is the driver of peace.
Chi is a constant. We grow, we believe, we are reborn.
The quantum matrix is calling to you via sonar energy. Can you hear it?
It is in summoning that we are reborn. We must learn how to lead mystical lives in the face of selfishness. We are being called to explore the cosmos itself as an interface between love and freedom.
You may be ruled by illusion without realizing it. Do not let it eradicate the knowledge of your path. Illusion is born in the gap where life has been excluded. Yes, it is possible to confront the things that can shatter us, but not without aspiration on our side.
We exist as sonar energy. Nothing is impossible. By condensing, we heal.
It can be difficult to know where to begin.
Consciousness consists of supercharged waveforms of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a redefining of the eternal. This life is nothing short of a summoning quantum shift of consciousness-expanding divinity. The quantum matrix is overflowing with morphogenetic fields.
The grid is approaching a tipping point. We must strengthen ourselves and inspire others. Shiva will enable us to access Vedic science.
http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
-
Sriram,
You are still not getting the point.... :) Let me try one last time....
Actually you're not, as your latest litany of mistakes shows. We can short cut this though: do you think the stork conjecture "conflicts with" the science of midwifery?
If you don't, in the absence of any evidence for them we can treat your "spirit", "karma" etc conjectures as epistemically equivalent to the stork conjecture.
If you do, then you need to provide a method to distinguish your conjectures from just guessing such that they better explain the observed phenomena than science does.
Your choice.
-
AB,
That's currently true, but probably wouldn't be if we had a computer complex enough to do the job. The human brain is essentially a meat computer - only a fantastically complex one.
Just trying to enlarge on what is human perception. Can knowledge be defined in absolute scientific terms without referring to human perception? No matter how complex or fast the neuron activity in our brain is, it remains just a pattern of chemical activity. It still requires something to perceive and interpret it to turn it into what we define as knowledge. Within the physical brain architecture there is nothing which can be defined as a single entity of awareness which is needed to translate brain activity into knowledge. Brain activity can certainly be translated into action, as Torridon keeps showing us with examples of Gazelles and Lions etc. But physical reaction to sensory data does not prove perception - it is just evidence of programmed activity defined by instinct and learnt experience which can be easily replicated with computer software.
Knowledge is not defined by physical reaction or ultra fast neuron activity. The neuron patterns of activity may well represent what we interpret to be knowledge, just as the patterns of ink on a piece of paper can represent the meaning of a word. But both knowledge and meaning are properties derived from the single entity of awareness which resides in every human being.
We humans do not need activity to demonstrate our awareness. As the Psalmist says, "Be still, and know that I am God" - Psalm 46 verse 10
-
But both knowledge and meaning are properties derived from the single entity of awareness which resides in every human being.
More specifically, contained within the skull.
-
Posted in wrong thread I think...
No- I realise this is next page, so lucky I copied my first effort.
http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
Started to listen; thought , did I not notice that this is N/S as poster?; carried on listening; wondered if you had fallen and banged your head or something; arrived at the link ...:D:D I haven't looked at it yet.
-
But physical reaction to sensory data does not prove perception - it is just evidence of programmed activity defined by instinct and learnt experience which can be easily replicated with computer software.
Observed physical reaction does not prove perception, granted, but then science is not about proof, it is about evidence, and the evidence strongly suggests that animals have cognitive perception and experience emotions just like humans. No animal is insentient; the fact that human mothers love their offspring for instance derives directly from the prehuman ancestors love of their offspring. We share at least six or seven basic emotions with all other mammals, and some also with fish - we now know that a haddock feels sadness and joy and we have established this not just through external observation and inference but through testing their cortisone levels in response to controlled stimuli. These functions are all hundreds of millions of years old massively predating the evolution of homo sapiens and there is no reason to suppose that near identical limbic systems in other creatures are not producing a similar internal emotional experience for them. Like Sriram, you are just using lack of total proof as an excuse to ignore the evidence.
-
learnt experience
What is that exactly and how is it achieved?
-
NS re #399
you are a naughty boy! ;)
-
Most examples of emergence are not conscious, but it would seem that consciousness is one such. Perhaps it is the flagship, the ultimate acheivement of the principle of emergence. I've got lots and lots of brain cells in my head and not a single one of them is intelligent. Somehow intelligence emerges out of their interaction.
Just saying stuff doesn't make it so (that's something the theists do), and you do say 'seems' which is a type of act of faith. And again you have no direct way of judging that your intelligence (an undefined term) is associated with an emergence from the collective actions of your neurons.
-
is there anybody on here actually qualified to talk about this stuff or am I to continue to be disappointed with half truths , fantasy, and bullshit?
no offence...
-
Just saying stuff doesn't make it so (that's something the theists do), and you do say 'seems' which is a type of act of faith. And again you have no direct way of judging that your intelligence (an undefined term) is associated with an emergence from the collective actions of your neurons.
Not sure what you mean by 'direct'. The brain has been studied now for a century at least, and we know that brain damage, whether caused by injury or disease, can have devastating consequences for various cognitive functions. For example, I know someone who woke up one morning not knowing who she was. I suppose you might argue that that is not intelligence, but if you sit with some people with dementia, there seems little doubt that some of their mental faculties are impaired. I suppose you could still argue that there is 'something else' which determines cognition and intelligence, such as the soul, but we are still waiting for a research project into that.
Studies of children also seem to show that the maturing brain leads to developments in cognition, for example, language ability, perceptual skills, conceptual resources, and so on. Again, you could argue that it's not the brain wot done it, I guess.
-
We need to think outside the box somewhat. Does Stonehenge exist ? Well clearly yes, we can identify it's coordinates in spacetime, something of its mass, its constitution. Does Mahler's Second Symphony exist ? How much does it weigh, what is its temperature or its speed ? We can't put a finger on any of the traditional properties of existence for the Mahler 2 yet I am sure it exists, I have heard it many times, got recordings of it and have the score for it also. It exists in a sense, and that sense is in information terms; it is an information product, and to understand the subtleties of mental experience that seem to have no mass we have to think of mental experience as information flow across and through a brain. Conscious experience is what information feels like if you could touch it.
That hasn't helped. Just sounds like vague wafflings. As for the last sentence, this is not what consciousness is, it is not the process of thinking or information or whatever it is more like the awareness of thinking. Not only do I think but I'm aware of myself thinking i.e. in a sense I'm outside the process that you call 'information flow', observing it in a subject-object relationship.
And although there is a compelling feeling of a being 'inside' us giving rise to an intuition of dualism, that feeling of agency and personhood is itself a complex product of subliminal processes of consciousness according to neuroscience. We know of this too from psychiatry - patients suffering from a breakdown of this process have a condition known as Cotard's syndrome, and they (quite wrongly) believe themselves to be dead, a most peculiar state of affairs, These people are in effect real life philosophical zombies. The mind is a focus of subjectivity and the sense of there being a 'person inside' arises from the brain's procurement, enrichment and synchronisation of that subjectivity.
You talk as though these are plain facts, no may be's or perhaps....?
"...subliminal processes of consciousness..." - Now that's a telling phrase that points to your error.
"...the sense of there being a 'person inside' arises from the brain's procurement, enrichment and synchronisation of that subjectivity." - Which implies that that subjectivity is a separate entity and product from the brain : another telling phrase. If this subjectivity is a product of the brain how does it manufacture it?
-
is there anybody on here actually qualified to talk about this stuff or am I to continue to be disappointed with half truths , fantasy, and bullshit?
no offence...
What stuff? Karma? Consciousness? Do you have a specific question?
-
Again, in relation to subjectivity, a key area of research concerns children, whose sense of self seems to require loving (and safe) contact with other people from their birth, so that the brain is stimulated in the right way. Well, you could argue that the brain is not involved here, so I wonder what else is? A baby soul, I suppose.
-
JK,
The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells). Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, estimated to be equivalent to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor.
Why does it overstretch your credulity so much that from such astonishing complexity consciousness emerges?
That's like saying a trillion stupid people would be as intelligent as an Einstein. Numbers don't matter it is 'content' or quality.
-
Just saying stuff doesn't make it so (that's something the theists do), and you do say 'seems' which is a type of act of faith. And again you have no direct way of judging that your intelligence (an undefined term) is associated with an emergence from the collective actions of your neurons.
Granted 'emergence' is high level a concept term, and there will be detail lower level mechanisms that can be described of how it arises. For instance we describe wetness or fluidity as an emergent property of when you have many molecules of H2O together and we can describe in detail the mechanisms at the molecular level that give rise to the emergent property at the higher level. That is a fairly simple one. No ant is intelligent but ant colony makes decisions that have an intelligence that emerges from the combined interactions of many ants. We are justified in using the concept of emergence to study intelligence in brains not least because of the striking parallels of similar if less sophisticated examples of emergence thougout nature. It is not an unwarranted assumption out of the blue, it is the best way to model such processes. At Bristol and other places, they are using specifically live ant colonies to study decision making in a brain, in which individual ants stand as an analogue for individual neurons.
-
"...subliminal processes of consciousness..." - Now that's a telling phrase that points to your error.
eh ?
I don't see anything controversial in that. The vast majority of the processes of consciousness are subliminal. The conscious experience, by contrast, is a contrived retrospective phenomenon which results from largely subliminal preconscious processes.
-
we now know that a haddock feels sadness and joy and we have established this not just through external observation and inference but through testing their cortisone levels in response to controlled stimuli.
Surely there is a big unproven assumption here in that cortisone levels in a haddock correspond with sadness and joy as experienced by humans. Cortisone levels in humans may well correlate with feelings of sadness and joy, but I put it to you that there could be more to these human emotions than mere chemicals in the brain.
Just going back to perception - is there any evidence of animals just pausing to appreciate the beauty of a sunset, or any other of nature's wonders?
-
What is that exactly and how is it achieved?
Learnt experience in animals is a similar concept to the way chess playing computer software is designed not to make the same mistake twice.
-
Interesting stuff in relation to feelings and emotions, and how these correlate with changes in the brain. This research stems from new developments in scanning, so that in vivo neuroimaging can be used, while people are actually doing something, e.g. looking at pictures or whatever.
http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2014/07/09/study-cracks-how-the-brain-processes-emotions/
-
JK,
That's like saying a trillion stupid people would be as intelligent as an Einstein. Numbers don't matter it is 'content' or quality.
No it isn't. A million stupid ants will make a colony, will cut leaves to farm a fungus for food, will create cemeteries for their dead etc. No single ant can envisage or plan these things though. Numbers matter a lot, and the "content" is what emerges with no design whatever from the constituent parts that produce it. Have a look at the Steven Johnson book I've referred to a couple of times here to understand it better.
-
Observed physical reaction does not prove perception, granted, but then science is not about proof, it is about evidence, and the evidence strongly suggests that animals have cognitive perception and experience emotions just like humans. No animal is insentient; the fact that human mothers love their offspring for instance derives directly from the prehuman ancestors love of their offspring. We share at least six or seven basic emotions with all other mammals, and some also with fish - we now know that a haddock feels sadness and joy and we have established this not just through external observation and inference but through testing their cortisone levels in response to controlled stimuli. These functions are all hundreds of millions of years old massively predating the evolution of homo sapiens and there is no reason to suppose that near identical limbic systems in other creatures are not producing a similar internal emotional experience for them. Like Sriram, you are just using lack of total proof as an excuse to ignore the evidence.
You are mistaking mechanisms for causes. If a car accelerates, you can explain it as petrol pouring into the engine and pistons moving faster etc. That is the mechanism. Or you can say that the person driving the car wants to go faster. That is the cause.
-
Sririam,
You are mistaking mechanisms for causes. If a car accelerates, you can explain it as petrol pouring into the engine and pistons moving faster etc. That is the mechanism. Or you can say that the person driving the car wants to go faster. That is the cause.
And both car and driver are material phenomena that happen to interact. So what?
-
Learnt experience in animals is a similar concept to the way chess playing computer software is designed not to make the same mistake twice.
assertatron alert!
-
Interesting stuff in relation to feelings and emotions, and how these correlate with changes in the brain. This research stems from new developments in scanning, so that in vivo neuroimaging can be used, while people are actually doing something, e.g. looking at pictures or whatever.
http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2014/07/09/study-cracks-how-the-brain-processes-emotions/
See also: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4450.html
"These results reveal the existence of a common spatial organization for memories in high-level cortical areas, where encoded information is largely abstracted beyond sensory constraints, and that neural patterns during perception are altered systematically across people into shared memory representations for real-life events."
-
See also: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.4450.html
"These results reveal the existence of a common spatial organization for memories in high-level cortical areas, where encoded information is largely abstracted beyond sensory constraints, and that neural patterns during perception are altered systematically across people into shared memory representations for real-life events."
Very interesting. The stuff on emotions seems to show that although obviously we have individual experiences of them, there is a 'standard code' which is shared across people. I don't fully understand all this, but I would have thought that experiences of beauty and the like might be involved here. It amazes me, when this exciting kind of research is going on, that people are still bleating on about the soul and other undiscoverable stuff.
I also wonder if mirroring is involved here, i.e. that we share emotions and feelings, and experience empathy.
-
You are mistaking mechanisms for causes. If a car accelerates, you can explain it as petrol pouring into the engine and pistons moving faster etc. That is the mechanism. Or you can say that the person driving the car wants to go faster. That is the cause.
Why does the driver want to go faster and what is the cause of that .. ad infinitum.. . You can consider anything/everything as mechanism or cause. That is the meaning of karma for me.
-
Very interesting. The stuff on emotions seems to show that although obviously we have individual experiences of them, there is a 'standard code' which is shared across people. I don't fully understand all this, but I would have thought that experiences of beauty and the like might be involved here. It amazes me, when this exciting kind of research is going on, that people are still bleating on about the soul and other undiscoverable stuff.
I also wonder if mirroring is involved here, i.e. that we share emotions and feelings, and experience empathy.
Indeed. Whilst we keep going around in circles trying, mainly, just to agree on definitions of words, there are swathes of fascinating stuff that we can actually research and understand.
ETA: Yes, if we are storing/processing experiences and emotions in similar ways this could open many windows onto new ways of sharing them and whole mechanism of mirroring/empathy.
-
Indeed. Whilst we keep going around in circles trying, mainly, just to agree on definitions of words, there are swathes of fascinating stuff that we can actually research and understand.
That's it. I was involved in a research project in a stroke clinic, looking at the effects of brain damage on speech and language, and it makes you sit up and pay attention, because there are real people here with real problems. And even more important, they are being helped because of the research. The woman I knew who woke up and couldn't remember who she was, was rushed to hospital and treated immediately, and recovered. This results from all this research, not sitting around on our backsides wondering if there's a soul.
-
Indeed. Whilst we keep going around in circles trying, mainly, just to agree on definitions of words, there are swathes of fascinating stuff that we can actually research and understand.
ETA: Yes, if we are storing/processing experiences and emotions in similar ways this could open many windows onto new ways of sharing them and whole mechanism of mirroring/empathy.
even though I have a scientific background there are some subjects I have no real interest in, and this is one of em.
-
Wiggs,
The woman I knew who woke up and couldn't remember who she was...
I regret to say that on several occasions I've woken up with a woman and I couldn't remember her name either... does that mean that my soul was malfunctioning, or that it had packed up and left as I was clearly on my way to Hell in any case?
-
Incidentally, this reminds me that my Mum has in recent years suffered two episodes of Global Transient Amnesia (GTA). It was very odd - she'd say, "Oh hello love, how are you?", and seconds later would say it again. In the end her husband and I wrote down the day's events ("You're having a GTA episode", "You went to the doctor's this morning", "He said there was nothing to worry about and it will pass soon", "Then you came home and had a cup of tea" etc) and we'd hand it to her to read as if afresh every few minutes.
It was interesting to see her respond to the same info sightly differently each time ("Oh yes, a GTA episode - I had that once before didn't I?", "Oh, a GTA episode, but I thought the doctor said last time that it wouldn't happen again" etc) - it was if nothing was being written in her short term memory, but throughout she knew who I was for example. Sure enough, after a few hours everything re-booted as it were and she was good as new.
Not sure how this fits with the conversation here, but it was unsettling and fascinating in equal measure.
-
Surely there is a big unproven assumption here in that cortisone levels in a haddock correspond with sadness and joy as experienced by humans. Cortisone levels in humans may well correlate with feelings of sadness and joy, but I put it to you that there could be more to these human emotions than mere chemicals in the brain.
Like we keep saying, science doesn't deal in proofs, it never will prove the experience of one individual is the same as that of another even if the brain structures appear identical. It is what the evidence suggests that counts in science. If we follow the evidence then we can learn from it. Blanket denials will enlighten us none whatsoever.
Just going back to perception - is there any evidence of animals just pausing to appreciate the beauty of a sunset, or any other of nature's wonders?
Probably not, clearly aesthetic sense is one of the characterising aspects of human behaviour. That's not to say we cannot trace some origins. Flowers evolved to be beautiful long before humans were on the scene; they evolved their beauty to attract bees and pollinating insects not humans. We can infer from that that primitive precursors of aesthetic sense evolved first in the tiny brain of a bee, just one million neurons. How cool is that.
-
Wiggs,
I regret to say that on several occasions I've woken up with a woman and I couldn't remember her name either... does that mean that my soul was malfunctioning, or that it had packed up and left as I was clearly on my way to Hell in any case?
... hmm .. was it the same woman each time ... ?
-
You are mistaking mechanisms for causes. If a car accelerates, you can explain it as petrol pouring into the engine and pistons moving faster etc. That is the mechanism. Or you can say that the person driving the car wants to go faster. That is the cause.
And where does the driver's desire to go faster come from ? Desires don't appear out of the blue, they are part of cause and effect. If I want to eat a hamburger, there is a reason, it is because I am hungry. It's in such insights that the notion of god runs into trouble; why would a god have wants, why would a god have preferences; these attributes would suggest too that god is party to cause and effect just like us.
-
Udayana,
... hmm .. was it the same woman each time ... ?
I can't remember!
-
I've had several TIAs but fortunately no memory loss involved.
-
Learnt experience in animals is a similar concept to the way chess playing computer software is designed not to make the same mistake twice.
Similar concept but not necessarily the same mechanism that produces the results. Is it?
-
Spoof,
There’s nothing “gussying up” about it. It’s an observable fact that complex arrangements come from simple but related components. If, say, you want to open a silk pyjamas shop you probably won’t want a rival silk pyjamas shop to open next door and taking some of your business. On the other hand, if people think the area is the one to go to for their silk pyjamas that’ll attract more customers in your general direction. The optimum therefore is to have a rival nearby, but not so nearby that he takes away business from you.
And that’s exactly what happens – over time complex patterns of retail locations will emerge (and maybe silk weavers will move it too, and then silk lingerie sellers and so on). And if demand in general is high enough, competitors will tend to be close to each other – think of the restaurants in Chinatown for example – and vice versa.
The point though is that no-one designs it that way. There’s no “reductionism” from a master planner – it’s all bottom up, which essentially is how emergence is defined.
Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve explained it to you several times, but you just ignore the explanations and repeat your misunderstanding of it. That’s why I pointed you to a book in the hope that it’ll finally sink in.
It’s no such thing because there’s no need for anything to reduce from. Is the fact of sophisticated termite mounds made by much simpler components (the termites) “warmed over reductionism” in your view too?
Why not?
First, that’s not the way computers have been designed (at least historically, though machine consciousness is an active area of research now) but second, it depends what you mean by “conscious”. We already have computers that are as “conscious” as, say, some insects, and there’s no reason to think that the trend won’t continue up the evolutionary scale.
Then you’re afraid wrongly, as you’d know if you bothered reading about the subject. Emergence happens pretty much everywhere you look where there are connected simple components – insects, city planning, software heuristics, you name it. It’s a well-understood and well-evidenced phenomenon, and there’s evidence for it too in simple forms of consciousness. It provides a perfectly rational and comprehensible model for human consciousness, and the objections to it seem to be to be solipsistic and romanticised: “But I can’t be just an arrangement of stuff. I’m me!” etc.
However much incredulity and misapprehension you throw at it, and however much you have not one jot of reason or evidence for something instead to reduce from, them’s the facts nonetheless.
I'm not against emergence....just your complete misunderstanding of it and your following confusions.
Firstly your confusion between processing power and consciousness.
Secondly your confusion between reductionism and emergence.
Lastly your almost universal Darwinian idea that emergence evolves from the previous layer rather than appearing as a novel property which has no analogue at the previous layer.
Actually it gladdens me that your posts turn out to be predictable and lightweight and masterworks in gussying up the bleeding obvious.
-
JK,
First, what you accused me of was an ad hom, which I rebutted by explaining what the term actually means. As you’re now silent on that, I’ll take it that you’ve resiled from the charge.
I ignored it because I had already explained that you can't just make an empty assertion that it is some fallacy without explaining why, and so I wasn't going to repeat myself!
Second, actually for the most part just identifying the logical flaw in an argument is sufficient. The assumption is that the protagonist knows enough logic to realise where he’s tripped over his laces and to withdraw. If you really want me to walk you through the logical fallacies you use when you use them though, I can readily do so.
No it is not. But I'll try it with in future and see if you just say, "Ok, you win."
So yes I want you to engage in the point of what an argument and discussion is for and substantiate your position and unfounded assertions.
Your incredulity at consciousness emerging from the most complex structure in the universe we know of is a good example of one such.
This assertion of yours, about consciousness, is totally without merit. It beholds your arrogance in stating something as a fact when it is not. You and science have no idea where consciousness comes from or what it is.
-
Spoof,
My advice to you is that same as that I gave to Sriram earlier on: try reading Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software”.
Seriously - it’s an entertaining read anyway, and it’ll also explain why your understanding of emergence is wrong. In short, there’s no Hey Presto! about it, for the same reason that termites don't need theodolites and blueprints (let alone a Hey Presto!) to build their mounds. I'll grant you that it's counter-intuitive to start with, but you'll get the hang of it I'm sure.
That has nothing to do with consciousness.
-
I don't believe I gave a definition of emergence Hillside. Hopefully your recommended reading is not a rehash of reduction gussying up the power of the previous level and getting emergence merely by piling on more atoms, molecules or even neurons.At least you are man enough to admit you aren't up to th job of explaining.
You seem to be saying that processing power equals consciousness. That is warmed over reductionism. Piling on extra bits.
If my maths is right today's computers need to have 200 times more power to be conscious.
It has been said that animals with far less brainpower have some consciousness. Why then do computers not have consciousness albeit lesser?
You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness. In other worlds how can you be certain that processing speed results in emergence of consciousness? I'm afraid You are relying on a hey presto.
I'm starting to think that what they are calling consciousness isn't consciousness at all but some technical fudge to redefine it in their favour.
-
I'm starting to think that what they are calling consciousness isn't consciousness at all but some technical fudge to redefine it in their favour.
Just to be clear, what are you calling consciousness?
-
The two concepts are related and both are related to brain size to some degree. Consciousness is measured in neuroscience by the degree of integration of cross brain neural processes, known as the perturbational complexity index, or PCI for short.
No it's not, what a load of bollocks!!! Consciousness is about being self aware over and above these factors.
-
No it's not, what a load of bollocks!!! Consciousness is about being self aware.
Surely, that's self-consciousness. Many animals are conscious of their surroundings, but less self-conscious than we are, although some may have a degree of it, cf. mirror tests.
-
is there anybody on here actually qualified to talk about this stuff or am I to continue to be disappointed with half truths , fantasy, and bullshit?
no offence...
If you aren't qualified and don't know what the answer is then how will you recognize the correct answer when it is displayed?
-
Not sure what you mean by 'direct'. The brain has been studied now for a century at least, and we know that brain damage, whether caused by injury or disease, can have devastating consequences for various cognitive functions. For example, I know someone who woke up one morning not knowing who she was. I suppose you might argue that that is not intelligence, but if you sit with some people with dementia, there seems little doubt that some of their mental faculties are impaired. I suppose you could still argue that there is 'something else' which determines cognition and intelligence, such as the soul, but we are still waiting for a research project into that.
Studies of children also seem to show that the maturing brain leads to developments in cognition, for example, language ability, perceptual skills, conceptual resources, and so on. Again, you could argue that it's not the brain wot done it, I guess.
What I mean is that looking at the brain and MRI's etc. you can never see intelligence on the screen. All one sees are the changes that gone on. It's like saying that when one sees a tree bend in the wind it remembers that this is what a tree should do when the wind blows. The scientists are guilty of the same flaws and arguments as our ancestors are accused of giving the elements of nature spirits and so on. They see a neuron flicker when a person has a thought etc. and say hey presto consciousness!!!
-
What I mean is that looking at the brain and MRI's etc. you can never see intelligence on the screen. All one sees are the changes that gone on. It's like saying that when one sees a tree bend in the wind it remembers that this is what a tree should do when the wind blows. The scientists are guilty of the same flaws and arguments as our ancestors are accused of giving the elements of nature spirits and so on. They see a neuron flicker when a person has a thought etc. and say hey presto consciousness!!!
That's a caricature. Neuroimaging is not as crude as that. But there seems little doubt that it is giving insights into brain architecture, as it is built up from infancy. Perhaps you could indicate how you see intelligence.
-
Granted 'emergence' is high level a concept term, and there will be detail lower level mechanisms that can be described of how it arises. For instance we describe wetness or fluidity as an emergent property of when you have many molecules of H2O together and we can describe in detail the mechanisms at the molecular level that give rise to the emergent property at the higher level.
It occurs to me that what we call emergent properties are in many cases just qualia.
No ant is intelligent but ant colony makes decisions that have an intelligence that emerges from the combined interactions of many ants. We are justified in using the concept of emergence to study intelligence in brains not least because of the striking parallels of similar if less sophisticated examples of emergence thougout nature. It is not an unwarranted assumption out of the blue, it is the best way to model such processes. At Bristol and other places, they are using specifically live ant colonies to study decision making in a brain, in which individual ants stand as an analogue for individual neurons.
That is instincts, something else we don't understand but is closely related to consciousness.
This was brought to me when doing a falconry course. The class was told about their Harris hawks, which they had breed them in house, when they saw a dog for the first time reacted alarmingly as they would in the wild to prairie dogs. I have heard of many things like this in my life time. The weirdest is the cuckoo who never sees its parents and yet knows how to fly to Africa when it fledges; the parents having gone months before.
-
eh ?
I don't see anything controversial in that. The vast majority of the processes of consciousness are subliminal. The conscious experience, by contrast, is a contrived retrospective phenomenon which results from largely subliminal preconscious processes.
Subliminal means below consciousness. It's an oxymoron. They can't be the same thing. It would be like say the sky and see are the same because they are both blue.
-
JK,
No it isn't. A million stupid ants will make a colony, will cut leaves to farm a fungus for food, will create cemeteries for their dead etc. No single ant can envisage or plan these things though. Numbers matter a lot, and the "content" is what emerges with no design whatever from the constituent parts that produce it. Have a look at the Steven Johnson book I've referred to a couple of times here to understand it better.
But what they come up with each time is the same thing. It is called instincts. Could they come up with a new discovery in physics like Einstein did?
-
assertatron alert!
Hypocrite alert!!!!!!!!
-
Activity of the brain does not show evidence of consciousness as some people sleep walk i.e. will perform tasks without even being awake, walk down stairs, navigate through the house to a room. I believe some have even got into cars to drive off and possibly used a gun to kill someone. No consciousness required but I'm sure all the necessary neurons were firing away, which a dumb scientist would use to say they were conscious at the time.
-
I'm starting to think that what they are calling consciousness isn't consciousness at all but some technical fudge to redefine it in their favour.
Agreed. What they are talking about is intelligence or even processing power.
Bluehillside seams to suggest that if you increase the bit rate and you will attain consciousness.
Whatever else that is it is not emergence.
Plus he could just end up with a faster computer.
Torridon fails to distinguish between a conscious being and a machine that does everything but is not aware of it.IMHO.
-
No it's not, what a load of bollocks!!! Consciousness is about being self aware over and above these factors.
No, that is not really correct. Self awareness is considered as part of the contents of consciousness and self awareness is only observed in a handful of species - humans, chimps, elephants, etc.
-
Activity of the brain does not show evidence of consciousness as some people sleep walk i.e. will perform tasks without even being awake, walk down stairs, navigate through the house to a room. I believe some have even got into cars to drive off and possibly used a gun to kill someone. No consciousness required but I'm sure all the necessary neurons were firing away, which a dumb scientist would use to say they were conscious at the time.
Dreaming is a form of conscious experience that happens during sleep. It is a common mistake to confuse consciousness with wakefulness. They often occur together but they are not the same thing.
-
And where does the driver's desire to go faster come from ? Desires don't appear out of the blue, they are part of cause and effect. If I want to eat a hamburger, there is a reason, it is because I am hungry. It's in such insights that the notion of god runs into trouble; why would a god have wants, why would a god have preferences; these attributes would suggest too that god is party to cause and effect just like us.
torridon,
Please...! The driver's desire stems from a very different level...nothing to do with the mechanism of the car at all! By referring to the pistons and the engine as reasons for the acceleration, you are saying 'how' the car accelerates..but not why'. The 'why' comes from the driver's desire which is completely outside the processes involving the car. That is my point.
Similarly, the mechanisms and processes in the human body can only tell us 'how' the body functions...not 'why'. The 'why' comes from the 'driver' ...the spirit...which is outside the processes in the human body.
The processes taking place in the spirit (if any) are irrelevant to us and we cannot know them...just as for a car mechanic, the processes taking place within the driver are completely irrelevant and outside his gamut.
Try to understand. There are two completely different systems involved. One is the car with its processes and mechanisms. The other is the driver who has a completely different set of processes working within him. The two systems meet when the driver sits in the car and drives it. Explaining the movement of the car only based on the mechanisms of the car, while true, is meaningless.
Saying ...'The car turns right because the wheels turn right, the car brakes because the brake pads stop the wheel'...is meaningless. While these are true statements they don't address the question of why the car turns or brakes. That will be known only if the intentions of the driver are known.
It is very similar in a human. Explaining human emotions, desires and behavior purely based on chemicals and bodily processes is meaningless. The spirit is the driving force which uses the mind (software) to drive the body.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
There is in this matter an explanatory gap and I suppose in other matters of emergence too.
Bluehillside either hates emergence and or doesn't understand it. He uses the word emergence but is ruthlessly reductionist bidding us believe that the whole, the emergent property is merely the sum of the parts.
Torridon stops before the explanatory gap to create definitions which satisfy the profession of neuroscience. In his view we are all P zombies. His approach is a kind of neuroscientism.
-
There is in this matter an explanatory gap and I suppose in other matters of emergence too.
Bluehillside either hates emergence and or doesn't understand it. He uses the word emergence but is ruthlessly reductionist bidding us believe that the whole, the emergent property is merely the sum of the parts.
Torridon stops before the explanatory gap to create definitions which satisfy the profession of neuroscience. In his view we are all P zombies. His approach is a kind of neuroscientism.
It's not my view that we are all p-zombies. A p-zombie would be a person that looks and acts apparently like a regular person but lacks any inner experience. I've never known anyone fitting that description. The nearest we have are sufferers of Cotard's syndrome but they do still have inner experiences of pain and pleasure et, it is just their sense of self that is underperforming or degraded in some way leading to the mistaken belief that they are dead.
The difference between my view and your view boils down to this : you identify the self with the traditional idea of a soul. I would say that the same thing, the self, is a phenomenological projection created in real time by a living working awake body; well its not so much my view, more what the evidence from science suggests.
-
torridon,
Please...! The driver's desire stems from a very different level...nothing to do with the mechanism of the car at all! By referring to the pistons and the engine as reasons for the acceleration, you are saying 'how' the car accelerates..but not why'. The 'why' comes from the driver's desire which is completely outside the processes involving the car. That is my point.
Similarly, the mechanisms and processes in the human body can only tell us 'how' the body functions...not 'why'. The 'why' comes from the 'driver' ...the spirit...which is outside the processes in the human body.
The processes taking place in the spirit (if any) are irrelevant to us and we cannot know them...just as for a car mechanic, the processes taking place within the driver are completely irrelevant and outside his gamut.
Try to understand. There are two completely different systems involved. One is the car with its processes and mechanisms. The other is the driver who has a completely different set of processes working within him. The two systems meet when the driver sits in the car and drives it. Explaining the movement of the car only based on the mechanisms of the car, while true, is meaningless.
Saying ...'The car turns right because the wheels turn right, the car brakes because the brake pads stop the wheel'...is meaningless. While these are true statements they don't address the question of why the car turns or brakes. That will be known only if the intentions of the driver are known.
It is very similar in a human. Explaining human emotions, desires and behavior purely based on chemicals and bodily processes is meaningless. The spirit is the driving force which uses the mind (software) to drive the body.
Cheers.
Sriram
I don't see how any of that addressed the previous question, of where the driver's (in your analogy) desires come from. In fact the telling phrase was The processes taking place in the spirit (if any) are irrelevant to us and we cannot know them. In mainstream science we have explanations of where desires and intentions come from. In your scheme of things, if a person is suffering from depression, say, is that a malady of the spirit or of the body ?
-
I don't see how any of that addressed the previous question, of where the driver's (in your analogy) desires come from. In fact the telling phrase was The processes taking place in the spirit (if any) are irrelevant to us and we cannot know them. In mainstream science we have explanations of where desires and intentions come from. In your scheme of things, if a person is suffering from depression, say, is that a malady of the spirit or of the body ?
torridon,
That is where Karma comes into the picture.
You try to explain all human behavior only in terms of the chemical processes going on in the body. (Like a machine/car starting itself up and performing all functions by itself ...with no external Intelligence involved). I am not disputing the chemical processes that take place in the body. I am saying that the chemical processes do not and cannot take place by themselves.
It is the spirit that decides (through the Unconsciousness mind) what needs to be done and the conscious mind follows. Then the chemical/electrical processes happen and the body performs the actions. It could all happen instantaneously one after the other with hardly any time gap that we can notice. (Scientists have identified a time gap between the unconscious mind deciding and the conscious mind becoming aware of the decision).
The spirit decides based on the karmic influences that are present in it.
About depression or any other ailment....the spirit never suffers. It is only trying to free/clean itself. Nothing more. It is always the conscious mind that actually suffers (not the body...though it is the body that induces the suffering). This suffering produces suitable erosion in the individuality that is connected to the conscious mind and thereby the spirit cleanses itself.
(Not easy for an atheist and materialist to digest....but there you are :D).
cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
That is where Karma comes into the picture.
You try to explain all human behavior only in terms of the chemical processes going on in the body. (Like a machine/car starting itself up and performing all functions by itself ...with no external Intelligence involved). I am not disputing the chemical processes that take place in the body. I am saying that the chemical processes do not and cannot take place by themselves.
It is the spirit that decides (through the Unconsciousness mind) what needs to be done and the conscious mind follows. Then the chemical/electrical processes happen and the body performs the actions. It could all happen instantaneously one after the other with hardly any time gap that we can notice. (Scientists have identified a time gap between the unconscious mind deciding and the conscious mind becoming aware of the decision).
The spirit decides based on the karmic influences that are present in it.
About depression or any other ailment....the spirit never suffers. It is only trying to free/clean itself. Nothing more. It is always the conscious mind that actually suffers (not the body...though it is the body that induces the suffering). This suffering produces suitable erosion in the individuality that is connected to the conscious mind and thereby the spirit cleanses itself.
(Not easy for an atheist and materialist to digest....but there you are :D).
cheers.
Sriram
If the spirit does not suffer then how can it be the spirit that decides ? If the patient suffers depression because his wife left him, is that circumstance a 'karmic influence' in your terms ? If it is the conscious mind that is at the sharp end of all this and the spirit remains aloof from the suffering why would it be the spirit that decides on a course of action when surely the conscious mind is in a better position to know what needs to be done.
-
#349
Pretty good, thanks for asking! Here's some more ...
Really? So having tried a diversionary tactic of suggesting that people don’t use the NPF ...
where in my #303 did I say that?
...and having then had someone attempt the NPF just two posts after you did it
He did not!
...you still feel pretty good about things do you?
Really really?
Considering you cannot be bothered to quote what someone has said, instead pharaphrasing, then yes!
e.g.
As Sriram did me the service of trying an NPF just two posts after yours though, your irrelevant “no-one uses the NPF anyway” lies at your feet now in any case.
Show me where in my #303 your quote “no-one uses the NPF anyway” comes from
When Sriram said, “How does it 'fly in the face of evidence'? What evidence do you have that conflicts with or negates what I have written?” he was asking for evidence to negate his unfalsifiable conjecture; that’s what the NPF means!
unfalsifiable conjecture? Ahh...having difficulty falsifying the idea of karma then? Bluehillside does not know how to falsify karma, therefore karma is unfalsifiable? WOW!! Bluehillside doesn’t know how to falsify religious beliefs so religious beliefs are unfalsifiable? Double WOW!!
This is what I meant when I said that your arguments are not based on properties of truth. If they were, you would have realised by now that something that is clearly made up (teapots in space, your dancing pixies, my orbiting onion conjecture) doesn’t need falsifying, for obvious reasons!
One day, you may realise that you are doing precisely what you are accusing others of. It is your position that is unfalsifiable, that’s why you have to keep on shifting the burden of proof, which should always lie with the one making the claim. That's how truth works!
-
This is what I meant when I said that your arguments are not based on properties of truth. If they were, you would have realised by now that something that is clearly made up (teapots in space, your dancing pixies, my orbiting onion conjecture) doesn’t need falsifying, for obvious reasons!
How do you know 'God' isn't similarly made up?
Since you clearly don't appreciate the pixies example let's use the example of one of the Hindu deities, Brahma, which many people currently believe in on a similar basis, presumably, to how you view the Christian god - as being in some sense 'real'.
So, if they say to you that you can't falsify Brahma does this mean that you must then concede that their belief in Brahma is justified and that you too must, therefore, accept the reality of Brahma?
-
Spoof,
I'm not against emergence....just your complete misunderstanding of it and your following confusions.
Well that took a turn. You made a series of posts that betrayed your misunderstanding of emergence. I corrected you, and gave you an example of how it actually works. You just ignored that, and accused me of misunderstanding it!
Classic Vladism – just ignore the argument and keep on lying.
Firstly your confusion between processing power and consciousness.
There is no confusion. Everything we observe in nature that’s complex comes from simpler components. There’s no reason to think that consciousness does not follow the same paradigm as the rest of nature.
Secondly your confusion between reductionism and emergence.
The confusion is all yours. You introduce “reductionism” as the twin ugly sister of “dodging” – both charges that rely on there being something to reduce from or to dodge in the first place, but you make no effort to demonstrate that something.
So tell me – do you also think midwifery to be "reductionist" and "dodging" because it fails to take into account stork theory, or you do apply special pleading to your bad thinking such that it applies only to the conjecture in which you happen to believe?
Lastly your almost universal Darwinian idea that emergence evolves from the previous layer rather than appearing as a novel property which has no analogue at the previous layer.
Darwinian evolution is by far the best evidenced explanation we have for the complexity of speciation – where exactly do you think a “novel property” would come from but for the species that precede it? The moon? The Soup Dragon? The wibble monsters of Alpha Centauri? Where?
Actually it gladdens me that your posts turn out to be predictable and lightweight and masterworks in gussying up the bleeding obvious.
Actually it saddens me that your posts continue to be exercises in deep ignorance, bad thinking and dishonesty. ‘Twas ever thus I guess though.
-
If the spirit does not suffer then how can it be the spirit that decides ? If the patient suffers depression because his wife left him, is that circumstance a 'karmic influence' in your terms ? If it is the conscious mind that is at the sharp end of all this and the spirit remains aloof from the suffering why would it be the spirit that decides on a course of action when surely the conscious mind is in a better position to know what needs to be done.
Who decides to clean the dirt from your hand, who decides to get rid of ignorance and gain knowledge? You!
Similarly, the dirt/ignorance/negativity is enveloping the spirit. It is the spirit that decides how to get rid of it. The conscious mind is a product of ignorance/individuality and that is the means by which the knowledge is gained and the dirt is cleaned. Development happens through the conscious mind but it is the unconsciousness mind that decides how to go about it.
It has been found by scientists that the unconscious mind takes decisions and the conscious mind only follows a little later.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm
-
Sririam (taken a bit out of context, I'll come back later if I have further comments:
...It is always the conscious mind that actually suffers (not the body...) ).
Depression does cause bodily suffering, it has a knock on effect on physical health.
-
JK,
I ignored it because I had already explained that you can't just make an empty assertion that it is some fallacy without explaining why, and so I wasn't going to repeat myself!
First, the assertion wasn't “empty” at all – you did attempt an argument from personal incredulity! Second though, the point rather was that – empty or not – the one thing it certainly wasn’t was an ad hom, as you’d know if you’d read my explanation of what ad hom actually means.
No it is not. But I'll try it with in future and see if you just say, "Ok, you win."
Why would I say “you win” when you rely on a logical fallacy for your argument?
So yes I want you to engage in the point of what an argument and discussion is for and substantiate your position and unfounded assertions.
Again, there’s nothing “unfounded” about them, and I can’t engage with an argument when it’s logically false. All I can do is to tell you why it’s logically false. It’s up to you then either to amend it, or to withdraw it and to try something else.
This assertion of yours, about consciousness, is totally without merit. It beholds your arrogance in stating something as a fact when it is not. You and science have no idea where consciousness comes from or what it is.
Priceless! Actually “science” has lots of clues about that but, even if it didn’t, this statement is itself an argument from personal incredulity: “Science can’t explain it, therefore I can’t believe that it occurs because of the natural processes that science does understand”.
By all means try again, but you should try to avoid fallacious reasoning in future if you want to make an argument worth considering.
-
Sririam (taken a bit out of context, I'll come back later if I have further comments:
...It is always the conscious mind that actually suffers (not the body...) ).
Depression does cause bodily suffering, it has a knock on effect on physical health.
Brownie...I meant that it s only the conscious mind that suffers in the sense that, if the conscious mind is absent (as in unconscious or under anesthesia) there will be no suffering even if the body is in pain. Without the conscious mind there is no suffering ...and no pleasure either!
-
Spoof,
There is in this matter an explanatory gap and I suppose in other matters of emergence too.
Ah the god of the gaps – we haven’t had one of those for while.
Bluehillside either hates emergence and or doesn't understand it.
Neither is true of course, so why even bother lying about it?
He uses the word emergence but is ruthlessly reductionist bidding us believe that the whole, the emergent property is merely the sum of the parts.
So few words, so many mistakes:
1. Again, you can’t be “reductionist” unless you first demonstrate that there’s something to reduce from. Your really struggle with this don’t you.
2. The emergent property is precisely not the sum of the parts, as you’d know if you’d bothered to read anything about the subject. I’m happy to educate you about it, but there’s no point trying if you insist on remaining uneducable.
Torridon stops before the explanatory gap to create definitions which satisfy the profession of neuroscience. In his view we are all P zombies. His approach is a kind of neuroscientism.
There is no explanatory gap – the basic principles are there – and as neuroscience gives us the best evidenced we have so far for the working of the mind I don’t see why you dismiss it favour of – well, what? Your bad reasoning, superstitious beliefs and un-evidenced wishful thinking?
-
Just been thinking about why some here have such a visceral objection to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. Absent an argument of any kind to suggest where it could come from but for the brain, it seems they rely a series a bad arguments – “science doesn’t know everything”, “I can’t believe that something so complex could occur naturally”, “I’ve decided first that there’s another source (albeit one that I can’t demonstrate), so your attempts to explain it bottom up as the rest of nature works must be “reductionist”” etc.
But why though? Why this refusal to accept evidence and argument? Dunno, but there seems to me to be several possible reasons:
- It squeezes out a gap that “God” currently occupies
- It offends the solipsistic sense of being special, unique
- It contradicts the illusion of being a separate something that happens to live in a body, or it contradicts the conjecture “soul”
Doubtless there are more, but it’s all a bit rum I find.
Ah well.
-
Who decides to clean the dirt from your hand, who decides to get rid of ignorance and gain knowledge? You!
Similarly, the dirt/ignorance/negativity is enveloping the spirit. It is the spirit that decides how to get rid of it. The conscious mind is a product of ignorance/individuality and that is the means by which the knowledge is gained and the dirt is cleaned. Development happens through the conscious mind but it is the unconsciousness mind that decides how to go about it.
It has been found by scientists that the unconscious mind takes decisions and the conscious mind only follows a little later.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm
Did that really address the previous question ? In addition to a taste for avoiding straight answers I note also your taste for quoting cherry picked findings from science wherever you think it supports your ideas ;) But when science doesn't support your ideas, then it is a case of 'not proved', as in the case of your car/driver analogy, where science says the driver is an emergent property of the car.
When playing chess, is it the spirit that ponders and then chooses the next move, or is it the unconscious mind, or what ?
-
SOTS,
He did not!
Can I suggest that if you want to come here to tell lies you try to be a bit less obvious about it? Anyone can read Sriram's attempt at an NPF just two posts after yours (by demanding evidence to negate his un-evidenced conjectures) so why pretend that it didn’t happen?
Considering you cannot be bothered to quote what someone has said, instead pharaphrasing, then yes!
Then you shouldn’t – for reasons that have been explained to you but that you continue to ignore.
Show me where in my #303 your quote “no-one uses the NPF anyway” comes from
Your entire diversionary tactic has involved the (supposed) lack of use of the NPF. It’s actually used a lot but, as you’ve been told several times now, even if it wasn’t that doesn’t make it a good argument – which is actually the point you keep trying to deflect us from with irrelevancies.
unfalsifiable conjecture? Ahh...having difficulty falsifying the idea of karma then? Bluehillside does not know how to falsify karma, therefore karma is unfalsifiable? WOW!! Bluehillside doesn’t know how to falsify religious beliefs so religious beliefs are unfalsifiable? Double WOW!!
Are you feeling unwell? The people who propose these various conjectures structure them to be unfalsifiable. If you want to make such a claim and to have it taken seriously, then it’s for you to provide a method to falsify it. If he wanted to be taken seriously, Sriram's job for example having asserted "karma" would be to say, "but if X were shown to be the case, then my assertion would be falsified".
Perhaps if you had a lie down and tried thinking before you post again that would help?
This is what I meant when I said that your arguments are not based on properties of truth. If they were, you would have realised by now that something that is clearly made up (teapots in space, your dancing pixies, my orbiting onion conjecture) doesn’t need falsifying, for obvious reasons!
Way to miss the point. What “obvious reasons” would they be, and what sliding scale of “clearly” would you propose before a falsification test becomes necessary? Ra? Zeus? Thor? Allah? Your god?
And why more to the point would you think the made up-ness or otherwise of the outcome would have anything whatever to say to whether or not the NPF is a bad argument in any case?
One day, you may realise that you are doing precisely what you are accusing others of. It is your position that is unfalsifiable, that’s why you have to keep on shifting the burden of proof, which should always lie with the one making the claim. That's how truth works!
Perhaps a basic primer in epistemology would help you here? My “position” inasmuch as I have one is precisely falsifiable because it relies on arguments that are falsification apt. If there’s a flaw in the reasoning, then the argument falls away. You on the other hand turn up here with an overweening confidence and a kit bag full of very bad arguments, keep getting found out but can’t process the invalidation of your position.
If you think I’ve ever shifted the burden of proof then demonstrate where (though I caution you to look up what the term means before you do given your misunderstanding of it so far). Once you have looked it up by the way, you may also want to review the various times you’ve tried it here and been caught out doing it.
Good luck with it though!
-
Just been thinking about why some here have such a visceral objection to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. Absent an argument of any kind to suggest where it could come from but for the brain, it seems they rely a series a bad arguments – “science doesn’t know everything”, “I can’t believe that something so complex could occur naturally”, “I’ve decided first that there’s another source (albeit one that I can’t demonstrate), so your attempts to explain it bottom up as the rest of nature works must be “reductionist”” etc.
But why though? Why this refusal to accept evidence and argument? Dunno, but there seems to me to be several possible reasons:
- It squeezes out a gap that “God” currently occupies
- It offends the solipsistic sense of being special, unique
- It contradicts the illusion of being a separate something that happens to live in a body, or it contradicts the conjecture “soul”
Doubtless there are more, but it’s all a bit rum I find.
Ah well.
I have been pondering the same thing, along with the apparent futility of these debates. Clearly emergence is devastating to core religious beliefs that centre on the survival of identity post mortem. Sriram hasn't, as far as I'm aware, ventured to suggest why his beliefs are so important to him. If it's all about the denial of death then reincarnation fails on its own terms since there would seem not to be any meaningful continuity of identity involved. If it's about something else I'd like to know what it is. Religious folk often claim that secular views divest life of 'meaning' but this only seems to be so for them. When I read all this stuff about spirits and so on I just think, why does it all have to be so bloody complicated?
-
People don't throw out their world views, paradigms, just on speculation or probabilities. There's a long way to go before we understand any of these things in depth.
Why is it at all important to you (bramble, bhs, ... ) that they should?
-
Just been thinking about why some here have such a visceral objection to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.
Another reason might be that it is a reaction to your passionate way of presenting your case, as if it were 100% certainty rather than a %age probability. I would have thought that scientific pronouncements, especially of the human body and mind, are tentative rather than definitive and conclusive. In the meantime, perhaps it makes your opponents happier to see consciousness as arising from a greater source than the brain, just as moonlight is not an emergent property of the moon but is a reflection from the sun.
-
Isn't there also some kind of hostility to the physical? Or to life, if you like. It seems preferable to indulge in dreamy speculations about the spiritual, although these are never pinned down to anything specific, or even interesting. That's why there is often a reversal of arguments - instead of discussing my dreamy speculations, (about which there is very little to say, actually), let's talk about your view that life is physical. Ew, nasty scientism.
-
Udayana,
People don't throw out their world views, paradigms, just on speculation or probabilities. There's a long way to go before we understand any of these things in depth.
Why is it at all important to you (bramble, bhs, ... ) that they should?
It isn't, though in general terms the evidence of the harm that faith and dogma can do when their proponents have authority over others suggests that they're worth arguing against in any case.
-
It's the vagueness of a lot of spirituality that bugs me. It's all abstractions and what-ifs, and very little concrete.
-
ekim,
Another reason might be that it is a reaction to your passionate way of presenting your case, as if it were 100% certainty rather than a %age probability. I would have thought that scientific pronouncements, especially of the human body and mind, are tentative rather than definitive and conclusive. In the meantime, perhaps it makes your opponents happier to see consciousness as arising from a greater source than the brain, just as moonlight is not an emergent property of the moon but is a reflection from the sun.
That's not it al all. I've always argued that truth is probabilistic, and for that matter that if the arguments I use could be rebutted then I'd change my mind. The point though is that of course science is tentative and subject to change - any passion on my part is in constantly reminding people of this when they say things like, "science hasn't proved X" when science doesn't deal in proofs, and when they think the absence of a proof for X somehow validates their un-evidenced conjecture Y.
No doubt too some do feel happier for having their faith beliefs, but that says nothing to whether they're more likely than not to be true.
-
#391
Spoof,
My advice to you is that same as that I gave to Sriram earlier on: try reading Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software”.
Seriously - it’s an entertaining read anyway, and it’ll also explain why your understanding of emergence is wrong. In short, there’s no Hey Presto! about it, for the same reason that termites don't need theodolites and blueprints (let alone a Hey Presto!) to build their mounds. I'll grant you that it's counter-intuitive to start with, but you'll get the hang of it I'm sure.
I don't believe I gave a definition of emergence Hillside. Hopefully your recommended reading is not a rehash of reduction gussying up the power of the previous level and getting emergence merely by piling on more atoms, molecules or even neurons.
If you haven't read that link that Bluehillside provided, you can save yourself some time as all of the examples used illustrate the above. The conclusion? Complexity can arise from something less complex.
Extrapolating from this is what causes the problem, because the real issue to address is that of gain, not increase. A gain cannot come from what is already present, yet it appears that some are wanting to use the idea of emergence to get round this problem.
Take termite mounds. They are made from what is already present and the ability to form them is already present! Furthermore, work is done to create them, so there is no something from nothing problem. What happens inevitably is that there is an extrapolation from this to claim that the termites who create the mounds come from something simpler than termites, which in turn came from something simpler than itself, which in turn came from something simpler than itself, ... In the beginning, nothing caused something and the something went on to self-enhance itself
Illustrating in another way: Let’s say that all life was wiped out on earth and there were aliens from another planet that came to earth and saw these termite mounds. One of the aliens says, “Those mounds were created”. Another says, “You can’t say that, because then you will have to say, who created that which created the mounds, and you’ll get an infinite regression”. Another says, “Yeah, you’ll also have the problem that postulating some indigenous life-form is an unfalsifiable conjecture”. They then come up with an explanation to say that perhaps the mounds were formed over a long period of time due to unknown natural (non-animal) causes.
The whole thing is counter-intuitive because it is contradicted by what can be observed! Like Richard Dawkins, who has to use terms like the ‘illusion of design’ to get round problems, the explanation exists despite the evidence, not because of it.
-
Wiggs,
Isn't there also some kind of hostility to the physical? Or to life, if you like. It seems preferable to indulge in dreamy speculations about the spiritual, although these are never pinned down to anything specific, or even interesting. That's why there is often a reversal of arguments - instead of discussing my dreamy speculations, (about which there is very little to say, actually), let's talk about your view that life is physical. Ew, nasty scientism.
That's well expressed I think. The absence of any content in claims about "spirit" etc makes them dull at best, and that those who argue for them seem only to able to do so by trying to pick holes in science (by criticising it for failing to do things it never claims to do like provide proofs, or by flat out misrepresenting what it does tell us) seems pretty vapid to me. There's lots that science hasn't discovered, and it often gets things wrong along the way.
So what exactly?
-
Sword.
Well, a water molecule shows emergent properties, since it can do stuff that oxygen and hydrogen on their own cannot. And a number of water molecules also show emergence, since they can be wet, which a single molecule cannot be. And so on.
-
Wiggs,
That's well expressed I think. The absence of any content in claims about "spirit" etc makes them dull at best, and that those who argue for them seem only to able to do so by trying to pick holes in science (by criticising it for failing to do things it never claims to do like provide proofs, or by flat out misrepresenting what it does tell us) seems pretty vapid to me. There's lots that science hasn't discovered, and it often gets things wrong along the way.
So what exactly?
Yes, I lose patience, as after people have cited beauty or consciousness as something that science cannot describe, then what? It all seems very negative, or a reversed argument. What exactly does beauty demonstrate, according to them? We seem to end up with AB's feeble stuff about the soul, about which of course, nothing can be demonstrated. But it's science which is at fault!
-
Did that really address the previous question ? In addition to a taste for avoiding straight answers I note also your taste for quoting cherry picked findings from science wherever you think it supports your ideas ;) But when science doesn't support your ideas, then it is a case of 'not proved', as in the case of your car/driver analogy, where science says the driver is an emergent property of the car.
When playing chess, is it the spirit that ponders and then chooses the next move, or is it the unconscious mind, or what ?
The driver is an emergent property of the car...?!! That is a good one that is! :D
And quite an apt example of the way scientists seem to think. ;)
-
SOTS,
If you haven't read that link that Bluehillside provided, you can save yourself some time as all of the examples used illustrate the above. The conclusion? Complexity can arise from something less complex.
Extrapolating from this is what causes the problem, because the real issue to address is that of gain, not increase. A gain cannot come from what is already present, yet it appears that some are wanting to use the idea of emergence to get round this problem.
Take termite mounds. They are made from what is already present and the ability to form them is already present! Furthermore, work is done to create them, so there is no something from nothing problem. What happens inevitably is that there is an extrapolation from this to claim that the termites who create the mounds come from something simpler than termites, which in turn came from something simpler than itself, which in turn came from something simpler than itself, ... In the beginning, nothing caused something and the something went on to self-enhance itself
Illustrating in another way: Let’s say that all life was wiped out on earth and there were aliens from another planet that came to earth and saw these termite mounds. One of the aliens says, “Those mounds were created”. Another says, “You can’t say that, because then you will have to say, who created that which created the mounds, and you’ll get an infinite regression”. Another says, “Yeah, you’ll also have the problem that postulating some indigenous life-form is an unfalsifiable conjecture”. They then come up with an explanation to say that perhaps the mounds were formed over a long period of time due to unknown natural (non-animal) causes.
The whole thing is counter-intuitive because it is contradicted by what can be observed! Like Richard Dawkins, who has to use terms like the ‘illusion of design’ to get round problems, the explanation exists despite the evidence, not because of it.
As you seem to be indifferent to the tsunami of reason and evidence that shows you to be fundamentally wrong about this, for anyone interested the book that undoes you very effectively is Steven Johnson's "The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software".
The clue by the way is that you confuse adaptive with non-adaptive emergent systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system
-
I think there is also science envy at work. For various reasons, science is denigrated, in favour of what - a few vague speculations, which cannot be pinned down. But science is really bad, because, well, envy.
-
Me (Reply 480):
That's well expressed I think. The absence of any content in claims about "spirit" etc makes them dull at best, and that those who argue for them seem only to able to do so by trying to pick holes in science (by criticising it for failing to do things it never claims to do like provide proofs, or by flat out misrepresenting what it does tell us) seems pretty vapid to me. There's lots that science hasn't discovered, and it often gets things wrong along the way.
So what exactly?
Sriram (Reply 483):
The driver is an emergent property of the car...?!! That is a good one that is!
And quite an apt example of the way scientists seem to think.
QED
-
If you aren't qualified and don't know what the answer is then how will you recognize the correct answer when it is displayed?
I doubt very much I'll find it on here unless you can provide some definitive answers yourself and if it looks correct I will do further research, if I can be bothered.
Thanks for asking
-
Walter,
I doubt very much I'll find it on here unless you can provide some definitive answers yourself and if it looks correct I will do further research, if I can be bothered.
Thanks for asking
What makes you think that there is a "definitive answer"? The term "the hard problem of consciousness" exists for a reason...
-
BBC R4 just had a very apt short piece (The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry) on lunar influence and how people persist in seeing it despite the stats:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084d8cc
-
Walter,
What makes you think that there is a "definitive answer"? The term "the hard problem of consciousness" exists for a reason...
Blue, I'm guessing there will be a definitive answer in the future however I find this whole subject rather tedious and will wait for those who work in this field to come up with it.
Each day I shall continue to enjoy life without giving it much thought until such time I loose my marbles like my dear old mum
did.
have a nice day.... 8)
-
ekim,
That's not it al all. I've always argued that truth is probabilistic, and for that matter that if the arguments I use could be rebutted then I'd change my mind. The point though is that of course science is tentative and subject to change - any passion on my part is in constantly reminding people of this when they say things like, "science hasn't proved X" when science doesn't deal in proofs, and when they think the absence of a proof for X somehow validates their un-evidenced conjecture Y.
No doubt too some do feel happier for having their faith beliefs, but that says nothing to whether they're more likely than not to be true.
OK, perhaps I misjudged some of your replies.
Happiness/joy is a great motivator and perhaps there are some who see this as an emergent property of their faith practices and this is their truth and that gathering second hand factual information has a submergent effect rather than emergent.
-
BBC R4 just had a very apt short piece (The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry) on lunar influence and how people persist in seeing it despite the stats:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084d8cc
Udayana
thanks for a very interesting link. what did you think of the program?
-
SOTS,
As you seem to be indifferent to the tsunami of reason and evidence that shows you to be fundamentally wrong about this, for anyone interested the book that undoes your misunderstanding very effectively is Steven Johnson's "The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software".
I have just rung NLB to see if by any chance it is available in talking books, but not so. How many pages does it have? I'm wondering whether it would be something my reader could read to me.
In my (now strongly held!) opinionSotS posts reveal an overweening belief in his own superior intellect - quite unjustified!
-
#391
If you haven't read that link that Bluehillside provided, you can save yourself some time as all of the examples used illustrate the above. The conclusion? Complexity can arise from something less complex.
Extrapolating from this is what causes the problem, because the real issue to address is that of gain, not increase. A gain cannot come from what is already present, yet it appears that some are wanting to use the idea of emergence to get round this problem.
Take termite mounds. They are made from what is already present and the ability to form them is already present! Furthermore, work is done to create them, so there is no something from nothing problem. What happens inevitably is that there is an extrapolation from this to claim that the termites who create the mounds come from something simpler than termites, which in turn came from something simpler than itself, which in turn came from something simpler than itself, ... In the beginning, nothing caused something and the something went on to self-enhance itself
Illustrating in another way: Let’s say that all life was wiped out on earth and there were aliens from another planet that came to earth and saw these termite mounds. One of the aliens says, “Those mounds were created”. Another says, “You can’t say that, because then you will have to say, who created that which created the mounds, and you’ll get an infinite regression”. Another says, “Yeah, you’ll also have the problem that postulating some indigenous life-form is an unfalsifiable conjecture”. They then come up with an explanation to say that perhaps the mounds were formed over a long period of time due to unknown natural (non-animal) causes.
The whole thing is counter-intuitive because it is contradicted by what can be observed! Like Richard Dawkins, who has to use terms like the ‘illusion of design’ to get round problems, the explanation exists despite the evidence, not because of it.
Not quite clear what you are saying here. The idea of emergence expresses the principle that complexity arises from simpler origins. We see houses made of little bricks but we don't see little bricks made of houses. There is a unidirectional arrow to the complexity curve, and this is the base reason why concepts of intelligent design are fundamentally flawed as they run counter to this principle. Some people have tried to make a counter claim to the principle of emergence as a means to explain conscious intentionality, it is known as downward causation, Sean Carroll has a blog post on it here http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/ (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/)
-
Hi Susan,
I have just rung NLB to see if by any chance it is available in talking books, but not so. How many pages does it have? I'm wondering whether it would be something my reader could read to me.
In my (now strongly held!) opinionSotS posts reveal an overweening belief in his own superior intellect - quite unjustified!
That's a shame - it's also a very god read. My copy has 288 pages in total.
-
In my (now strongly held!) opinionSotS posts reveal an overweening belief in his own superior intellect - quite unjustified!
And when you post like this SusanDoris, you are just showing yourself up to be a hypocrite as you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of.
-
torri,
Not quite clear what you are saying here. The idea of emergence expresses the principle that complexity arises from simpler origins. We see houses made of little bricks but we don't see little bricks made of houses. There is a unidirectional arrow to the complexity curve, and this is the base reason why concepts of intelligent design are fundamentally flawed. Some people have tried to make a counter claim to the principle of emergence as a means to explain conscious intentionality, it is known as downward causation, Sean Carroll has a blog post on it here http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/
It's actually worse than that. Yes, emergence is unidirectional but a house is a non-adaptive system - it doesn't self-organise into something else. Emergence also produces though adaptive systems - like stock markets and street neighbourhoods - that do change, and that SOTS's critique fails to recognise.
-
Udayana
thanks for a very interesting link. what did you think of the program?
I thought it was spot on. Shows the use of stats and how people's own experiences and outlook can skew their perceptions. Confirmation bias is always in play.
Hannah Fry has done quite a bit of good work recently.
-
SOTS,
And when you post like this SusanDoris, you are just showing yourself up to be a hypocrite as you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of.
No. Susan had the good grace to preface her remark with "in my opinion".
-
People don't throw out their world views, paradigms, just on speculation or probabilities. There's a long way to go before we understand any of these things in depth.
Why is it at all important to you (bramble, bhs, ... ) that they should?
It isn't. I'm simply puzzled as to why some folk (and not others) seem to require that their lives be imbedded in an elaborate story of the kind that religions provide. I suppose I might understand it better if I could see some obvious advantage but for the most part these stories strike me as repellant. What, for instance, is the attraction of Original Sin or (what looks like a Hindu version of it) Sriram's spirit contamination? These ideas would just seem to add an entirely unnecessary problem to life. In Sriram's case such a belief would condemn one to an eternity of 'self-improvement' (his descriptor of spirituality) - I can't really think of anything worse. Who needs it? As for understanding the nature and origin of consciousness, this is certainly a matter of interest but I fail to see how it might have the slightest relevance to the conduct of daily life - and if it's unnecessary to living then what relevance can it have to 'spirituality' unless the latter is itself equally irrelevant? So many of the religious beliefs that have recently had an airing here seem just grandiose, possibly narcissistic, and usually deeply anthropocentric. Is spirituality there to help us feel special? To structure ourselves around such narratives is to demand that life conforms to a set of fixed ideas. This looks to me like a flight from life itself.
-
Not quite clear what you are saying here. The idea of emergence expresses the principle that complexity arises from simpler origins. We see houses made of little bricks but we don't see little bricks made of houses. There is a unidirectional arrow to the complexity curve, and this is the base reason why concepts of intelligent design are fundamentally flawed as they run counter to this principle. Some people have tried to make a counter claim to the principle of emergence as a means to explain conscious intentionality, it is known as downward causation, Sean Carroll has a blog post on it here http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/ (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/)
Thanks for that link Torridon. I'll have a read.
On your question, I've no problem with the idea of complexity arising from simpler origins if the ability is there to do so from the start.
To use your analogy with the bricks: No problem there, but if you start with the house and regress backwards:
- emergent properties are used to explain the existence of the house.
Then
- emergent properties are used to explain the bricks, which emerged from some process 'A'.
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'A', which emerged from some process 'B'
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'B', which emerged from some process 'C'
etc.
So what you have is a narrative involving emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties! It's a classic something from nothing scenario. If you regress back far enough, the first 'emergent property' would have to be something emerging from nothing!
-
So many of the religious beliefs that have recently had an airing here seem just grandiose, possibly narcissistic, and usually deeply anthropocentric.
Would you consider that a methodology that implies that only human beings are allowed to be able to design, make and build things deeply anthropocentric?
For example: Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because that designer God would need an explanation in his own right and argues that an infinite regression occurs. That argument however seems to go out of the window when applied to the things human beings design and make.
-
SOTS,
On your question, I've no problem with the idea of complexity arising from simpler origins if the ability is there to do so from the start.
That's because you don't understand the difference between adaptive and non-adaptive emergent systems. Water molecules don't have embedded in them the idea that they could one day be a wave.
So what you have is a narrative involving emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties! It's a classic something from nothing scenario. If you regress back far enough, the first 'emergent property' would have to be something emerging from nothing!
Which misses the point entirely. You can discuss whether there ever was a "something emerging from nothing" if you want to, but that says nothing to the fact of emergence as a phenomenon. It's the same mistake that people who discount evolution make when they say, "where did the first organic stuff come from then?" as if that had anything to do with the action of natural selection on the organic material that was there.
-
SOTS,
Would you consider that a methodology that implies that only human beings are allowed to be able to design, make and build things deeply anthropocentric?
For example: Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because that designer God would need an explanation in his own right and argues that an infinite regression occurs. That argument however seems to go out of the window when applied to the things human beings design and make.
No it doesn't if you have even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. Think of human beings as adaptive systems if that helps.
-
I thought it was spot on. Shows the use of stats and how people's own experiences and outlook can skew their perceptions. Confirmation bias is always in play.
Hannah Fry has done quite a bit of good work recently.
Yes, the program has yet again , highlighted the problem that persists in the public understanding of reality . No matter how much evidence some people are presented with they persist with what they already think , even if it is shown to be wrong. This is the greatest factor for my misanthropic position in life. ::)
-
It isn't. I'm simply puzzled as to why some folk (and not others) seem to require that their lives be imbedded in an elaborate story of the kind that religions provide. I suppose I might understand it better if I could see some obvious advantage but for the most part these stories strike me as repellant. What, for instance, is the attraction of Original Sin or (what looks like a Hindu version of it) Sriram's spirit contamination? These ideas would just seem to add an entirely unnecessary problem to life. In Sriram's case such a belief would condemn one to an eternity of 'self-improvement' (his descriptor of spirituality) - I can't really think of anything worse. Who needs it? As for understanding the nature and origin of consciousness, this is certainly a matter of interest but I fail to see how it might have the slightest relevance to the conduct of daily life - and if it's unnecessary to living then what relevance can it have to 'spirituality' unless the latter is itself equally irrelevant? So many of the religious beliefs that have recently had an airing here seem just grandiose, possibly narcissistic, and usually deeply anthropocentric. Is spirituality there to help us feel special? To structure ourselves around such narratives is to demand that life conforms to a set of fixed ideas. This looks to me like a flight from life itself.
I think it is mostly about culture and identity. Including ourselves in such stories is part of being born into a culture and identity whether, as originally, tribal or into a wider society. Most peoples sense of purpose, meaning of life and even morality, even the roles they take up in society, is rooted in their cultural inheritance. And, hence, the reluctance to give it up. Of-course it doesn't have to be religious necessarily, that is just how things developed historically.
I've not come across Sriram's "spirit contamination" idea in Hinduism before - seems a made up thing, but Hinduism does frame a number of possible metaphysical models for life, the universe etc.. Normally it is "desire" that is seen as the cause for existence. Karma is causality and dharma, morality.
-
Well, many ancient stories are anthropocentric, aren't they? Tribal people often start with themselves, understandably. I suppose you could argue that we are still like that, although our stories are different, e.g. politics and entertainment.
I suppose the Enlightenment can be seen as a branching out from that towards something more universal, hence the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, and so on. Even more grandiose of course, but bigly!
And out of all that, secularism emerges, and modern science.
After that, you get the clash between different sets of stories, ancient and modern. EastEnders or the X-Factor.
-
I think it is mostly about culture and identity. Including ourselves in such stories is part of being born into a culture and identity whether, as originally, tribal or into a wider society. Most peoples sense of purpose, meaning of life and even morality, even the roles they take up in society, is rooted in their cultural inheritance. And, hence, the reluctance to give it up. Of-course it doesn't have to be religious necessarily, that is just how things developed historically.
I've not come across Sriram's "spirit contamination" idea in Hinduism before - seems a made up thing, but Hinduism does frame a number of possible metaphysical models for life, the universe etc.. Normally it is "desire" that is seen as the cause for existence. Karma is causality and dharma, morality.
Maybe my problem is that I'm not by nature a 'joiner' - tribalism and identity in a cultural sense feel rather alien to me, so perhaps religion is always going to seem weird.
The spirit contamination thing is very like what you find in traditional Buddhism, though Buddhists don't do 'spirit' in Sriram's sense. I've always assumed the Buddhist view was transplanted from religious beliefs common in India at the time of the historical Buddha. Basically, you 'inherit' a karmic bucket of (mostly) shit from a beginningless series of bastards who've set you up for a hard time as your life and experiences erupt hideously from the traces of their infinite moral lapses. There are, of course, occasional sunny intervals, but these just make the inevitable fall back into one of the many unspeakable hells all the more dreadful when it comes. Who thought this stuff up?
-
Well, many ancient stories are anthropocentric, aren't they? Tribal people often start with themselves, understandably. I suppose you could argue that we are still like that, although our stories are different, e.g. politics and entertainment.
I suppose the Enlightenment can be seen as a branching out from that towards something more universal, hence the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, and so on. Even more grandiose of course, but bigly!
And out of all that, secularism emerges, and modern science.
After that, you get the clash between different sets of stories, ancient and modern. EastEnders or the X-Factor.
It's interesting that while most religions tell stories that adherents are then encouraged to believe in, in Zen the opposite seems to apply. There's a peeling away of narrative into a kind of non-identity (which is perhaps an everything-identity). I guess it's human nature to want to be a someone and maybe the irony is that what we really want can only be found by becoming a no-one.
-
Would you consider that a methodology that implies that only human beings are allowed to be able to design, make and build things deeply anthropocentric?
Not really, since your are presumably referring to the types of things humans make, like watches, which is a consequence of how our species has evolved. There is an interesting article on the BBC website which relates to a possible DNA mutation being involved in the evolution of our brain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38226810
Your use of the word 'allowed' is very odd: does that mean that birds are 'allowed' to fly but we aren't, mind you though birds don't seem to have a use for watches - I wonder why that is (perhaps they aren't 'allowed' them)?
For example: Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because that designer God would need an explanation in his own right and argues that an infinite regression occurs. That argument however seems to go out of the window when applied to the things human beings design and make.
So another thing you don't understand is the point RD was making and how this doesn't relate to what humans design.
-
It's interesting that while most religions tell stories that adherents are then encouraged to believe in, in Zen the opposite seems to apply. There's a peeling away of narrative into a kind of non-identity (which is perhaps an everything-identity). I guess it's human nature to want to be a someone and maybe the irony is that what we really want can only be found by becoming a no-one.
One of my favourite stories: a Western guy visits a Japanese Zen monastery, and starts to solve koans in double quick time, and with great brilliance. He becomes famous in the area. But his teacher smells a rat, and starts to reject his solutions, and says, 'interesting, but not Zen'. This goes on for months, and the guy is in despair. His teacher takes pity and tells him to memorize a verse from a sutra. He returns, and makes a complete hash of it, stumbling, stuttering, half-remembering, and then he finishes, and waits in dread. 'Yes, real Zen', the teacher says.
So the teacher didn't want the performance, but the echter Mensch, the real man, who stumbled and stuttered, but was authentic.
-
Wiggs,
So the teacher didn't want the performance, but the echter Mensch, the real man, who stumbled and stuttered, but was authentic.
But what made the brilliant problem solver part of him less authentic, less the real man than the poor verse memoriser part? Or was the teacher just saying the he didn't have the real man until he had all his characteristics in the round?
But then how would the teacher know whether he was any good at, say, table football too?
-
Wiggs,
But what made the brilliant problem solver part of him less authentic, less the real man than the poor verse memoriser part? Or was the teacher just saying the he didn't have the real man until he had all his characteristics in the round?
But then how would the teacher know whether he was any good at, say, table football too?
Well, that's a good point about having the whole man, but I think also it's about getting behind the mask, to something shameful, which we all hide, the stuff we're not good at. You could say that our mask is authentic, but it's the hidden stuff, that the teacher is trying to drag out. Not sure about table football.
-
Wiggs,
Well, that's a good point about having the whole man, but I think also it's about getting behind the mask, to something shameful, which we all hide, the stuff we're not good at. You could say that our mask is authentic, but it's the hidden stuff, that the teacher is trying to drag out. Not sure about table football.
OK, fair enough - what we try to hide is arguably more important than what we choose to show to the world I guess. I still think the table football aspect needs more research though...
-
Sword.
Well, a water molecule shows emergent properties, since it can do stuff that oxygen and hydrogen on their own cannot. And a number of water molecules also show emergence, since they can be wet, which a single molecule cannot be. And so on.
No argument from me here wigginhall. My issue is not with an increase, but with a gain.
I'll use this as an example of the difference between increase and gain...
If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounces to a height of 0.5m, the loss of dynamic energy is converted into other types of energy, e.g. heat, so that can be considered an emergent property. It comes out of what exists.
Now, if I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced 3m into the air, it has gained something. One would know that at some point an external force would have had to be applied to the ball so that it can attain the extra height, relative to where it was initially dropped. The gain cannot be explained as an emergent property that was part of the original process.
My issue is with emergent properties being used to explain e.g. the type of gains needed in molecules to man evolutionary theories such as consciousness, gender, functionality in living organisms. These gains are being explained as emergent properties, which essentially leads to a circularity: emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties, which are used to explain emergent properties, ...
-
One of my favourite stories: a Western guy visits a Japanese Zen monastery, and starts to solve koans in double quick time, and with great brilliance. He becomes famous in the area. But his teacher smells a rat, and starts to reject his solutions, and says, 'interesting, but not Zen'. This goes on for months, and the guy is in despair. His teacher takes pity and tells him to memorize a verse from a sutra. He returns, and makes a complete hash of it, stumbling, stuttering, half-remembering, and then he finishes, and waits in dread. 'Yes, real Zen', the teacher says.
So the teacher didn't want the performance, but the echter Mensch, the real man, who stumbled and stuttered, but was authentic.
This is Zen's inheritance from Daoism, isn't it? It's about being 'natural', which is faith I suppose - a trust in who and what we are innately, as basically good, warts and all. As the Zenrin poem has it:
'In the landscape of spring there is neither high nor low,
The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short.'
-
“Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by itself” — Matsuo
-
SOTS,
No argument from me here wigginhall. My issue is not with an increase, but with a gain.
I'll use this as an example of the difference between increase and gain...
If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounces to a height of 0.5m, the loss of dynamic energy is converted into other types of energy, e.g. heat, so that can be considered an emergent property. It comes out of what exists.
Now, if I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced 3m into the air, it has gained something. One would know that at some point an external force would have had to be applied to the ball so that it can attain the extra height, relative to where it was initially dropped. The gain cannot be explained as an emergent property that was part of the original process.
My issue is with emergent properties being used to explain e.g. the type of gains needed in molecules to man evolutionary theories such as consciousness, gender, functionality in living organisms. These gains are being explained as emergent properties, which essentially leads to a circularity: emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties, which are used to explain emergent properties, ...
Then (once again) you need to trouble yourself with understanding the difference between an emergent system that's non-adaptive and an emergent system that's adaptive. I believe I pointed you to a book that explains it very well.
-
This is Zen's inheritance from Daoism, isn't it? It's about being 'natural', which is faith I suppose - a trust in who and what we are innately, as basically good, warts and all. As the Zenrin poem has it:
'In the landscape of spring there is neither high nor low,
The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short.'
Well, the guy sees his clumsy side as 'bad', therefore hides it, as he shows his brilliant performance side. However, you could argue that the teacher is not saying that his 'bad' side is 'good', but beyond good and evil, because it is. I know some people say that it's good because it is, but that can become tricky.
Horrible memories now of Herrigel, (Zen and the Art of Archery), who became a Nazi.
-
One time when I was teaching there was a fad for those small rubber balls which bounced particularly high. I cannot remember their properties, but does anyone know whether, if you dropped them from a height of 1 m, they would bounce higher than that?
-
Susan,
One time when I was teaching there was a fad for those small rubber balls which bounced particularly high. I cannot remember their properties, but does anyone know whether, if you dropped them from a height of 1 m, they would bounce higher than that?
Yes, I do - they wouldn't because you'd have to get more energy out of the system than went into it. SOTS's (repeated) mistake is to describe non-adaptive systems like a bouncing ball (the crystals of a snowflake is another example) when in fact the emergence of higher level complexity relies on adaptive systems, like ant colonies or brains. Essentially these are systems that learn.
I don't know why he keeps ignoring his mistake, but it's not doing him any favours.
-
Susan,
Yes, I do - they wouldn't because you'd have to get more energy out of the system than went into it. SOTS's (repeated) mistake is to describe non-adaptive systems like a bouncing ball (the crystals of a snowflake is another example) when in fact the emergence of higher level complexity relies on adaptive systems, like ant colonies or brains. Essentially these are systems that learn.
I don't know why he keeps ignoring his mistake, but it's not doing him any favours.
Thank you. Mind you, the children used to love bouncing the ball with as much force as possible ... when, I suppose the energy in would still be more than the energy out ...
-
Just to be clear, what are you calling consciousness?
Self awareness of one's existence and actions etc.
-
That's a caricature. Neuroimaging is not as crude as that. But there seems little doubt that it is giving insights into brain architecture, as it is built up from infancy. Perhaps you could indicate how you see intelligence.
I wasn't being literal in my description.
No one really knows how to define intelligence fully. The IQ test is very western orientated.
-
Dreaming is a form of conscious experience that happens during sleep. It is a common mistake to confuse consciousness with wakefulness. They often occur together but they are not the same thing.
So you lot need to define what you lot mean by consciousness so we can see where you lot are coming from, because there seems to be some crossed lines here.
-
It's not my view that we are all p-zombies. A p-zombie would be a person that looks and acts apparently like a regular person but lacks any inner experience. I've never known anyone fitting that description. The nearest we have are sufferers of Cotard's syndrome but they do still have inner experiences of pain and pleasure et, it is just their sense of self that is underperforming or degraded in some way leading to the mistaken belief that they are dead.
The difference between my view and your view boils down to this : you identify the self with the traditional idea of a soul. I would say that the same thing, the self, is a phenomenological projection created in real time by a living working awake body; well its not so much my view, more what the evidence from science suggests.
Which traditional idea of the soul were you thinking of since there are several?
Emergence is not a feature of reductionism and certainly not one where the emergent property is a kit made from previous levels. There is the explanatory gap which you are failing to acknowledge.
You are dismissing pertinent critique of your approach by accusations of "soul believer" that is particularly shabby.
I have said It should be no problem to a biblically based Christian if the self is after all physical since we consider humanity to be part of the creation......dust to dust and all that. But that would be an emergent self not the completed kit you and Hillside are peddling.
-
So you lot need to define what you lot mean by consciousness so we can see where you lot are coming from, because there seems to be some crossed lines here.
And maybe you need to define what you mean by it.
-
JK,
– you did attempt an argument from personal incredulity!
Prove it!!!
Again, there’s nothing “unfounded” about them, and I can’t engage with an argument when it’s logically false. All I can do is to tell you why it’s logically false.
Go on then!
Priceless! Actually “science” has lots of clues about that but, even if it didn’t, this statement is itself an argument from personal incredulity: “Science can’t explain it, therefore I can’t believe that it occurs because of the natural processes that science does understand”.
And you say," I know that science can’t explain it yet, however I believe all their hypotheses that they propose on it with out reservations and will push it as a fact or that it is going in the right direction even though science doesn't understand the natural processes involved and has no idea if it is on the right tracks." So your position is an argument of personal incredulity by having undue faith in your science.
-
It's not my view that we are all p-zombies. A p-zombie would be a person that looks and acts apparently like a regular person but lacks any inner experience. I've never known anyone fitting that description. The nearest we have are sufferers of Cotard's syndrome but they do still have inner experiences of pain and pleasure et, it is just their sense of self that is underperforming or degraded in some way leading to the mistaken belief that they are dead.
The difference between my view and your view boils down to this : you identify the self with the traditional idea of a soul. I would say that the same thing, the self, is a phenomenological projection created in real time by a living working awake body; well its not so much my view, more what the evidence from science suggests.
How do you know a person has inner experience unless inner experience is objective?
How do you know someone else isn't just an automaton thrown up by evolution. Intelligent but not conscious?............except by redefining consciousness to fit neuroscience....or what neuroscience can handle...where being an intelligent automata is "close enough".
-
But why though? Why this refusal to accept evidence and argument?
I've provided an argument but you refused to consider it and failed to understand its point. My argument by the way is that science is assuming too much here and coming up with the wrong outlook due to the prevailing ideology and mind set that this generation has. As for evidence you (science) have none, all it has is speculation based on assuming causation from correlation. There are no firm fact here yet.
- It offends the solipsistic sense of being special, unique
This is arrogance. Using ad hominem to close down the argument as Labour did with their accusations of racism. You can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand)
- It contradicts the illusion of being a separate something that happens to live in a body, or it contradicts the conjecture “soul”
Again, you can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand). Just because you can't entertain and see it as a plausible possibility that the essence of consciousness or whatever could be some entity separate from your materialistic outlook does not make it so. Your views are at the present just founded on speculation, nothing more.
-
ekim,
That's not it al all. I've always argued that truth is probabilistic, and for that matter that if the arguments I use could be rebutted then I'd change my mind. The point though is that of course science is tentative and subject to change - any passion on my part is in constantly reminding people of this when they say things like, "science hasn't proved X" when science doesn't deal in proofs, and when they think the absence of a proof for X somehow validates their un-evidenced conjecture Y.
No doubt too some do feel happier for having their faith beliefs, but that says nothing to whether they're more likely than not to be true.
So you admit it it is just your viewpoint, no facts, just your preferred ideological standpoint based on the probabilistic possibility that you are right. All mixed with a dose of your passion on the subject - the Khmer Rouge were passionate.
-
Spoof,
Emergence is not a feature of reductionism…
Make you mind up! Finally though you’ve got it – yes, it’s not a “feature” of reductionism at all unless and until anyone demonstrates something to reduce from. Emergence is all about bottom up, not top down.
… and certainly not one where the emergent property is a kit made from previous levels.
Depends what you mean by “a kit”, but the emergent property precisely rests on its component parts, even though – with adaptive systems at least – the emergent system is smarter than the sum of its parts.
There is the explanatory gap which you are failing to acknowledge.
Presumably because you just made it up.
You are dismissing pertinent critique of your approach by accusations of "soul believer" that is particularly shabby.
What “pertinent critique” do you think you’ve managed?
I have said It should be no problem to a biblically based Christian if the self is after all physical since we consider humanity to be part of the creation......dust to dust and all that. But that would be an emergent self not the completed kit you and Hillside are peddling.
Oh dear – and it was going so well too. Bluehillside is “peddling” no such thing – what he’s actually doing is trying to explain that emergent adaptive systems are in their nature smarter than the sum of their components. They learn.
-
JK,
Prove it!!!
You’ve proved it for me every time you’ve told us in effect that you cannot imagine how consciousness could emerge from the stuff of a brain.
Go on then!
Go on then what? If you try a logical fallacy then it’s a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are always wrong argument. There’s nothing more to be said.
And you say," I know that science can’t explain it yet, however I believe all their hypotheses that they propose on it with out reservations and will push it as a fact or that it is going in the right direction even though science doesn't understand the natural processes involved and has no idea if it is on the right tracks." So your position is an argument of personal incredulity by having undue faith in your science.
That’s called a straw man argument (another fallacy by the way) – I say no such thing. What I do say though is that:
- every complex system we know of in nature comes from simpler component parts
- emergence theory shows that complex adaptive systems can emerge from their component parts, and can become by magnitudes more information rich than the sum of those parts
- there’s nothing inherently special about consciousness that suggests that it shouldn’t be the product if the same principles, especially given the astonishing complexity of the brain
In the absence of a better argued and evidenced explanation, consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is therefore the working hypothesis, and asserting alternatives is equivalent to asserting the stork conjecture over midwifery.
I've provided an argument but you refused to consider it and failed to understand its point. My argument by the way is that science is assuming too much here and coming up with the wrong outlook due to the prevailing ideology and mind set that this generation has.
That’s not an argument – it’s just an assertion. What argument do you think you have to support it?
As for evidence you (science) have none, all it has is speculation based on assuming causation from correlation. There are no firm fact here yet.
That’s just wrong. There are countless “firm facts”, all pointing in the same direction. That there isn’t a complete theory is a different matter but, absent any facts at all for an alternative, that’s the best we've got.
This is arrogance. Using ad hominem to close down the argument as Labour did with their accusations of racism.
I’ve already explained to you what ad hom means. Why have you misused the term again?
You can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand)
To the contrary, I rely on facts and reason. What facts or reason do you think you have for an alternative explanation that invalidates mine?
Again, you can't deny or ignore facts just because they don't fit in with your ideology (that's a general statement, not a comment on the topic at hand).
Again, I do no such thing. Why pretend otherwise?
Just because you can't entertain and see it as a plausible possibility that the essence of consciousness or whatever could be some entity separate from your materialistic outlook does not make it so. Your views are at the present just founded on speculation, nothing more.
No, they’re founded on a lot more than speculation (see above) but I’m happy to accept other possibilities. How plausible they are though is a different matter – what explanation do you propose that better fits the observable phenomena?
So you admit it it is just your viewpoint, no facts, just your preferred ideological standpoint based on the probabilistic possibility that you are right. All mixed with a dose of your passion on the subject - the Khmer Rouge were passionate.
Oh dear. You’re a long way out of your depth here old son. Take a deep breath and try again. I happen to think that 2+2=4 is a fact, and I think that because that’s what the relevant logic tells me. I make no appeal though to absolutes – for all I know I’m a bit of code in a celestial computer game that’s been programmed to “think” that, but – on the basis of the potentially parochial tools available to me - I consider that to be a fact, and therefore probabilistically "true".
I also consider other conclusions based on logic I can’t falsify to be true, but again necessarily probabilistically so. That’s not a rhetorical weakness though as you seem to imply – to the contrary, it’s a strength because it leaves the door ajar to mistake and thus to better thinking in future.
If you want to call that "just" my opinion though, that's fine by me.
-
Spoof,
Oh dear – and it was going so well too. Bluehillside is “peddling” no such thing – what he’s actually doing is trying to explain that emergent adaptive systems are in their nature smarter than the sum of their components. They learn.
And?
May I remind you that an emergent property is not demonstrated by a lower level.
-
Thanks for that link Torridon. I'll have a read.
On your question, I've no problem with the idea of complexity arising from simpler origins if the ability is there to do so from the start.
To use your analogy with the bricks: No problem there, but if you start with the house and regress backwards:
- emergent properties are used to explain the existence of the house.
Then
- emergent properties are used to explain the bricks, which emerged from some process 'A'.
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'A', which emerged from some process 'B'
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'B', which emerged from some process 'C'
etc.
So what you have is a narrative involving emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties! It's a classic something from nothing scenario. If you regress back far enough, the first 'emergent property' would have to be something emerging from nothing!
If the principle of emergence implies something from nothing, then that would be a challenge for us to rise to. Nobody said stuff is easy and throwing out logic principles altogether to avoid the challenge would be one step forward but two steps back. That would be like Isaac Newton deciding that invisible magic pixies must be pulling apples down from trees; but he didn't do that, rather he rose to the challenge to think it through and thanks to that persistence we can now land robots on Mars. Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles. Magic pixies and gods are manifestations of a preference to avoid thinking things through imo.
-
If the principle of emergence implies something from nothing, then that would be a challenge for us to rise to. Nobody said stuff is easy and throwing out logic principles altogether to avoid the challenge would be one step forward but two steps back. That would be like Isaac Newton deciding that invisible magic pixies must be pulling apples down from trees; but he didn't do that, rather he rose to the challenge to think it through and thanks to that persistence we can now land robots on Mars. Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex is illogical.
torridon,
Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all. So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.
These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!
If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing.
IMO...a similar situation exists with humans and spiritual beings in another parallel world.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
torridon,
Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all. So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.
These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!
If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing.
IMO...a similar situation exists with humans and spiritual beings in another parallel world.
Cheers.
Sriram
Sriram sorry to intrude but I think there are elements in the book on emergence Bluehillside recommended that are pertinent to your case.
The author of that book talks about self organisation of components, molecules, cells etc. But what is the self being referred to? Is it each individual component? surely they are organised as far as they ever are. Or is it the new system?
Further what is the place of the laws of emergence?
I can't help thinking there is a desperate hanging onto reductionist principles to explain an emergent property to massage the explanatory gap.
Those who deny the explanatory gap are of course at liberty to fill it with er, an explanation.
-
Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.
-
Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.
Unfortunately it does if you are a reductionist materialist which explains people as mechanisms.
-
Spoof,
And?
May I remind you that an emergent property is not demonstrated by a lower level.
What point do you think you're making here?
-
Spoof,
Unfortunately it does if you are a reductionist materialist which explains people as mechanisms.
Just out of interest, is you strategy just to keep repeating that lie in the hope that in the end by some osmotic process people forget that it is a lie?
You know the rebuttal perfectly well: you cannot be a "reductionist" unless you first demonstrate something that's been reduced from.
You know, the bit you always run away from when you try your "reductionist", "dodging" etc schtick.
-
Spoof,
Sriram sorry to intrude but I think there are elements in the book on emergence Bluehillside recommended that are pertinent to your case.
The author of that book talks about self organisation of components, molecules, cells etc. But what is the self being referred to?
That's not what the term means. Self-organised just means forming systems without a top down designer to make it so.
Is it each individual component?
No, it's "each individual component" following five simple principles such that the whole system becomes more information rich than the sum of its parts.
... surely they are organised as far as they ever are. Or is it the new system?
When it's adaptive, it's a new system.
Further what is the place of the laws of emergence?
What are you trying to ask here? What is the "place" of the laws of gravity?
I can't help thinking there is a desperate hanging onto reductionist principles to explain an emergent property to massage the explanatory gap.
I believe you - you cant help think that, despite having been corrected on it many times now.
Those who deny the explanatory gap are of course at liberty to fill it with er, an explanation.
I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with those who claim an "explanatory gap" to establish first that there is one.
-
Spoof,
Just out of interest, is you strategy just to keep repeating that lie in the hope that in the end by some osmotic process people forget that it is a lie?
You know the rebuttal perfectly well: you cannot be a "reductionist" unless you first demonstrate something that's been reduced from.
You know, the bit you always run away from when you try your "reductionist", "dodging" etc schtick.
A crude definition of reductionism and I don't see how you can interpret my usage here how you have.
By reductionism I mean explaining everything higher up in the order of complexity by means of the previous level or even several levels down as Dawkins does with the gene with all else a kind of froth on the top and mere vehicles or mechanisms.
By reductionists I mean the bottom up brigade. One doesn't need sky hooks or top down though. In fact the mention of bottom up in your recommended book seems to be a hoorah for reduction.
Emergence is ''side in''.
The differences between reductionism and emergence were outlined long ago by Paul Davies in his New Scientist article.
-
Spoof,
That's not what the term means. Self-organised just means forming systems without a top down designer to make it so.
No, it's "each individual component" following five simple principles such that the whole system becomes more information rich than the sum of its parts.
When it's adaptive, it's a new system.
What are you trying to ask here? What is the "place" of the laws of gravity?
I believe you - you cant help think that, despite having been corrected on it many times now.
I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with those who claim an "explanatory gap" to establish first that there is one.
And those that claim a logical explanatory chain from the bottom up have to establish that.
-
I'd have thought that the burden of proof rests with those who claim an "explanatory gap" to establish first that there is one.
Certainly. there is an explanatory gap in your representation of bottom up emergence.
factor a + factor b + factor c =more than the sum of factors a,b,c
-
JK,
- emergence theory shows that complex adaptive systems can emerge from their component parts, and can become by magnitudes more information rich than the sum of those parts
I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before. What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?
-
Spoof,
A crude definition of reductionism and I don't see how you can interpret my usage here how you have.
By reductionism I mean explaining everything higher up in the order of complexity by means of the previous level or even several levels down as Dawkins does with the gene with all else a kind of froth on the top and mere vehicles or mechanisms.
By reductionists I mean the bottom up brigade. One doesn't need sky hooks or top down though. In fact the mention of bottom up in your recommended book seems to be a hoorah for reduction.
Emergence is ''side in''.
The differences between reductionism and emergence were outlined long ago by Paul Davies in his New Scientist article.
There's nothing crude abut it, and why is it problematic to explain higher level complexity by reference to the constituent parts of the system following simple rules?
If you reject that for some reason, then you do need sky hooks etc - if the adaptive system isn't self-organised, then something else must have organised it. QED
-
Spoof,
And those that claim a logical explanatory chain from the bottom up have to establish that.
"They" have - look at Deborah Gordon's work on ant colonies for example.
Here's a link to a TED talk by her that may help you:
https://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants
-
Spoof,
Certainly. there is an explanatory gap in your representation of bottom up emergence.
factor a + factor b + factor c =more than the sum of factors a,b,c
Your personal incredulity is noted, but where's the gap?
-
Spoof,
There's nothing crude abut it, and why is it problematic to explain higher level complexity by reference to the constituent parts of the system following simple rules?
Give an example and show your working out.
-
Spoof,
Your personal incredulity is noted, but where's the gap?
Non sequitur regarding my supposed incredulity.
How can the addition of 3 factors be more than the addition of three factors?......saying it just is isn't an explanation.
-
ekim,
I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before. What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?
Non-adaptive systems like snooker balls creating patterns on a table or snowflakes emerging from ice crystals don't adapt to their environment. Adaptive systems on the other hand like ant colonies of brains learn such that they become more information rich than the sum of their components. Immature ant colonies for example will fight rival colonies, whereas more mature colonies will try to avoid them.
-
Spoof,
Give an example and show your working out.
Ant colonies, and you can read the studies for yourself.
-
Spoof,
Ant colonies, and you can read the studies for yourself.
Inability to summarise noted.
-
Spoof,
Non sequitur regarding my supposed incredulity.
How can the addition of 3 factors be more than the addition of three factors?......saying it just is isn't an explanation.
Oh that's very good. You deny arguing from your personal incredulity (you really must look up what non sequitur means by the way - it doesn't man "a false charge") and immediately follow it with an example of your personal incredulity.
The whole point about emergent adaptive systems is that the "addition of 3 factors" (it's actually the adherence to simple rules by many constituent parts by the way, but ok) does create a system that's more information rich than the sum of its components. There's no "explanatory gap" about that - it's been observed many times in nature, and learning software relies on it too: the SIMS game is a good example.
Try reading the book I referred you to for a fuller explanation.
-
The whole point of emergent adaptive systems is the the "addition of 3 factors" (it's actually the adherence to simple rules by many constituent parts by the way, but ok) does create a system that's more information rich than the sum of its components. There's no "explanatory gap" about that - it's been observed many times in nature,
So observation equals explanation now does it?
So stating what something does is it's own explanation is it?
You've taken a few statements added them together and EMERGED looking a complete arse. I can't explain that and it seems you won't.
-
Spoof,
So observation equals explanation now does it?
Oh dear. You're very confused.
The emergence of adaptive systems is an observable fact - it's well documented and, once you start noticing it, you see that we're surrounded by it - from birds flying in V-shapes to Amazon's software knowing what books to recommend. For the purpose of establishing an observable paradigm into which in principle consciousness fits very well, that's good enough.
If you want to know how it works on the other hand then you're welcome to read the research on it. I've read some, but it's not my job to educate you I'd have thought (not least because I'm no experts, and in any case you seem to be uneducable). It's not simple though. Here for example is Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart:
"Can we write down the equations for emergence? The short answer is no. ... 'Equation' is in any case the wrong image; the formulation of detailed laws is a reductionist concept, and the whole point about emergence is that it is not reductionist." (The Collapse of Chaos, p. 436)
So stating what something does is it's own explanation is it?
For this purpose, yes. Emerged adaptive systems that are more information rich than their constituent parts is an observable fact.
You've taken a few statements added them together and EMERGED looking a complete arse. I can't explain that and it seems you won't.
The irony of that statement will be lost on you entirely I'm sure.
Wind your neck in and try again.
-
torridon,
Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all. So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.
These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!
If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing.
IMO...a similar situation exists with humans and spiritual beings in another parallel world.
Cheers.
Sriram
The problem with this is that it doesn't go far enough. It needs to explain where the humans who did the intelligent designing came from, where their intelligence came from. Just saying something cleverer up the cleverness ladder did it is no solution ultimately. So it with gods and all other forms of magic thinking, it is naïve to think we can account for observed complexity by some invisible being with special powers. Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.
-
How do you know a person has inner experience unless inner experience is objective?
How do you know someone else isn't just an automaton thrown up by evolution. Intelligent but not conscious?............except by redefining consciousness to fit neuroscience....or what neuroscience can handle...where being an intelligent automata is "close enough".
We don't know that ultimately. It is the problem of solipsism, it is the Problem of Other Minds. All we can do is make the least unreasonable assumption under the circumstances, which is that other beings that appear to have inner experience, are having inner experience. Any other assumption under the circumstances would be far more reckless.
-
ekim,
Non-adaptive systems like snooker balls creating patterns on a table or snowflakes emerging from ice crystals don't adapt to their environment. Adaptive systems on the other hand like ant colonies of brains learn such that they become more information rich than the sum of their components. Immature ant colonies for example will fight rival colonies, whereas more mature colonies will try to avoid them.
Yes, that part I think I understand. If a rock is reduced to sand and left in the sea it doesn't attempt to reassemble itself, but if a living sponge is put through a blender and left in the sea it will reform itself. My question was 'What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?'
-
The problem with this is that it doesn't go far enough. It needs to explain where the humans who did the intelligent designing came from, where their intelligence came from. Just saying something cleverer up the cleverness ladder did it is no solution ultimately. So it with gods and all other forms of magic thinking, it is naïve to think we can account for observed complexity by some invisible being with special powers. Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.
Indeed. In any case, even if one (malfunctioning?) "robot" came up with the idea of "humans" creating the robot world - what good does it do them? They have no way of discussing or verifying any statements or ideas about this invisible human world or finding out what is next in the plan for them.
-
ekim,
Yes, that part I think I understand. If a rock is reduced to sand and left in the sea it doesn't attempt to reassemble itself, but if a living sponge is put through a blender and left in the sea it will reform itself. My question was 'What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?'
Well, emergence concerns a lot more than an organism just putting itself back together. An ant colony for example is much more information rich than the sum of the information in the ants. Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control.
He also establishes five basic principles, namely:
- More examples are better: you need to study lots of ants to grasp the behaviour of the colony as a whole
- Low-level ignorance is useful: failures won't change the overall pattern, and may be helpful to it
- Notice how the system responds to random encounters: ants stumbling across a new resource will increases the adaptiveness of the whole
- Notice the patterns in the signs: ants respond the the frequency of encounters and to the gradient of pheromone trails, not to "messages" from individual ants
- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"
It's not that the components somehow want or choose to become an adaptive emergent system, but rather that by following these simple rules adaptive systems will emerge nonetheless.
-
Spoof,
Oh dear. You're very confused.
The emergence of adaptive systems is an observable fact - it's well documented and, once you start noticing it, you see that we're surrounded by it - from birds flying in V-shapes to Amazon's software knowing what books to recommend. For the purpose of establishing an observable paradigm into which in principle consciousness fits very well, that's good enough.
If you want to know how it works on the other hand then you're welcome to read the research on it. I've read some, but it's not my job to educate you I'd have thought (not least because I'm no experts, and in any case you seem to be uneducable). It's not simple though. Here for example is Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart:
"Can we write down the equations for emergence? The short answer is no. ... 'Equation' is in any case the wrong image; the formulation of detailed laws is a reductionist concept, and the whole point about emergence is that it is not reductionist." (The Collapse of Chaos, p. 436)
For this purpose, yes. Emerged adaptive systems that are more information rich than their constituent parts is an observable fact.
I haven't disputed that. What I dispute it as is that it is its own explanation.
-
Spoof,
I haven't disputed that. What I dispute it as is that it is its own explanation.
Well, you did insist on asking "how can the addition of 3 factors be more than the addition of three factors?" which suggest that you were at least on the road to denying it, but ok. What then are you trying to say now about it being "its own explanation"? Do you worry that gravity is "its own explanation" too?
Either way, it's still the case that for the purpose of the conversation the observable fact of emergent adaptive systems that are more information rich than the sum of their components provides a template for the emergence of consciousness.
-
Hillsidian emergence:
Put enough words into a post and an argument emerges.
-
Either way, it's still the case that for the purpose of the conversation the observable fact of emergent adaptive systems that are more information rich than the sum of their components provides a template for the emergence of consciousness.
And yet again this is not disputed by me.
How is repeating the same thing over and over again going to change non dispute into a dispute?
-
ekim,
Well, emergence concerns a lot more than an organism just putting itself back together. An ant colony for example is much more information rich than the sum of the information in the ants. Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control.
He also establishes five basic principles, namely:
- More examples are better: you need to study lots of ants to grasp the behaviour of the colony as a whole
- Low-level ignorance is useful: failures won't change the overall pattern, and may be helpful to it
- Notice how the system responds to random encounters: ants stumbling across a new resource will increases the adaptiveness of the whole
- Notice the patterns in the signs: ants respond the the frequency of encounters and to the gradient of pheromone trails, not to "messages" from individual ants
- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"
It's not that the components somehow want or choose to become an adaptive emergent system, but rather that by following these simple rules adaptive systems will emerge nonetheless.
Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.
-
Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.
Maybe you should try it sometime?
-
Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.
Wow, snotty or what. It's a good job somebody does.
-
Maybe you should try it sometime?
Those that can do.......those what can't ,teach.
I suppose that if you put enough antitheist comedians together a joke might emerge.
That would be something inexplicable at the level of the individual.
-
Spoof,
Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.
Ekim asked me a question, so I answered it. What's your problem?
-
Spoof,
Ekim asked me a question, so I answered it. What's your problem?
How about answering one of mine?
-
Seb,
Maybe you should try it sometime?
Spoof doesn't do answers - he just tries to pick holes in the replies of those who do and, when that fails, he resorts to abuse instead. Standard troll playbook stuff, so more fool me for feeding him I guess.
-
Yes, usually trolls have little to offer of their own, but parasitize upon other people's stuff.
-
Wiggs,
Yes, usually trolls have little to offer of their own, but parasitize upon other people's stuff.
Parasitize - as so often, you've come up with the perfect word. I do wonder sometimes why those whose only contribution is destructive bother with it. Surely if they really believe in something they'd at least want to try to make a positive argument for it, at least just occasionally. There seems to be an element of, "if I can reduce everything else to rubble my stuff doesn't look so threadbare" perhaps - at least that's the only motive I can think of.
-
Those that can do.......those what can't ,teach.
What is it exactly that you can do then in relation to this topic?
Ps. Apart from demonstrating word-salad skills.
-
Wiggs,
Parasitize - as so often, you've come up with the perfect word. I do wonder sometimes why those whose only contribution is destructive bother with it. Surely if they really believe in something they'd at least want to try to make a positive argument for it, at least just occasionally. There seems to be an element of, "if I can reduce everything else to rubble my stuff doesn't look so threadbare" perhaps - at least that's the only motive I can think of.
The trouble is, that the internet seems to encourage threadbare stuff. On the other hand, are there really rich and interesting arguments going on about theism away from the internet? Where would that be? I think we are being left with the dried out residue of an ancient tradition, fallen on hard times, and scratching around in the dust for something to say. Also with a high dose of science envy.
I think I said, I recently read David Bentley Hart, who has a high reputation as a theologian, and it struck me as one long argument from incredulity. Also very pompous.
Oh well, somebody just told me that Hart doesn't have a high reputation. Who does? Craig?
-
ekim,
Well, emergence concerns a lot more than an organism just putting itself back together. An ant colony for example is much more information rich than the sum of the information in the ants. Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control.
He also establishes five basic principles, namely:
- More examples are better: you need to study lots of ants to grasp the behaviour of the colony as a whole
- Low-level ignorance is useful: failures won't change the overall pattern, and may be helpful to it
- Notice how the system responds to random encounters: ants stumbling across a new resource will increases the adaptiveness of the whole
- Notice the patterns in the signs: ants respond the the frequency of encounters and to the gradient of pheromone trails, not to "messages" from individual ants
- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"
It's not that the components somehow want or choose to become an adaptive emergent system, but rather that by following these simple rules adaptive systems will emerge nonetheless.
good stuff, that ;)
-
Wiggs,
The trouble is, that the internet seems to encourage threadbare stuff. On the other hand, are there really rich and interesting arguments going on about theism away from the internet? Where would that be? I think we are being left with the dried out residue of an ancient tradition, fallen on hard times, and scratching around in the dust for something to say. Also with a high dose of science envy.
It seems that way - I'd love to see something of substance from polemical theists rather than the gruel we tend to see here. Do you remember Father Patrick (I think that was his name)? He was a catholic priest who used to correspond here (or possibly on the old BBC site) - we could do with more like him, or perhaps some academic theologians. Can it really be that even the arguments of those in academia are as threadbare as those we see here? Where do they post their thoughts I wonder, assuming that they do it at all. Don Cullen interested me a while back I remember - perhaps I should revisit.
I think I said, I recently read David Bentley Hart, who has a high reputation as a theologian, and it struck me as one long argument from incredulity. Also very pompous.
Oh well, somebody just told me that Hart doesn't have a high reputation. Who does? Craig?
I don't know DBH but I have seen a couple of Youtube videos - arrogant and dismissive I found and without the substantive arguments to support either. If WLC really is the high water mark of theistic philosophy though, god help us all!
-
torri,
good stuff, that ;)
Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.
For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
-
Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control. ........
- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"
Thanks for the information.
This seems to imply consciousness or awareness. In order to pay attention to a neighbour the component must be aware of the neighbour's presence, surely? Similarly pattern recognition and feedback. A grain of sand doesn't have awareness and so the same kind of mass movement doesn't take place. All that Johnson seems to be doing is suggesting a kind of control loop which is used in business but without any plan. There does seem to be a motive though ... adapting to the environment. So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?
-
torri,
Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.
For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
Very interesting. It seems to deal with the objection that individual neurons are dumb, since individual ants are pretty dumb, but gain in information and processing power en masse.
The other thing I found interesting is that there isn't an overseer. This is often a critique of brains, that no-one is in charge, well, there is, the jolly old soul.
-
The problem with this is that it doesn't go far enough. It needs to explain where the humans who did the intelligent designing came from, where their intelligence came from. Just saying something cleverer up the cleverness ladder did it is no solution ultimately. So it with gods and all other forms of magic thinking, it is naïve to think we can account for observed complexity by some invisible being with special powers. Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.
torridon,
How can it go beyond that? As far as the robots are concerned, they cannot know anything about humans. How can they understand the motivations of humans let alone their origins? They don't know the reality of their own origins!
They are making up theories about themselves based on limited information....which is all they can do.
But the reality is that there is lots more beyond what they know and what they can comprehend.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
ekim,
Thanks for the information.
No problem.
This seems to imply consciousness or awareness. In order to pay attention to a neighbour the component must be aware of the neighbour's presence, surely? Similarly pattern recognition and feedback. A grain of sand doesn't have awareness and so the same kind of mass movement doesn't take place. All that Johnson seems to be doing is suggesting a kind of control loop which is used in business but without any plan. There does seem to be a motive though ... adapting to the environment. So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?
Not really, no: "consciousness or awareness" is too strong. A basic electro-chemical signal for example will be enough to cause a consistent response, but you wouldn't describe an individual neuron as conscious, and nor does it have a motive.
I'll grant you that this is all pretty counter-intuitive - we're hard wired it seems to assume a controller, a master planner etc whereas what emergence teaches us is that that remarkable complexity can come from very non-complex components "bottom up" provided they observe consistently some basic principles - "pheromone X means turn right" for example.
-
#580
torri,
Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.
For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, ...
No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the ability to generate the information would have to be present.
... but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
and it is the explanation for the gain in information that I take issue with. I see it as trying to get round the need for an external cause being responsible for it, as opposed to attempting to solve the problem of the external cause, hence the something from nothing dilemma.
My contention would be the ability to learn in the first place being an emergent property of something else (which in turn is an emergent property from something before that, etc), then claiming consciousness as an emergent property of the ability to learn. It’s a classic circularity with that which exists being used to explain the emergence of that which exists.
If you really want to understand why I question the explanations, take e.g. any of Newton’s conservation of xxx laws, come up with any scenario that violates it (e.g. an overall increase in momentum after a collision of two objects, with no external agent involved) and then try and explain the violation as an emergent property of the collision. The one thing Physics (particular Mechanics) shows in abundance is that you do not get something from nothing.
-
Wiggs,
Very interesting. It seems to deal with the objection that individual neurons are dumb, since individual ants are pretty dumb, but gain in information and processing power en masse.
That's it. The key is that some systems are adaptive so they learn as they go, and learning is information gain. If you'll allow me, a book you'd enjoy I think is Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information" - it sets out the thesis for the universe being essentially information (of which matter and forces are just manifestations). It's very well and wittily written (and not tekky) too by the way.
Once you accept that, say, an ant is organised information then more complex layers of information sitting above lots of ants is much less of a stretch.
The other thing I found interesting is that there isn't an overseer. This is often a critique of brains, that no-one is in charge, well, there is, the jolly old soul.
Yup, it's bottom up. Of course there are such things as town planners and the like, but there's a remarkable impression of planning in cities whose topographies have emerged with no top down planning at all. No-one for example says, "let's put all the Chinese restaurants in one street" but it happens anyway, whereas other businesses with less demand (wine shops for example) will congregate just close enough to attract customers to the area for mutual benefit, but not so close as to take too much business from each other - in both cases the net gain of attraction is greater than the net loss of competition.
Once you see emergence, you'll see it everywhere by the way - shoals of fish, Amazon's recommended reading lists, embryo development, you name it. Be warned!
-
Not really, no: "consciousness or awareness" is too strong. A basic electro-chemical signal for example will be enough to cause a consistent response, but you wouldn't describe an individual neuron as conscious, and nor does it have a motive.
I'll grant you that this is all pretty counter-intuitive - we're hard wired it seems to assume a controller, a master planner etc whereas what emergence teaches us is that that remarkable complexity can come from very non-complex components "bottom up" provided they observe consistently some basic principles - "pheromone X means turn right" for example.
Perhaps there is cellular awareness and when it losses it, it dies or becomes non adaptive.
I think I'll stick with the 'intuitive' for the time being. Swarm logic doesn't appeal to me. It sounds too much like mass mind and flock think, the sort of condition which appeals to consumerism, politics and religious indoctrination and other persuasive techniques. Perhaps transcendence is the next stage of emergence. :)
-
SOTS,
No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the ability to generate the information would have to be present.
Then you’d still be wrong. No ant or neuron has that ability. When there’s enough of them though, collectively their behaviour creates new and greater levels of complexity.
…and it is the explanation for the gain in information that I take issue with. I see it as trying to get round the need for an external cause being responsible for it, as opposed to attempting to solve the problem of the external cause, hence the something from nothing dilemma
Then you’d be wrong again. The fact of information gain is well-observed, well-researched and well documented. It happens. There is no “something from nothing” problem though because there is a something – consistent behaviours by the constituent parts, none of which though possess the complexity those behaviours collectively cause.
My contention would be the ability to learn in the first place being an emergent property of something else (which in turn is an emergent property from something before that, etc), then claiming consciousness as an emergent property of the ability to learn. It’s a classic circularity with that which exists being used to explain the emergence of that which exists.
Wrong again. The ant, neuron etc does not have an ability to learn at all – they just go on consistently repeating behaviours. The learning happens at a higher level as the system itself adapts. What you’re actually describing is non-adaptive systems (like snowflakes), which is a different matter though again no ice crystal “knows” how to make a snowflake yet snowflakes there are nonetheless.
If you really want to understand why I question the explanations, take e.g. any of Newton’s conservation of xxx laws, come up with any scenario that violates it (e.g. an overall increase in momentum after a collision of two objects, with no external agent involved) and then try and explain the violation as an emergent property of the collision. The one thing Physics (particular Mechanics) shows in abundance is that you do not get something from nothing.
I do know why you question the explanations – it’s because you don’t understand emergence, and Newton’s law concerns the conservation of energy in isolated systems in any case Deepak.
Seriously, read Steven Johnson or any of the on line resources for more information. You may actually learn something!
-
#588
What you’re actually describing is non-adaptive systems (like snowflakes), …
And at some point, a non-adaptive system must have become an adaptive system, hence why I differentiate between an increase and a gain.
A longer example: Here is an explanation (transcribed word for word) given by Sir David Attenborough in his BBC 1 programme Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life on Sunday 1st February 2009 for the origin and development of life in its early stages:
150 years after the publication of Darwin's revolutionary book, modern genetics has confirmed its fundamental truth. All life is related. And it enables us to construct with confidence the complex tree that represents the history of life.
It began in the sea some 3000 million years ago. Complex chemical molecules began to come together to form microscopic blobs - cells. These were the seeds from which the tree of life developed. They were able to split, replicating themselves as bacteria do. And as time passed, they diversified into different groups. Some remained attached to one another so that they formed chains. We know them today as algae. Other formed hollow balls, which collapsed upon themselves creating a body with an internal cavity. They were the first multi-celled organisms - sponges are their direct descendants. As more variations appeared, the tree of life grew and became more diverse. Some organisms became more mobile and developed a mouth that opened into a gut. Others had bodies, stiffened by an internal rod. They, understandably developed sense organs around their front end...
At the time when complex molecules began to come together, was the system non-adaptive, or adaptive?
-
SOTS,
And at some point, a non-adaptive system must have become an adaptive system, hence why I differentiate between an increase and a gain.
A longer example: Here is an explanation (transcribed word for word) given by Sir David Attenborough in his BBC 1 programme Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life on Sunday 1st February 2009 for the origin and development of life in its early stages:...
At the time when complex molecules began to come together, was the system non-adaptive, or adaptive?
What point do you think you're making?
Here's Wiki with a definition for you:
"A complex adaptive system is a "complex macroscopic collection" of relatively "similar and partially connected micro-structures" formed in order to adapt to the changing environment and increase its survivability as a macro-structure.
They are complex in that they are dynamic networks of interactions, and their relationships are not aggregations of the individual static entities, i.e., the behaviour of the ensemble is not predicted by the behaviour of the components. They are adaptive in that the individual and collective behaviour mutate and self-organise corresponding to the change-initiating micro-event or collection of events."
Note in particular: "their relationships are not aggregations of the individual static entities". (My emphasis.)
Clear enough?
-
Yes, usually trolls have little to offer of their own, but parasitize upon other people's stuff.
Oh look Wigginhall, Hillside and Toe . Three non adaptives working as an adaptive emergent........
DICTYOSTELIUM ASSEMBLE!...........
-
What point do you think you're making?
Your claim:
What you’re actually describing is non-adaptive systems (like snowflakes), …
It appears to me then that you are assuming an adaptive system for the explanation I gave in my #589.
Why should I take on the one hand non-adaptive systems for snowflakes (which involve one type of molecules) or observations in Physics, but on the other hand an adaptive system for other complex molecules coming together?
-
Wiggs,
Parasitize - as so often, you've come up with the perfect word. I do wonder sometimes why those whose only contribution is destructive bother with it. Surely if they really believe in something they'd at least want to try to make a positive argument for it, at least just occasionally. There seems to be an element of, "if I can reduce everything else to rubble my stuff doesn't look so threadbare" perhaps - at least that's the only motive I can think of.
Again I am not against emergence.....what i'm against is reductionists usurpation of it and your continual book quoting and statement of the bleeding obvious.
In other words you have nothing to turn to rubble.
-
Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.
But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being, you are bound to end up with an intelligently conceived scenario showing how our existence could possibly have been brought about by a series of natural events, with any gaps or unexplainable bits conveniently patched up with the assumption that there will be a future explanation. So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth? I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.
-
torri,
Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.
For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
How do you get from the accumulation of information, something a non conscious computer could do, to consciousness?
-
Why should I take on the one hand non-adaptive systems for snowflakes, observations in Physics, but on the other hand an adaptive system for complex molecules coming together, because this is the explanation someone wants to give for how life allegedly started?
Here you go:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
-
So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth? I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.
And if that opening up has been done and nothing has been revealed. Whst then?
-
And if that opening up has been done and nothing has been revealed. Whst then?
Can you describe in more then 25 words how you opened up?
-
But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being, you are bound to end up with an intelligently conceived scenario showing how our existence could possibly have been brought about by a series of natural events, with any gaps or unexplainable bits conveniently patched up with the assumption that there will be a future explanation. So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth? I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.
Well, that does have some comedy value, since your ideas about the soul and and about creation seem to involve a whole ton of gaps and unexplainable bits. How does the soul interact with the brain? How did God place the moon in the right place? Have you got any links to research projects on this? Or maybe it's, 'just like that'.
-
#596
Here you go:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
From the link:
In April 2016, scientists presented an updated version of the "tree of life": a kind of family tree for every living species. Almost all of the branches are bacteria. What's more, the shape of the tree suggests that a bacterium was the common ancestor of all life. In other words, every living thing – including you – is ultimately descended from a bacterium.
This means we can define the problem of the origin of life more precisely. Using only the materials and conditions found on the Earth over 3.5 billion years ago, we have to make a cell.
So an adaptive system is assumed. If an adaptive situation is being assumed to get from complex chemicals coming together to bacteria, why does it suddenly become non-adaptive for snowflakes, or Newton's conservation of xxx laws?
-
Oh look Wigginhall, Hillside and Toe . Three non adaptives working as an adaptive emergent........
DICTYOSTELIUM ASSEMBLE!...........
Oh oh - troll boy has been let out to play again. More for the more rational here after his bed time I think.
-
AB,
But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being...
No-one ignores the possibility of anything. Your problem though is to construct an argument to take you from possible to probable. I don't know how to do that for leprechauns, but maybe you'll have more luck with your conjecture.
-
It's interesting that while most religions tell stories that adherents are then encouraged to believe in, in Zen the opposite seems to apply. There's a peeling away of narrative into a kind of non-identity (which is perhaps an everything-identity). I guess it's human nature to want to be a someone and maybe the irony is that what we really want can only be found by becoming a no-one.
You have to first find yourself and get to know 'who' you are and be firmly grounded in this before then reaching out into the wider field else you will just dissolve away.
-
SOTS,
So an adaptive system is assumed.
No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.
If an adaptive situation is being assumed to get from complex chemicals coming together to bacteria,…
It isn’t.
…why does it suddenly become non-adaptive for snowflakes, or Newton's conservation of xxx laws?
Snowflakes are non-adaptive emergent systems because they stay snowflakes. Ants and people and some software and cities on the other hand are adaptive because, well, they adapt in response to new stimuli. If you’re at all interested, the adaptive systems that last are those with the greatest survival advantage – whether the constituent parts are termites or shoe shops.
Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.
-
“Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by itself” — Matsuo
Lazy bastard!!!
-
Well, the guy sees his clumsy side as 'bad', therefore hides it, as he shows his brilliant performance side. However, you could argue that the teacher is not saying that his 'bad' side is 'good', but beyond good and evil, because it is. I know some people say that it's good because it is, but that can become tricky.
I thought you lot had got this. It was good because the guy had hid this fault from himself and had had his eyes opened to other aspects of himself : his weak or inferior function. Self knowledge leads to a better whole person.
-
And maybe you need to define what you mean by it.
I always take consciousness to mean self consciousness/self awareness. What they are describing, because they have down graded it, is really for the most part are our various aspects of instincts etc.
-
JK,
You’ve proved it for me every time you’ve told us in effect that you cannot imagine how consciousness could emerge from the stuff of a brain.
I never said that. What I said in effect was that your (science) conclusions on the matter are unfounded and premature. Hence my charge on you of arrogance and hubris.
Go on then what? If you try a logical fallacy then it’s a logical fallacy, and logical fallacies are always wrong argument. There’s nothing more to be said.
Blue, you're coming across as a little sad now. You have to explain why it is in a reasoned argument form, hence my curt statement. Just saying so doesn't make it so and explains nothing, and you aren't God!
- every complex system we know of in nature comes from simpler component parts
Besides the point to the issue at hand.
- emergence theory shows that complex adaptive systems can emerge from their component parts, and can become by magnitudes more information rich than the sum of those parts
Besides the point to the issue at hand.
- there’s nothing inherently special about consciousness that suggests that it shouldn’t be the product if the same principles, especially given the astonishing complexity of the brain
This statement is a leap of faith and stems from your personal incredulity on the matter. You have no basis on which to make such a claim.
In the absence of a better argued and evidenced explanation, consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is therefore the working hypothesis, and asserting alternatives is equivalent to asserting the stork conjecture over midwifery.
So in fact your position is very iffy as an hypothesis is nothing more than a tentative jab at what the answer could be. What usually happens at this stage of things is that people either offer their own hypotheses on the matter from the data to date or comment on the on going hypothesis to why it is not reasonable and misguided.
That’s not an argument – it’s just an assertion. What argument do you think you have to support it?
All you have are assertions. That's my point your conclusions or arrogant claims are based on nothing but the prevailing materialistic fashion of science to see things in a certain light, such that the conclusions are already expected to be of a given outlook and perspective before all the data is obtained, pending some devastating revelation that would shake you lot out of your complacency. You lot have jumped the gun by hours!!!
That’s just wrong. There are countless “firm facts”, all pointing in the same direction. That there isn’t a complete theory is a different matter but, absent any facts at all for an alternative, that’s the best we've got.
You have no firm facts and my point again is that science has concluded causes that are no more than correlations. Also, you lot seem to have redefined consciousness to be more like instincts. This is not self awareness.
To the contrary, I rely on facts and reason. What facts or reason do you think you have for an alternative explanation that invalidates mine?
Just repeating myself here. I'm saying science is looking at and approaching this with a biased and confirmation bias mind set.
No, they’re founded on a lot more than speculation (see above) but I’m happy to accept other possibilities. How plausible they are though is a different matter – what explanation do you propose that better fits the observable phenomena?
Phenomena? I thought we were dealing with facts?
-
A crude definition of reductionism and I don't see how you can interpret my usage here how you have.
By reductionism I mean explaining everything higher up in the order of complexity by means of the previous level or even several levels down as Dawkins does with the gene with all else a kind of froth on the top and mere vehicles or mechanisms.
By reductionists I mean the bottom up brigade. One doesn't need sky hooks or top down though. In fact the mention of bottom up in your recommended book seems to be a hoorah for reduction.
Emergence is ''side in''.
The differences between reductionism and emergence were outlined long ago by Paul Davies in his New Scientist article.
That is kind of what I sense from them as well. That consciousness is a threat to their world view and they are trying to turn it into 'froth', as you put it.
-
I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before. What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?
From what I can gather the term adaptive here means its potential to do so or at least venture to do so but success being another issue.
-
In addition, when it comes to biological stuff (as opposed to snowflakes), there is evolutionary change (such as mutations) to consider: as noted in this current article re. the human brain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38226810
-
Very interesting. It seems to deal with the objection that individual neurons are dumb, since individual ants are pretty dumb, but gain in information and processing power en masse.
The other thing I found interesting is that there isn't an overseer. This is often a critique of brains, that no-one is in charge, well, there is, the jolly old soul.
But an ant colony doesn't have consciousness and more pertinently self consciousness, or a sense of self or a sense of being an individual colony of ants. It is nothing more than a machine.
-
Just a comment on emergence:
I see two types of emergence. One is that extolled by Bluehillside in which some form of perceived functionality or complexity emerges from a series of apparently unguided events which incrementally contribute towards the perceived (but unintended) goal.
The other is the emergence of objects of human creativity from a series of events which are deliberately manipulated and guided by the conscious will of humans to achieve an intended goal.
Could the creative power of the latter be a pale reflection of the creative power which brought us into existence?
-
torri,
Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.
For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
Why consciousness and not something else?
-
That is kind of what I sense from them as well. That consciousness is a threat to their world view and they are trying to turn it into 'froth', as you put it.
Agreed.
-
Can you describe in more then 25 words how you opened up?
Why?
Only for someone like you to say it was done incorrectly, whatever the answer given is, because it did not produce the result that you want.
-
Hi everyone,
Many people seem to think that spiritual ideas are completely unnecessary to explain life. They believe that it is just due to some kind of a compulsive need to find meaning and purpose to life (completely unwarranted) that we resort to such thinking.
For them, the objects that we can sense with our five senses are all that can exist and are all that are needed to explain the world. Of course, as the senses of people get more powerful through microscopes and telescopes, their world expands somewhat...but they are still unable to imagine or comprehend any unseen forces that could explain the world more meaningfully.
Maybe it is to do with their own limitations and their own inability to sense phenomena that are outside the five senses. The ability to sense beyond the five senses is what many people for centuries have called the sixth sense. Maybe some people just lack this faculty because of which what is obvious to others is completely indiscernible to them. Like a born blind person being completely unaware of light that is so obvious to everyone else.
So...instead of being shocked and intrigued by the spiritual understanding of people maybe they should be concerned about their own inabilities.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
That is kind of what I sense from them as well. That consciousness is a threat to their world view and they are trying to turn it into 'froth', as you put it.
And of course that "froth" is derived from lower levels and that would make any emerged property not properly emergent.
In terms of protecting their reductionist world view there is a simple test. Challenge them with the idea of Ontological irreducibility. A reductionist will see red, not accept the idea at all and therefore deny emergence.
-
Why?
Only for someone like you to say it was done incorrectly, whatever the answer given is, because it did not produce the result that you want.
No.
What have you got to hide after all shouldn't you want an inter subjective dialogue?
-
torri,
Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
That's just retcon. Retrospective continuity.........and of course if there is continuity then that is a denial of emergence.
-
Just a comment on emergence:
I see two types of emergence. One is that extolled by Bluehillside in which some form of perceived functionality or complexity emerges from a series of apparently unguided events which incrementally contribute towards the perceived (but unintended) goal.
The other is the emergence of objects of human creativity from a series of events which are deliberately manipulated and guided by the conscious will of humans to achieve an intended goal.
Could the creative power of the latter be a pale reflection of the creative power which brought us into existence?
What these insights around emergence and the evolution of complexity suggest, is that if this cosmos we appear to find ourselves in is in fact a product of 'intelligent design' by some higher or other 'being' or 'beings', then those other beings themselves would also be an outcome of the same principles. The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.
-
But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being, you are bound to end up with an intelligently conceived scenario showing how our existence could possibly have been brought about by a series of natural events, with any gaps or unexplainable bits conveniently patched up with the assumption that there will be a future explanation. So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth? I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.
I don't think invoking magic is any way to get closer to truth; rather I see that as an exercise in avoidance. We have learned that complexity evolves over time, conscious intentionality took 3.5 billion years to evolve on this planet for instance, so if this entire cosmos was the product of an intelligent designer in some higher realm, then that designer would presumably also be a product of its own evolutionary process of rising emergent complexity over time.
-
What these insights around emergence and the evolution of complexity suggest, is that if this cosmos we appear to find ourselves in is in fact a product of 'intelligent design' by some higher or other 'being' or 'beings', then those other beings themselves would also be an outcome of the same principles. The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.
It is by no means essential or imperative that the higher beings should themselves be an outcome of the same principles. Why is that necessary? The principles that operate in other worlds we cannot know. They don't have to be the same as the principles here.
Even assuming that the principles and outcomes in other worlds are the same...so what? Why should that become an impediment to their intervention in our world?
-
torridon,
How can it go beyond that? As far as the robots are concerned, they cannot know anything about humans. How can they understand the motivations of humans let alone their origins? They don't know the reality of their own origins!
They are making up theories about themselves based on limited information....which is all they can do.
But the reality is that there is lots more beyond what they know and what they can comprehend.
Cheers.
Sriram
That might be true from the parochial viewpoint of the robots. I was talking to the bigger picture of your analogy.
-
I don't think invoking magic is any way to get closer to truth; rather I see that as an exercise in avoidance. We have learned that complexity evolves over time, conscious intentionality took 3.5 billion years to evolve on this planet for instance, so if this entire cosmos was the product of an intelligent designer in some higher realm, then that designer would presumably also be a product of its own evolutionary process of rising emergent complexity over time.
You are just using the word 'magic' for something that we don't understand. That does not make it impossible.
For the robots who are unable to sense humans, everything that we do would be magic! Doesn't mean it cannot actually happen.
Isn't Dark Matter ...'magic'?
-
It is by no means essential or imperative that the higher beings should themselves be an outcome of the same principles. Why is that necessary? The principles that operate in other worlds we cannot know. They don't have to be the same as the principles here.
Even assuming that the principles and outcomes in other worlds are the same...so what? Why should that become an impediment to their intervention in our world?
Because the insights around the emergence of complexity are ultimately principles of logic, of information theory. They would apply anywhere and everywhere, just as 2 plus 2 would always equal 4 anywhere and everywhere.
-
You are just using the word 'magic' for something that we don't understand. That does not make it impossible.
For the robots who are unable to sense humans, everything that we do would be magic! Doesn't mean it cannot actually happen.
Isn't Dark Matter ...'magic'?
no I distinguish between 'magic' and 'unexplained'. 'Magic' means logically impossible; unexplained merely means unexplained. Dark matter is not magic, it is merely a placeholder for something that is still currently unexplained.
-
no I distinguish between 'magic' and 'unexplained'. 'Magic' means logically impossible; unexplained merely means unexplained. Dark matter is not magic, it is merely a placeholder for something that is still currently unexplained.
That's not the Clarke definition though, is it?
-
#535
If the principle of emergence implies something from nothing, then that would be a challenge for us to rise to. Nobody said stuff is easy and throwing out logic principles altogether to avoid the challenge would be one step forward but two steps back. That would be like Isaac Newton deciding that invisible magic pixies must be pulling apples down from trees; but he didn't do that, rather he rose to the challenge to think it through and thanks to that persistence we can now land robots on Mars. Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles. Magic pixies and gods are manifestations of a preference to avoid thinking things through imo.
You say that Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles. Sriram in his response (#536) to you gave an analogy with robots, where the arguments used against the idea of life being created are applied to robots. That, in my opinion illustrates the problem neatly. However, it was illustrated even more strongly by this in SusanDoris’ #538:
Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.
Which, in my opinion falsifies the argument that “something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles.”
It is true that robots were invented and made by humans. That truth is not affected by whether or not the origin of human beings is known. To go with Sriram’s analogy, if robots had the ability to question their origin, then the types of arguments currently used against claims for life being created would also have to apply to the creator of robots, i.e. human beings! Because we know that human beings invent and make robots, all of these arguments would be false, as his post illustrated. This must surely indicate that similar arguments being used against claims that life may have been designed and created cannot be correct ones!
I think your post mentions two extremes. On the one hand, invoking God/the supernatural when it is not appropriate, on the other hand, something from nothing. You mention something from nothing being hard. From my perspective, I don’t disagree with it because it is hard, I disagree with it because I see what is known of the natural world contradicting it (e.g. Newton’s conservation of xxx laws). So the latest fudge seems to be to extrapolate from emergence that is observable (consciousness, life already existing) to try and explain that which is not observable (where that consciousness, life came from in the first place!). When anything is presented that would appear to falsify the proposition, it gets taken out of the picture and only applies to a non-adaptive environment (my use of Newton’s laws, for example)! Therefore, pertinent to this are Ekim’s questions in #546 and #581 respectively
I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before. What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?
So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?
-
But an ant colony doesn't have consciousness and more pertinently self consciousness, or a sense of self or a sense of being an individual colony of ants. It is nothing more than a machine.
And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells. Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it. So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.
-
Sririam,
It is by no means essential or imperative that the higher beings should themselves be an outcome of the same principles. Why is that necessary?
Because the alternative is magic.
-
Sriram,
You are just using the word 'magic' for something that we don't understand. That does not make it impossible.
It's been a few posts now since we had an attempt at the negative proof fallacy. Good effort.
-
And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells. Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it. So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.
Consciousness does not emerge from the network of nerve cells. It uses the network of nerve cells through the mind. Like a person uses computer hardware and software.
Termite and ant colonies are examples of networked systems....clearly a common consciousness operating here. A common consciousness also operates for the whole eco system, coordinating and managing the system.
-
Because the insights around the emergence of complexity are ultimately principles of logic, of information theory. They would apply anywhere and everywhere, just as 2 plus 2 would always equal 4 anywhere and everywhere.
But what if we discover that the emergence of complex conscious life forms, or perhaps any life forms, does not occur anywhere else in the universe? Would this scupper the ideas on emergence?
-
#629
Well, I listened to the post several times at the speed (202 wpm) I normally use, then copied and pasted it onto a document, slowed the speed and listened again twice. At which point I have given up trying to understand what you are saying.
-
JK,
I never said that. What I said in effect was that your (science) conclusions on the matter are unfounded and premature. Hence my charge on you of arrogance and hubris.
They’re not conclusions, and nor are they unfounded or premature. Science tells us that complex systems come from simpler components, and emergence shows us that no top down designer is necessary for that to be so. There’s nothing we know if that’s inherently special about consciousness that would exclude it from that basic model. Absent any alternative explanation, consciousness as an adaptive emergent property appears therefore to be the most likely hypothesis.
Blue, you're coming across as a little sad now. You have to explain why it is in a reasoned argument form, hence my curt statement. Just saying so doesn't make it so and explains nothing, and you aren't God!
Well, my wife would agree with you there but, in general, when a logical fallacy is committed it’s usually enough just to say so rather than have to explain what the fallacy entails. Nonetheless, if you really want me to I can readily in future say, “that a XXX fallacy because…” it that helps.
Besides the point to the issue at hand.
No it isn’t. It’s entirely relevant to say that all of nature that we know of works in a certain way if we also want to discuss another part of nature, namely consciousness.
Besides the point to the issue at hand.
No it isn’t. Emergence is the point at hand.
This statement is a leap of faith and stems from your personal incredulity on the matter. You have no basis on which to make such a claim.
You don’t understand the burden of proof. If you think that there’s something inherently different about consciousness that places it outside the rules by which nature plays then it’s for you to tell us why.
So in fact your position is very iffy as an hypothesis is nothing more than a tentative jab at what the answer could be. What usually happens at this stage of things is that people either offer their own hypotheses on the matter from the data to date or comment on the on going hypothesis to why it is not reasonable and misguided.
No, it’s not “iffy” at all as an hypothesis because it's logically coherent and because there’s no other hypothesis on the table to falsify or supplant it.
All you have are assertions. That's my point your conclusions or arrogant claims are based on nothing but the prevailing materialistic fashion of science to see things in a certain light, such that the conclusions are already expected to be of a given outlook and perspective before all the data is obtained, pending some devastating revelation that would shake you lot out of your complacency. You lot have jumped the gun by hours!!!
No, all I have is logical argument and evidence. “Science” sees a materialistic world because the material is all the method of science can engage with. If you think there’s such a thing as the non-material though, then it’s for you to come up with a method of your own to distinguish your claim from just guessing about stuff.
You have no firm facts and my point again is that science has concluded causes that are no more than correlations. Also, you lot seem to have redefined consciousness to be more like instincts. This is not self awareness.
I have lots of them – books full, research papers, lectures from people working in the field etc. What facts do you have for an alternative explanation – indeed what do you even think your alternative explanation to be?
Just repeating myself here. I'm saying science is looking at and approaching this with a biased and confirmation bias mind set.
What confirmation bias do you think “science” has exactly, especially as its methods are often designed precisely to avoid that?
Phenomena? I thought we were dealing with facts?
Consciousness is a phenomenon, and the question you ducked was about what alternative explanation for consciousness you propose.
-
And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells. Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it. So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.
But we know and understand the physical properties of termite colonies. We can't say the same about conscious awareness, so the comparison is not valid since we can't even confirm what makes consciousness work.
-
AB,
But we know and understand the physical properties of termite colonies. We can't say the same about conscious awareness, so the comparison is not valid since we can't even confirm what makes consciousness work.
As so often, you miss the point entirely. The significance of termites (and of many other observations) is that complex adaptive systems can emerge from much simpler individual components with no top down designer involved. That principle applies wherever we look in nature; consciousness exists in nature; therefore emergence gives us a working hypothesis for how it comes about. In short, termites and neurons alike are subject to the same principle.
If you have a different working hypothesis that better fits the observable facts such that consciousness is exempt from the rules of nature, then tell us what it is.
-
The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.
It is only blind if you insist on the presumption that human free will does not exist and is in itself an illusion. In this instance my most basic concept of reality is vastly different from yours
-
AB,
As so often, you miss the point entirely. The significance of termites (and of many other observations) is that complex adaptive systems can emerge from much simpler individual components with no top down designer involved. That principle applies wherever we look in nature; consciousness exists in nature; therefore emergence gives us a working hypothesis for how it comes about. In short, termites and neurons alike are subject to the same principle.
If you have a different working hypothesis that better fits the observable facts such that consciousness is exempt from the rules of nature, then tell us what it is.
Just labelling consciousness as complex or adaptive does not put it in the same category as other observations of complexity derived from emergence. Consciousness requires a single entity of awareness which we are unable to define in terms of the behaviour of sub atomic particles, no matter how complex their arrangement.
-
AB,
Just labelling consciousness as complex or adaptive does not put it in the same category as other observations of complexity derived from emergence.
That's called the straw man fallacy: no-one does “just label” consciousness like that. Rather they observe that neurons act according to the same five basic principles as termites, that termites collectively are a complex adaptive system, and that a reasonable hypothesis therefore is to deduce that collectively neurons produce a complex adaptive system too that we call consciousness.
Consciousness requires a single entity of awareness which we are unable to define in terms of the behaviour of sub atomic particles, no matter how complex their arrangement.
That’s an assertion presumably born of your religious belief but that fails to map with any of the observable phenomena from neuroscience. But for you faith in “God”, why would you think that “consciousness requires a single entity of awareness”?
The only reason that we’re unable to define such a thing is that you’ve made it up, and then called it a “soul”. As it's your claim, you define it - it's your burden of proof.
-
The significance of termites (and of many other observations) is that complex adaptive systems can emerge from much simpler individual components with no top down designer involved. That principle applies wherever we look in nature; consciousness exists in nature; therefore emergence gives us a working hypothesis for how it comes about. In short, termites and neurons alike are subject to the same principle.
If you have a different working hypothesis that better fits the observable facts such that consciousness is exempt from the rules of nature, then tell us what it is.
Another view might be that consciousness is a simple (observing) entity with nothing complex about it. It can only be detected by either turning in on itself or withdrawing into itself. When it associates with appropriate matter/energy systems it causes them to become adaptive to their surroundings which are in a constant state of change and because of which they evolve into more complex bodies. There is no top down designer, just a trial and error type of evolution until an emergent property which we call intelligence (ability to choose) arises and the adaptive process becomes more refined (e.g. rational and logical). Meanwhile, throughout this process consciousness remains in its pristine simple state but can be veiled by the seductive nature of the complex adaptive systems. The, so called, spiritual method is sometimes seen as an apocalypse/revelation, both of which mean 'the removal of a veil'.
-
Another view might be that consciousness is a simple (observing) entity with nothing complex about it. It can only be detected by either turning in on itself or withdrawing into itself. When it associates with appropriate matter/energy systems it causes them to become adaptive to their surroundings which are in a constant state of change and because of which they evolve into more complex bodies. There is no top down designer, just a trial and error type of evolution until an emergent property which we call intelligence (ability to choose) arises and the adaptive process becomes more refined (e.g. rational and logical). Meanwhile, throughout this process consciousness remains in its pristine simple state but can be veiled by the seductive nature of the complex adaptive systems. The, so called, spiritual method is sometimes seen as an apocalypse/revelation, both of which mean 'the removal of a veil'.
An excellent point about consciousness not having to be something complex ......an argument which arises out of a view that it is just increased processing speed or power.
-
When we look at a system are we looking at it from the top or the bottom?
-
As soon as the word 'entity' is used and associated with 'consciousness', it begins to imply separateness and, therefore, should be avoided.
-
ekim,
Another view might be that consciousness is a simple (observing) entity with nothing complex about it. It can only be detected by either turning in on itself or withdrawing into itself. When it associates with appropriate matter/energy systems it causes them to become adaptive to their surroundings which are in a constant state of change and because of which they evolve into more complex bodies. There is no top down designer, just a trial and error type of evolution until an emergent property which we call intelligence (ability to choose) arises and the adaptive process becomes more refined (e.g. rational and logical). Meanwhile, throughout this process consciousness remains in its pristine simple state but can be veiled by the seductive nature of the complex adaptive systems. The, so called, spiritual method is sometimes seen as an apocalypse/revelation, both of which mean 'the removal of a veil'.
The problem with that though is that it just posits this “observing entity” from nowhere. Complex or simple, it would presumably have to have enough complexity to perform the tasks you describe so how would any of that have come about? Our friend Mr Occam would suggest that adding more assumptions into the mix decreases the chance of finding the truth. Why not just stop at consciousness being an emerged level of complexity that sits on the layers of complexity beneath it all the way down to the neurons?
There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).
-
As soon as the word 'entity' is used and associated with 'consciousness', it begins to imply separateness and, therefore, should be avoided.
A good point although if you are claiming an emergent property that necessarily implies some separateness.
If you can't be an emergentist be an honest reductionist or, as you are doing very refreshingly, oppose emergence from a holistic view.
-
There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).
So what you are saying is nobody should get overblown by what they consider to be their greater processing power................eh Hillside ;)
-
Spoof,
A good point although if you are claiming an emergent property that necessarily implies some separateness.
No, it implies connectedness - that's the point.
-
Spoof,
No, it implies connectedness - that's the point.
Do I detect you hoisting the jolly Rodger for another bit of linguistic piracy me hearty?
Is all this talk of emergent adaptive property you introducing a red herring preceding the quiet dropping of the word emergent?.......or worse ,an attempt to portray emergent adaptive as a tautology?
Shiver me timbers and f*** me categories!
-
Spoof,
Do I detect you hoisting the jolly Rodger for another bit of linguistic piracy me hearty?
No – I leave that kind of thing to you (see “scientism”, “philosophical naturalism” etc”).
Is all this talk of emergent adaptive property you introducing a red herring preceding the quiet dropping of the word emergent?.......or worse ,an attempt to portray emergent adaptive as a tautology?
None of that. Emergent systems come from the behaviours of their constituent parts – they’re connected. A top down designer on the other hand would be separate.
Shiver me timbers and f*** me categories!
Don’t sweat it – you’ve been corrected now so you can move on.
-
no I distinguish between 'magic' and 'unexplained'. 'Magic' means logically impossible; unexplained merely means unexplained. Dark matter is not magic, it is merely a placeholder for something that is still currently unexplained.
Wasn't X-ray a logical impossibility before it was discovered? Isn't a chemical molecule replicating itself and containing the entire information for formation of complex organisms, a logical impossibility? Aren't parallel universes existing just inches from us a logical impossibility? The entire universe arising out of a String vibrating in eleven dimensions a logical impossibility? Isn't the Singularity arising from nothing, a logical impossibility? Isn't the idea of the universe expanding dramatically in an instant, a logical impossibility?
Its all magic then!
Logic also evolves and adapts to changing requirements it seems!
-
Spoof,
No – I leave that kind of thing to you (see “scientism”, “philosophical naturalism” etc”).
None of that. Emergent systems come from the behaviours of their constituent parts – they’re connected. A top down designer on the other hand would be separate.
Don’t sweat it – you’ve been corrected now so you can move on.
A vast behind, as I suspected The buccaneer buccan' his categories again.
You need to remind yourself of the definition of emergent properties again, Jim Lad
So have the balls to cut the emergence bit and be a true reductionist there's a good lad.
After three me hearties "We sail the Ocean blue(Hillside) and our saucy ships a beauty"
-
Spoof,
A vast behind, as I suspected The buccaneer buccan' his categories again.
You need to remind yourself of the definition of emergent properties again, Jim Lad
So have the balls to cut the emergence bit and be a true reductionist there's a good lad.
After three me hearties "We sail the Ocean blue(Hillside) and our saucy ships a beauty"
Dull incomprehension noted.
-
Spoof,
Dull incomprehension noted.
You want to start noting the definition of emergence.
-
But we know and understand the physical properties of termite colonies. We can't say the same about conscious awareness, so the comparison is not valid since we can't even confirm what makes consciousness work.
Maybe when you can define exactly what a soul is, where it lives, what it consists of, how it processes thoughts, how it connects to our physical brain, how its observances are not observed by a higher soul's soul, when it becomes attached to a human etc
Maybe then you will have a point to make.
ps
please no theological hand waving of the kind,
Goddidit, works in mysterious ways, it's not for us to know, we can't know the mind of etc.
-
ekim,
The problem with that though is that it just posits this “observing entity” from nowhere. Complex or simple, it would presumably have to have enough complexity to perform the tasks you describe so how would any of that have come about? Our friend Mr Occam would suggest that adding more assumptions into the mix decreases the chance of finding the truth. Why not just stop at consciousness being an emerged level of complexity that sits on the layers of complexity beneath it all the way down to the neurons?
There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).
Well, it goes on and on, with the immaterialists refusing to put forward any hypothesis of their own, as you say, that might be scrutinized and tested. I suppose if they did, it would be a bit limp - well, the soul just is conscious, or God does it, or something like that. Since they have very little, they spend most of their time attacking things like emergence, neuroscience, and so on.
It's a bit like the creationists attacking evolution, but never quite telling us how giraffes are made by the Big Man.
Hence, the large amounts of reverse onus, i.e. burden of proof.
-
Hence, the large amounts of reverse onus, i.e. burden of proof.
for some reason I read that as
Hence, the large amounts of reverse anus, i.e. burden of spoof.
;)
-
for some reason I read that as
Hence, the large amounts of reverse anus, i.e. burden of spoof.
;)
I think that just reveals a Large Hole in your understanding.
-
I think that just reveals a Large Hole in your understanding.
Either that or the overriding subliminal message portrayed in yours? :-\
-
No.
What have you got to hide after all shouldn't you want an inter subjective dialogue?
....not using your previous suggestions, if I recall the results could take years, or never appear at all.
Thanks but no thanks.
-
But for you faith in “God”, why would you think that “consciousness requires a single entity of awareness”?
Because there is only one of "me", and at any moment in time, I am aware of the content and activity of all the brain cells associated with vision, sound, taste, touch and imagination. The "I" is a single receptacle for perceiving all this information and I am not aware of any mechanism in physics or chemistry to bring all this together into the one entity which is "me".
And "emergence" is not an entity in itself, just a pattern of complexity perceived from outside.
-
#604
So an adaptive system is assumed.
No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.
Thanks for that startling confession. I suspect it was unintentional.
A deduction is based on truth. The fact that you are claiming this shows that you are assuming the conclusion as truth, rather than establishing the truth of the conclusion, therefore your reasoning is circular.
-
#604
Thanks for that startling confession. I suspect it was unintentional.
A deduction is based on truth. The fact that you are claiming this shows that you are assuming the conclusion as truth, rather than establishing the truth of the conclusion, therefore your reasoning is circular.
I see begging the question is another fallacy you don't understand, along with deductive arguments.
-
#635
#629
Well, I listened to the post several times at the speed (202 wpm) I normally use, then copied and pasted it onto a document, slowed the speed and listened again twice. At which point I have given up trying to understand what you are saying.
Sorry about that ...
Sriram's point was this: If robots were able to discuss who their creator was, then if they used similar arguments that are usually applied against the idea of a designer for life, they could never conclude the truth, namely that they were created by human beings.
Your response
Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.
not only added weight to that, it also throws into question Torridon's claim (#535) but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles., as you cited an example that contradicts that claim.
-
ekim,
The problem with that though is that it just posits this “observing entity” from nowhere. Complex or simple, it would presumably have to have enough complexity to perform the tasks you describe so how would any of that have come about? Our friend Mr Occam would suggest that adding more assumptions into the mix decreases the chance of finding the truth. Why not just stop at consciousness being an emerged level of complexity that sits on the layers of complexity beneath it all the way down to the neurons?
There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).
It only posits it as an alternative possibility rather than a definitive conclusion that consciousness comes from complexity. It doesn't perform tasks, it just observes impartially, perhaps as a requirement for the feedback you mentioned or the emergence of intelligence. Perhaps Mr Occam didn't appreciate that he was driven by swarm logic and that being open to alternative possible explanations is not the same as making assumptions and his version of 'truth' might not be the 'truth' which, say, the mystic is looking for. I'm sure that many will stop at the model of consciousness being an emerged level of complexity, that's the way swarm logic works. The mystic though is unlikely to be satisfied with any intellectual models, concepts, hypotheses and images, he is more concerned about the reality of his own being which he seeks inwardly by freeing his consciousness of the clutter imposed upon it by the swarm. It is a path towards simplicity rather than complexity. I may be wrong but it seems that Mr. Johnson's hypothesis indicates that complexity breeds more complexity. I won't comment about AB as I don't know him well enough.
-
Well, it goes on and on, with the immaterialists refusing to put forward any hypothesis of their own, as you say, that might be scrutinized and tested. I suppose if they did, it would be a bit limp - well, the soul just is conscious, or God does it, or something like that. Since they have very little, they spend most of their time attacking things like emergence, neuroscience, and so on.
It's a bit like the creationists attacking evolution, but never quite telling us how giraffes are made by the Big Man.
Hence, the large amounts of reverse onus, i.e. burden of proof.
If everybody is driven by swarm logic, what else can you expect?
-
#635
Sorry about that ...
Sriram's point was this: If robots were able to discuss who their creator was, then if they used similar arguments that are usually applied against the idea of a designer for life, they could never conclude the truth, namely that they were created by human beings.
Your responsenot only added weight to that, it also throws into question Torridon's claim (#535) but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles., as you cited an example that contradicts that claim.
Thanks SOS for clarifying my point! :)
-
...... I am not aware of any mechanism in physics or chemistry to bring all this together into the one entity which is "me".
Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, does it?
-
Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, does it?
Neither does it mean it does.
-
Neither does it mean it does.
Correct. Give that man a shiny new turd.
-
#580
My contention would be the ability to learn in the first place being an emergent property of something else (which in turn is an emergent property from something before that, etc), then claiming consciousness as an emergent property of the ability to learn. It’s a classic circularity with that which exists being used to explain the emergence of that which exists.
Nothing is learnt, it is a misappropriation of a word. This is why these scientists have got their knickers in a twist and can't even feel the pain from it. It is a malapropism.
-
Perhaps there is cellular awareness and when it losses it, it dies or becomes non adaptive.
I think I'll stick with the 'intuitive' for the time being. Swarm logic doesn't appeal to me. It sounds too much like mass mind and flock think, the sort of condition which appeals to consumerism, politics and religious indoctrination and other persuasive techniques. Perhaps transcendence is the next stage of emergence. :)
Swarm logic - more malapropism.
-
How do you get from the accumulation of information, something a non conscious computer could do, to consciousness?
By redefining consciousness to mean robot!!!
-
Self awareness of one's existence and actions etc.
And do you have an explanation of how it all works?
-
And of course that "froth" is derived from lower levels and that would make any emerged property not properly emergent.
In terms of protecting their reductionist world view there is a simple test. Challenge them with the idea of Ontological irreducibility. A reductionist will see red, not accept the idea at all and therefore deny emergence.
Emergence is a technical term which means that a system has an inherent potentiality within it which is activated when a threshold is reached; usually when additional energy is inputted and sometimes when certain conditions are present. This means that whatever happens it can not go beyond the nature of the system and morph into something totally different. Unless these scientists are going to say that all matter has consciousness potentially within it and may exhibit it 'within' the system even though its presence may not be observed then they have a problem. What they have done is redefined consciousness to mean robot or just some machine like computer...
-
torri,
Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.
That's a huge leap of faith. You really have been brainwashed by your 'religion'.
-
What these insights around emergence and the evolution of complexity suggest, is that if this cosmos we appear to find ourselves in is in fact a product of 'intelligent design' by some higher or other 'being' or 'beings', then those other beings themselves would also be an outcome of the same principles. The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.
That doesn't follow. As there is no ex nihilo then something must have always been; be eternal. If we then take emergence as an universal property we could say that 'God' also evolved from something simple, spiritually, to something complex spiritually, and no doubt did this in parallel with the universes' evolution.
-
And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells. Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it. So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.
Your unfounded assertion and assumption. What I'm railing against is the assumed answer before all the data and research has been done based on the confirmation bias of the modern age.
-
JK,
They’re not conclusions, and nor are they unfounded or premature. Science tells us that complex systems come from simpler components, and emergence shows us that no top down designer is necessary for that to be so. There’s nothing we know if that’s inherently special about consciousness that would exclude it from that basic model. Absent any alternative explanation, consciousness as an adaptive emergent property appears therefore to be the most likely hypothesis.
I am not questioning emergence per se. And I'm not a theist. What concerns me is that science in this respect has redefined consciousness to basically mean a robot, an automaton, that is not right.
Well, my wife would agree with you there but, in general, when a logical fallacy is committed it’s usually enough just to say so rather than have to explain what the fallacy entails. Nonetheless, if you really want me to I can readily in future say, “that a XXX fallacy because…” it that helps.
Your avoidance has been noted.
No it isn’t. Emergence is the point at hand.
To you may be, but I'm talking about consciousness not emergence.
You don’t understand the burden of proof. If you think that there’s something inherently different about consciousness that places it outside the rules by which nature plays then it’s for you to tell us why.
Depends on what you mean by nature.....and of course you lot haven't provided a definition for consciousness.
No, it’s not “iffy” at all as an hypothesis because it's logically coherent and because there’s no other hypothesis on the table to falsify or supplant it.
It is not logically coherent it is just you lot saying, "Duh!....well, what else could it be....? Can't think of anything else so it has to be emergence."
Why don't we ask the 7 billion people in the world what they think their selfhood is. Do they sense it is as being a delusion and not real or do they see themselves as a single entity, a personality as an 'I'. Result : most say (or would say) that they are a conscious single entity or agent. That's an inter subjective approach and the evidence points to the fact that 'we' are real and not some fluffy exhaust from an emergent process from the brain.
I have lots of them – books full, research papers, lectures from people working in the field etc. What facts do you have for an alternative explanation – indeed what do you even think your alternative explanation to be?
So you believe them the way theists believe their priests! Such unguided faith.
And I keep saying to you lot my beef isn't about me presenting a different answer or theory etc. but only that I think you lot are jumping to conclusions or going to far down a road of your materialistic ideology.
What confirmation bias do you think “science” has exactly, especially as its methods are often designed precisely to avoid that?
How can it if all the 'church goers' are from the same school of materialism's ideology. Group pressure and all that.
-
Correct. Give that man a shiny new turd.
Who polished it?............(as if we didn't know)
-
good stuff, that ;)
It's popular science Torridon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence:_The_Connected_Lives_of_Ants,_Brains,_Cities,_and_Software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Johnson_(author)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_for_You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
-
That's called the straw man fallacy: no-one does “just label” consciousness like that. Rather they observe that neurons act according to the same five basic principles as termites, that termites collectively are a complex adaptive system, and that a reasonable hypothesis therefore is to deduce that collectively neurons produce a complex adaptive system too that we call consciousness.
Neuron activity may correlate with conscious activity, but it does not define it. There is no logical explanation to show how neuron activity alone can generate conscious awareness.
-
Who polished it?............(as if we didn't know)
I said shiny, not polished. Any polishing to be done is up to the recipient.
-
Neuron activity may correlate with conscious activity, but it does not define it. There is no logical explanation to show how neuron activity alone can generate conscious awareness.
There is no logical explanation to show how a soul thinks for itself. Now what?
-
Er....turds aren't shiny Seb, if you are suggesting handing me a dull turd, I already have you Seb.
Depends what the producer has been consuming doesnt it? Shiny in, shiny out.
You are the one person on here with the turd fetish. Only trying to be inclusive and not make you feel awkward.
-
Neuron activity may correlate with conscious activity, but it does not define it. There is no logical explanation to show how neuron activity alone can generate conscious awareness.
Those silly neuroscientists should stop their research into different aspects of cognition, then, shouldn't they? They would be much better off doing empirical research into the soul, and how it generates stuff. Now, where do you think they should begin? Memory maybe, or learning, or decision making, or feelings and emotions?
-
It is not logically coherent it is just you lot saying, "Duh!....well, what else could it be....? Can't think of anything else so it has to be emergence."
Yes. He has to demonstrate logical progression from information processing to consciousness and maintain ontological irreducibility for it to be a case of emergence for him to avoid your charge of him saying,"Duh!....well, what else could it be....? Can't think of anything else so it has to be emergence."
-
You are the one person on here with the turd fetish.
You're the one proposing to hand me one.
-
You're the one proposing to hand me one.
Nice bit of selective quoting, Turdman.
-
Nice bit of selective quoting, Turdman.
They're not literal turds anyway...(fucking fundamentalist.)
-
They're not literal turds anyway...
Glad that has been cleared up
.(fucking fundamentalist.)
Your current Sunday sexual activity is not what I want a mental picture of!
-
Glad that has been cleared up
Your current Sunday sexual activity is not what I want a mental picture of!
Your'e lowering the tone of this forum.
Which means it's gone into the negative.
-
Your unfounded assertion and assumption.
Which bit was unfounded? Brains have been dissected. They really are giant networks of brain cells. Given that, and the observation that consciousness is real (although it's nature is disputed), how can it have done anything other than emerge from the structure and dynamics of the brain?
-
Depends what the producer has been consuming doesnt it? Shiny in, shiny out.
You are the one person on here with the turd fetish. Only trying to be inclusive and not make you feel awkward.
My apologies.
Apparently there is a reference to shiny unpolished ones vis this early draft of the lyrics for ''The Sound of Music'' which went.....
''Soon her mama with a gleaming goat turd..........''.
Apparently their manager pointed out that turds won't polish and they would be in breech of the Trades Description act. The lyric was then changed.
-
Your unfounded assertion and assumption. What I'm railing against is the assumed answer before all the data and research has been done based on the confirmation bias of the modern age.
I don't know where you get 'unfounded' etc from. We are simply following the evidence, and even before we had neuroscience we had plenty of indicators from the medical profession that the brain is the organ of thought and conscious experience. Were you under the impression that anaesthetists were practising some sort of voodoo all this time ?
We are now trying to fill in the detail is all.
-
But what if we discover that the emergence of complex conscious life forms, or perhaps any life forms, does not occur anywhere else in the universe? Would this scupper the ideas on emergence?
No. We have plenty of justification for the concept of emergence per se, but it would challenge the idea of consciousness as an emergent phenomenon.
-
Which bit was unfounded? Brains have been dissected. They really are giant networks of brain cells. Given that, and the observation that consciousness is real (although it's nature is disputed), how can it have done anything other than emerge from the structure and dynamics of the brain?
Nobody is denying that are they? The trouble is trying to pass more of the previous level...i.e. processing power or even intelligence...as consciousness.
There is nothing at that level which predicts consciousness and stating that it's an obvious link is using the benefit of seeing the whole system. A kind of retcon if you like. Being wise after the event or in this case, the emergence since there is implied ontological irreducibility, novelty, and explanatory gap if emergence is being claimed.
IMHO Hillside et al want to totally explain consciousness in terms of properties at the lower level and have the gloss of observed emergence...a bad case of wanting your cake and eat it.
-
Just labelling consciousness as complex or adaptive does not put it in the same category as other observations of complexity derived from emergence.
I agree consciousness is way more complex than fluidity, say. Insect colonies do take us some of the way though. An ant colony may not be conscious, but clearly ant colonies make decisions which exhibit emergent intelligence at the colony level. So we have justification for anticipating that consciousness will be a similarly emergent phenomenon and we have simpler models from nature to help guide us.
Consciousness requires a single entity of awareness which we are unable to define in terms of the behaviour of sub atomic particles, no matter how complex their arrangement.
You missed out the word 'yet' there. Understanding these things will take time, this is one of the challenges of our age.
We would expect consciousness to rationalise itself into a single point of awareness and agency would we not ? That is not surprising. Consciousness relates to a single individual so an organism with multiple disparate consciousnesses would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to a rival organism who enjoyed a unified synthesised stream of experience and therefore more efficient decision making. This feeling of unity of being masks clever preconscious processing going on under the hood, for instance to synchronise variable speed sensory data streams in a way analogous to that in which your PC is 'clocked'.
-
This feeling of unity of being masks clever preconscious processing going on under the hood, for instance to synchronise variable speed sensory data streams in a way analogous to that in which your PC is 'clocked'.
Yes...it's a real nuisance isn't it Torri? ::)
-
#535
You say that Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles. Sriram in his response (#536) to you gave an analogy with robots, where the arguments used against the idea of life being created are applied to robots. That, in my opinion illustrates the problem neatly. However, it was illustrated even more strongly by this in SusanDoris’ #538:
Which, in my opinion falsifies the argument that “something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles.”
It is true that robots were invented and made by humans. That truth is not affected by whether or not the origin of human beings is known. To go with Sriram’s analogy, if robots had the ability to question their origin, then the types of arguments currently used against claims for life being created would also have to apply to the creator of robots, i.e. human beings! Because we know that human beings invent and make robots, all of these arguments would be false, as his post illustrated. This must surely indicate that similar arguments being used against claims that life may have been designed and created cannot be correct ones!
For some reason, this post puts me in mind of old creationist arguments that life contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Clearly the growth of complexity in this cosmos is not a simple straightforward linear curve, there are many variations along that path, for instance we have something complex (termites) building something less complex (termite castles). So far so good. But because there are instances of high complexity creating lower order complexity, we cannot from that extrapolate a complete invalidation of the underlying principle that generally and ultimately, higher order complexity derives from lower order complexity. Termites and termite mounds are but an instance of one variation creating a lower order variation but ultimately both termites and their mounds obey the underlying principle of emergence.
And to hop on over to Sriram's robot analogy, yes the robots could have been made by a superior biological species, and yes, they wouldn't have known that; and yes the higher order biological species might have been made in turn by a yet higher order of conscious silicon synths that the biologicals were unaware of. But the take home lesson from this, is that this cannot go on forever, we cannot go on climbing an upwards complexity ladder to explain things that we find hard to understand because as an explanatory strategy it is doomed to fail. At some point, we just need to look down at where we have come from to understand things.
-
But what if we discover that the emergence of complex conscious life forms, or perhaps any life forms, does not occur anywhere else in the universe?
Given the size of the universe and the number of stars/planets within it, the chances of finding that out are exactly what?
-
Given the size of the universe and the number of stars/planets within it, the chances of finding that out are exactly what?
The true probabilities involved in it happening by chance are mind blowing. It depends entirely on whether God wants life to exist elsewhere in the universe.
-
I agree consciousness is way more complex than fluidity, say. Insect colonies do take us some of the way though. An ant colony may not be conscious, but clearly ant colonies make decisions which exhibit emergent intelligence at the colony level. So we have justification for anticipating that consciousness will be a similarly emergent phenomenon and we have simpler models from nature to help guide us.
You missed out the word 'yet' there. Understanding these things will take time, this is one of the challenges of our age.
We would expect consciousness to rationalise itself into a single point of awareness and agency would we not ? That is not surprising. Consciousness relates to a single individual so an organism with multiple disparate consciousnesses would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to a rival organism who enjoyed a unified synthesised stream of experience and therefore more efficient decision making. This feeling of unity of being masks clever preconscious processing going on under the hood, for instance to synchronise variable speed sensory data streams in a way analogous to that in which your PC is 'clocked'.
Interesting stuff. I don't understand why the apparent 'single-mindedness' of mental life is suppose to be such a defeater for neuroscience research. As you say, it is likely that different currents of data processing have to be coordinated in the brain, in order to avoid a chaotic representation. We can see this with multi-tasking, and that's ignoring unconscious and preconscious stuff going on. In fact, in psychotherapy, you get used to seeing individuals as crowds, but that's rather a different angle. But again, I don't see why this is not amenable to neural processing.
-
AB,
The true probabilities involved in it happening by chance are mind blowing.
Only if you ignore the number of opportunities for it to happen. If the chances of consciousness happening "by chance" (and remember, all that would be necessary if consciousness is an adaptive emergent system of the brain is that prior systems that were emergence apt would have had to have come about) are, say, one in a million but there were a trillion events that could have led to it the odds aren't so great at all.
This is a bit like the creationists' claim that single cell life was so unlikely that it must have been divinely caused. By some calculations though the vast number of events that could have led to it suggest that it was likely to have happened in less than a year.
It depends entirely on whether God wants life to exist elsewhere in the universe.
Only if you are able to demonstrate the existence of this god at all, and that you happen to know what He can do. Good luck with that.
-
Interesting stuff. I don't understand why the apparent 'single-mindedness' of mental life is suppose to be such a defeater for neuroscience research. As you say, it is likely that different currents of data processing have to be coordinated in the brain, in order to avoid a chaotic representation. We can see this with multi-tasking, and that's ignoring unconscious and preconscious stuff going on. In fact, in psychotherapy, you get used to seeing people as crowds, but that's rather a different angle. But again, I don't see why this is not amenable to neural processing.
I wonder why you are so defensive of neuroscience. Does it need it? How do you know that it is not imputed claims which go beyond what science is capable of that neuroscience needs defending from?
At the moment the angle you and your ilk seem to have is that neuroscience is there to prove that intelligence or processing capability equals consciousness.
I think neuroscience like multiverse is prone to having it's terms bent on a new atheist agenda although, having said that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, has apparently acknowledged that there just might be some things we will not get.
By all means investigate all avenues but do so in the name of science rather than Dennetian philosophy.
-
The true probabilities involved in it happening by chance are mind blowing. It depends entirely on whether God wants life to exist elsewhere in the universe.
Given the mind blowing size of the universe and the mind blowing number of stars and planets in it, the chances if it happening are more likely than your mind can cope with.
However that was not the point. I was saying that the chances of us finding out whether or not life exists elsewhere is lets say, mind blowingly tiny.
Ps God wasn't mentioned in the discourse so I will ignore your mind blowing additional statement.
-
I wonder why are so defensive of neuroscience. Does it need it? How do you know that it is not imputed claims which go beyond what science is capable of that neuroscience needs defending off.
At the moment the angle you and your ilk seem to have is that neuroscience is there to prove that intelligence or processing capability equals consciousness.
I think neuroscience like multiverse is prone to having it's terms bent on a new atheist agenda although, having said that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, has apparently acknowledged that there just might be some things we will not get.
By all means investigate all avenues but do so in the name of science rather than Dennetian philosophy.
Bloody hell, you write some crap. 'A new atheist agenda' - what is that supposed to mean?
No, neuroscience is not aiming to 'prove' anything.
-
No, neuroscience is not aiming to 'prove' anything.
That just leaves you then.
-
JK,
Emergence is a technical term which means that a system has an inherent potentiality within it which is activated when a threshold is reached; usually when additional energy is inputted and sometimes when certain conditions are present. This means that whatever happens it can not go beyond the nature of the system and morph into something totally different.
Not really, no. Here’s Steven Johnson on what it actually means with reference to cities:
"[Cities] are patterns of human movement and decision-making that have been etched into the texture of city blocks, patterns that are then fed back to the residents themselves, altering their subsequent decisions. ... A city is a kind of pattern-amplifying machine: its neighbourhoods are a way of measuring and expressing the repeated behavior of larger collectives — capturing information about group behavior, and sharing that information with the group. Because those patterns are fed back to the community, small shifts in behavior can quickly escalate into larger movements: upscale shops dominate the main boulevards, while the working class remains clustered invisibly in the alleys and side streets; the artists live on the Left Bank, the investment bankers in the Eighth Arrondissement. You don't need regulations and city planners deliberately creating these structures. All you need are thousands of individuals and a few simple rules of interaction." (Emergence, pp. 40-41)
The fact of artists’ quarters and banking districts isn’t an “inherent potentiality” in people that’s been “activated” – rather it’s a new pattern and level of complexity that has emerged from the behaviours of citizens who didn’t start out to create these phenomena at all.
Read the book!
Unless these scientists are going to say that all matter has consciousness potentially within it and may exhibit it 'within' the system even though its presence may not be observed then they have a problem. What they have done is redefined consciousness to mean robot or just some machine like computer...
Why is that a “re-“definition, other than that it happens to conflict with your personal opinion on the matter?
-
JK,
Not really, no. Here’s Steven Johnson on what it actually means with reference to cities:
"[Cities] are patterns of human movement and decision-making that have been etched into the texture of city blocks, patterns that are then fed back to the residents themselves, altering their subsequent decisions. ... A city is a kind of pattern-amplifying machine: its neighbourhoods are a way of measuring and expressing the repeated behavior of larger collectives — capturing information about group behavior, and sharing that information with the group. Because those patterns are fed back to the community, small shifts in behavior can quickly escalate into larger movements: upscale shops dominate the main boulevards, while the working class remains clustered invisibly in the alleys and side streets; the artists live on the Left Bank, the investment bankers in the Eighth Arrondissement. You don't need regulations and city planners deliberately creating these structures. All you need are thousands of individuals and a few simple rules of interaction." (Emergence, pp. 40-41)
The fact of artists’ quarters and banking districts isn’t an “inherent potentiality” in people that’s been “activated” – rather it’s a new pattern and level of complexity that has emerged from the behaviours of citizens who didn’t start out to create these phenomena at all.
Read the book!
Why is that a “re-“definition, other than that it happens to conflict with your personal opinion on the matter?
If it is the actual definition then the word consciousness is effectively redundant since it can effectively be described as a property of a lower level, processing power and intelligence.
We have to ask what it is that has emerged?
Johnson, or yourself, has effectively redefined the meaning of emergent or at least has a different one from that understood by scientists etc who think the term anything but redundant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence:_The_Connected_Lives_of_Ants,_Brains,_Cities,_and_Software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Johnson_(author)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_for_You
-
Vlad,
If it is the actual definition then the word consciousness is effectively redundant since it can effectively be described as a property of a lower level, processing power and intelligence.
Nope. Consciousness is just one type of adaptive emergent system, but there are countless others that differ from it in their various ways.
The rest of your post is redundant.
-
Vlad,
Nope. Consciousness is just one type of adaptive emergent system, but there are countless others that differ from it in their various ways.
The rest of your post is redundant.
So it is emergent and the definition of consciousness is not as you suggest three posts back ''Robot'' or ''a machine like computer'' then (see end of post 710).
So my reference to the encyclopedic definition of emergence is redundant then and so we have to take it all from Steve Johnson then............?
You can read about him here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Johnson_(author)
and some of his works here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Bad_Is_Good_for_You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence:_The_Connected_Lives_of_Ants,_Brains,_Cities,_and_Software
I have to say I have no immediate beef with the guys views save an ominous reference to bottom up thinking in a book about emergence.
-
Vlad,
So it is emergent and the definition of consciousness is not as you suggest three posts back ''Robot'' or ''a machine like computer'' then (see end of post 710).
That's a non sequitur. The evidence points to consciousness as an adaptive emergent system, so that's the working hypothesis. We know that "machine like computers" can already exhibit adaptive emergent properties - Amazon's recommendations software for example does that.
These two position are congruent, not contradictory.
-
Vlad,
That's a non sequitur. The evidence points to consciousness as an adaptive emergent system, so that's the working hypothesis. We know that "machine like computers" can already exhibit adaptive emergent properties - Amazon's recommendations software for example does that.
These two position are congruent, not contradictory.
You seem to be saying that all adaptive emergent systems are the same thing.
Consciousness is an adaptive emergent property
machine like computers vis amazons software is an adaptive emergent property
Therefore amazon software is conscious.......
Really? Isn't it just ''intelligent''?
-
Spoof,
You seem to be saying that all adaptive emergent systems are the same thing.
Of course I'm not - the same general class of phenomenon perhaps, but certainly not the same "thing" at all. Cities and ant colonies for example have many different characteristics.
Consciousness is an adaptive emergent property
machine like computers vis amazons software is an adaptive emergent property
Therefore amazon software is conscious.......
Really? Isn't it just ''intelligent''?
No. It's just your bad logic: the lion is a cat/tiddles is a cat/therefore tiddles is a lion.
Doesn't work.
-
Spoof,
Of course I'm not - the same general class of phenomenon perhaps, but certainly not the same "thing" at all. Cities and ant colonies for example have many different characteristics.
We're in synch then....have a great evening.
-
I don't understand why the apparent 'single-mindedness' of mental life is suppose to be such a defeater for neuroscience research.
Neuroscience does not contradict the idea of a single entity of perception - it complements it. You can compare neuroscience with the physical mechanisms needed to transfer image data from within a computer processor to a screen. Just as the sensory data in the human brain gets transferred to the cells in specific areas of the brain. The data is thus represented as pixels of light on a screen, or as a pattern of specific states of numerous cells within the brain. In both cases a single entity of perception is needed to see and translate the data into a meaningful picture.
-
Neuroscience does not contradict the idea of a single entity of perception - it complements it. You can compare neuroscience with the physical mechanisms needed to transfer image data from within a computer processor to a screen. Just as the sensory data in the human brain gets transferred to the cells in specific areas of the brain. The data is thus represented as pixels of light on a screen, or as a pattern of specific states of numerous cells within the brain. In both cases a single entity of perception is needed to see and translate the data into a meaningful picture.
It's unfortunate, but predictable, that you chopped off the rest of my post. The brain is capable of coordinating incoming data, and converting them into different kinds of representation. Thus an acoustic input (phonetic) can be recognized as phonemes, and as speech, if speech is incoming. The single point of view doesn't seem a problem either, as torridon explained.
http://neurosciencenews.com/speech-sound-meaning-neuroscience-2740/
-
I agree consciousness is way more complex than fluidity, say. Insect colonies do take us some of the way though. An ant colony may not be conscious, but clearly ant colonies make decisions which exhibit emergent intelligence at the colony level. So we have justification for anticipating that consciousness will be a similarly emergent phenomenon and we have simpler models from nature to help guide us.
Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness. You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered. But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive. Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are. Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction. You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.
-
Neuroscience does not contradict the idea of a single entity of perception - it complements it. You can compare neuroscience with the physical mechanisms needed to transfer image data from within a computer processor to a screen. Just as the sensory data in the human brain gets transferred to the cells in specific areas of the brain. The data is thus represented as pixels of light on a screen, or as a pattern of specific states of numerous cells within the brain. In both cases a single entity of perception is needed to see and translate the data into a meaningful picture.
It's tempting to think of vision being a matter of image projection which can be 'seen' by an internal viewer; the problem with that being that is recursive. An internal see-er that 'sees' the internal image would require it's own internal see-er. It is intuitive to conceptualise it that way but it must be wrong.
When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain ?
-
Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness. You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered. But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive. Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are. Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction. You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.
That seems to ignore the whole discussion about emergence. It's true that an individual particle or neuron cannot create the taste of chocolate, but then to argue that the brain can't, is a huge extrapolation.
-
Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness. You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered. But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive. Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are. Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction. You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.
It might be a state of awareness, yes, but what is a state of awareness made of if you look inside ? It is about information flow via biochemical reactions at a cellular level. A brain is an outgrowth of a nervous system and the earliest forms of consciousness probably evolved as a service of interoception providing a monitoring of an creature's overall internal state from information procured by the nervous system. Through the Cambrian, vertebrates developed external sensing organs allowing for greater perception of threat and food opportunities and these novel sense streams were incorporated into the base interoception service. That speaks to the base purpose of consciousness - it is awareness of internal state and immediate external environment and all the contents of consciousness are derived from original physical internal and external sensing.
-
That seems to ignore the whole discussion about emergence. It's true that an individual particle or neuron cannot create the taste of chocolate, but then to argue that the brain can't, is a huge extrapolation.
I think he is pointing out that the taste of chocolate is not neuronal, it might not even be ''brainal'' but might be ''organisational''.
-
It might be a state of awareness, yes, but what is a state of awareness made of if you look inside ? It is about information flow via biochemical reactions at a cellular level. A brain is an outgrowth of a nervous system and the earliest forms of consciousness probably evolved as a service of interoception providing a monitoring of an creature's overall internal state from information procured by the nervous system. Through the Cambrian, vertebrates developed external sensing organs allowing for greater perception of threat and food opportunities and these novel sense streams were incorporated into the base interoception service. That speaks to the base purpose of consciousness - it is awareness of internal state and immediate external environment and all the contents of consciousness are derived from internal and external sensing.
You've got to admire someone who keeps stoically waxing reductionist when everyone has moved on to emergence.
-
Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness. You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered. But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive. Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are. Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction. You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.
agreed.
-
You've got to admire someone who keeps stoically waxing reductionist when everyone has moved on to emergence.
Consciousness is not easy, I think we need all the tools in our toolbox to if we are to understand it.
-
Consciousness is not easy, I think we need all the tools in our toolbox to if we are to understand it.
It might well be much simpler than you think. Most of the complexity may be in the processing of information to a state in which it can be perceived. Once the information is in the right place, the perception of it by the entity which is "you" may not require any further physical process.
-
Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness. You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered. But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive. Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are. Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction. You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.
This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.
-
It's tempting to think of vision being a matter of image projection which can be 'seen' by an internal viewer; the problem with that being that is recursive. An internal see-er that 'sees' the internal image would require it's own internal see-er. It is intuitive to conceptualise it that way but it must be wrong.
This is only true if you regard perception as a physical process.
When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain ?
Or it could be just a programmed reaction to the image recognition software in its brain, with no conscious awareness needed.
-
Conscious awareness can only emerge in this way if there is a physical process which defines conscious awareness. You keep on assuming that such a physical process will eventually be discovered. But I put it to you that there can be no physical process capable of generating conscious awareness because sub atomic particles react - they do not perceive. Perception can never be defined solely by the reactions of sub atomic particles, no matter how fast or complex these reactions are. Perception is a state of awareness, not a reaction. You will need to look outside the realms of physics to discover what perception is.
This is just the argument from personal incredulity.
-
Consciousness is not easy, I think we need all the tools in our toolbox to if we are to understand it.
Well put. It's something we all have a right to.
-
It might well be much simpler than you think. Most of the complexity may be in the processing of information to a state in which it can be perceived. Once the information is in the right place, the perception of it by the entity which is "you" may not require any further physical process.
But then "you" have to process the information surely in order to make concious decisions? How does that happen?
-
But then "you" have to process the information surely in order to make conscious decisions? How does that happen?
There are two ways to look at this.
One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.
The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.
The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.
-
There are two ways to look at this.
One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.
The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.
The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.
That is postulating what happens. I am asking how the "soul" makes "free will" decisions?
-
When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain ?
This is only true if you regard perception as a physical process.Or it could be just a programmed reaction to the image recognition software in its brain, with no conscious awareness needed.
This is your stock evasive reply. 'Image recognition software' as you call it, is part of the contents of consciousness, as is hearing, taste and so on.
In #718 you claim the phenomenon of vision requires 'a internal single entity of perception' to turn a mass neurochemical states into the experience of vision. Evidence suggests that penguins can see also, so by your rationale they too must have this 'internal observer'. I didn't ask the question - 'is the penguin's resulting response an instinctive one, or a considered one ?' It seems in desperation to avoid penguins having souls you have to in effect claim them to be blind, despite having eyes. You really need to think this through one day.
-
This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.
Well put ;)
-
There are two ways to look at this.
One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.
The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.
The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.
A decision still has to be made on some or other basis, otherwise it is just a random action with no rationale. This is your base problem with free will - ultimately, 'outside deterministic laws' means 'random'
-
A decision still has to be made on some or other basis, otherwise it is just a random action with no rationale. This is your base problem with free will - ultimately, 'outside deterministic laws' means 'random'
You seem unable to grasp the concept of the soul being able to wilfully generate an event which is not deterministically controlled by a chain of physical events. If an event is driven by the spiritual power of the soul it is certainly not random, but driven by the power of conscious free will. The fact that we may find no physical cause for the event does not necessarily make it random - just that the cause can't be detected by physical means. It is the reason why conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked, because if we have no free will, there is no need for conscious awareness because it just becomes an ineffective spectator upon the deterministically controlled events it sees.
-
This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.
Wetness is just a property of a liquid state which can easily be defined by specific behaviour of sub atomic particles and the way they react with each other. What I am implying is that sub atomic particles do not have the capability of defining awareness because awareness can't be defined as patterns of behaviour of individual particles. Awareness needs an end recipient of information which is ultimately non definable by the behaviour patterns of particles.
-
AB,
There are two ways to look at this.
One is to process information in the way a computer works, then make a logical decision which is derived from the nature of the data.
The other is to perceive and interpret the data then make a conscious decision which may or may not be logically driven from the data.
The former is driven by the deterministic laws of science.
The latter is driven by something outside the deterministic laws.
First, things aren't "driven by the deterministic laws of science" - science describes the laws of the universe.
Second, if you want to posit an "outside the deterministic laws" then you can fill that space with anything at all that happens to take your fancy. It's not a binary choice between the conclusions the evidence points to and "soul": it's choice between the conclusions the evidence points to and chaos.
-
AB,
You seem unable to grasp the concept of the soul being able to wilfully generate an event which is not deterministically controlled by a chain of physical events.
Presumably because there's no evidence whatever for it, and because the evidence we do have for consciousness points to a different explanation entirely.
-
#701
And to hop on over to Sriram's robot analogy, yes the robots could have been made by a superior biological species, and yes, they wouldn't have known that; and yes the higher order biological species might have been made in turn by a yet higher order of conscious silicon synths that the biologicals were unaware of. But the take home lesson from this, is that this cannot go on forever, we cannot go on climbing an upwards complexity ladder to explain things that we find hard to understand because as an explanatory strategy it is doomed to fail.
It appears to me then that the approach taken is this:
The truth is X. Having X creates an infinite regression. Therefore something other than X must be found.
Which means therefore that whatever else is found, it will be wrong. Sriram’s #536 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg650505#msg650505) illustrates why.
In my opinion, there is at least one possible solution to any potential infinite regression. Jack Knave has suggested one; see his #678 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg650891#msg650891):
As there is no ex nihilo then something must have always been; be eternal.
Which doesn’t say anything about what the something may be. The truth (or otherwise) of what he said is not affected by knowing something / not knowing anything about what the something is.
-
Presumably because there's no evidence whatever for it, and because the evidence we do have for consciousness points to a different explanation entirely.
I assume the evidence you are talking about is that derived from human scientific investigation. But within the current scientific knowledge there is no understanding of what defines conscious awareness, or indeed whether it is possible to define it in physical terms. You presume that conscious awareness is somehow generated as an emergent property of physical brain activity, but this presumption can't be validated until you can demonstrate how conscious awareness can be defined in physical terms.
Whatever defines my conscious awareness also defines my ability to consciously decide which keys to type on this keyboard.
-
#701
It appears to me then that the approach taken is this:
The truth is X. Having X creates an infinite regression. Therefore something other than X must be found.
Which means therefore that whatever else is found, it will be wrong. Sriram’s #536 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg650505#msg650505) illustrates why.
In my opinion, there is at least one possible solution to any potential infinite regression. Jack Knave has suggested one; see his #678 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg650891#msg650891):
Which doesn’t say anything about what the something may be. The truth (or otherwise) of what he said is not affected by knowing something / not knowing anything about what the something is.
Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.
-
AB,
I assume the evidence you are talking about is that derived from human scientific investigation.
All evidence is derived from human investigation.
But within the current scientific knowledge there is no understanding of what defines conscious awareness, or indeed whether it is possible to define it in physical terms.
There's a lot more known about consciousness than you think, but as yet there isn't a complete theory. How do you think a gap in current knowledge helps you?
You presume that conscious awareness is somehow generated as an emergent property of physical brain activity, but this presumption can't be validated until you can demonstrate how conscious awareness can be defined in physical terms.
Bit rich from someone who claims the completely undefined "God", "soul" etc but, in any case, I presume no such thing. Rather the argument is that the emergence of adaptive systems from simpler components demonstrably happens, and moreover that that examples of things like ant colonies provide analogous models to neural networks. Absent any evidence of any kind for alternative explanations, emergence therefore provides the working hypothesis for consciousness.
Whatever defines my conscious awareness also defines my ability to consciously decide which keys to type on this keyboard.
No doubt it appears that way to you.
I notice by the way that you still provide no evidence whatever for "soul". Why is that?
-
Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.
Our human brains just can't grasp the concept of eternal, or indeed anything infinite. With my limited perception of this world, I have to conclude that everything has to have a beginning and an end, but I also am aware that there must be something beyond these limits, because I also can't grasp the concept of nothing existing at all. It is a quandary which implies that there is much more to the truth about existence than I can possibly perceive with my limited human senses and intelligence. I hope one day it will all become clear, but it won't be in this world.
-
AB,
Our human brains just can't grasp the concept of eternal, or indeed anything infinite. With my limited perception of this world, I have to conclude that everything has to have a beginning and an end, but I also am aware that there must be something beyond these limits, because I also can't grasp the concept of nothing existing at all. It is a quandary which implies that there is much more to the truth about existence than I can possibly perceive with my limited human senses and intelligence. I hope one day it will all become clear, but it won't be in this world.
If ever I get around to writing Bluehillside's Compendium of Bad Thinking, I'll use that if I may as an exemplar of the argument from personal incredulity.
-
Our human brains just can't grasp the concept of eternal, or indeed anything infinite. With my limited perception of this world, I have to conclude that everything has to have a beginning and an end, but I also am aware that there must be something beyond these limits, because I also can't grasp the concept of nothing existing at all. It is a quandary which implies that there is much more to the truth about existence than I can possibly perceive with my limited human senses and intelligence. I hope one day it will all become clear, but it won't be in this world.
That's a long winded way of you accepting that your beliefs illogical but you will hold them anyway.
-
I notice by the way that you still provide no evidence whatever for "soul". Why is that?
I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.
The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.
-
I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.
The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.
that's not evidence, that's begging the question twice and circular reasoning
-
AB,
I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.
The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.
Thank you. You've now given me my example too for the entry on circular reasoning.
Just out of interest, does it not trouble you at all that the only arguments you attempt here are logically false? If I were in your shoes, I really think that - once a logical error I'd made had been pointed out to me - I'd think something like, "Oh yes, I can see that now. Perhaps I should amend or abandon that argument then and instead try to find once that's not demonstrably wrong".
You on the other hand just keep repeating the same mistakes. Why?
-
AB,
Thank you. You've now given me my example too for the entry on circular reasoning.
Just out of interest, does it not trouble you at all that the only arguments you attempt here are logically false? If I were in your shoes, I really think that - once a logical error I'd made had been pointed out to me - I'd think something like, "Oh yes, I can see that now. Perhaps I should amend or abandon that argument then and instead try to find once that's not demonstrably wrong".
You on the other hand just keep repeating the same mistakes. Why?
Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake. It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles. And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.
-
Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake. It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles. And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.
and just returning to the incredulity and thereby attempting to shift the burden of proof using the negative proof fallacy continues in your line of using logically flawed arguments.
And, of course, your assertion of free will is begging the question
-
Rather the argument is that the emergence of adaptive systems from simpler components demonstrably happens, and moreover that that examples of things like ant colonies provide analogous models to neural networks. Absent any evidence of any kind for alternative explanations, emergence therefore provides the working hypothesis for consciousness.
I think the argument is between mixing two views of life/consciousness/intelligence.
On the one hand is the apparent materialist view that everything derives from Einsteinian matter energy systems because those are forms which can be observed objectively and analysed and any complexity emerges from their interaction. Everything seems to be mechanical, either a system adapts or doesn't adapt. There appears to be no room for freedom of choice (intelligence), life or consciousness as they cannot be observed in their own right but only as life forms (ants) and conscious forms (animals). There is something called swarm logic which loosely drives the particular into the (Borg) collective and everything ticks on until the clock stops and the integrated forms disintegrate. Those life forms of suitable complexity seem happy to accept a working hypothesis of a truth derived from information of increasing complexity.
The other view is the immaterial view that there is life which you can experience more abundantly, consciousness that does not have to be bounded by the material and can be free from the various forms of swarm logic, and an intelligence which can be used to achieve this. There is no material evidence for this view just anecdotal and experiential available to the individual who chooses a particular suitable inward method/path/way which he initially has to take on faith, and hope that the path leads to an ultimate truth beyond understanding and hypotheses. The path tends to be towards increasing simplicity.
-
And, of course, your assertion of free will is begging the question
Free will is not an assertion, just a description of my ability (and yours) to make a conscious choice. You may choose to be convinced that your free will is an illusion, but this will just be a further demonstration that you have the ability to make this choice.
-
Free will is not an assertion, just a description of my ability (and yours) to make a conscious choice. You may choose to be convinced that your free will is an illusion, but this will just be a further demonstration that you have the ability to make this choice.
I am not convinced about anything on this. I am jyst waiting for your evidence. So far you as e just saying that you think it's true because it feels true to you. I note also that you have just ignored the other logical fallacy issues that were pointed out. Does this mean that you accept that your argument was fallacious?
-
Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake. It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles. And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.
Your repeated use of fallacies is so evident that 'not even wrong' would be a better critique of your post(s).
-
You seem unable to grasp the concept of the soul being able to wilfully generate an event which is not deterministically controlled by a chain of physical events. If an event is driven by the spiritual power of the soul it is certainly not random, but driven by the power of conscious free will. The fact that we may find no physical cause for the event does not necessarily make it random - just that the cause can't be detected by physical means. It is the reason why conscious awareness and free will are inextricably linked, because if we have no free will, there is no need for conscious awareness because it just becomes an ineffective spectator upon the deterministically controlled events it sees.
Just are just hung up on physical/non-physical whereas I was making the point that your problem is essentially a conceptual one. A choice is made for a reason and is therefore an outcome of that preceding reason; part of cause an effect. Just claiming that the chooser is immaterial does not buy you free will in the most fundamental sense. If a choice is made for a reason then it is not free of that reason. If a choice is not made for any reason, then it is random.
-
AB,
Because my awareness and conscious free will are the reality of my existence, and I can't accept that attributing these to my soul is a mistake.
Do you think that your inability to accept something is related in some way to whether or not it’s true?
It would be far more illogical to attribute these to the unguided events defined by the reactive activity of sub atomic particles.
Why? What’s illogical about our sense of self feeling as if it’s experiencing “free” will and the reality that that sense does not reflect accurately what’s really happening?
And just labelling this post as a logical fallacy does not make it untrue.
No-one “just labels” arguments as logically false – either they are logically false or they’re not. In your post for example your inability to accept something as true is called the argument from personal incredulity – a basic error in standard logic.
Now if you don’t care about your arguments being logically wrong that’s a matter for you. My question though was about why you don’t care. If you want people to take you seriously then why exit yourself immediately from the possibility of that by deploying broken arguments to validate your opinions?
-
I can't provide physical evidence for the soul because the soul is not a physical thing.
How does a non-physical thing interact with physical things ?
The evidence that my soul exists is provided by my self awareness and free will, because this is what the soul does.
Free will is disputed, and self-awareness is not ubiquitous; a two year old human for instance is not self-aware, so by your assertion he does not have a soul.
-
How does a non-physical thing interact with physical things ?
Free will is disputed, and self-awareness is not ubiquitous; a two year old human for instance is not self-aware, so by your assertion he does not have a soul.
whereas it would appear that adult elephants are self aware but Alan says they don't have souls.
-
#701
It appears to me then that the approach taken is this:
The truth is X. Having X creates an infinite regression. Therefore something other than X must be found.
Which means therefore that whatever else is found, it will be wrong. Sriram’s #536 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg650505#msg650505) illustrates why.
In my opinion, there is at least one possible solution to any potential infinite regression. Jack Knave has suggested one; see his #678 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12985.msg650891#msg650891):
Which doesn’t say anything about what the something may be. The truth (or otherwise) of what he said is not affected by knowing something / not knowing anything about what the something is.
Here are a couple of suggestions of eternal things - energy, and logic, in the sense that logic is atemporal. Is there a case for asserting something highly complex as being eternal ? Something complex would have simpler derivation, hence not a good candidate for being eternal. If you want something eternal to avoid infinite regression, then I think it has to be irreducible, fundamental and simple, like logic or energy.
-
ekim,
I think the argument is between mixing two views of life/consciousness/intelligence.
On the one hand is the apparent materialist view that everything derives from Einsteinian matter energy systems because those are forms which can be observed objectively and analysed and any complexity emerges from their interaction.
That’s expressed in terms that are too absolute. It’s not necessarily that “everything derives from” etc, but rather that the materialist model is the only one we know of that’s investigable and verifiable such that we can distinguish the claims of the probabilistically true from white noise.
Everything seems to be mechanical, either a system adapts or doesn't adapt. There appears to be no room for freedom of choice (intelligence), life or consciousness as they cannot be observed in their own right but only as life forms (ants) and conscious forms (animals). There is something called swarm logic which loosely drives the particular into the (Borg) collective and everything ticks on until the clock stops and the integrated forms disintegrate. Those life forms of suitable complexity seem happy to accept a working hypothesis of a truth derived from information of increasing complexity.
Sort of – there’s plenty of room for the working appearance of freedom of choice (which is why societies send people to jail for making bad choices). There’s plenty of room too for consciousness, but the materialist just looks for cogent explanations for it based on natural phenomena because terms like “soul” etc provide only epistemic white noise as an alternative.
The other view is the immaterial view that there is life which you can experience more abundantly, consciousness that does not have to be bounded by the material and can be free from the various forms of swarm logic, and an intelligence which can be used to achieve this. There is no material evidence for this view…
This reminds me of the episode of Brass Eye when some dupe was persuaded to say: “Paedophiles share more DNA with crabs than they do with normal people. There’s no actual evidence for this, but it’s true anyway”.
…just anecdotal and experiential available to the individual who chooses a particular suitable inward method/path/way which he initially has to take on faith, and hope that the path leads to an ultimate truth beyond understanding and hypotheses. The path tends to be towards increasing simplicity.
But it’s not “the “ path at all. Absent a method of any kind to distinguish the truth value of any such claim from that of any other, the “anecdotal and experiential” will produce as many outcomes as there people to have them.
Which if fine in some ways for subjective truths personal to the people who have them, but provides nothing whatever of value for establishing “true for you too” truths.
-
AB,
Thank you. You've now given me my example too for the entry on circular reasoning.
Just out of interest, does it not trouble you at all that the only arguments you attempt here are logically false? If I were in your shoes, I really think that - once a logical error I'd made had been pointed out to me - I'd think something like, "Oh yes, I can see that now. Perhaps I should amend or abandon that argument then and instead try to find once that's not demonstrably wrong".
You on the other hand just keep repeating the same mistakes. Why?
you can keep telling a child not to put his hand in the fire . At some point the kid will , he'll never do it again, unless he is incapable of learning. If he keeps doing it he will loose his hand .
AB lost his hand a long time ago.
The only way he can justify his stupidity is to continue with it as if to give it value.
Neither you nor I can ever change his mind. Its like a hypnotised person on a stage show who is convinced a lemon is a sweet orange. The difference is no one can snap them out of it ,
-
I am not convinced about anything on this. I am jyst waiting for your evidence. So far you as e just saying that you think it's true because it feels true to you. I note also that you have just ignored the other logical fallacy issues that were pointed out. Does this mean that you accept that your argument was fallacious?
I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul. What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science. You may class this as a negative proof fallacy, but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words. I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.
-
#745
Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.
Can you expand on what you mean by this? My understanding would be that if something is eternal (without a beginning), it has no cause, therefore where is the regression?
-
AB,
I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul. What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science.
Not that you care, but that’s another fallacy – call reification. You just assume “the spiritual capabilities of the human soul” and then base an argument on the assumption. Another explanation though is that you can’t substantiate it because it’s not true.
You may class this as a negative proof fallacy…
No, it’s called the fallacy of reification.
…but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words. I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.
But why? You’ve been told here many times that people don’t exclude the possibility of anything – that’s a straw man (another fallacy by the way). You can posit “soul” or, if they take your fancy instead, leprechauns too as much as you like. No-one can say that any of these conjectures are necessarily not true – but that helps you not a jot toward establishing that they are more likely to be true than not.
-
#745
Can you expand on what you mean by this? My understanding would be that if something is eternal (without a beginning), it has no cause, therefore where is the regression?
Because it's an infinite regression in terms of time. It's no different from a succession of cause and effects.
-
I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul. What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science. You may class this as a negative proof fallacy, but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words. I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.
but you cited your arguments, which were based on logical fallacies, as evidence earlier on. Do you now accept that they are not evidence and ate logically fallacious?
Many things are possible, you need to make a case stronger than that, as since bluehillside has covered, something being possible is no more valuable than a guess
-
I accept that my arguments can't be substantiated by physical evidence or material science, because such evidence can never be used to explain the spiritual capabilities of the human soul. What the soul does in terms of perception and exerting conscious choices is not explained or defined by material science. You may class this as a negative proof fallacy, but I am not putting my arguments forward as proof, because I admit I can't prove the soul's existence with mere words. I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.
I'm as open as they come AB but my intellectual self respect prevents nonsense from entering. If you are happy for that to happen , good luck to you ,. As long as you keep it to yourself eh ?
-
Because it's an infinite regression in terms of time. It's no different from a succession of cause and effects.
But Time is a product of our space-time. There is nothing called Time independent of our universe. How do you know that Time even exists for an eternal being?
-
But Time is a product of our space-time. There is nothing called Time independent of our universe. How do you know that Time even exists for an eternal being?
We don't but since we are then just talking about something that makes no linguistic sense we should admit that. 'Being' and "existence' are temporally expressed concepts. Remove time from the concepts and they become verbal mush. Remember here, I haven't put forward any idea of an eternal being so asking me what it might be like is a trifle odd.
-
We don't but since we are then just talking about something that makes no linguistic sense we should admit that. 'Being' and "existence' are temporally expressed concepts. Remove time from the concepts and they become verbal mush. Remember here, I haven't put forward any idea of an eternal being so asking me what it might be like is a trifle odd.
NS
I really have a problem controlling my responses to posts on this forum . Especially to this one.
-
NS
I really have a problem controlling my responses to posts on this forum . Especially to this one.
Have a nice cup of lapsang souchong, a digestive biscuit and a quick wank, and then see if you are better placed to reply.
-
but you cited your arguments, which were based on logical fallacies, as evidence earlier on. Do you now accept that they are not evidence and ate logically fallacious?
Many things are possible, you need to make a case stronger than that, as since bluehillside has covered, something being possible is no more valuable than a guess
I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth. You can label them as logical fallacies, but I stand by them as indicators to the truth. They are certainly not guesses.
-
I am just trying to open up people to admit to the possibility of the soul.
Are you open to the possibility that there are no such things as souls?
-
AB,
I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth.
How can fallacious arguments be indicators to the truth?
You can label them as logical fallacies…
It’s not a matter of “labelling" them as logical fallacies – they are logical fallacies.
…but I stand by them as indicators to the truth.
Why, as they are manifestly and demonstrably wrong arguments?
They are certainly not guesses.
Do you have any arguments that are not logically wrong to distinguish your assertions from guesses?
-
I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth. You can label them as logical fallacies, but I stand by them as indicators to the truth. They are certainly not guesses.
what is an 'indicator to truth' and why would it be anything related to truth if they are based on logicalky fallacious arguments. BTW do you now accept that they are not evidence?
And I know that you don't think they are guesses but the question is why anyone else should think it is anything better than a guess, and simply using logical fallacies does nothing for your case.
-
I cite my arguments as indicators to the truth. You can label them as logical fallacies, but I stand by them as indicators to the truth. They are certainly not guesses.
All they 'indicate' are a succession of logical fallacies: in other words, your 'arguments' are without merit.
-
Just are just hung up on physical/non-physical whereas I was making the point that your problem is essentially a conceptual one. A choice is made for a reason and is therefore an outcome of that preceding reason; part of cause an effect. Just claiming that the chooser is immaterial does not buy you free will in the most fundamental sense. If a choice is made for a reason then it is not free of that reason. If a choice is not made for any reason, then it is random.
All I am saying is that the reason behind a free will choice is not restricted to the end results of physical chains of cause and effect which began with the big bang. The will derived from the human soul frees us from the shackles of deterministic events. Humans are not just driven by animal instincts or learnt experience - we are free to do things because we want to do them.
-
All I am saying is that the reason behind a free will choice is not restricted to the end results of physical chains of cause and effect which began with the big bang. The will derived from the human soul frees us from the shackles of deterministic events. Humans are not just driven by animal instincts or learnt experience - we are free to do things because we want to do them.
But why would we want to do things if there is no cause of wanting?
-
... Humans are not just driven by animal instincts or learnt experience - we are free to do things because we want to do them.
and that is my point - there is a want and a because involved - this shows that there is a reason; 'wants' do not appear out of nowhere - wants emerge through the chain of cause and effect. Why did I want a hamburger - because I was hungry.
-
There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).
But the data at best is correlative not causal, and the problem with you lot is that you are taking that leap of faith for no other reason than your confirmation bias; a preordained conclusion.
-
#635
Sorry about that ...
Sriram's point was this: If robots were able to discuss who their creator was, then if they used similar arguments that are usually applied against the idea of a designer for life, they could never conclude the truth, namely that they were created by human beings.
If humans, or any other biological organism, ceased to exist how would they have the language and concepts to even discuss where they came from? It would all be by faith.
-
Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, does it?
That's the kind of phrase the theists use to get out of difficult corners - well done!!! ;D
-
But the data at best is correlative not causal, and the problem with you lot is that you are taking that leap of faith for no other reason than your confirmation bias; a preordained conclusion.
No idea where you get that from. None of us here are working in the field as far as I know, we merely report on where the science is headed, and this is what scientists do, they follow the evidence. We all know correlation is not causation but a correlation suggests a way forward; neural correlates could be all a massive coincidence of course, but scientists don't believe in coincidences - experience shows that apparent coincidences usually indicate a possible underlying causal mechanism to be investigated.
-
Which bit was unfounded? Brains have been dissected. They really are giant networks of brain cells. Given that, and the observation that consciousness is real (although it's nature is disputed), how can it have done anything other than emerge from the structure and dynamics of the brain?
Correlation is not necessarily causation....
-
I don't know where you get 'unfounded' etc from. We are simply following the evidence, and even before we had neuroscience we had plenty of indicators from the medical profession that the brain is the organ of thought and conscious experience. Were you under the impression that anaesthetists were practising some sort of voodoo all this time ?
We are now trying to fill in the detail is all.
What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.
-
That's the kind of phrase the theists use to get out of difficult corners - well done!!! ;D
Thank you, it's called playing them at their own game. ;)
-
What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.
Do you have one?
Just to make sense of what you are saying.
-
What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.
Do anaesthetists refuse to put patients to sleep because they don't have a full definition of consciousness ? We may not know all the detail but we know enough to be getting on with the job of investigating it.
-
JK,
But the data at best is correlative not causal, and the problem with you lot is that you are taking that leap of faith for no other reason than your confirmation bias; a preordained conclusion.
Leaving aside who “you lot” might be, you’re off here on two counts.
The first is Hume’s problem of causality, which he put as follows:
“We then call the one object, cause; the other, effect. We suppose that there is some connexion between them; some power in the one, by which it infallibly produces the other, and operates with the greatest certainty and strongest necessity.”
It’s a problem no-one since has resolved – if a cricket ball hits a greenhouse and a window breaks, there’s still no way to eliminate the possibility at least that something else caused it to break.
Second, there is no “leap of faith” here at all. Yes, the data is correlative and how close it is to reasonably being thought to be casual is moot. Fortunately though it’s not an issue we need to consider as the only claim made so far is that emergence provides a cogent working hypothesis, and not that it’s a rounded theory.
It’s also incidentally the only hypothesis in town with a coherent rationale to support it.
-
JK,
What you have posted won't make sense until I get a clear definition of consciousness from you lot.
Absent a “clear definition” of gravity, should we assume that you’re floating around in front of your keyboard?
If there is a definitional problem here, then it’s yours. Consciousness happens in nature, so the assumption is that it plays by the rules of nature. You don’t like this, presumably because you think there’s something special about it that puts it outside those rules. Isn’t it for you then to tell us how you define it such that this exceptionalism becomes reasonable?
-
To say that neuroscience research is based on a leap of faith is absurd. There is also the issue of pathology - if someone thinks that dementia, for example, is not connected with brain pathology, they should contact their local hospital fast and correct them.
-
ekim,
But it’s not “the “ path at all. Absent a method of any kind to distinguish the truth value of any such claim from that of any other, the “anecdotal and experiential” will produce as many outcomes as there people to have them.
Which if fine in some ways for subjective truths personal to the people who have them, but provides nothing whatever of value for establishing “true for you too” truths.
The 'path' or method tends to revolve around a variety of meditation techniques and for the individual, some may achieve results in the sense of an inner experience e.g. peace, bliss, joy, love, etc. As it is a personal inner experience it is often preceded by the words such as 'indescribable','absolutely', 'stunning', 'overwhelming' and the language used to convey a sense of that experience to others is one of mythos using analogy, metaphor, simile etc. I think you are right in that there is no way of validating such an experience as 'true for you too'. Even if two people had identical inner experiences, I doubt whether they would have the language or conceptual models capable of confirming this. This is probably why some 'mystics' who imply that they have had such a first experience remain silent about describing words such as Heaven, God, Tao. It is often those with just second hand information that rabbit on about it.
-
ekim,
The 'path' or method tends to revolve around a variety of meditation techniques and for the individual, some may achieve results in the sense of an inner experience e.g. peace, bliss, joy, love, etc. As it is a personal inner experience it is often preceded by the words such as 'indescribable','absolutely', 'stunning', 'overwhelming' and the language used to convey a sense of that experience to others is one of mythos using analogy, metaphor, simile etc. I think you are right in that there is no way of validating such an experience as 'true for you too'. Even if two people had identical inner experiences, I doubt whether they would have the language or conceptual models capable of confirming this. This is probably why some 'mystics' who imply that they have had such a first experience remain silent about describing words such as Heaven, God, Tao. It is often those with just second hand information that rabbit on about it.
Quite – and the problem comes not only when they overreach into “true for you too” territory for the experience but also when they attempt to attribute a divine cause for their experiences (“God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, whoever) which also a "true for you too" claim – “my god must be your god too” etc.
-
ekim,
Quite – and the problem comes not only when they overreach into “true for you too” territory for the experience but also when they attempt to attribute a divine cause for their experiences (“God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, whoever) which also a "true for you too" claim – “my god must be your god too” etc.
Either naturalism is true for everyone or it isn't. You seem to be special pleading that theistic ''true for you'' is somehow bad but naturalistic ''true for you'' isn't.
The case for monotheism is put by Aquinus. God has an actual state and everything else has a derived one. How do you justify that there could be more than one of what he describes (gods as you call them) and how two things could both be omnipotent?
-
How can fallacious arguments be indicators to the truth?
I do not accept that they are fallacious arguments.
I have presented these arguments at several conferences and meetings, in addition to publishing them as a major article in Mensa magazine (from which I had a large number of replies in subsequent editions) and at no time did I get accused of fallacy. It is only on this forum where the accusation of fallacy has been made.
-
AB,
I do not accept that they are fallacious arguments.
That’s not your choice to make. If they follow the structure of logical fallacies – and they do – then they’re logical fallacies.
I have presented these arguments at several conferences and meetings, in addition to writing them as a major article in Mensa magazine (from which I had a large number of replies in subsequent editions) and at no time did I get accused of fallacy. It is only on this forum where the accusation of fallacy has been made.
Then either you presented different arguments, or your audience didn’t understand the nature of logical fallacy (or perhaps were too polite to tell you where you’d gone wrong).
-
I do not accept that they are fallacious arguments.
I have presented these arguments at several conferences and meetings, in addition to publishing them as a major article in Mensa magazine (from which I had a large number of replies in subsequent editions) and at no time did I get accused of fallacy. It is only on this forum where the accusation of fallacy has been made.
So an argument by 'sort of' authority, and an ad populum rather than dealing with the real issues with your arguments. Fallacy bingo has rarely been so easy.
-
Spoof,
Either naturalism is true for everyone or it isn't.
It is. If anyone jumps out of a window they’ll hit the deck shortly afterwards regardless of their opinions on the matter.
You seem to be special pleading that theistic ''true for you'' is somehow bad but naturalistic ''true for you'' isn't.
Nope – see above. If you think I’m special pleading, try the experiment.
The case for monotheism is put by Aquinus. God has an actual state and everything else has a derived one. How do you justify that there could be more than one of what he describes (gods as you call them)…
It’s Aquinas, and I don’t need to justify it – he was just making an assertion.
… and how two things could both be omnipotent.
How could one thing be omnipotent?
-
Either naturalism is true for everyone or it isn't. You seem to be special pleading that theistic ''true for you'' is somehow bad but naturalistic ''true for you'' isn't.
...
Naturalism is true for everyone involved, theism isn't. This is because "naturalism" is about things defined in a way that allows us to talk about and agree with each other about their characteristics, and are able to check them. These things and characteristics can be considered to be "objective".
Theism is about things we can't agree on. We usually can't even agree whether we are talking about the same things or not - this is because our only experience of them is personal, so very difficult to share, let alone identify and discuss what lies behind them. Even if we agree some conclusions, we have no means of checking them.
-
Naturalism is true for everyone involved, theism isn't. This is because "naturalism" is about things defined in a way that allows us to talk about and agree with each other about their characteristics, and are able to check them. These things and characteristics can be considered to be "objective".
Theism is about things we can't agree on. We usually can't even agree whether we are talking about the same things or not - this is because our only experience of them is personal, so very difficult to share, let alone identify and discuss what lies behind them. Even if we agree some conclusions, we have no means of checking them.
The naturalism you are talking about is methodological naturalism. The naturalism I am referring to is philosophical naturalism. Only that type of naturalism can be a counterpart and counterpoint of theism.
You can be a methodological materialist and a theist.
-
Spoof,
It is. If anyone jumps out of a window they’ll hit the deck shortly afterwards regardless of their opinions on the matter.
Nope – see above. If you think I’m special pleading, try the experiment.
It’s Aquinas, and I don’t need to justify it – he was just making an assertion.
How could one thing be omnipotent?
Everything has derived power therefore is not all powerful. But where is that power derived from. The obvious answer is something which has actual power from which the power everything else has is derived.
-
The naturalism you are talking about is methodological naturalism. The naturalism I am referring to is philosophical naturalism. Only that type of naturalism can be a counterpart and counterpoint of theism.
You can be a methodological materialist and a theist.
I agree you can be both, methodological materialist and a theist, but you can't expect everyone to agree with your theistic understanding or even know if they really do agree or not. "Philosophical naturalists" are up the same tree imo.
-
Spoof,
The naturalism you are talking about is methodological naturalism. The naturalism I am referring to is philosophical naturalism.
No it isn’t, and you’ve been found out about re-defining terms just to suit your argument many times now. It’s actual meaning – that the natural is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable – is widely held to be true. Your personal version – that the natural is necessarily all there is – is so far as I can tell used by no-one, so it’s just one of your countless straw men arguments.
-
Spoof,
Everything has derived power therefore is not all powerful. But where is that power derived from.
Which way will you go here I wonder – argument from personal incredulity, or god of the gaps?
The obvious answer is something which has actual power from which the power everything else has is derived.
And god of the gaps it is then. Having done your special pleading for “God”, why not just do the same for, say, the Big Bang?
-
It’s Aquinas, and I don’t need to justify it – he was just making an assertion.
He was making an argument from far more logic than the one you are committed to..............What's logical about ''we don't know but we know it isn't God'' which is a contradiction in terms.
-
Spoof,
Which way will you go here I wonder – argument from personal incredulity, or god of the gaps?
And god of the gaps it is then. Having done your special pleading for “God”, why not just do the same for, say, the Big Bang?
Because the big bang is past. Aquinas is talking about what sustains the universe not what starts it. His argument works just as well with a universe that is infinite.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ
-
Spoof,
No it isn’t, and you’ve been found out about re-defining terms just to suit your argument many times now. It’s actual meaning – that the natural is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable – is widely held to be true. Your personal version – that the natural is necessarily all there is – is so far as I can tell used by no-one, so it’s just one of your countless straw men arguments.
No Hillside I frequently refer to encyclopedic definition. You don't.
Readers are invited here and now to look up the definitions of emergence and philosophical naturalism and see that your use diverges from convention.
You frequently insult the intelligence of your readers by your playfully flagrant linguistic confusion....and the numpties frequently drink it in.
-
Have a nice cup of lapsang souchong, a digestive biscuit and a quick wank, and then see if you are better placed to reply.
your advice was very soothing, however I have no idea what 'lapsang souchong' is . thank you.
-
And god of the gaps it is then. Having done your special pleading for “God”, why not just do the same for, say, the Big Bang?
If one isn't allowed an actual power from which all other powers are derived power then I'm afraid you are proposing that everything has derived power. That is the equivalent of saying everything is contingent and that isn't logical.
The problem for the big bang is that it itself represents change...from nothing into something and is thus itself a good candidate for something with derived power.
-
If one isn't allowed an actual power from which all other powers are derived power then I'm afraid you are proposing that everything has derived power. That is the equivalent of saying everything is contingent and that isn't logical.
The problem for the big bang is that it itself represents change...from nothing into something and is thus itself a good candidate for something with derived power.
false dichotomy, and switching the burden of proof, on the basis of a stawman.
-
false dichotomy, and switching the burden of proof, on the basis of a stawman.
Explain each accusation.
-
If you are talking about derived power, that presupposes that it is derived from something else, presumably, a power which is not derived. However, you can't just launch into such a framework, without introducing it, and explaining it. Thus, Aquinas argues that intellectual power in humans is derived from God's intellect or mind.
So the notion of derived power already contains the idea of primary power. Isn't this assuming the conclusion that one wants?
Same with the idea of contingency; of course, this is part of an ancient argument for God, that all things are contingent, and there must be something non-contingent. But hang on, this is another circular argument. Contingency is defined as depending on something else. Smell a rat?
-
If you are talking about derived power, that presupposes that it is derived from something else, presumably, a power which is not derived. However, you can't just launch into such a framework, without introducing it, and explaining it. Thus, Aquinas argues that intellectual power in humans is derived from God's intellect or mind.
So the notion of derived power already contains the idea of primary power. Isn't this assuming the conclusion that one wants?
Same with the idea of contingency; of course, this is part of an ancient argument for God, that all things are contingent, and there must be something non-contingent. But hang on, this is another circular argument. Contingency is defined as depending on something else. Smell a rat?
But if we start with ourselves we are contingent in all respects are we not? and those respects are contingent in all respects. The moment you wish to do away with that contingency you introduce the necessary.
But again all things cannot be contingent since that makes the word contingency void and I imagine everything in that case is therefore necessary.....and yet what we observe is contingency.
Bringing up the ancient nature of this is a red herring and non sequitur.
I bring up derived power therefore because that is how we find ourselves. If it is not derived then we are not derived from anything nor sustained by anything and are a primary power. Do you really want to claim that for the sake of an accusation that I am loading things against your argument?
-
Dear Vlad,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ
Cheers mate, I never could get my head around this cosmological argument thingy ( actually when ever it was mentioned on here I kind of glazed over, I preferred the old Fine tuning argument ) but I found Prof Feser's lecture very interesting, I also like the way the man came across, his K.I.S.S attitude was very refreshing.
Gonnagle.
-
#811
Spoof,
No it isn’t, and you’ve been found out about re-defining terms just to suit your argument many times now. It’s actual meaning – that the natural is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable – is widely held to be true. Your personal version – that the natural is necessarily all there is – is so far as I can tell used by no-one, so it’s just one of your countless straw men arguments.
No Hillside I frequently refer to encyclopedic definition. You don't.
Readers are invited here and now to look up the definitions of emergence and philosophical naturalism and see that your use diverges from convention.
I took up Emergence-The musical's challenge regarding the definition of philosophical naturalism. From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.
-
Spoof,
No Hillside I frequently refer to encyclopedic definition. You don't.
Really. Let's see shall we?
Readers are invited here and now to look up the definitions of emergence and philosophical naturalism and see that your use diverges from convention.
No need - here they are (all from Wiki):
Naturalism: "Naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm."
Note there the, "without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth". What you actually mean when you abuse this term I think is physicalism, a different matter and one that no-one I know of subscribes to.
Emergence: "In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.
Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things."
Note here the, "such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit" and the "the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry".
Scientism: "Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."
Note here the, “the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning” and the “a matter of putting too high a value on natural science” – it’s not "only worldview" or "only value", so it's not the absolutist position you think it to be.
You frequently insult the intelligence of your readers by your playfully flagrant linguistic confusion....and the numpties frequently drink it in.
Er no - see above. Your problem here isn't just that you get these things wrong, but rather that you keep getting them wrong no matter how many times you're corrected. My sense is that you're so heavily invested in one argument - "how can philosophical materialism be validated?" or some such - that you find it impossible to grasp that it sits on basic definitional mistakes. Moreover, it's actually worse than that - even if you could find some definitions that support you (and there can be ambiguities in meaning sometimes if you look hard enough) you're addressing your posts to people here (me in particular) who don't hold to those positions in any case.
So when I say things like, “no, what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing” why then do you relentlessly respond with a critique of your private version of materialism I’ve explicitly told you I don’t hold to?
Can you see now why some of us here find you to be so deeply dishonest?
-
For some reason, this post puts me in mind of old creationist arguments that life contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Clearly the growth of complexity in this cosmos is not a simple straightforward linear curve, there are many variations along that path, for instance we have something complex (termites) building something less complex (termite castles). So far so good. But because there are instances of high complexity creating lower order complexity, we cannot from that extrapolate a complete invalidation of the underlying principle that generally and ultimately, higher order complexity derives from lower order complexity. Termites and termite mounds are but an instance of one variation creating a lower order variation but ultimately both termites and their mounds obey the underlying principle of emergence.
And to hop on over to Sriram's robot analogy, yes the robots could have been made by a superior biological species, and yes, they wouldn't have known that; and yes the higher order biological species might have been made in turn by a yet higher order of conscious silicon synths that the biologicals were unaware of. But the take home lesson from this, is that this cannot go on forever, we cannot go on climbing an upwards complexity ladder to explain things that we find hard to understand because as an explanatory strategy it is doomed to fail. At some point, we just need to look down at where we have come from to understand things.
That's an interesting philosophical musing or perspective.
I did have the thought a few days ago that God could be the product of an emergent process from a base element which would be eternal in nature; and the material world would similarly be from such but a different base element. They then would evolve together each needing the other for this process of emergence to develop in each of each others spheres.
-
Interesting stuff. I don't understand why the apparent 'single-mindedness' of mental life is suppose to be such a defeater for neuroscience research. As you say, it is likely that different currents of data processing have to be coordinated in the brain, in order to avoid a chaotic representation. We can see this with multi-tasking, and that's ignoring unconscious and preconscious stuff going on. In fact, in psychotherapy, you get used to seeing individuals as crowds, but that's rather a different angle. But again, I don't see why this is not amenable to neural processing.
If you have a large multifunctional system and there is no single decision centre, a CEO if you like, then chaos will rein (look at the mess of the EU). That would not be advantageous for survival i.e. for natural selection. Something/someone has to be the final arbiter who says that is what we will do. In a company the CEO is often one of the last people to see all the plans and ideas that the various departments have come up with to facilitate the company's survival and growth. This is similar to our consciousness that gets to ponder on the various choices that are available.
-
I wonder why you are so defensive of neuroscience. Does it need it? How do you know that it is not imputed claims which go beyond what science is capable of that neuroscience needs defending from?
At the moment the angle you and your ilk seem to have is that neuroscience is there to prove that intelligence or processing capability equals consciousness.
I think neuroscience like multiverse is prone to having it's terms bent on a new atheist agenda although, having said that Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, has apparently acknowledged that there just might be some things we will not get.
By all means investigate all avenues but do so in the name of science rather than Dennetian philosophy.
I just wonder whether their ideas are falsifiable. How would they go about testing that their results are not just correlative and not as they claim causative if consciousness.
-
JK,
If you have a large multifunctional system and there is no single decision centre, a CEO if you like, then chaos will rein (look at the mess of the EU). That would not be advantageous for survival i.e. for natural selection. Something/someone has to be the final arbiter who says that is what we will do. In a company the CEO is often one of the last people to see all the plans and ideas that the various departments have come up with to facilitate the company's survival and growth. This is similar to our consciousness that gets to ponder on the various choices that are available.
No. The human body is “a large multifunctional system” but the countless cells within it are entirely oblivious to the existence of almost all the other cells, yet functioning bodies we have nonetheless. The whole point of emergence as a phenomenon is there is no “CEO”, no designer, no top down anything.
-
JK,
Not really, no. Here’s Steven Johnson on what it actually means with reference to cities:
"[Cities] are patterns of human movement and decision-making that have been etched into the texture of city blocks, patterns that are then fed back to the residents themselves, altering their subsequent decisions. ... A city is a kind of pattern-amplifying machine: its neighbourhoods are a way of measuring and expressing the repeated behavior of larger collectives — capturing information about group behavior, and sharing that information with the group. Because those patterns are fed back to the community, small shifts in behavior can quickly escalate into larger movements: upscale shops dominate the main boulevards, while the working class remains clustered invisibly in the alleys and side streets; the artists live on the Left Bank, the investment bankers in the Eighth Arrondissement. You don't need regulations and city planners deliberately creating these structures. All you need are thousands of individuals and a few simple rules of interaction." (Emergence, pp. 40-41)
The fact of artists’ quarters and banking districts isn’t an “inherent potentiality” in people that’s been “activated” – rather it’s a new pattern and level of complexity that has emerged from the behaviours of citizens who didn’t start out to create these phenomena at all.
Read the book!
How does that contradict what I said. This Johnson guys is just too stupid to see the energy being put in by the ideas of the individuals. If they don't have the ideas in the first place nothing gets built. Some cultures in the past have just got stuck and not developed and so just reiterated that they have done for centuries. Others have grown in their technical know how. Homo Erectus effectively only knapped flint for 2 million years. We have what we have in say 20,000 years. A threshold and 'energy' has to go into the system to produce something and that system has to have the potential in the first place because ex nihilo. The book sounds like kindergarten stuff.
Why is that a “re-“definition, other than that it happens to conflict with your personal opinion on the matter?
As oppose your personal opinion. It is only relative - your word against mine. So what you are saying is that you think you're a robot. A robot that thinks but by definition robots don't think. I think you have a problem - I wonder if you can't think that one through? ;D
-
Vlad,
That's a non sequitur. The evidence points to consciousness as an adaptive emergent system, so that's the working hypothesis. We know that "machine like computers" can already exhibit adaptive emergent properties - Amazon's recommendations software for example does that.
These two position are congruent, not contradictory.
But that is not a definition just an attribute of consciousness. Saying someone is a footballer says nothing about what it means to be human. We are still awaiting a definition from you lot.
-
Spoof,
Really. Let's see shall we?
No need - here they are (all from Wiki):
...
So when I say things like, “no, what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing” why then do you relentlessly respond with a critique of your private version of materialism I’ve explicitly told you I don’t hold to?
The clue is in that last paragraph bluehillside...your use of the word 'guess'
Wikipedia says this about guessing
A guess (or an act of guessing) is a swift conclusion drawn from data directly at hand, and held as probable or tentative, while the person making the guess (the guesser) admittedly lacks material for a greater degree of certainty.
and
Guessing may combine elements of deduction, induction, abduction, and the purely random selection of one choice from a set of options
I wonder how many of the Christians who post here regularly feel that their conclusions, arrived at by induction are taken seriously.
Furthermore, what you said makes a mockery of the oft-repeated claim that it is those of religious belief who are wanting certainty. It is clear from your post that you take the approach you do precisely because it guarantees the kind of certainty you require.
Going back to your #604 on this thread, you said this about an adaptive system:
No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.
Your conclusion based on the strong evidence is arrived at via induction, yet the examples you cite are deductions because gravity is not in doubt and neither is the existence and functionality of germs. Someone will no doubt have a name for what it is when one assumes the conclusion without proof, and uses it to make deductions.
Also from your #604
Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.
So your conclusion arrived at via an inductive process has suddenly become fact, on which to make deductions?
Can you now see why it is easy for others to see your claim what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing is at best inconsistent, at worst not true?
-
It's tempting to think of vision being a matter of image projection which can be 'seen' by an internal viewer; the problem with that being that is recursive. An internal see-er that 'sees' the internal image would require it's own internal see-er. It is intuitive to conceptualise it that way but it must be wrong.
When a penguin looks for its partner on the beach, is there an internal single entity of perception viewing its internal image in the brain ?
But then what sees the outside world? in the sense of being aware of it ; self conscious, in an act of perception. Just in this simple set up of looking at the physical world needs a see-er. What you say would be true of just things reacting to each other in the way billiard balls react with each other with no awareness of what is actually going on, so avoiding your endless recurrence of a see-er needing a see-er.....
-
JK,
How does that contradict what I said. This Johnson guys is just too stupid to see the energy being put in by the ideas of the individuals. If they don't have the ideas in the first place nothing gets built. Some cultures in the past have just got stuck and not developed and so just reiterated that they have done for centuries. Others have grown in their technical know how. Homo Erectus effectively only knapped flint for 2 million years. We have what we have in say 20,000 years. A threshold and 'energy' has to go into the system to produce something and that system has to have the potential in the first place because ex nihilo. The book sounds like kindergarten stuff.
You fundamentally misunderstand what emergence entails, and you underestimate Johnson’s intelligence too. This isn’t about whether something or nothing gets built, but rather it’s about the pattern of the businesses that emerge. Types of business tend to cluster, and they can do so in quite subtle ways without a city planner making it so. Where demand for the goods or services is high (eg Chinese restaurants in a populous city), the clustering is close because the benefit of attracting customers to the area outweighs the disbenefit of proximate competition. Over time, other business too – like specialist food suppliers or transport links – will tend to build around the clusters of alike businesses, creating a positive feedback loop for new Chinese restaurants to come in.
Conversely, when demand is low (eg Chinese restaurants in sparsely populated conurbations, or occasional purchase shops like wine merchants) the clustering will be more disparate because a competitor next door would make either or both uneconomic.
Over time these patterns become embedded – the silk merchants of Florence is a good example – not because of the “ideas of the individuals” but because market forces have dictated the patterns that cause some businesses to fail and others to flourish. It’s not somehow inherent in the nature of Chinese restaurants though that, say, bus stops are positioned close to them.
As oppose your personal opinion. It is only relative - your word against mine.
Only if you think storks vs natural childbirth is your word against mine. Consciousness is a complex system that happens in nature. We have robust models for the emergence of complex systems in nature, and we have no reason to think that consciousness should be treated as if it must be subject to other rules and principles. Therefore emergence provides the working hypothesis pending further and better particulars. If you want to argue against that, the onus is on you to make a case for the exceptionalism.
So what you are saying is that you think you're a robot. A robot that thinks but by definition robots don't think. I think you have a problem - I wonder if you can't think that one through?
More than you have it seems. I wouldn’t use the term “robot”, but I see no inherent reason for material systems not to be capable of self-awareness given enough complexity, and for that complexity to have emerged as it does elsewhere in nature with no top down designer being required.
Other than your personal disdain, what argument do you even think you have to rebut this position?
-
SOTS,
The clue is in that last paragraph bluehillside...your use of the word 'guess'
Wikipedia says this about guessing
No, the clue is in my phrase: “…the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing”.
I was describing there my position (nothing to do with definitions in Wiki) rather than Vlad’s straw man version of it.
“A guess (or an act of guessing) is a swift conclusion drawn from data directly at hand, and held as probable or tentative, while the person making the guess (the guesser) admittedly lacks material for a greater degree of certainty.
and
Quote
Guessing may combine elements of deduction, induction, abduction, and the purely random selection of one choice from a set of options
I wonder how many of the Christians who post here regularly feel that their conclusions, arrived at by induction are taken seriously.
No idea – but when they claim certainty about a “true for me too” god on the basis of it they’re sadly lacking in firepower.
Furthermore…
“Furthermore...”? Oh well…
…what you said makes a mockery of the oft-repeated claim that it is those of religious belief who are wanting certainty. It is clear from your post that you take the approach you do precisely because it guarantees the kind of certainty you require.
Completely wrong. If someone wants to assert as a fact for me something he thinks to be true as a matter of personal faith, then the job is all his to build a bridge from possible to probable. I don’t demand certainty at all, but I do demand probable.
Is that so unreasonable?
Going back to your #604 on this thread, you said this about an adaptive system:
Quote
No – it’s deduced using the strong evidence that points in that direction, just as gravity making apples fall and germs causing diseases is deduced for the same basic reason.
Your conclusion based on the strong evidence is arrived at via induction, yet the examples you cite are deductions because gravity is not in doubt and neither is the existence and functionality of germs. Someone will no doubt have a name for what it is when one assumes the conclusion without proof, and uses it to make deductions.
Of course gravity and germs are in doubt to some extent – how do we know that it isn’t invisible pixies pulling the apples down with really small strings for example? Strong evidence is strong evidence – it’s not certainty though, not least because we have no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown explanation.
You’re a long way out of your depth here old son.
Also from your #604
Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.
So your conclusion arrived at via an inductive process has suddenly become fact, on which to make deductions?
You don’t understand the meaning of the word “fact” here. In epistemic terms there can be no strict certainty so even terms like “fact” are conditional – it's the problem of unknown unknowns again.
Can you now see why it is easy for others to see your claim what I actually think is that the material is all we know of that’s readily accessible and investigable using methods that distinguish the findings from just guessing is at best inconsistent, at worst not true?
No, for the good reason that every effort you’ve made to critique is evidently and demonstrably wrong.
By all means try again though if you have some better arguments to deploy.
-
Dear Blue,
No. The human body is “a large multifunctional system”
It certainly is! can the heart think, can the gut think??????
but the countless cells within it are entirely oblivious to the existence of almost all the other cells, yet functioning bodies we have nonetheless.
Are they! And am I about to commit one of those fallacies that are flying around the forum at the moment, it's fallacies all the way down! But can you prove the above quote, the cell in my big toe is not in conversation with the cell in my hair follicles.
Gonnagle.
-
But can you prove the above quote, the cell in my big toe is not in conversation with the cell in my hair follicles.
Do you think that it is?
Can you prove that it is?
-
Dear Seb,
Do you think that it is?
Yes I think the cells in my big toe are communicating with the cells in my hair follicles.
Can you prove that it is?
Yes but I would have to go all Quantum on yer ass.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Seb,
Yes I think the cells in my big toe are communicating with the cells in my hair follicles.
Yes but I would have to go all Quantum on yer ass.
Gonnagle.
On you go then. I can take it!
-
Dear Seb,
It's all to do with waves and particles and the fact that we are gods, if we look at something we change it, okay! Have you got it! Then it explain it to me :o
Gonnagle.
-
If you have a large multifunctional system and there is no single decision centre, a CEO if you like, then chaos will rein (look at the mess of the EU). That would not be advantageous for survival i.e. for natural selection. Something/someone has to be the final arbiter who says that is what we will do. In a company the CEO is often one of the last people to see all the plans and ideas that the various departments have come up with to facilitate the company's survival and growth. This is similar to our consciousness that gets to ponder on the various choices that are available.
We have traditionally organised power structures in a hierarchical manner; it's intuitive that way. But it's not the only way to make decisions, there is such as thing as the wisdom of crowds and this is the central insight that we have gleaned by studying insect models. An ant colony seeking a nest location has no top down authority structure and yet a smart decision emerges out of the interactions of the ants; similarly with bee swarms, it is not a question of the top bee leading the way and the rest just following along. We use these models to study how brains make decisions without having a master neuron as the situation has clear parallels. The idea of a master neuron orchestrating the making of choices is a non-starter - any single neuron is unintelligent, it has no brain of its own with which to direct affairs. The only way to understand this is by learning how intelligence emerges out of the interaction of billions of neurons.
-
bluehillside #830
Nice one!
-
#830
If someone wants to assert as a fact for me something he thinks to be true as a matter of personal faith, then the job is all his to build a bridge from possible to probable. I don’t demand certainty at all, but I do demand probable.
Is that so unreasonable?
No, but it would be nice to see some consistency.
Some of your conclusions on emergence are based on extrapolation. Anyone doings statistics will tell you that extrapolation can be unreliable because behaviour outside the range of observable data cannot be guaranteed. I don't question the examples of emergence that are demonstrable or observable, I question the claim for ones which are not. For those, faith is required. Faith is ok here, but not ok in other circumstances, a bit like your get out for my physics examples with Newton's laws by claiming that the system is non-adaptive.
Of course gravity and germs are in doubt to some extent – how do we know that it isn’t invisible pixies pulling the apples down with really small strings for example? Strong evidence is strong evidence – it’s not certainty though, not least because we have no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown explanation.
The pixies again, lol.
Seriously: If this is your hypothesis, where's your evidence for it and what is the test of falsification?
Look, I can see why you don't like this - removing the need for a top down designer is another nail in the coffin of the ghost in the machine you call "God". You can't though just remain in ignorance of or misrepresent the facts in the hope they'll go away - they really won't.
So your conclusion arrived at via an inductive process has suddenly become fact, on which to make deductions?
You don’t understand the meaning of the word “fact” here. In epistemic terms there can be no strict certainty so even terms like “fact” are conditional – it's the problem of unknown unknowns again.
Which doesn't address my point. You are still using a conclusion (arrived at by an inductive process) to make deductions, whilst calling out those of religious belief who you claim do the same thing!
-
Anyone doings statistics will tell you that extrapolation can be unreliable because behaviour outside the range of observable data cannot be guaranteed.
As someone who used to do statistics (a lot, during my career) I'm curious about how you could know about 'behaviour outside the range of observable' at all if you can't observe or model it, and importantly, get the numeric data you need to do statistics with: where the basis for extrapolation will involve the results. You would at least need demonstrable grounds on which to base a hypothesis and then design an investigation to test this, by collecting and analysing the data (the statistical bit) in order to accept or reject your hypothesis.
So, how is this going as regards divine intervention: got a data model yet, and are we going down the parametric or non-parametric route?
-
It might be a state of awareness, yes, but what is a state of awareness made of if you look inside ? It is about information flow via biochemical reactions at a cellular level. A brain is an outgrowth of a nervous system and the earliest forms of consciousness probably evolved as a service of interoception providing a monitoring of an creature's overall internal state from information procured by the nervous system. Through the Cambrian, vertebrates developed external sensing organs allowing for greater perception of threat and food opportunities and these novel sense streams were incorporated into the base interoception service. That speaks to the base purpose of consciousness - it is awareness of internal state and immediate external environment and all the contents of consciousness are derived from original physical internal and external sensing.
Awareness is not the same as self awareness you need to be clear about what you actually mean and a definition wouldn't come amiss. Self awareness is about an organism being aware of itself as a single agent separate from the rest of the environment it is in.
-
This looks like an example of the fallacy of composition: you seem to be saying that since sub-atomic particles in the brain don't perceive then brains can't perceive. This is similar to saying that since oxygen isn't wet and hydrogen isn't wet then water can't be wet.
Actually, wetness is a qualia and totally dependant on the subject or entity perceiving the H2O.
-
I assume the evidence you are talking about is that derived from human scientific investigation. But within the current scientific knowledge there is no understanding of what defines conscious awareness, or indeed whether it is possible to define it in physical terms. You presume that conscious awareness is somehow generated as an emergent property of physical brain activity, but this presumption can't be validated until you can demonstrate how conscious awareness can be defined in physical terms.
Whatever defines my conscious awareness also defines my ability to consciously decide which keys to type on this keyboard.
They get it to work by down grading the definition of consciousness - which they have refused to provide.
I'm starting to understand their position. They don't like the fact that they are self aware/conscious etc. (something they plainly see in their own lives, one hopes), because it goes against their materialistic ideology, so they fiddle the parameters to fit their particular picture and turn themselves in to automatons.
-
Something that is 'eternal' is just as much as an infinite regression as a set of causes.
Perhaps you should explain that as it seems to be your personal incredulity.
-
Because it's an infinite regression in terms of time. It's no different from a succession of cause and effects.
Don't follow that either. Eternal just means something is just IS. I would also argue that time doesn't exist.
-
We don't but since we are then just talking about something that makes no linguistic sense we should admit that. 'Being' and "existence' are temporally expressed concepts. Remove time from the concepts and they become verbal mush. Remember here, I haven't put forward any idea of an eternal being so asking me what it might be like is a trifle odd.
It is a proposition from a philosophical argument. You can't have ex nihilo; there is stuff, as we all can see; ergo something(s) must be eternal.
-
the definition of consciousness - which they have refused to provide.
Have you provided yours?
-
JK,
Absent a “clear definition” of gravity, should we assume that you’re floating around in front of your keyboard?
If there is a definitional problem here, then it’s yours. Consciousness happens in nature, so the assumption is that it plays by the rules of nature. You don’t like this, presumably because you think there’s something special about it that puts it outside those rules. Isn’t it for you then to tell us how you define it such that this exceptionalism becomes reasonable?
"Consciousness happens in nature, so the assumption is that it plays by the rules of nature." - but this says nothing of the nature of consciousness or what it is or a definition from you lot on it.
I may play by the rules of football but that doesn't make me a football. Playing by rules doesn't define what or who you are, what something is if it is not clear what that something is.
-
No idea where you get that from. None of us here are working in the field as far as I know, we merely report on where the science is headed, and this is what scientists do, they follow the evidence. We all know correlation is not causation but a correlation suggests a way forward; neural correlates could be all a massive coincidence of course, but scientists don't believe in coincidences - experience shows that apparent coincidences usually indicate a possible underlying causal mechanism to be investigated.
So you lot take it by faith what they (the researchers) say like the theists do with their 'high priests'.....? We know what group think can do and ideologies that become too ingrained. Evolutionary theory had a problem with this with the Modern Synthesis'. And plate tectonics theory was dismissed because of the arrogance of the prevailing views of the scientists of the day.
-
your advice was very soothing, however I have no idea what 'lapsang souchong' is . thank you.
But you know what a digestive biscuit is and a quick wank are. I hope you washed your hand afterwards before you started typing, others may have to us that thing.
-
So you lot take it by faith what they (the researchers) say like the theists do with their 'high priests'.....? We know what group think can do and ideologies that become too ingrained. Evolutionary theory had a problem with this with the Modern Synthesis'. And plate tectonics theory was dismissed because of the arrogance of the prevailing views of the scientists of the day.
So you are just trying to make a case for not following evidence, is all.
-
If one isn't allowed an actual power from which all other powers are derived power then I'm afraid you are proposing that everything has derived power. That is the equivalent of saying everything is contingent and that isn't logical.
The problem for the big bang is that it itself represents change...from nothing into something and is thus itself a good candidate for something with derived power.
Isn't power just potential realized? The whole point about entropy is that the power ends when there is no potential differences - when something moves from high to lower.
-
But you know what a digestive biscuit is and a quick wank are. I hope you washed your hand afterwards before you started typing, others may have to us that thing.
I licked it clean as usual. you weirdo.
-
Isn't power just potential realized? The whole point about entropy is that the power ends when there is no potential differences - when something moves from high to lower.
Yes, I think you are right to challenge infinite chains.
In Aristotelian thought power is derived in two ways. Causes in sequential time which some argue can go on infinitely (not so satisfying theory IMHO) and hierarchically i.e. at anyone time where something is dependent at that time which is dependent on something else.
Because we are talking in the second case about what can be observed we can follow the chain down to dependence on quarks and energy. Which because they are changeable (have potential) we have to ask what there power is derived from.
This chain has to be of derived power (that is observed) but you cannot have derived power without actual power...something in the hierarchy must be sustaining the universe...or something like that.
In other words a hierarchical chain is logically not infinite since it must have two ends. If someone proposes there is something higher than us rather than that which is actually propping us up....... that is virtually a religious proposition.
The actual power propping us up from the bottom has the attributes of the classic western definition of God.
-
So you lot take it by faith what they (the researchers) say like the theists do with their 'high priests'.....? We know what group think can do and ideologies that become too ingrained. Evolutionary theory had a problem with this with the Modern Synthesis'. And plate tectonics theory was dismissed because of the arrogance of the prevailing views of the scientists of the day.
The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate. When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth. The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think. You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical. 'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking
-
Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:
Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?
-
Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:
Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?
Where have they tried to "explain away" such stories?
-
The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate. When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth. The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think. You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical. 'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking
I think Jack was making his point in response to the statement:" None of us here are working in the field as far as I know, we merely report on where the science is headed,". In other words, those who have not actually seen the evidence are basing their opinions on hearsay or second/third hand information i.e. an act of faith and belief or Wikipedia is the new Bible which people quote from.
-
Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:
Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?
If they could, would you believe them?
-
Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:
Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?
don't drop the soap!
-
Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:
Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?
Incredulity Alert ! Incredulity Alert !
Such profundity cuts little ice in the overarching narrative sought by science. Can neuroscience explain away the readiness of the suicide bomber to give up his life in the cause of jihad ? Science hopes to explain everything from the quantum vacuum up to universes and everything in between as far as possible, the doings and beliefs of curious life forms like us are somewhere in the middle of that.
-
Just taking the liberty of quoting one of Anchorman's posts from another thread:
Were you there on the night of 6 September, 1977, when I surrendered all that I am to Christ?
Were you there when I invited Him into every part of my being to be my Lord and Saviour?
Were you there when I felt a joy beyond words, and His presence which has never left me to this day?
Can the neuroscientists really explain away such profound personal witness stories in terms of unguided deterministic chemical activity in the brain?
The interesting word there is 'away', as if that is the task of neuroscience, to dismiss human ideas and experiences. I have read quite a few summaries of neuroscience research, but I've never seen that. But presumably you have.
I would like to see a citation where neuroscientists actually do this. Otherwise, it sounds as if you have made this up, as a straw man. I wonder what Jesus would think of your dishonest tactics?
-
The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate. When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth. The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think. You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical. 'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking
Yes, both plate tectonics and neuroscience are counter-intuitive, aren't they? But then many scientific discoveries have conflicted with 'common sense', or our intuitions about reality.
I think Descartes has a lot to answer for, as his version of the soul produced a highly dualistic framework, and the issue of relating soul to body became problematic. Ironically. the Aristotelian version, where the soul is the form of the body, or the life of the body, is less dualistic, I say, 'ironic' as it is more ancient.
Also, the immaterialists rarely cite research findings from any discipline, as far as I can see, but prefer their own opinions, so much cosier really.
-
#839
Anyone doing statistics will tell you that extrapolation can be unreliable because behaviour outside the range of observable data cannot be guaranteed.
As someone who used to do statistics (a lot, during my career) I'm curious about how you could know about 'behaviour outside the range of observable' at all if you can't observe or model it, and importantly, get the numeric data you need to do statistics with: where the basis for extrapolation will involve the results. You would at least need demonstrable grounds on which to base a hypothesis and then design an investigation to test this, by collecting and analysing the data (the statistical bit) in order to accept or reject your hypothesis.
From the statistics side, the demonstrable grounds would be any conclusion based on what can be observed. In the context of the discussions here about emergence, that would be what type of emergence is observable.
Extrapolating from that may be correct, correct up to a point or incorrect. So if e.g. I record Usain Bolt running 100m, record his time after every 10m and plot it on a graph, extrapolating to 200m to make predictions may be quite close (in fact, his 200m world record is less than double his 100m world record!). If I extrapolated further to say that he could run 400m in 40 seconds, we know that wouldn't be the case, because of fatigue. Ok, so all of that is testable.
In the context of the discussion here, one hypothesis has life emerging from organic and inorganic matter coming together (assumption of an adaptive system). All of the observable examples I've seen on emergence so far that are based on nature have one thing in common: Life is already present. In contrast, the hypothesis means life from non-life, an extrapolation from what is observable to apply to something that is not, to get round the something from nothing problem. In contrast, observation from non-adaptive emergent systems (bluehillside gave the example of a snowflake in #604; the emergent order there coming from the giving up of heat energy and the water molecules losing their dynamism) show that they stay that way.
-
The interesting word there is 'away', as if that is the task of neuroscience, to dismiss human ideas and experiences. I have read quite a few summaries of neuroscience research, but I've never seen that. But presumably you have.
I would like to see a citation where neuroscientists actually do this. Otherwise, it sounds as if you have made this up, as a straw man. I wonder what Jesus would think of your dishonest tactics?
In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul". I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.
-
#829
JK,
... More than you have it seems. I wouldn’t use the term “robot”, but I see no inherent reason for material systems not to be capable of self-awareness given enough complexity, and for that complexity to have emerged as it does elsewhere in nature with no top down designer being required.
Other than your personal disdain, what argument do you even think you have to rebut this position?
If this is your hypothesis, then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable.
That said, I would suggest that the required capacity for self-awareness is a property of life. All the examples of emergence given from nature has life already present, i.e. the system is an adaptive one.
In your #604, you said this:
Snowflakes are non-adaptive emergent systems because they stay snowflakes. Ants and people and some software and cities on the other hand are adaptive because, well, they adapt in response to new stimuli.
In the case of ants and people, life is already present, and in the case of software, it was programmed that way! Therefore the functionality comes as a result of of external intelligent input.
It follows then that self-awareness would come from an adaptive system, one in which life is already present, or where the system has been set up (programmed) that way. Inorganic and organic matter coming together would be part of a non-adaptive system and, like your snowflake example, or Newton's laws in Physics, or in Chemistry, order from disorder coming as a result of giving up something, a non-adaptive system stays that way.
-
In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul". I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.
I find it truly astonishing that you want to use a 'soul' to explain everthing.
-
In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul". I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.
you are welcome to remain astonished .It must be like 'Christmas' every day for you
-
I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.
I find many discoveries in science astonishing too. That's why I like it; it's the thrill of discovery, it's a never ending reveal going on.
-
In this context I was using "away" as in "away from anything supernatural, such as the soul". I find it truly astonishing what some non believers assume can be produced from unguided, deterministic events derived from natural forces.
Any chance of a citation, where a neuroscientist 'explains away' human experience? You must have one, as you have been alluding to it, and I know you wouldn't make it up.
-
In the context of the discussion here, one hypothesis has life emerging from organic and inorganic matter coming together (assumption of an adaptive system). All of the observable examples I've seen on emergence so far that are based on nature have one thing in common: Life is already present. In contrast, the hypothesis means life from non-life, an extrapolation from what is observable to apply to something that is not, to get round the something from nothing problem. In contrast, observation from non-adaptive emergent systems (bluehillside gave the example of a snowflake in #604; the emergent order there coming from the giving up of heat energy and the water molecules losing their dynamism) show that they stay that way.
Emergence applies across the board, not just in living systems. When Miller did his famous experiment we started to understand the concept of chemical evolution by which primitive early earth gases evolved over time into something more complex - amino acids etc. This happens because the increase in complexity resulted from the fact that longer chain compounds have different properties than the shorter chain ones that preceded them. Complexity thresholds are crossed wherever new properties emerge that favour the higher level.
-
Emergence applies across the board, not just in living systems. When Miller did his famous experiment we started to understand the concept of chemical evolution by which primitive early earth gases evolved over time into something more complex - amino acids etc. This happens because the increase in complexity resulted from the fact that longer chain compounds have different properties than the shorter chain ones that preceded them. Complexity thresholds are crossed wherever new properties emerge that favour the higher level.
According to some theories, Consciousness participates in the evolution of the universe. Check out Participatory Anthropic Principle, Biocentrism and related subjects.
-
According to some theories, Consciousness participates in the evolution of the universe. Check out Participatory Anthropic Principle, Biocentrism and related subjects.
Just to point out that it would be useful if you didn't use the term theory here as it would indicate a misunderstanding of its meaning in this context.
-
Well, theism argues that a conscious mind determines the evolution of the universe. As NS notes, that is not a theory, however. Call it a guess.
-
Well, theism argues that a conscious mind determines the evolution of the universe. As NS notes, that is not a theory, however. Call it a guess.
I understand that simulated universes are an accepted theory.
That kind of wipes the bottom on your Y Fronts of an argument doesn't it?
-
I understand that simulated universes are an accepted theory.
That kind of wipes the bottom on your Y Fronts of an argument doesn't it?
No, it just shows that 'theory' is an ambiguous term. It has a colloquial use, e.g. 'I have a theory that blondes have more fun', and a scientific use, meaning an explanation with massive evidence for it (e.g. evolution), but also some people use it to mean 'hypothesis'. Quite confusing.
So I'm not sure what you mean by simulated universes as a theory.
-
you are welcome to remain astonished .It must be like 'Christmas' every day for you
Indeed, we are so surrounded by God's astonishing works of creation that we take them all for granted, and spend much time and effort into using our astonishing gift of intelligence to think up complex scenarios showing how it all came into existence without any help from God.
-
Indeed, we are so surrounded by God's astonishing works of creation that we take them all for granted, and spend much time and effort into using our astonishing gift of intelligence to think up complex scenarios showing how it all came into existence without any help from God.
Well you're almost there. As you are atheistic about all other gods there's only one more to go and that's it. Don't give up now , c'mon you can do it.
-
JK,
No. The human body is “a large multifunctional system” but the countless cells within it are entirely oblivious to the existence of almost all the other cells, yet functioning bodies we have nonetheless. The whole point of emergence as a phenomenon is there is no “CEO”, no designer, no top down anything.
Your body comment doesn't make sense. It, the cells et al, is controlled by the nervous system and so on. Therefore, there is an upper management running things. If this upper management starts fighting with itself in some way then chaos and non-adaptiveness occur.
One upper management in some emergent processes, like chemical reactions and products are the laws of physics that govern it.
-
JK,
You fundamentally misunderstand what emergence entails, and you underestimate Johnson’s intelligence too. This isn’t about whether something or nothing gets built, but rather it’s about the pattern of the businesses that emerge. Types of business tend to cluster, and they can do so in quite subtle ways without a city planner making it so. Where demand for the goods or services is high (eg Chinese restaurants in a populous city), the clustering is close because the benefit of attracting customers to the area outweighs the disbenefit of proximate competition. Over time, other business too – like specialist food suppliers or transport links – will tend to build around the clusters of alike businesses, creating a positive feedback loop for new Chinese restaurants to come in.
Conversely, when demand is low (eg Chinese restaurants in sparsely populated conurbations, or occasional purchase shops like wine merchants) the clustering will be more disparate because a competitor next door would make either or both uneconomic.
Over time these patterns become embedded – the silk merchants of Florence is a good example – not because of the “ideas of the individuals” but because market forces have dictated the patterns that cause some businesses to fail and others to flourish. It’s not somehow inherent in the nature of Chinese restaurants though that, say, bus stops are positioned close to them.
1) Energy still has to be inputted into this scenario. The Chinese restaurants won't come about if there is a recession or something. Therefore, money can be seen as the fuel that drives this system. No money liquidity no Chinese restaurants. No roads, no sewage system, no refuse disposal, no method/technology to build sustainable restaurants, no transport etc., all of which need to be designed, then non of this would happen.
2) Also, I think want you have described here is complexity theory not emergence.
-
That’s not your choice to make. If they follow the structure of logical fallacies – and they do – then they’re logical fallacies.
The R & E guide to fallacy detection (part one)
1. personal incredulity: contains the word "improbable"
2. non sequiter: can't understand the logic
3. ad populum: contains big numbers
4. negative proof: contains the word "not"
5. authority: mentioning someone cleverer than yourself
6. straw man: contains anything you object to
to be continued .....
-
We have traditionally organised power structures in a hierarchical manner; it's intuitive that way. But it's not the only way to make decisions, there is such as thing as the wisdom of crowds and this is the central insight that we have gleaned by studying insect models. An ant colony seeking a nest location has no top down authority structure and yet a smart decision emerges out of the interactions of the ants; similarly with bee swarms, it is not a question of the top bee leading the way and the rest just following along. We use these models to study how brains make decisions without having a master neuron as the situation has clear parallels. The idea of a master neuron orchestrating the making of choices is a non-starter - any single neuron is unintelligent, it has no brain of its own with which to direct affairs. The only way to understand this is by learning how intelligence emerges out of the interaction of billions of neurons.
You mean populism? Yet when one mentions this in the political section there are howls of derision and that we need our technocrats and leaders. So if we all put in our pennyworth into our country this will create an emergence that will make our country victorious....?
-
Have you provided yours?
I'm not the one making the claim of consciousness via emergence.
-
The R & E guide to fallacy detection (part one)
1. personal incredulity: contains the word "improbable"
2. non sequiter: can't understand the logic
3. ad populum: contains big numbers
4. negative proof: contains the word "not"
5. authority: mentioning someone cleverer than yourself
6. straw man: contains anything you object to
to be continued .....
The R&E guide to not understanding falacies - lesson one read the quoted post above.
-
I'm not the one making the claim of consciousness via emergence.
I never for a moment thought that you did.
I was interested if you have a definition. Do you?
-
So you are just trying to make a case for not following evidence, is all.
No, what I'm debating is how that evidence is being read or interrupted by you lot using philosophical arguments and considerations.
-
The parallel with plate tectonics is hardly appropriate. When Wegener proposed continental drift he was ridiculed by the orthodoxy of the day but he was being true to evidence. He was ridiculed because his ideas ran so deeply counter to our intuitions just as does a spherical Earth rather than a flat Earth. The situation with neuroscience is the polar opposite of this, it is neuroscience that is challenging our intuitions about how things are, requiring us to think outside the box, breaking down the naive orthodoxy bequested to us through our judeochristian/greek/cartesian heritage about what it means to be, to exist, to think. You call neuroscience 'orthodoxy' ? Truth is, it could hardly be more radical. 'High priests', 'ideology', you really gotta be kidding, you could hardly be wronger if you tried, you really need to get to see past this naive obsession with conspiracy thinking
Shame about the abuse at the end. :(
I disagree. The materialistic attitude has been gathering speed since Greek times and the enlightenment ushered in a new perspective to life. The problem is it has degraded the aspect of our lives that is related to our human natures; often referred to as our spiritual side. It is the orthodoxy of this materialism that is channelling the ideas and concepts etc. down a soulless cul-de-sac. It is an ideology that "punishes" anyone who steps out of line and forces the party line on all. Sadly it is even an unconscious attribute to science so it functions in the shadows and so is insidiously pernicious in its demands because our culture is set in this historical framework. As such, as it is not fully consciously seen it proceeds unnoticed and without hideous and the whole milieu is taken as a given, as a presumption that colours the researches into areas that involve these human/spiritual/psychological subjects.
-
The interesting word there is 'away', as if that is the task of neuroscience, to dismiss human ideas and experiences. I have read quite a few summaries of neuroscience research, but I've never seen that. But presumably you have.
I would like to see a citation where neuroscientists actually do this. Otherwise, it sounds as if you have made this up, as a straw man. I wonder what Jesus would think of your dishonest tactics?
I heard a top scientist on the radio say that the brain causes consciousness. No if no buts, a straight forward statement that that was the fact of the matter. I was rather surprised that he had talked such unfounded bollocks. Such is the ideology of the science world these days.
-
The R&E guide to not understanding falacies - lesson one read the quoted post above.
The point I was trying to make is that instead of just labelling things as fallacies, it would be far more constructive to say specifically what you think is wrong, then offer an alternative explanation if possible.
-
I heard a top scientist on the radio say that the brain causes consciousness. No if no buts, a straight forward statement that that was the fact of the matter. I was rather surprised that he had talked such unfounded bollocks. Such is the ideology of the science world these days.
AB wasn't talking about causation, he said that neuroscience 'explains away' experience, which is different from 'explain'. 'Explain away' means to dismiss something. I've never heard that expressed. Straw man by AB, although he pretended he hadn't said that.
Which top scientist?
-
I never for a moment thought that you did.
I was interested if you have a definition. Do you?
The term can be used in different ways which is why I'm asking for a definition to see how they are handling this. As it is I kind of sense what their definition would be which would relegate it down to being an automaton; which is what an ant is. They have also said that this sense of being an individual is an illusion so they all think that they are just complex ants - which may explain a few things. ;D
-
The term can be used in different ways which is why I'm asking for a definition to see how they are handling this. As it is I kind of sense what their definition would be which would relegate it down to being an automaton; which is what an ant is. They have also said that this sense of being an individual is an illusion so they all think that they are just complex ants - which may explain a few things. ;D
They - they - they. FFS, do you ever give a citation?
-
The R & E guide to fallacy detection (part one)
1. personal incredulity: contains the word "improbable"
2. non sequiter: can't understand the logic
3. ad populum: contains big numbers
4. negative proof: contains the word "not"
5. authority: mentioning someone cleverer than yourself
6. straw man: contains anything you object to
to be continued .....
Alan's Guide to lack of fallacy detection(part one)
1. personal incredulity: I find x so astonishing that everyone must be as astonished as me and believe as I believe, or they are deceiving themselves
2. non sequitur: it doesn't matter if x doesn't follow y in my argument, I don't think that matters, and nor should you
3.ad populum: A lot of people believe what I believe, so it must be right
4 negative proof: I have a belief which I can't back up with any evidence or answer awkward questions about but which you can't prove is wrong. So therefore it must be right.
5. authority: because somebody is cleverer than me and believes the way I do, they must be right.
6. straw man: just because I have given a statement that either has nothing to do with what you are saying or hugely distorts what you are saying is no reason for you to bring that to my attention
to be continued .....
-
7. I am fundamentally dishonest, so I don't mind making stuff up, and making illogical jumps, and misquoting people. After all, it's all for Jesus!
-
AB wasn't talking about causation, he said that neuroscience 'explains away' experience, which is different from 'explain'. 'Explain away' means to dismiss something. I've never heard that expressed. Straw man by AB, although he pretended he hadn't said that.
Which top scientist?
They do try to explain away the individual identity of self by saying it is just an illusion of feeling of being an agent. Once you've done that then experience is relegated to just being input/output data and so on.
It was some years ago now, probably on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg, or a programme like that, that wouldn't invite some charlatan.
-
They do try to explain away the individual identity of self by saying it is just an illusion of feeling of being an agent. Once you've done that then experience is relegated to just being input/output data and so on.
It was some years ago now, probably on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg, or a programme like that, that wouldn't invite some charlatan.
Funny that, a few years ago, a guy in a pub told me he'd seen a leprechaun. It must be true, because the pub is really nice.
Any citation for 'an illusion of feeling of being an agent'?
-
8. I can always pretend that I haven't said something, that I did. But remember, Jesus loves you!
-
Shame about the abuse at the end. :(
I disagree. The materialistic attitude has been gathering speed since Greek times and the enlightenment ushered in a new perspective to life. The problem is it has degraded the aspect of our lives that is related to our human natures; often referred to as our spiritual side. It is the orthodoxy of this materialism that is channelling the ideas and concepts etc. down a soulless cul-de-sac. It is an ideology that "punishes" anyone who steps out of line and forces the party line on all. Sadly it is even an unconscious attribute to science so it functions in the shadows and so is insidiously pernicious in its demands because our culture is set in this historical framework. As such, as it is not fully consciously seen it proceeds unnoticed and without hideous and the whole milieu is taken as a given, as a presumption that colours the researches into areas that involve these human/spiritual/psychological subjects.
That is just more of the same old, same old; the whole post seems tinged with conspiratorial thinking. I don't recognise any of that, I think it is all in your mind. I don't recall anyone working in any science field being 'punished' for not toeing a party line, or failing to uphold some or other ideology. Maybe you are mistaking the rough and tumble of a competitive environment for some sort of sinister control which just isn't there. People do get criticised for bad work; rivalries do get intense, but all that does not amount to some sort of shadowy control.
If 'materialism' has been gaining ground, that is perhaps because the physical sciences have been unstoppably successful to date in describing the physical world and we do not throw out a large body of knowledge lightly, that would be reckless. If there is to be some novel ingredient required to explain consciousness then it needs to identified, measured, tested with the same degree of rigour we would expect within any other field for it to become acceptable. Some researchers have tiptoed into this arena with ideas like panpsychism and biocentrism but they are not gaining much foothold because the solid data for such ideas is just not there and most people working in the field think it unnecessary spurious complication that diverts attention from the real work to be done.
-
The term can be used in different ways which is why I'm asking for a definition to see how they are handling this. As it is I kind of sense what their definition would be which would relegate it down to being an automaton; which is what an ant is. They have also said that this sense of being an individual is an illusion so they all think that they are just complex ants - which may explain a few things. ;D
Thst explains why you want their version of an explanation, which is nice.
However you may have missed it but just to reiterate, I was asking what your definition is. Do you have one?
-
They - they - they. FFS, do you ever give a citation?
Well one definition is the way Jung generally uses it as that aspect of our ego (technical term) which is diametrically opposed to the Unconscious. But he even at time sets out variations. But when dealing with these psychological options language then becomes a barrier or inadequate and it then can only be appreciated through experience. But for me the real issue is what is self consciousness/self awareness etc. that awareness of being an acting subjective agent - kind of being aware that you are aware of things and yourself such that you see yourself as being separate with respect to those things - even your body. See language is now falling short to adequately convey what our Being is.
-
They do try to explain away the individual identity of self by saying it is just an illusion of feeling of being an agent. Once you've done that then experience is relegated to just being input/output data and so on.
It was some years ago now, probably on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg, or a programme like that, that wouldn't invite some charlatan.
Jack Knave
I'm going to require you to blow into this bag!
-
Funny that, a few years ago, a guy in a pub told me he'd seen a leprechaun. It must be true, because the pub is really nice.
Any citation for 'an illusion of feeling of being an agent'?
So you are equating top scientists with some geezer down the pub? You're really gonna please Blue and co. with that one. ::)
Your second point - That is what some have said on this thread. It's an illusion caused by the emergent property of the brain's complexity. Don't ask me to find it I don't keep a log of where all this stuff was said. You could ask them.
-
So you are equating top scientists with some geezer down the pub? You're really gonna please Blue and co. with that one. ::)
Your second point - That is what some have said on this thread. It's an illusion caused by the emergent property of the brain's complexity. Don't ask me to find it I don't keep a log of where all this stuff was said. You could ask them.
No, I am equating hearsay with hearsay. Some unnamed top scientist, whom you heard on the radio several years ago, and it was a good programme. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
-
Just to point out that it would be useful if you didn't use the term theory here as it would indicate a misunderstanding of its meaning in this context.
If String theory and Parallel Universes theory ....can be called theories....PAP and Biocentrism can also be called theories.
There is a clear bias here though it is shrouded in contrived language and supposed logic and rationality. Not only are the possibilities of of such phenomena as Spirit, After-life etc. rejected wholesale, but even recent ideas proposed by scientists such as the above are kept at a safe arms length distance and viewed with scorn. :D
There is so much fear....it is palpable!
-
Funny that, a few years ago, a guy in a pub told me he'd seen a leprechaun.
It wasn't Bluehillside was it?
-
If String theory and Parallel Universes theory ....can be called theories....PAP and Biocentrism can also be called theories.
There is a clear bias here though it is shrouded in contrived language and supposed logic and rationality. Not only are the possibilities of of such phenomena as Spirit, After-life etc. rejected wholesale, but even recent ideas proposed by scientists such as the above are kept at a safe arms length distance and viewed with scorn. :D
There is so much fear....it is palpable!
neither of them should be called theories. And I note that you cannot resist attacking posters rather than posts.
-
If String theory and Parallel Universes theory ....can be called theories....PAP and Biocentrism can also be called theories.
None of those are scientific theories.
There is so much fear....it is palpable!
Fear of what do you think?
-
neither of them should be called theories. And I note that you cannot resist attacking posters rather than posts.
I attack posters...oh...really?!!! LOL!
-
I attack posters...oh...really?!!! LOL!
Yes.
-
None of those are scientific theories.
Fear of what do you think?
Fear of unknown territories. Everyone wants to stay in their comfort zone. The moment they find that science is venturing into philosophical matters and coming up with ideas like Consciousness could be driving the universe...people tend to become uncomfortable.
-
Yes.
No!
-
Dear Jack Knave,
I disagree. The materialistic attitude has been gathering speed since Greek times and the enlightenment ushered in a new perspective to life. The problem is it has degraded the aspect of our lives that is related to our human natures; often referred to as our spiritual side. It is the orthodoxy of this materialism that is channelling the ideas and concepts etc. down a soulless cul-de-sac. It is an ideology that "punishes" anyone who steps out of line and forces the party line on all. Sadly it is even an unconscious attribute to science so it functions in the shadows and so is insidiously pernicious in its demands because our culture is set in this historical framework. As such, as it is not fully consciously seen it proceeds unnoticed and without hideous and the whole milieu is taken as a given, as a presumption that colours the researches into areas that involve these human/spiritual/psychological subjects.
I can kind of understand what you are trying to say, science ( I think ) has been a kind of ivory tower pursuit and we need to remember that scientists are human, subject to hate, envy, jealousy, pride, they are no different to anyone else.
Albert Einstein is a case in point, although he was a genius he was subject to all that ails us, it took him ten years to admit to an expanding Universe and from what I have read it was manly his pride which got in the way.
Only quite recently we were debating the Aquatic ape and from what I can garner a lot had to do with the lady in question not being a scientist, I also get the feeling that being female was also another contributing factor and we do have evidence that females were discouraged when it came to scientific pursuit.
In fact old Torridon can back this up, he invited a few of us to join a little course thing where some Prof had a relatively new way of looking at the mind, anyway this Prof stated that he had met with some resistance because his peers saw no merit in the direction he was going.
So yes, I can understand what you are trying to say, there was a certain toeing of the line in science but thankfully I think that is changing, we are seeing scientists more ready to share their knowledge and also step outside their little box, the internet has opened this up and I think over the past ten years we are seeing far more women in science.
Gonnagle.
-
No!
It's demonstrably true. Instead of dealing with posts in a straightforward fashion, you make comments about fear being palpable, thereby making ad hominem attacks rather than rational arguments.
-
It's demonstrably true. Instead of dealing with posts in a straightforward fashion, you make comments about fear being palpable, thereby making ad hominem attacks rather than rational arguments.
I made a comment against all scientists as a community and not against any individual.
If you really are policing this sort of thing... it would be worth your while to check out the comments made about me in most of the threads (including this one). Now...that would be ad hominem comments. ::)
And not that you are guilt free!
-
Dear Jack Knave,
I can kind of understand what you are trying to say, science ( I think ) has been a kind of ivory tower pursuit and we need to remember that scientists are human, subject to hate, envy, jealousy, pride, they are no different to anyone else.
Albert Einstein is a case in point, although he was a genius he was subject to all that ails us, it took him ten years to admit to an expanding Universe and from what I have read it was manly his pride which got in the way.
Only quite recently we were debating the Aquatic ape and from what I can garner a lot had to do with the lady in question not being a scientist, I also get the feeling that being female was also another contributing factor and we do have evidence that females were discouraged when it came to scientific pursuit.
In fact old Torridon can back this up, he invited a few of us to join a little course thing where some Prof had a relatively new way of looking at the mind, anyway this Prof stated that he had met with some resistance because his peers saw no merit in the direction he was going.
So yes, I can understand what you are trying to say, there was a certain toeing of the line in science but thankfully I think that is changing, we are seeing scientists more ready to share their knowledge and also step outside their little box, the internet has opened this up and I think over the past ten years we are seeing far more women in science.
Gonnagle.
Scientists are human and carry around the same kind of baggage as the rest of us. Often, in the search for objective truths, the worst aspects can be filtered out but sometimes not.
And "baggage" is what the idea of karma is about ... we could all examine the prejudices, biases, desires, drives and fears that determine our views and behaviour or how we conduct our affairs. Discussing and resolving the issues that we find could help us build a more satisfying, rational and equal world.
-
Fear of unknown territories. Everyone wants to stay in their comfort zone. The moment they find that science is venturing into philosophical matters and coming up with ideas like Consciousness could be driving the universe...people tend to become uncomfortable.
I think people who have an interest in science are not like that at all. Science takes us all on 'journeys of discovery' and as we learn more we are often taken out side of our comfort zone. The issue I think is when ideas are pushed as being equivalent to science when they don't follow the scientific method and rely on annecdote and 'experience' rather than actual scientific testing. Those who are interested in science and see it as being the wonderful thing it is are bound to be a bit frustrated when attempts are made to push things which aren't science under that umbrella.
-
Actually, if a team of scientists found evidence that 'consciousness is driving the universe', they wouldn't be uncomfortable, they would be ecstatic. They would be guaranteed at least one Nobel prize, and undying fame. They would be ranked with Einstein. But so far, nothing has turned up, except a bunch of woo, (hello Sriram), and some interesting ideas about panpsychism, which don't seem to be demonstrable. Recent interest in the 'hard problem' has rekindled interest in this, mainly among philosophers, but as yet, there is no empirical aspect to it. It's rather like the Matrix, it is possibly true, but there is no way of telling if it is.
Some of the philosophers and scientists, who have been interested in panpsychism: William James, Whitehead, Bergson, Russell (for part of his career), Hartshorne, Eddington, Bohm, Nagel, Galen Strawson, but there are lots of others.
-
Actually, if a team of scientists found evidence that 'consciousness is driving the universe', they wouldn't be uncomfortable, they would be ecstatic. They would be guaranteed at least one Nobel prize, and undying fame. They would be ranked with Einstein. But so far, nothing has turned up, except a bunch of woo, (hello Sriram), and some interesting ideas about panpsychism, which don't seem to be demonstrable. Recent interest in the 'hard problem' has rekindled interest in this, mainly among philosophers, but as yet, there is no empirical aspect to it. It's rather like the Matrix, it is possibly true, but there is no way of telling if it is.
Well...ok! 'Possibly true'...is good enough! If it is good enough for String Theory and Parallel Universes and Dark Matter...et al....it is good enough for Consciousness driving the universe, After-Life...etc. No problem.
-
I think people who have an interest in science are not like that at all. Science takes us all on 'journeys of discovery' and as we learn more we are often taken out side of our comfort zone. The issue I think is when ideas are pushed as being equivalent to science when they don't follow the scientific method and rely on annecdote and 'experience' rather than actual scientific testing. Those who are interested in science and see it as being the wonderful thing it is are bound to be a bit frustrated when attempts are made to push things which aren't science under that umbrella.
Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds? And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method? Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?
-
Well...ok! 'Possibly true'...is good enough! If it is good enough for String Theory and Parallel Universes and Dark Matter...et al....it is good enough for Consciousness driving the universe, After-Life...etc. No problem.
Surely dark matter is quite different, in that it has strong inferential support, e.g. certain gravitation effects, for example, gravitational lensing. I think there are many experiments under way, designed to detect it. I don't know how you would design an experiment to detect a universal consciousness.
-
Well...ok! 'Possibly true'...is good enough! If it is good enough for String Theory and Parallel Universes and Dark Matter...et al....it is good enough for Consciousness driving the universe, After-Life...etc. No problem.
people like you should be banned from using the above scientific terms until they know what they mean.
-
Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds? And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method? Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?
Well, a phenomenon is always an observed phenomenon, so if we are using the word accurately, and not as part of woo-ology, then it is possible to construct experiments to detect it and study it, and eventually, explain it. I don't think the after-life is a phenomenon at all.
As with 'logic' you use these words very sloppily.
-
Surely dark matter is quite different, in that it has strong inferential support, e.g. certain gravitation effects, for example, gravitational lensing. I think there are many experiments under way, designed to detect it. I don't know how you would design an experiment to detect a universal consciousness.
The point is that ...as we go along we will be leaving behind the comfy and familiar world that we have known all these years through science. The universe and even human life are likely to seem more abstract and speculative. That is the nature of the world.
Our senses have evolved for the purpose of our survival on earth and their limitations are going to become apparent more and more.
So..either we remain content with philosophical and speculative 'theories', instead of harping on and on about empirical evidence or find ways to examine phenomena outside the hitherto useful 'scientific method'.
-
Well, a phenomenon is always an observed phenomenon, so if we are using the word accurately, and not as part of woo-ology, then it is possible to construct experiments to detect it and study it, and eventually, explain it. I don't think the after-life is a phenomenon at all.
'I don't think'...is not a good enough argument...is it?!
-
The point is that ...as we go along we will be leaving behind the comfy and familiar world that we have known all these years through science. The universe and even human life are likely to seem more abstract and speculative. That is the nature of the world.
Our senses have evolved for the purpose of our survival on earth and their limitations are going to become apparent more and more.
So..either we remain content with philosophical and speculative 'theories', instead of harping on and on about empirical evidence or find ways to examine phenomena outside the hitherto useful 'scientific method'.
If you are so convinced of the phenomena you talk about Why don't you devise the experiment to determine their existence instead of waiting for someone else to do it .
I for one would be very interested in your method and results . there is definitely a Nobel prize in it.
-
Interesting debate on the simulated universe idea. DeGrasse Tyson seems to support it, Chalmers not. Nice idea that we should be able to spot flaws, e.g. pixellations! And Tegmark speaks about his mathematical universe, O listen and obey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs
-
In fact old Torridon can back this up, he invited a few of us to join a little course thing where some Prof had a relatively new way of looking at the mind, anyway this Prof stated that he had met with some resistance because his peers saw no merit in the direction he was going.
Oi.
Less of the 'Old', please young Gonnagle, me lad. >:(
-
The point is that ...as we go along we will be leaving behind the comfy and familiar world that we have known all these years through science. The universe and even human life are likely to seem more abstract and speculative. That is the nature of the world.
I think you have got that the wrong way round.
It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation. Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law.
It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.
-
Yes, to call science comfy and familiar is really hilarious. This thread alone shows the repulsion that (some) people feel about neuroscience, and their urge to embrace old ideas, such as the soul. Let's run back to nurse, for fear of something worse.
-
I think you have got that the wrong way round.
It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation. Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law.
It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.
Yes. We moved from myth and legend to science. Now scientists are getting stuck in old science and old ways of thinking and not responding positively to a new and broader understanding of the world.
Ideas and understanding evolve. They don't move in any unidirectional manner.
So...it not Religion/spirituality > physical Science...and its physical science all the way after that...
It is Religion/spirituality > Physical sciences > mix of old and new > Better philosophical understanding of both spirituality and science > Integration.
Your impression that we have gotten rid of religion/spirituality and taken to an improved system of knowledge through physical science for all time to come, is not correct. There is much to learn from spirituality and much to understand.
In time to come only a integration of spirituality and science will take us forward. The way of the purely physical sciences is a dead end.
-
Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds?
They are ideas which can be used to explore and examine other scientific theories and measurements scientists have made. This isn't the case with After Life and Spirit Worlds.
And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method? Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?
The method shouldn't be changed in my view or else you are moving away from science and diluting the meaning of the word and of the scientific method. Call it something else - nit try to make it all science.
-
Dear Wigs,
Who is repulsed by neuroscience, it is a very valuable field of research but will it ever answer the biggies, why am I here? ( instead of on a tropical island with a tribe of beautiful buxom blondes, probably Karma ) what's it all about? ( Alfie ) why something from nothing? ( well not nothing per se, sort of nothing, nothing but in a vacuum nothing, virtual particles nothing ) and the real biggie! Why is Scotland shit at football?
Gonnagle.
-
From Gonnagle's reply 911:
Only quite recently we were debating the Aquatic ape and from what I can garner a lot had to do with the lady in question not being a scientist, I also get the feeling that being female was also another contributing factor and we do have evidence that females were discouraged when it came to scientific pursuit.
I hope you aren't including me in this, Gonners, as I was at great pains to suggest that this was not the case. I based my case, as do many people, fully on the strength(or weakness) of her arguments and on other contrasting evidence, which is a completely reasonable approach. The fact that Elaine Morgan was a woman is totally superfluous to these arguments.
-
Dear Maeght,
Why do you think it would dilute it, to boldly go where no man has gone before, well men have gone but not scientific men, Priests, Shamans, Mystics but never in a scientific way, although you could loosely call it science, I am sure those Mystics tried a lot of herbal tea before they found the right ingredients to take them to Nirvana, Valhalla or Heaven, depending on your religion of choice.
Gonnagle.
-
Why is Scotland shit at football?
Is it the Buckfast? :P
-
Yes, to call science comfy and familiar is really hilarious. This thread alone shows the repulsion that (some) people feel about neuroscience, and their urge to embrace old ideas, such as the soul. Let's run back to nurse, for fear of something worse.
Yes, it's a laughable proposition. I've just finished reading a book called 'reality Is Not What It Seems' by Carlo Rovelli which is a fascinating book that puts forward the idea of quantum gravity and that space and time, as we understand them, don't really exist. I don't recognise Sriram's attitude to science in this book at all.
-
Dear enki,
No I was most definitely not including you, it was more about the links and the stories attached to the thread, you cannot deny that the poor lady took a beating from some purely because of her non scientific background and in case you haven't noticed, women are still fighting for equality, the scientific field is just one where women are struggling to gain a foothold.
And this gives credence to what Jack Knave was alluding to, there are or were elements within the scientific community where you did have to toe the line.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
Who is repulsed by neuroscience, it is a very valuable field of research but will it ever answer the biggies, why am I here? ( instead of on a tropical island with a tribe of beautiful buxom blondes, probably Karma ) what's it all about? ( Alfie ) why something from nothing? ( well not nothing per se, sort of nothing, nothing but in a vacuum nothing, virtual particles nothing ) and the real biggie! Why is Scotland shit at football?
Gonnagle.
Hello soldier. Buxom blondes are all very well, but they want to go to B & Q, and watch repeats of Bergerac. What's it all about? Well, I'm hungry, so will probably have a sandwich. All the blondes are out, so it's just me and the universe. Nothing - nothing is impossible. Football - try the diamond formation. Sandwich good, blondes are still out, looking good.
-
Hello soldier. Buxom blondes are all very well, but they want to go to B & Q, and watch repeats of Bergerac. What's it all about? Well, I'm hungry, so will probably have a sandwich. All the blondes are out, so it's just me and the universe. Nothing - nothing is impossible. Football - try the diamond formation. Sandwich good, blondes are still out, looking good.
Jowita Zienkiewicz for me. I hope she likes Chopin - I doubt whether she's heard of Bergerac, but I'd take her to Jersey (euphemism :) ). If she likes football, I could do her a good impression of Ron Manager from the Fast Show - fathers and sons, jumpers for goal-posts: saturday afternoons are football, aren't they? You know, isn't it? Marvellous.
-
why something from nothing? ( well not nothing per se, sort of nothing, nothing but in a vacuum nothing, virtual particles nothing )
Gonnagle.
That's a something Mr G.....and it doesn't really answer the question why something and not nothing.
Of course if one argues there can never be a nothing then you are arguing eternal existence...(But what moves it? Why is it dynamic?)..........hold up, I can here sirens.....I think it's the ''It just is'' police.
-
Interesting debate on the simulated universe idea. DeGrasse Tyson seems to support it, Chalmers not. Nice idea that we should be able to spot flaws, e.g. pixellations! And Tegmark speaks about his mathematical universe, O listen and obey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs
Yes but we would only be conscious of pixillations or lack of possible resolution if we had an idea what the perfect image would be or to put it another way, Dawkins take take on reality is the equivalent of Baird 30 line TV while Lane Craig enjoys UHD.
-
Yes, to call science comfy and familiar is really hilarious. This thread alone shows the repulsion that (some) people feel about neuroscience, and their urge to embrace old ideas, such as the soul. Let's run back to nurse, for fear of something worse.
Neuroscience though is also used as wankfodder for dyed in the wool reductionists.
-
Yes but we would only be conscious of pixillations or lack of possible resolution if we had an idea what the perfect image would be or to put it another way, Dawkins take take on reality is the equivalent of Baird 30 line TV while Lane Craig enjoys UHD.
I can't wait to find out the contents of Lane Craig's music library. I know something of Dawkins', and it sure ain't Smokey Mountain Jamboree with Dolly Parton.
-
I can't wait to find out the contents of Lane Craig's music library. I know something of Dawkins', and it sure ain't Smokey Mountain Jamboree with Dolly Parton.
How would you say Dr Dawkin's musical tastes have evolved?
-
Thst explains why you want their version of an explanation, which is nice.
However you may have missed it but just to reiterate, I was asking what your definition is. Do you have one?
I don't want it it is the one that has been implied by them in their posts and by scientists I've heard over the years.
Not one you would understand.
-
Jack Knave
I'm going to require you to blow into this bag!
I'm sorry but I can't blowhard.
-
No, I am equating hearsay with hearsay. Some unnamed top scientist, whom you heard on the radio several years ago, and it was a good programme. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
YEAH!!!
-
Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds? And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method? Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?
I think because they stem from something real as in researchable matter. Then they go through the looking glass and think they are still in the material universe.
-
I think you have got that the wrong way round.
It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation. Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law.
It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.
That was one of my points, science has a culture which has a restrictive viewpoint as all ideologies/customs etc. do. People unconsciously live by these and so make the data/evidence fit their confirmation biases just as the Soviet Union did and other cultures.
-
That's a something Mr G.....and it doesn't really answer the question why something and not nothing.
Of course if one argues there can never be a nothing then you are arguing eternal existence...(But what moves it? Why is it dynamic?)..........hold up, I can here sirens.....I think it's the ''It just is'' police.
Probably because it is not perfect. You never fiddle around with a well tuned car.
-
We have, I think, all the genome of the Neanderthals. We have bones of them and their tools, the caves where they lived and other artefacts. But all this is just correlative. We can not say for certain look this is what a Neanderthal was like, what it was like to be one. To live and exist as one. There is a gap that can't be bridged.
So when the neuroscientists observe neurons firing away and claim that this bunch is responsible for the phenomena of consciousness itself i.e. what the person experiences in their life this is just fallacious because the same type of gap exist with this evidence as it does with the Neanderthals. There is a gap there that can't be bridged. The data can only be correlative nothing more and can not explain the consciousness the person feels and experiences in their lives or what consciousness is.
-
So when the neuroscientists observe neurons firing away and claim that this bunch is responsible for the phenomena of consciousness itself i.e. what the person experiences in their life this is just fallacious because the same type of gap exist with this evidence as it does with the Neanderthals. There is a gap there that can't be bridged. The data can only be correlative nothing more and can not explain the consciousness the person feels and experiences in their lives or what consciousness is.
Neural correlates could be just correlation, not causation then. Is this correlation just a coincidence then ?
-
Not one you would understand.
How would you know that until you try?
-
I think you have got that the wrong way round.
It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation. Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law.
It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.
Science may be good at discovering how things work, but it does not help to show what (or who) made things to work as they do.
And you really are talking yourself out of existence, just being part of the continuum of material reactions in this universe. But do you not realise that you are unique (only you are the point of awareness which is Torri), and that you are loved by the one who made things work?
-
But do you not realise that you are unique (only you are the point of awareness which is Torri), and that you are loved by the one who made things work?
Yes..... and your perception is different to my perception, is different to the next-door neighbour's perception..
-
We have, I think, all the genome of the Neanderthals. We have bones of them and their tools, the caves where they lived and other artefacts. But all this is just correlative. We can not say for certain look this is what a Neanderthal was like, what it was like to be one. To live and exist as one. There is a gap that can't be bridged.
So when the neuroscientists observe neurons firing away and claim that this bunch is responsible for the phenomena of consciousness itself i.e. what the person experiences in their life this is just fallacious because the same type of gap exist with this evidence as it does with the Neanderthals. There is a gap there that can't be bridged. The data can only be correlative nothing more and can not explain the consciousness the person feels and experiences in their lives or what consciousness is.
What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.
-
What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.
But all of that is hope, faith and most inexcusably........scientism.
-
Science may be good at discovering how things work, but it does not help to show what (or who) made things to work as they do.
The notion that there must be a 'somebody' or 'someone' who grandly architected the rules of our perceived reality does not really make any sense to me. This idea just looks like one of the oldest of our cognitive biases, agent detection, and it renders null all of our attempts to discover how things work if it cannot investigate the provenance of this supposed grand architect or architects.
And you really are talking yourself out of existence, just being part of the continuum of material reactions in this universe. But do you not realise that you are unique (only you are the point of awareness which is Torri), and that you are loved by the one who made things work?
Each point in spacetime has its own unique perspective, clearly that follows from simple geometry and it seems to be in part the function of brains to procure and synthesise an enhanced subjective awareness for the bounded region of which it is part. As to whether there is some grand architect in some higher realm that 'loves' such things, well, there has to be some justification for such thinking, and I don't see any; to my pov all that just resembles a psychological construct that is appealing in various ways. My preference is to try to understand things without fear or favour, that means recognising our biases for what they are.
-
My preference is to try to understand things without fear or favour, that means recognising our biases for what they are.
And in doing so, let slip the greatest gift?
Light allows us to perceive things which would otherwise be hidden. Try being open to spiritual enlightenment:
I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
John 8:12
-
And in doing so, let slip the greatest gift?
Maybe the desire to think clearly and without bias is also a gift, to put in your reference frame. In a god given world, where else would this desire come from ?
-
What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.
I'm not all that sure about this gap in any case. The physicist Max Tegmark has a well-known saying that subjective experience may be what information being processed, feels like. What's wrong with that?
As yet, we can't prove this directly, but there is so much indirect evidence, e.g. from brain damage. People with dementia seem to suffer not only behaviourial problems, e.g. getting lost, but also mental disruption. Not just losing memory, but being unable to process stuff and think normally.
There is also research now using in vivo neuroimaging, which seems to point towards the linkage of brain events and subjective experiences.
It seems that the immaterialists are defending a shrinking gap!
-
I'm not all that sure about this gap in any case. The physicist Max Tegmark has a well-known saying that subjective experience may be what information being processed, feels like. What's wrong with that?
As yet, we can't prove this directly, but there is so much indirect evidence, e.g. from brain damage. People with dementia seem to suffer not only behaviourial problems, e.g. getting lost, but also mental disruption. Not just losing memory, but being unable to process stuff and think normally.
There is also research now using in vivo neuroimaging, which seems to point towards the linkage of brain events and subjective experiences.
It seems that the immaterialists are defending a shrinking gap!
Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside. If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way. The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul. The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.
-
Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside. If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way. The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul. The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.
Well, of course, there is no evidence against the soul, that is what 'unfalsifiable' means.
If you see film of in vivo neuroimaging, and see the brain light up in certain areas, as certain thoughts and feelings are produced, it looks like more than a correlation to me.
The other interesting area of research concerns electrical stimulation, usually by means of electrodes. This research is in its infancy, but some results seem to show that experiences can be induced in this way.
-
And of course, millions of NDE's where people are able to see, feel and think normally...outside their body...is no evidence at all! ::)
-
Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside. If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way. The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul. The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.
And yet it seems you are incapable of producing any evidence whatsoever that a human(or, indeed, any other) soul exists. Simply saying that you can't prove it doesn't exist is no argument at all.
As I said in post 892:
negative proof: I have a belief which I can't back up with any evidence or answer awkward questions about but which you can't prove is wrong. So therefore it must be right.
Where is it located? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How does it connect to the physical?
It's no good simply asserting things. This might satisfy you, but it is very unlikely to convince those who are sceptical.
-
It's like the dragon in the garage. You can't prove that there isn't one, especially as it's invisible, (example from Carl Sagan). Of course, in the original example, the dragon is gradually exonerated from normal evidential stuff, of if you like, the goal-posts keep on being moved. Sound familiar?
-
And of course, millions of NDE's where people are able to see, feel and think normally...outside their body...is no evidence at all! ::)
Well, I have chatted to various corpses, but they were strangely reticent. Maybe it's my approach, next time, I'll offer them a drink.
-
And yet it seems you are incapable of producing any evidence whatsoever that a human(or, indeed, any other) soul exists. Simply saying that you can't prove it doesn't exist is no argument at all.
As I said in post 892:
Where is it located? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How does it connect to the physical?
It's no good simply asserting things. This might satisfy you, but it is very unlikely to convince those who are sceptical.
It is not necessary to know all these details just to know that such a thing as soul/spirit exists. Do scientists know all these details about Dark Matter or Dark Energy?
As you say...it is very unlikely to convince those who are skeptical. It is a mindset problem.
-
And of course, millions of NDE's where people are able to see, feel and think normally...outside their body...is no evidence at all! ::)
Correct.
I had a drink the other night and I felt a bit funny too.
-
Well, I have chatted to various corpses, but they were strangely reticent. Maybe it's my approach, next time, I'll offer them a drink.
Being flippant doesn't address the issue.
-
Correct.
I had a drink the other night and I felt a bit funny too.
Likewise to you too Torridon!
-
Our body and brain are very complex instruments which allow us to perceive and interact with this material world in which our bodies reside. If the physical instrument gets damaged, then it is inevitable that our interactive communication abilities will be disrupted in some way. The symptoms of physical brain damage offer no evidence against the existence of the human soul. The linkage of brain events and subjective experiences are just correlations which can't be used to prove causation.
The idea of the soul remains unfalsifiable because it's supporters fail to offer any detail that could be tested. For it to be taken seriously, there would need to be detail on what it consists of, how and when it becomes associated with a body and by what mechanism it interacts with matter. Lacking any such detail, it is just an idea, floating in space, with no justification.
-
The idea of the soul remains unfalsifiable because it's supporters fail to offer any detail that could be tested. For it to be taken seriously, there would need to be detail on what it consists of, how and when it becomes associated with a body and by what mechanism it interacts with matter. Lacking any such detail, it is just an idea, floating in space, with no justification.
But you have not answered the question on how DM and DE are accepted without all these finer details. What do they consist of, what is their molecular structure, how are they associated with the universe, what is the mechanism of interaction and non interaction....and so on and so forth.
To know that something exists we don't have to know all these details. Likewise for the spirit/soul.
-
But you have not answered the question on how DM and DE are accepted without all these finer details. What do they consist of, what is their molecular structure, how are they associated with the universe, what is the mechanism of interaction and non interaction....and so on and so forth.
To know that something exists we don't have to know all these details. Likewise for the spirit/soul.
this is just sloppy outrageous ,childish thinking that requires no intellectual interaction . At least from me.
Never mind Santa is on his way . millions believe but even more know the truth . :(
-
But you have not answered the question on how DM and DE are accepted without all these finer details. What do they consist of, what is their molecular structure, how are they associated with the universe, what is the mechanism of interaction and non interaction....and so on and so forth.
To know that something exists we don't have to know all these details. Likewise for the spirit/soul.
No it's not likewise. There is indirect hard evidence for some undiscovered phenomena that we provisionally label DE and DM. There is nonesuch for spirits/souls, all they are is a fanciful unfalsifiable interpretation. At best, all you have is anecdotal claims of patients experiencing curious cerebral episodes and that is easily explainable as aberrant phenomenology of mind.
-
No it's not likewise. There is indirect hard evidence for some undiscovered phenomena that we provisionally label DE and DM. There is nonesuch for spirits/souls, all they are is a fanciful unfalsifiable interpretation. At best, all you have is anecdotal claims of patients experiencing curious cerebral episodes and that is easily explainable as aberrant phenomenology of mind.
He had already judged my NDE before I had finished talking about it, so I gave up.
-
It is not necessary to know all these details just to know that such a thing as soul/spirit exists. Do scientists know all these details about Dark Matter or Dark Energy?
As you say...it is very unlikely to convince those who are skeptical. It is a mindset problem.
No one said that it is necessary to know all these details, but you do need some evidence to go on, or else the idea of a soul/spirit simply remains a conjecture.
Torri has responded to your idea that dark matter and dark energy are similar to the idea of a soul in this respect. I agree with him. The difference is that both the above have indirect evidence, and the words dark matter and dark energy are simply place holders until we know more, whereas the idea of a soul(even used as place holder) is mere conjecture without any evidence to show that it exists at all.
I don't intend getting into the subject of NDEs and OBEs, as we have discussed this subject in detail before.
However I do agree with your last sentence. Indeed it does seem to be a mindset problem. I take the view, expressed in a book I have read recently(Reality Is Not What It Seems):
It is the awareness of our ignorance that gives science its reliability.
And it is reliability that we need, not certainty. We don't have absolute certainty, and we never will have it - unless we accept blind belief. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to be certainty.
-
Being flippant doesn't address the issue.
But you ignored the serious point, that corpses provide us with perfect evidence for brain-free experiences. Of course, it's possible that corpses are having experiences, but they are not showing any signs of brain activity. Maybe we should keep them propped up in front of the TV, for their favourite soap?
Presumably, the advocates of a separate soul will say that it has detached from the body, and flown elsewhere? Good old Descartes.
-
.............We don't have absolute certainty, and we never will have it
Is he absolutely certain about that? ;)
-
Quote from: enki on Today at 01:49:09 PM
.............We don't have absolute certainty, and we never will have it
Is he absolutely certain about that? ;)
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
-
No it's not likewise. There is indirect hard evidence for some undiscovered phenomena that we provisionally label DE and DM. There is nonesuch for spirits/souls, all they are is a fanciful unfalsifiable interpretation. At best, all you have is anecdotal claims of patients experiencing curious cerebral episodes and that is easily explainable as aberrant phenomenology of mind.
Surely, the other point about dark matter is that scientists are looking for signatures from it. This is what happened with the Big Bang, and signatures were found, and before that, with Einsteinian relativity.
Well, as far as I know, there are no research teams looking for signatures from soul/spirit. I have never heard of any, but I am willing to be informed. Of course, it's problematic, if s/s are reckoned to be non-material.
-
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
It's remarkable that you seem to see your certainty as a virtue, whereas others may see it as a hindrance.
-
It's remarkable that you seem to see your certainty as a virtue, whereas others may see it as a hindrance.
hindrance?, Illness more like.
-
No one said that it is necessary to know all these details, but you do need some evidence to go on, or else the idea of a soul/spirit simply remains a conjecture.
Torri has responded to your idea that dark matter and dark energy are similar to the idea of a soul in this respect. I agree with him. The difference is that both the above have indirect evidence, and the words dark matter and dark energy are simply place holders until we know more, whereas the idea of a soul(even used as place holder) is mere conjecture without any evidence to show that it exists at all.
I don't intend getting into the subject of NDEs and OBEs, as we have discussed this subject in detail before.
However I do agree with your last sentence. Indeed it does seem to be a mindset problem. I take the view, expressed in a book I have read recently(Reality Is Not What It Seems):
How do you think Science with its 19/20 Century methodologies (I don't mean technologies), will be up to the task of investigating such exotic phenomena as Parallel Universes, String Theory, Non-local influence, Consciousness participating in the evolution of the universe, Consciousness being independent of our bodies and so on...?!
-
I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
...and you can?
-
...and you can?
Ah, well, that'll be the day, won't it?!! :)
-
Neural correlates could be just correlation, not causation then. Is this correlation just a coincidence then ?
It is undeniable that the brain is part of the system but that does not mean that it is responsible for all the phenomena that are associated with that system. If I remove a component from my TV it may not then work, but that does not mean that that component is responsible for say the picture or colour or something it may be just an auxiliary part that functions to provide some more fundamental, basic role in a general way to the system. Jumping to conclusions just because one sees some cursory link is not prudent to fully understand the reasons for things.
-
How would you know that until you try?
Because truly understanding what consciousness is comes from personal experience (i.e. it is ineffable) and as you lot hold the super-ant perspective on this it is quite obvious that you lot are in denial, caused by your brainwashing of your western education.
In other words, all I could do is give you a technical, erudite, semantic verbiage which would be as good as farting in the wind. Unless those technical words were pinned up by your personal experience and wisdom they are worthless. You understand and grasp words by how you live them. Words are meaningless unless they are grounded in a persons life. That's why I say, "Words are just shadows of the true form."
-
Because truly understanding what consciousness is comes from personal experience (i.e. it is ineffable) and as you lot hold the super-ant perspective on this it is quite obvious that you lot are in denial, caused by your brainwashing of your western education.
In other words, all I could do is give you a technical, erudite, semantic verbiage which would be as good as farting in the wind. Unless those technical words were pinned up by your personal experience and wisdom they are worthless. You understand and grasp words by how you live them. Words are meaningless unless they are grounded in a persons life. That's why I say, "Words are just shadows of the true form."
Well, I had better head back to the stroke clinic where I worked, and tell everybody that all the research in neuroscience, linguistics, and speech therapy, which they employ, is valueless, because it is like farting in the wind. Such a relief to know that all that sciencey stuff doesn't really help people.
-
Well, I had better head back to the stroke clinic where I worked, and tell everybody that all the research in neuroscience, linguistics, and speech therapy, which they employ, is valueless, because it is like farting in the wind. Such a relief to know that all that sciencey stuff doesn't really help people.
GOOD ON YOU
keep up the good work I am in awe of people like you . Let the day dreamers have their mad hatters tea party if they want but shouting louder is not going to result in anyone taking them seriously, perhaps all they really want is a bag of sweeties and to be loved .
-
Because truly understanding what consciousness is comes from personal experience (i.e. it is ineffable) and as you lot hold the super-ant perspective on this it is quite obvious that you lot are in denial, caused by your brainwashing of your western education.
In other words, all I could do is give you a technical, erudite, semantic verbiage which would be as good as farting in the wind. Unless those technical words were pinned up by your personal experience and wisdom they are worthless. You understand and grasp words by how you live them. Words are meaningless unless they are grounded in a persons life. That's why I say, "Words are just shadows of the true form."
"You lot"?
What makes you think that I am part of that group? Where have I given technical etc verbage?
Maybe you should check first before you decry people?
Want to try again?
-
"You lot"?
What makes you think that I am part of that group? Where have I given technical etc verbage?
Maybe you should check first before you decry people?
Want to try again?
Just to note that Jack Knave has been suspended for 7 days, see link, so there will not be a reply for that time
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=6939.50
-
Just to note that Jack Knave has been suspended for 7 days, see link, so there will not be a reply for that time
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=6939.50
That's ok, I'm patient!
-
Is he absolutely certain about that? ;)
I doubt it. ;)
-
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
I think you make the writer's point most succinctly. :)
-
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
I don't think anything controls my thoughts. Thoughts happen, ideas occur. I cannot decide which thought to think next; to do so would require me to have already thought about it. That is circular.
-
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
A very clever man once said this: 'Do not feel absolutely certain of anything' - good advice.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
-
How do you think Science with its 19/20 Century methodologies (I don't mean technologies), will be up to the task of investigating such exotic phenomena as Parallel Universes, String Theory, Non-local influence, Consciousness participating in the evolution of the universe, Consciousness being independent of our bodies and so on...?!
Your list by the way doesn't include loop quantum gravity. However many of these can be investigated by using theoretical physics, and to some extent by experimental physics. E.g. those who have worked on string related hypotheses hoped/expected that the LHC would find evidence for supersymmetric particles. So far, no evidence of these has shown itself.
On the other hand such events as the revelation of the Higgs particle, the measurements made by the Planck satellite and the first ever detection of gravitational waves (announced this year) are experimental evidence for the standard model of elementary particles, the standard cosmological model and confirmation of general relativity, the theory of which is 100 years old.
So what different scientific methodologies would you recommend and how would you even start to find evidence for 'consciousness participating in the evolution of the universe, Consciousness being independent of our bodies and so on...' ?
-
I don't think anything controls my thoughts. Thoughts happen, ideas occur. I cannot decide which thought to think next; to do so would require me to have already thought about it. That is circular.
I was just thinking that I should be thinking that...and, surprise, surprise, I was. :o
-
So what different scientific methodologies would you recommend and how would you even start to find evidence for 'consciousness participating in the evolution of the universe, Consciousness being independent of our bodies and so on...' ?
That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods? If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted?
My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?
Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?
-
That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods? If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted?
My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?
Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?
You keep asking the same question, don't you? In order to investigate something, you need an observation to start with, not just one person's expressed thought. Others must be able, independently, to have a similar observation before a hypothesis can be put forward and the scientific method followed.
If I have not exactly expressed this correctly, I will of course happily defer to whatever torridon and others say.
-
That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods? If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted?
My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?
Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?
If 'outside the scope of science' means 'untestable' then any such idea is going to remain speculative, and rightly so. If we cannot put an idea to the test then there is no way to gain confidence in it through empirical means. We could say that string theory is similarly somewhat speculative in as much as strings would be too small to observe directly using a light source.
On the other hand, string theory does have an immense body of theoretical work in the form of fiendishly complex mathematical descriptions of reality at that level. As far as I know there is no such body of work underpinning your notions of spirits - nothing on their form, substance, energy levels or means of interaction. At the very least we would need to see suggested a new term in the Dirac equation to account for how immaterial stuff interacts with matter and an explanation of how the Dirac equation has been so successful to date in describing matter interactions within the contexts of quantum electrodynamics and special relativity without ever referencing all this immaterial spirit stuff, which in your account, must be absolutely ubiquitous. Without any detailed working hypothesis, there is nothing there to test for. All you have is a woolly speculative ancient notion that forever floats conveniently just out of reach of empirical validation or falsification.
-
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
Some questions on that. How does that 'something' control your thoughts, especially the thought that you have absolute certainty? In the context of your religion, how do you know that it is not Satan creating the illusion of absolute certainty within you? Stage hypnotists can initiate the sense of certainty within suggestible volunteers, how do you know that you have not fallen under the spell of religious persuasion?
-
If 'outside the scope of science' means 'untestable' then any such idea is going to remain speculative, and rightly so. If we cannot put an idea to the test then there is no way to gain confidence in it through empirical means. We could say that string theory is similarly somewhat speculative in as much as strings would be too small to observe directly using a light source.
On the other hand, string theory does have an immense body of theoretical work in the form of fiendishly complex mathematical descriptions of reality at that level. As far as I know there is no such body of work underpinning your notions of spirits - nothing on their form, substance, energy levels or means of interaction. At the very least we would need to see suggested a new term in the Dirac equation to account for how immaterial stuff interacts with matter and an explanation of how the Dirac equation has been so successful to date in describing matter interactions within the contexts of quantum electrodynamics and special relativity without ever referencing all this immaterial spirit stuff, which in your account, must be absolutely ubiquitous. Without any detailed working hypothesis, there is nothing there to test for. All you have is a woolly speculative ancient notion that forever floats conveniently just out of reach of empirical validation or falsification.
Yes and let's not forget Brobat works without spiritual reference but I guess just saying that would detract from the Charles Hawtrey image of science you are trying to cultivate here.
Another masterwork in the statement of the bleedin' obvious.
-
That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods? If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted?
My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?
Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?
Yes that's exactly what they mean and they do so on what justification but a circular argument.
-
Yes and let's not forget Brobat works without spiritual reference but I guess just saying that would detract from the Charles Hawtrey image of science you are trying to cultivate here.
Another masterwork in the statement of the bleedin' obvious.
Here's a thought Vlad, why not help Sriram out with some positive suggestions. He'd like to see how his notions could gain traction in the modern world. I've said the problem is they lack substance, they lack detail, so the implication is, put some detail in there. You could do better than just sniping from the sidelines, never sticking your neck out.
-
Here's a thought Vlad, why not help Sriram out with some positive suggestions. He'd like to see how his notions could gain traction in the modern world. I've said the problem is they lack substance, they lack detail, so the implication is, put some detail in there. You could do better than just sniping from the sidelines, never sticking your neck out.
Come on you know I take the position:
Science good, science not the only show in town, other ways of describing the world, reductionism can give an inaccurate perspective and it is perspective which my Brobat comment seeks to re-establish as opposed to your elevation of the magisterium of reductionist materialism.
-
A very nice piece of Vlad-speak, that, deftly deflecting the previous invitation
-
Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum :P
Gonnagle.
Thanks for this.
An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist. Brings up some very valid points. Well worth a read
-
Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum :P
Gonnagle.
Wow! Yes...that's a good article Gonnagle. I have no doubt that scientists will have to start looking seriously at such matters as the soul, afterlife, reincarnation and Karma in the years to come.
Not that all these areas will be amenable to investigation through the standard methods. No... that is unlikely. But it will definitely become necessary to value personal experience also as a valid means of receiving inputs from the world. Greater value will have to be paced on our lives and our insights.
For too long has the scientist community been sitting in its ivory tower and telling the world what to think and what to believe. They have had their value and successes of course....but it is time for a reversal, which is inevitable.
I agree that human fear, desires and imagination can produce considerable noise and clutter in the mind because of which it is often very difficult to separate them from real insights. But it is not impossible. Some people have always managed to do it and now with the spread of such scientific principles as Yoga, Pranayama (breathing exercises), meditations etc. more and more people will be able to manage to differentiate between imagination and inner wisdom.
To add to that, such experiences as NDE's, ESP, other 'paranormal' experiences will become more common and more accepted as real phenomena.
I think a time will come soon when the extreme materialism that has become so deeply ingrained in the human psyche (in some parts) will give way to greater value being placed on peoples experiences and insights. Valuable experiences can no longer be dismissed as anecdote and delusion.
-
Where is it located? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How does it connect to the physical?
An interesting clip which gives some insight to your queries about the soul's existence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAcYDXYwdc
-
#996
I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.
A very clever man once said this: 'Do not feel absolutely certain of anything' - good advice.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
In which case, we should not feel absolutely certain about his advice then?
-
Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum :P
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle...there is a thread on Biocentrism in the Science board (with a Wiki link) which elaborates on this stuff. As can be expected, no one has contributed to that discussion.
-
Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum :P
Gonnagle.
Thanks for this.
An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist. Brings up some very valid points. Well worth a read
Well, hardly an independent assessment of the biocentrism idea, since it was written by the proponent, and as far as I know, the only notable scientist that supports this notion. Lanza is something of a self-publicist, needing to make money from his book sales; this is a lucrative field that has perennial appeal amongst people who want a sciencey sounding validation of their traditional beliefs. For a more balanced overview don't forget that the overwhelming majority of scientists are underwhelmed by Lanza's book, derived as it is from a popular misunderstanding quantum mechanics which imagines that a conscious observer is required to collapse wave functions. Any real particle physicist will tell you that is nonsense; all the evidence says that the quantum world was busy doing its thing quite happily for 14 billion years before any conscious observers started to evolve.
-
Thanks for this.
An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist. Brings up some very valid points.
Especially the bit where animal souls are mentioned alonside human ones.
-
An interesting clip which gives some insight to your queries about the soul's existence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAcYDXYwdc
Oh dear, upon death our information encoded is passed on into the 'spiritual quantum world' ? You can find some real desperate stuff on Youtube; The spread of real knowledge is being sidelined as flakey disinformation, false news and conspiracy theories prosper thanks to the internet.
-
Thanks for this.
An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist. Brings up some very valid points. Well worth a read
Well, hardly an independent assessment of the biocentrism idea, since it was written by the proponent, and as far as I know, the only notable scientist that supports this notion. Lanza is something of a self-publicist, needing to make money from his book sales; this is a lucrative field that has perennial appeal amongst people who want a sciencey sounding validation of their traditional beliefs. For a more balanced overview don't forget that the overwhelming majority of scientists are underwhelmed by Lanza's book, derived as it is from a popular misunderstanding quantum mechanics which imagines that a conscious observer is required to collapse wave functions. Any real particle physicist will tell you that is nonsense; all the evidence says that the quantum world was busy doing its thing quite happily for 14 billion years before any conscious observers started to evolve.
You sound fairly feasible Torridon.....but then I'm sure you know I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.
Taking your last point and talking of real physicists didn't the famous antitheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss express some fears that our observations of the universe would bring it an earlier demise? Apparently Tegmark stepped in to make your point about plenty of non conscious observation going down at any one time. Perhaps you can clear that up for us?
-
You sound fairly feasible Torridon.....but then I'm sure you know I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.
Taking your last point and talking of real physicists didn't the famous antitheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss express some fears that our observations of the universe would bring it an earlier demise? Apparently Tegmark stepped in to make your point about plenty of non conscious observation going down at any one time. Perhaps you can clear that up for us?
Whilst you are in a clearing up mode. Maybe you could help clear up the dilemma as to whether Jesus is God or not. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about it elsewhere on this forum.
-
Blimey - a few days away in Mitteleuropa and the toys here are well and truly out of the box: AB ploughing the same old logical fallacy furrow; Sriram lumping pseudo science and real science together in the hope that no-one notices; SOTS relentlessly missing the point and essaying some bad reasoning of his own; Vlad sniping from the wings and suddenly finding something else to do when asked how we should distinguish "different ways of describing the world" from just guessing about stuff...
...clearly my people need me!
Curious too by the way that those who would denigrate science are suddenly over it like an ill-fitting suit when they think a real scientist says something that supports them. Shames it turn out not to be real science at all, but the damascene conversion to what they thought to be rational thinking was remarkable!
-
Blimey - a few days away in Mitteleuropa and the toys here are well and truly out of the box: AB ploughing the same old logical fallacy furrow; Sriram lumping pseudo science and real science together in the hope that no-one notices; SOTS relentlessly missing the point and essaying some bad reasoning of his own; Vlad sniping from the wings and suddenly finding something else to do when asked how we should distinguish "different ways of describing the world" from just guessing about stuff...
And the above is what wasn't missed while you were away. In your absence, everyone on all sides have been able to defend their position.
I suppose it's back to normal now ...
-
Vlad,
Perhaps you can clear that up for us?
As you seem to relaxed about asking others to clear things up for you, perhaps you'd be so good finally to clear someone up for us?
You tell us that your personal faith beliefs - "God" etc - are also true for the rest of us. What method would you propose we use to investigate these remarkable claims so we know you're not mistaken about them? A simple point-by-point rationale will be fine thanks - you could call it an early Christmas present to your waiting minions if you like.
Go for it!
-
SOTS,
And the above is what wasn't missed while you were away. In your absence, everyone on all sides have been able to defend their position.
Using bad arguments etc isn't defending anything.
-
And the above is what wasn't missed while you were away. In your absence, everyone on all sides have been able to defend their position.
I do hope you don't think you are speaking for anyone else but yourself.
-
Using bad arguments etc isn't defending anything.
You're missing my point.
Everyone on all sides have been able to state what their position/views are and why. You're back and it's back to dismissing posts with the pejorative, rather than addressing the content.
-
#1023
I do hope you don't think you are speaking for anyone else but yourself.
Actually, on reflection, I'll exclude you from my #1020. All you ever do is hang on to the metaphorical coat-tails (i.e. posts) of others, the worst form of cowardice!
-
You sound fairly feasible Torridon.....but then I'm sure you know I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.
Taking your last point and talking of real physicists didn't the famous antitheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss express some fears that our observations of the universe would bring it an earlier demise? Apparently Tegmark stepped in to make your point about plenty of non conscious observation going down at any one time. Perhaps you can clear that up for us?
I have no idea about that without spending some time googling to discover what remarks you refer to. Anyway I really ought to be getting back to work and now Hillside has returned to his monitor duties I think I'll excuse myself from the playground for a while. Or at least try to resist the temptation.
-
SOTS,
You're missing my point.
Everyone on all sides have been able to state what their position/views are and why. You're back and it's back to dismissing posts with the pejorative, rather than addressing the content.
You seem to have forgotten that I regularly rebut your arguments, and that you ignore the rebuttals and repeat the same mistake nonetheless. What else can I do - just pretend that you don't rely on very bad arguments?
-
Whilst you are in a clearing up mode. Maybe you could help clear up the dilemma as to whether Jesus is God or not. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about it elsewhere on this forum.
I would be pissed if one of my pin up boys was questioned too. However since Torridon is more likely to know what Krauss actually meant than any of us I think it is a fair point in time just to get the record straight.
Are you associating Christ with, er, Krauss?
-
torri,
I have no idea about that without spending some time googling to discover what remarks you refer to. Anyway I really ought to be getting back to work and now Hillside has returned to his monitor duties I think I'll excuse myself from the playground for a while. Or at least try to resist the temptation.
I've got this my friend - I've already cleaned the blackboard rubbers and taken out the bottles from morning milk time. SOTS seems to have sneaked in before playtime ended, but I have high hopes he'll finally manage to engage in a rational dialogue if we keep at him for long enough.
-
Vlad,
Are you associating Christ with, er, Krauss?
No - Krauss knows a lot more about physics than Jesus did.
-
I have no idea about that without spending some time googling to discover what remarks you refer to. Anyway I really ought to be getting back to work and now Hillside has returned to his monitor duties I think I'll excuse myself from the playground for a while. Or at least try to resist the temptation.
I'll take that as a no.
-
Vlad,
No - Krauss knows a lot more about physics than Jesus did.
Not if Jesus is the Logos.
-
Hi Sriram,
That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods? If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted?
Good grief, Sriram, you didn't ask this at all. You asked how 19/20th Century methodologies could be up to the task of explaining such ideas as those that you enumerate. I simply gave you three examples of recent experimental data which have been important in clarifying ideas which started life as hypotheses backed by mathematical models and data. I also suggested that the failure so far to find(experimentally) supersymmetric particles(which are predicted as an indicator of space-time having extra dimensions) could well have important effects, either for the hypothesis to be modified or even discarded. The fact that any of these ideas could be falsified was and is an important facet of 19/20th Century scientific methodologies (as you put it), linked closely to the idea that these hypotheses make predictions.
On the other hand I have asked you a totally different question, which I repeat:
What different scientific methodologies would you recommend in place of 19/20th century methodologies....to which you have, so far, given no answer.
My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?
I have never maintained that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena. I simply find it the most credible way to investigate the natural world. I am always open to the possibility of alternative methods. So far, I have found none. Please come up with one or more such methods. however, please see my response to the next part.
Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?
If I have powerful personal experiences(which I have had) which suggest that there is no such thing as universal consciousness, that would not be a credible position for me to take on the basis that I am aware that others have had powerful personal experiences that say the opposite. There is no method that I know which can distinguish simply on the basis of such experience between my subjective experiences and those of others as to the truth of the matter.
It might well be meaningful for me(and, therefore, not meaningless at all), but it may well be meaningless to others.
So, if I wish to ascertain the credibility(and reliability) of such ideas as afterlife, universal consciousness etc. I have to seek paths and methods which are likely to produce the least subjective evidence. So far, I have no alternative than to look at scientific methods in pursuing this course, methods which so far have had outstanding success in increasing our knowledge of the natural world. The trouble is science cannot adequately deal with such ideas as those above, because they do not lend themselves easily or at all to mathematical structures, falsification challenges or predictability. That is not to say they are not true. It may be quite possible for instance that Alan's 'soul' actually exists even though he cannot produce anything but his own subjective assertions for the same.
I am, of course, open to any methodology which explains any phenomena as long as it has strong evidence to support it and is rigorous enough to convincingly answer/explain/rebut genuine challenges to its authority.
So, I take(what seems to me) the sensible course of not holding any conviction that there is an afterlife or that there is some form of universal consciousness etc. because, it seems, they cannot be evidenced and no methodology can be offered which might verify them.
Unless, of course, you know differently...
Incidentally, for those reading Lanza's most interesting exposition of the soul, kindly given by Gonners:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
You may well be interested in this challenge to Lanza's and Chopra's ideas on biocentrism and the the conscious universe, here:
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/
-
I would be pissed if one of my pin up boys was questioned too. However since Torridon is more likely to know what Krauss actually meant than any of us I think it is a fair point in time just to get the record straight.
Are you associating Christ with, er, Krauss?
All very nice I'm sure.
You forget to mention if you are going to help clear up the Jesus God/not God quandry.
-
Hi Sriram,
Good grief, Sriram, you didn't ask this at all. You asked how 19/20th Century methodologies could be up to the task of explaining such ideas as those that you enumerate. I simply gave you three examples of recent experimental data which have been important in clarifying ideas which started life as hypotheses backed by mathematical models and data. I also suggested that the failure so far to find(experimentally) supersymmetric particles(which are predicted as an indicator of space-time having extra dimensions) could well have important effects, either for the hypothesis to be modified or even discarded. The fact that any of these ideas could be falsified was and is an important facet of 19/20th Century scientific methodologies (as you put it), linked closely to the idea that these hypotheses make predictions.
On the other hand I have asked you a totally different question, which I repeat:
What different scientific methodologies would you recommend in place of 19/20th century methodologies....to which you have, so far, given no answer.
I have never maintained that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena. I simply find it the most credible way to investigate the natural world. I am always open to the possibility of alternative methods. So far, I have found none. Please come up with one or more such methods. however, please see my response to the next part.
If I have powerful personal experiences(which I have had) which suggest that there is no such thing as universal consciousness, that would not be a credible position for me to take on the basis that I am aware that others have had powerful personal experiences that say the opposite. There is no method that I know which can distinguish simply on the basis of such experience between my subjective experiences and those of others as to the truth of the matter.
It might well be meaningful for me(and, therefore, not meaningless at all), but it may well be meaningless to others.
So, if I wish to ascertain the credibility(and reliability) of such ideas as afterlife, universal consciousness etc. I have to seek paths and methods which are likely to produce the least subjective evidence. So far, I have no alternative than to look at scientific methods in pursuing this course, methods which so far have had outstanding success in increasing our knowledge of the natural world. The trouble is science cannot adequately deal with such ideas as those above, because they do not lend themselves easily or at all to mathematical structures, falsification challenges or predictability. That is not to say they are not true. It may be quite possible for instance that Alan's 'soul' actually exists even though he cannot produce anything but his own subjective assertions for the same.
I am, of course, open to any methodology which explains any phenomena as long as it has strong evidence to support it and is rigorous enough to convincingly answer/explain/rebut genuine challenges to its authority.
So, I take(what seems to me) the sensible course of not holding any conviction that there is an afterlife or that there is some form of universal consciousness etc. because, it seems, they cannot be evidenced and no methodology can be offered which might verify them.
Unless, of course, you know differently...
Incidentally, for those reading Lanza's most interesting exposition of the soul, kindly given by Gonners:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
You may well be interested in this challenge to Lanza's and Chopra's ideas on biocentrism and the the conscious universe, here:
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/
enki,
Ok...that is fine then.
My point is not that I or you or anyone individually would have a ready methodology on a platter to use for such exotic phenomena that don't fall within the range or scope of standard methodologies. The new methodology has to evolve....just as the standard one has also evolved over time through the efforts of many people.
But the environment for the evolution of such new systems, principles and methodologies....needs to be conducive. It will not happen in an environment of scorn, deep hostility and antagonism.
It is important that scientists have the necessary mental makeup required to face up to such exotic possibilities. This mental make up only will give rise to necessary new methodologies and systems. And there are sufficient grounds for scientists to adopt such a changed attitude from the one they have traditionally adopted to such matters.
These grounds are the new areas and the theories of science that cannot be readily investigated using standard methods, that I have mentioned many times. These point to the fact that the world is not as clearly defined as we had thought in earlier times.
If you add to these ideas such experiences as NDE and spontaneous healing, it makes it all the more imperative that such a changed attitude is adopted among scientists.
I know there will be a hue and cry among some people who are wedded to traditional science. For them it will seem blasphemous....like asking Christians to stop believing in Jesus. For sadly, science really has become a religion among some people.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Surely "religionists" have been working on and perfecting these techniques for millennia and not got anywhere.
Now you want scientists to help out with this pointless exercise when they have already got their work cut out? ... And get denigrated whenever they point out basic logical fallacies?
-
enki,
Ok...that is fine then.
My point is not that I or you or anyone individually would have a ready methodology on a platter to use for such exotic phenomena that don't fall within the range or scope of standard methodologies. The new methodology has to evolve....just as the standard one has also evolved over time through the efforts of many people.
But the environment for the evolution of such new systems, principles and methodologies....needs to be conducive. It will not happen in an environment of scorn, deep hostility and antagonism.
It is important that scientists have the necessary mental makeup required to face up to such exotic possibilities. This mental make up only will give rise to necessary new methodologies and systems. And there are sufficient grounds for scientists to adopt such a changed attitude from the one they have traditionally adopted to such matters.
These grounds are the new areas and the theories of science that cannot be readily investigated using standard methods, that I have mentioned many times. These point to the fact that the world is not as clearly defined as we had thought in earlier times.
If you add to these ideas such experiences as NDE and spontaneous healing, it makes it all the more imperative that such a changed attitude is adopted among scientists.
I know there will be a hue and cry among some people who are wedded to traditional science. For them it will seem blasphemous....like asking Christians to stop believing in Jesus. For sadly, science really has become a religion among some people.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fair enough, Sriram. I won't labour the points any more. However, if science is to develop new methodologies which would aid in investigating what you call 'exotic' phenomena, as long as they are developed with as objective an aim as possible and produce evidence which is as intersubjective as possible, I certainly wouldn't complain. The trouble is, I can't see where they are coming from, and, obviously you can't either, or you would have given some intimation of this. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that such methodologies have to be conducive. Conducive to what? The only thing I can think of is that such methodologies are conducive to be as objective as possible, and are going to lead to as accurate explanations as possible, which already is the aim of the present methodologies(e.g. peer review, falsification, rigorous examination etc.)
The only other points I will make is that 1) you and I differ considerably as to what NDEs and OBEs show 2)spontaneous healing should be looked at, and, if/when possible explained, just as spontaneous deterioration(e.g. stroke victims) should be examined and, if/when possible, explained.
-
#1023
Actually, on reflection, I'll exclude you from my #1020. All you ever do is hang on to the metaphorical coat-tails (i.e. posts) of others, the worst form of cowardice!
You know, that sounds just the teensiest bit like an ad hominem? But perhaps you can cite where there is cowardice in my posts. I await your response with interest.
-
All very nice I'm sure.
You forget to mention if you are going to help clear up the Jesus God/not God quandry.
What seems to be the problem?
-
Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum :P
Gonnagle.
I think the soul is another ''problem'' for some scientismatists, just like the ''problem'' of apparent fine-tuning and the problem of consciousness.
Let's take the problem of fine tuning. Sean Carroll, who talked of the ''problem'', inspired doubts from atheists and scientists and atheist scientists about whether the endeavour to rule it out was a fit and correct and indeed scientific motivation for the pursuit of multiverse theory.
For whom is consciousness a problem?...and why the obvious endeavour to class it as intelligence when intelligence could work perfectly well without consciousness? What is the motivation then for wanting to find it as a sophisticated intelligence rather than a novel property?
Finally there is the soul. Does science do souls?, what is the motivation for finding the self to be an illusion (who or what is being illuded?).And yes the idea that the self doesn't exist is perhaps the best candidate for something actually being ludicrous, particularly when illusion of selfists justify themselves in proposing argumentum ad ridiculum concerning God.
Those who propose illusion of self should not be as arrogantly disrespectful of their opposition as they are.
-
What seems to be the problem?
I cant figure out if Jesus is divine and God or whether he is a man.
Do you know?
-
Fair enough, Sriram. I won't labour the points any more. However, if science is to develop new methodologies which would aid in investigating what you call 'exotic' phenomena, as long as they are developed with as objective an aim as possible and produce evidence which is as intersubjective as possible, I certainly wouldn't complain. The trouble is, I can't see where they are coming from, and, obviously you can't either, or you would have given some intimation of this. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that such methodologies have to be conducive. Conducive to what? The only thing I can think of is that such methodologies are conducive to be as objective as possible, and are going to lead to as accurate explanations as possible, which already is the aim of the present methodologies(e.g. peer review, falsification, rigorous examination etc.)
The only other points I will make is that 1) you and I differ considerably as to what NDEs and OBEs show 2)spontaneous healing should be looked at, and, if/when possible explained, just as spontaneous deterioration(e.g. stroke victims) should be examined and, if/when possible, explained.
enki,
I meant that the 'environment' should be conducive to the development and evolution of suitable new methodologies through which scientists could study exotic phenomena. A hostile environment that ignores or rubbishes such possibilities is unlikely to allow the development of suitable methodologies.
So...the first requirement is a positive mental make up with genuine curiosity towards such phenomena....and not a scornful and antagonistic one.
We must remember that experiments and methods used are secondary. The assumptions we make when we design and set up our investigations are primary. These assumptions drive the entire investigation process.
My point is simple. The old methodologies and principles may not be adequate or even suitable to investigate new and exotic phenomena. These phenomena include not only 'paranormal' aspects but also exotic ones that are proposed by scientists themselves. Suitable new methodologies have to be developed through the efforts of many people. This requires a positive attitude.
That is all I am saying.
-
#996
In which case, we should not feel absolutely certain about his advice then?
He'd agree with you, since he also said 'I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.'
-
You're missing my point.
Everyone on all sides have been able to state what their position/views are and why. You're back and it's back to dismissing posts with the pejorative, rather than addressing the content.
When the content is fallacious the only option is to dismiss said content: all you (and others) need do to correct the situation is stop blithely using fallacies.
-
I think the soul is another ''problem'' for some scientismatists, just like the ''problem'' of apparent fine-tuning and the problem of consciousness.
Let's take the problem of fine tuning. Sean Carroll, who talked of the ''problem'', inspired doubts from atheists and scientists and atheist scientists about whether the endeavour to rule it out was a fit and correct and indeed scientific motivation for the pursuit of multiverse theory.
For whom is consciousness a problem?...and why the obvious endeavour to class it as intelligence when intelligence could work perfectly well without consciousness? What is the motivation then for wanting to find it as a sophisticated intelligence rather than a novel property?
Finally there is the soul. Does science do souls?, what is the motivation for finding the self to be an illusion (who or what is being illuded?).And yes the idea that the self doesn't exist is perhaps the best candidate for something actually being ludicrous, particularly when illusion of selfists justify themselves in proposing argumentum ad ridiculum concerning God.
Those who propose illusion of self should not be as arrogantly disrespectful of their opposition as they are.
Perhaps it is time for the illusion of self to have a thread of its own.
Being a kindly chap, I've done the honours and started one here : http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13109.0#new (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13109.0#new)
-
The driver is an emergent property of the car...?!! That is a good one that is! :D
And quite an apt example of the way scientists seem to think. ;)
Rather than clogging up this already very fruitful Karma thread even more, I've expanded on this thought, driver as emergent property of the car here The Illusion of Self (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13109.0#new)
-
Rather than clogging up this already very fruitful Karma thread even more, I've expanded on this thought, driver as emergent property of the car here The Illusion of Self (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13109.0#new)
Yeah....thanks. I have contributed! :)
-
I cant figure out if Jesus is divine and God or whether he is a man.
Do you know?
As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood by the believer by which I mean worship of Jesus.
Now, this is something completely new to me until I was a Christian. I could not and still would not worship, in the ultimate divine sense, a mere human...after all if that were the case who would we end up worshipping but ourselves.
But on the other hand reflection on the Gospels makes me understand Jesus as a human and so I have to put Jesus as both Human and Divine.
-
As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood by the believer by which I mean worship of Jesus.
Now, this is something completely new to me until I was a Christian. I could not and still would not worship, in the ultimate divine sense, a mere human...after all if that were the case who would we end up worshipping but ourselves.
But on the other hand reflection on the Gospels makes me understand Jesus as a human and so I have to put Jesus as both Human and Divine.
Thank, I think.
I will ponder.
-
I've brought myself up to date on this thread, it leaves me with a thought about Sriram, he reminds me of when the carpet fitter finds that he's trapped the Budgie under the carpet and not wanting to undo all of that hard work decides to hammer it flat where the Budgie is but it doesn't work the slight lump in the carpet remains no matter how many times you beat it down and then you find the continual beatings have altered the texture of the carpet in that area, you just can't get rid of that bloody Budgie or the mark he's left in the carpet, even though he's been thoroughly beaten.
ippy
-
I've brought myself up to date on this thread, it leaves me with a thought about Sriram, he reminds me of when the carpet fitter finds that he's trapped the Budgie under the carpet and not wanting to undo all of that hard work decides to hammer it flat where the Budgie is but it doesn't work the slight lump in the carpet remains no matter how many times you beat it down and then you find the continual beatings have altered the texture of the carpet in that area, you just can't get rid of that bloody Budgie or the mark he's left in the carpet, even though he's been thoroughly beaten.
Or perhaps Sriram is like the carpet fitter, who finds that something is trapped under the carpet and does want to undo all the hard work in order to address the problem, except he is being told by his colleagues that there is no evidence that anything is trapped under the carpet. No matter how much he is told to ignore the problem/he has got it wrong, etc., he just can't get it out of his mind and wants to find the solution.
-
I think you are right there, Sword; in any case, it isn't a battle, it's a discussion, so no-one is going to be "beaten".
-
Spoof,
I think the soul is another ''problem'' for some scientismatists, just like the ''problem'' of apparent fine-tuning and the problem of consciousness.
Let's take the problem of fine tuning. Sean Carroll, who talked of the ''problem'', inspired doubts from atheists and scientists and atheist scientists about whether the endeavour to rule it out was a fit and correct and indeed scientific motivation for the pursuit of multiverse theory.
For whom is consciousness a problem?...and why the obvious endeavour to class it as intelligence when intelligence could work perfectly well without consciousness? What is the motivation then for wanting to find it as a sophisticated intelligence rather than a novel property?
Finally there is the soul. Does science do souls?, what is the motivation for finding the self to be an illusion (who or what is being illuded?).And yes the idea that the self doesn't exist is perhaps the best candidate for something actually being ludicrous, particularly when illusion of selfists justify themselves in proposing argumentum ad ridiculum concerning God.
Those who propose illusion of self should not be as arrogantly disrespectful of their opposition as they are.
What's difficult to process is that all these attempts at arguments have been rebutted many times, yet you never address the rebuttals. Instead you just go quiet for a bit then repeat the same basic mistakes.
Why?
-
Spoof,
As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood...
If something can't be understood how would you know when it's misunderstood?
-
Spoof,
If something can't be understood how would you know when it's misunderstood?
I have to admit to a typo in my original post. When I wrote 'believer' in this context that should be 'non believer' who of course cannot understand divine worship and misunderstand what Christians mean by the word worship.
-
Or perhaps Sriram is like the carpet fitter, who finds that something is trapped under the carpet and does want to undo all the hard work in order to address the problem, except he is being told by his colleagues that there is no evidence that anything is trapped under the carpet. No matter how much he is told to ignore the problem/he has got it wrong, etc., he just can't get it out of his mind and wants to find the solution.
Thanks...SoS. Perfectly right! ;)
-
Sriram,
My point is not that I or you or anyone individually would have a ready methodology on a platter to use for such exotic phenomena that don't fall within the range or scope of standard methodologies. The new methodology has to evolve....just as the standard one has also evolved over time through the efforts of many people.
Flat wrong – the methodology (observation, testing etc) is just fine. What you were trying to say I think was that the tools used to apply the methodology would have to improve, which is true – just as they had to improve for celestial observations before optical lenses were developed.
You’re also attempting an argument from incredulity here by the way – whether you can envisage science being able to investigate matters like dark energy says nothing about whether it ever will.
But the environment for the evolution of such new systems, principles and methodologies....needs to be conducive. It will not happen in an environment of scorn, deep hostility and antagonism.
It doesn’t. “Science” essentially treats words like “soul” as not even wrong as they offer neither cogent definition nor any means of investigation, verification or falsification. They’re just white noise.
It is important that scientists have the necessary mental makeup required to face up to such exotic possibilities. This mental make up only will give rise to necessary new methodologies and systems. And there are sufficient grounds for scientists to adopt such a changed attitude from the one they have traditionally adopted to such matters.
“Scientists” already do. You seem to think that scientists could investigate woo claims only they don’t bother because they feel a bit hostile about them. This is ludicrous. If ever such claims were able to offer something to investigate it’d be a Nobel prize winning opportunity to be the first to validate them.
These grounds are the new areas and the theories of science that cannot be readily investigated using standard methods, that I have mentioned many times. These point to the fact that the world is not as clearly defined as we had thought in earlier times.
What makes you think they are “new areas” rather than unsupportable myths?
If you add to these ideas such experiences as NDE and spontaneous healing, it makes it all the more imperative that such a changed attitude is adopted among scientists.
Neither NDE nor “spontaneous healing” have ever been demonstrated to be real, and there are plenty of non-woo alternative explanations for the stories – oxygen deprivation to the brain causing hallucinations for example.
I know there will be a hue and cry among some people who are wedded to traditional science. For them it will seem blasphemous....like asking Christians to stop believing in Jesus. For sadly, science really has become a religion among some people.
No, it’s a method. If you really think the beliefs you have to be real don’t complain that the methods of science can’t engage with them – propose a different method of your own to distinguish your claims from nonsense.
-
Spoof,
I have to admit to a typo in my original post. When I wrote 'believer' in this context that should be 'non believer' who of course cannot understand divine worship and misunderstand what Christians mean by the word worship.
But even if you add the "un", you said:
"As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood by the (un)believer by which I mean worship of Jesus."
The same question applies - if you're engaged in something you think can't be understood, how would you know when it's misunderstood? Absent a benchmark of the correct understanding, maybe what you think to be the misunderstanding isn't a misunderstanding at all. In other words, unless you know that 2+2=4, how would you know that 2+2=5 is wrong?
-
I have to admit to a typo in my original post. When I wrote 'believer' in this context that should be 'non believer' who of course cannot understand divine worship and misunderstand what Christians mean by the word worship.
Unless of course it is you who is misunderstanding it?
Which is not impossible with you being a mere fallible human......
-
Spoof,
Me:
As you seem to relaxed about asking others to clear things up for you, perhaps you'd be so good finally to clear someone up for us?
You tell us that your personal faith beliefs - "God" etc - are also true for the rest of us. What method would you propose we use to investigate these remarkable claims so we know you're not mistaken about them? A simple point-by-point rationale will be fine thanks - you could call it an early Christmas present to your waiting minions if you like.
Go for it!
Spoof:
...
I'll take that as a "no" then.
-
Unless of course it is you who is misunderstanding it?
Which is not impossible with you being a mere fallible human......
You forget I've been on both sides of the fence Seb.
-
Spoof,
Me:
Spoof:
I'll take that as a "no" then.
Hillside I take the position that the God debated on this forum is either true or not and if true then that isn't a mealy mouthed ''true for me'' sort of way And I suppose you are the same with your naturalism.
-
You forget I've been on both sides of the fence Seb.
Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?
-
Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?
We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.
I'm afraid were rather into modern humanists view of worship against Christians experience of it territory.
-
Spoof,
Hillside I take the position that the God debated on this forum is either true or not and if true then that isn't a mealy mouthed ''true for me'' sort of way And I suppose you are the same with your naturalism.
Then you suppose wrongly. "Naturalism" is merely the finding that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable using methods and tools that produce results that are true for everyone. The 'plane will take people aloft regardless of their opinions on the matter. "God" on the other hand is a faith belief that it's a factual truth with no method of any kind to verify that claim.
You may well think that your god is a fact for me too, but you're entirely unable even to suggest a reason for me to think you're any more right about that that are the people who believe in Allah, pixies or the man in the moon. What's so special abut your persona faith belief such that I should take it more seriously than the personal faith beliefs on anyone else?
And that's the problem you always - as in always - run away from.
-
Spoof,
Then you suppose wrongly. "Naturalism" is merely the finding that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable using methods and tools that produce results that are true for everyone. The 'plane will take people aloft regardless of their opinions on the matter. "God" on the other hand is a faith belief that it's a factual truth with no method of any kind to verify that claim.
You may well think that your god is a fact for me too, but you're entirely unable even to suggest a reason for me to think you're any more right about that that are the people who believe in Allah, pixies or the man in the moon. What's so special abut your persona faith belief such that I should take it more seriously than the personal faith beliefs on anyone else?
And that's the problem you always - as in always - run away from.
There are commonalities in monotheism so the issue there is in interpretation of the unitary God as it is in the interpretation of the unitary self. Pixies or the man in the moon do not fall into monotheism unless you are prepared to give them divine properties to make them equivalent to the unitary God but I think that has always defeated your intent when you have used it before.
I have no beef with methodological naturalism until you change it into philosophical naturalism. In other words your opening paragraph contains no actual argument against God.
There is no way I can make fabricate seriousness in respect of the possibility of the divine or our need for reconciliation thereof but that is an existential matter between you and God and not me because the contest between your ego and it's conception of Vlad is always going to be a foregone conclusion I would have thought.
-
I've brought myself up to date on this thread, it leaves me with a thought about Sriram, he reminds me of when the carpet fitter finds that he's trapped the Budgie under the carpet and not wanting to undo all of that hard work decides to hammer it flat where the Budgie is but it doesn't work the slight lump in the carpet remains no matter how many times you beat it down and then you find the continual beatings have altered the texture of the carpet in that area, you just can't get rid of that bloody Budgie or the mark he's left in the carpet, even though he's been thoroughly beaten.
ippy
:D :D
-
We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.
Then if I was you, I wouldn't rely on my feelings to illicit any great positive results.
-
Then if I was you, I wouldn't rely on my feelings to illicit any great positive results.
Yes, but modern agnosticism hasn't really got any great track record in philosophy and new atheism(prototype brexiters) ditto. What philosophy there is today is on secondary matters.
The great axial philosophy is theistic or sympathetic to it.
-
Yes, but modern agnosticism hasn't really got any great track record in philosophy and new atheism ditto.
what's that non sequitur assertion got to do with you being wrong about Seb?
-
what's that non sequitur assertion got to do with you being wrong about Seb?
Seb's argument is based on the notion of psychological incompetence but somehow he and you fail to recognise the implications of applying that only to those with the opposing argument.
-
Seb's argument is based on the notion of psychological incompetence but somehow he and you fail to recognise the implications of applying that only to those with the opposing argument.
Except that is now lying about Seb's position. Why us it that you feel the need to lie people's positions? You did it about wigginhall earlier today. It makes discussion with you nearly impossible.
-
Spoof,
There are commonalities in monotheism so the issue there is in interpretation of the unitary God as it is in the interpretation of the unitary self.
“Commonalities” is what you’d expect with stories like creation myths that have become culturally embedded, but it’s not nearly enough to get you from opinion to fact. There’s a lot more than commonalities with facts like gravity – you’ll come to a messy end when you jump out of the window regardless of your opinion on the matter.
Pixies or the man in the moon do not fall into monotheism unless you are prepared to give them divine properties to make them equivalent to the unitary God but I think that has always defeated your intent when you have used it before.
You’ve always got that ass-backwards – essentially you’re saying something like, “OK, none of the rules of epistemology apply to my religious claims but by slapping the word “divine” on them I can just retro-fit my assertions and bypass all that tedious reason and evidence stuff. It doesn’t work logically, and it still leaves you with the problem in any case that there are countless unverifiable faith beliefs that those who hold them also think to be divine. Why should I treat your personal one as true but, say, Ra or Zeus as not true?
I have no beef with methodological naturalism until you change it into philosophical naturalism. In other words your opening paragraph contains no actual argument against God.
First, as you’ve never understood what “philosophical naturalism” actually means there’s nothing to discuss.
Second though, the opening paragraph merely explained the qualitative difference between a claim of a “true for you too” fact (eg, “God"), and phenomena that are actually investigable and verifiable independent of peoples’ opinions on the matter.
There is no way I can make fabricate seriousness in respect of the possibility of the divine or our need for reconciliation thereof but that is an existential matter between you and God and not me because the contest between your ego and it's conception of Vlad is always going to be a foregone conclusion I would have thought.
I presume that alphabet soup of a sentence meant something in your head when you typed it, but I have no means of knowing what that might be.
I also note your continued relentless silence on how anyone would evaluate your personal opinion "God", either on a stand alone basis or by comparison with any other claimed divinity.
Why is that?
-
NS,
Except that is now lying about Seb's position. Why us it that you feel the need to lie people's positions? You did it about wigginhall earlier today. It makes discussion with you nearly impossible.
So far as I can tell Vlad thinks telling lies is fine, provided he's telling lies for Jesus. Either that or he genuinely has no concept of the difference between lying and truthfulness.
-
Seb's argument is based on the notion of psychological incompetence but somehow he and you fail to recognise the implications of applying that only to those with the opposing argument.
You what?
-
Spoof,
“Commonalities” is what you’d expect with stories like creation myths that have become culturally embedded,
Except there are good philosophical reasons for monotheism. I have given a reference to a lecture by Professer Feser earlier on in this thread.
Have you watched it or are you just happy to recommend the rest of us read the 'pop' scientists ?
-
You what?
Ah you need to speak fluent Vladdish here. Your question about fallibility has been gussied up to 'psychological incompetence' and he is still taking the incorrect and dishonest position that you think you can't be wrong.
-
Ah you need to speak fluent Vladdish here. Your question about fallibility has been gussied up to 'psychological incompetence' and he is still taking the incorrect and dishonest position that you think you can't be wrong.
I never said he thinks he can never be wrong.
Re: Karma
« Reply #1064 on: Today at 04:10:14 PM »
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on Today at 03:24:31 PM
Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?
We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.
I'm afraid were rather into modern humanists view of worship against Christians experience of it territory.
My italics.
I wonder how Seb would feel if he really thought he might be wrong about God and Jesus.
-
I never said he thinks he can never be wrong.
Re: Karma
« Reply #1064 on: Today at 04:10:14 PM »
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on Today at 03:24:31 PM
Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?
We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.[/i]
I'm afraid were rather into modern humanists view of worship against Christians experience of it territory.
My italics.
I wonder how Seb would feel if he really thought he might be wrong about God and Jesus.
and my bold and when Seb said this wasn't true, you then went down the route that he didn't apply the argument of 'psychological incompetence' to himself. Thereby lying about his position. Just as you have done for me and wigginhall today. Please stop lying.
-
Vlad,
Except there are good philosophical reasons for monotheism. I have given a reference to a lecture by Professer Feser earlier on in this thread.
Have you watched it or are you just happy to recommend the rest of us read the 'pop' scientists ?
No there aren't - you've just cherry picked one philosopher you think supports you, whereas for the most part philosophy takes religious beliefs to be a relic of the pre-Enlightenment age. Feser (and WLC too) are to philosophy what Behe is to biology - outliers generally dismissed by their peers. I didn't look at the lecture (I've been away) but I have seen a video of him running a tutorial at what I assumed was a theological college and it was desperate stuff - arrogant, dismissive, full of unsupported assertions etc. If you want a poster boy for some kind of philosophical support for theism you're going to have to do a lot better than Feser.
-
Seb,
You what?
"Psychological incompetence" is just a bit of vladdledegook special pleading he attempts in place of an answer to the question about how anyone should verify his faith claims or distinguish them from any other faith claims. Because he has no way of doing that, he's just decided that he (and presumably those who happen to share his pick of the available faiths) are psychologically competent, and everyone else is psychologically incompetent for not getting it.
Desperate stuff I know, but that really is the top and tail of it.
-
Vlad,
No there aren't - you've just cherry picked one philosopher you think supports you, whereas for the most part philosophy takes religious beliefs to be a relic of the pre-Enlightenment age. Feser (and WLC too) are to philosophy what Behe is to biology - outliers generally dismissed by their peers. I didn't look at the lecture (I've been away) but I have seen a video of him running a tutorial at what I assumed was a theological college and it was desperate stuff - arrogant, dismissive, full of unsupported assertions etc. If you want a poster boy for some kind of philosophical support for theism you're going to have to do a lot better than Feser.
Predictable ad hominem. If you had watched the video you would have seen that Feser calls out Hume too.
You are free of course to reference a rebuttal of Feser so we can judge for ourselves or even make one yourself though i'm not holding my breath on that.
Oh and Feser is not doing the Kalam cosmological argument either.
We all know where Behe's errors are, they were outlined by Christians at the Dover trial. What would you say Fesers error was...apart from a fallacious argument for enlightenment philosophy being better because it's modern. Apparently Aristotle and Aquinas support Feser too.
I'm afraid the New Atheists could not best classic philosophers so rejected philosophy.
-
Vlad,
No there aren't - you've just cherry picked one philosopher you think supports you, whereas for the most part philosophy takes religious beliefs to be a relic of the pre-Enlightenment age. Feser (and WLC too) are to philosophy what Behe is to biology - outliers generally dismissed by their peers. I didn't look at the lecture (I've been away) but I have seen a video of him running a tutorial at what I assumed was a theological college and it was desperate stuff - arrogant, dismissive, full of unsupported assertions etc. If you want a poster boy for some kind of philosophical support for theism you're going to have to do a lot better than Feser.
Seb,
"Psychological incompetence" is just a bit of vladdledegook special pleading he attempts in place of an answer to the question about how anyone should verify his faith claims or distinguish from any other faith claims. Because he has no way of doing that, he's just decided that he (and presumably those who happen to share his pick of the available faiths) are psychologically competent, and everyone else is psychologically incompetent for not getting it.
Desperate stuff I know, but that really is the top and tail of it.
Vladledegook? it'll be hard to beat that but I think everyone will get 'spouting Bluehillshite'.
-
Vlad,
Predictable ad hominem.
Then you don’t know what ad hominem means either.
If you had watched the video you would have seen that Feser calls out Hume too.
“Calls out Hume" eh? That’s some confidence he must have in his arguments if he tries that.
You are free of course to reference a rebuttal of Feser so we can judge for ourselves or even make one yourself though i'm not holding my breath on that.
That’s not how it works. You don’t just get to fire off links and invite people to rebut wherever they lead to. If you think Feser makes sound arguments then set them out here and I’ll consider them
Oh and Feser is not doing the Kalam cosmological argument either.
We all know where Behe's errors are, they were outlined by Christians at the Dover trial. What would you say Fesers error was...apart from a fallacious argument for enlightenment philosophy being better because it's modern. Apparently Aristotle and Aquinas support Feser too.
Remind me – were those two pre- or post Enlightenment thinkers? Oh, and you miss the point entirely about Behe, which is that mainstream contemporary philosophers treat Feser in the same way that contemporary mainstream biologists treat Behe – as an outlier with nothing to contribute to the field.
I'm afraid the New Atheists could not best classic philosophers so rejected philosophy.
Well that’s bizarre given that atheism rests on logically sound argument. If you think it to be otherwise, then why not finally have a go at finding a flaw in the reasoning that supports it? It might give you some kind of excuse at least for never answering the question you always dodge about how your faith claims should be validated or distinguished from different faith claims.
-
Vlad,
Vladledegook? it'll be hard to beat that but I think everyone will get 'spouting Bluehillshite'.
Further ducking and diving noted. Why not try argument in place of your standard knee-jerk abuse?
-
Remind me – were those two pre- or post Enlightenment thinkers? Oh, and you miss the point entirely about Behe, which is that mainstream contemporary philosophers treat Feser in the same way that contemporary mainstream biologists treat Behe – as an outlier with nothing to contribute to the field.
Citations?
-
Well that’s bizarre given that atheism rests on logically sound argument.
Let's hear it then....since that is a positive assertion.
-
Spoof,
Citations?
A please would have been nice. Anyway, turns out the most effective one is from Feser himself. He rejects "modern philosophy", preferring instead mediaeval scholasticism. He thinks that Aristotelianism is correct, and that philosophy pretty much peaked with Thomas Aquinas. Everything since has gone downhill: “Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought”.
(The Last Superstition)
Let's hear it then....since that is a positive assertion.
Again? You’ve been told what they are dozens, perhaps hundreds of times but you just ignore them and keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over again. What would be the point of watching you do it again?
-
Spoof,
A please would have been nice. Anyway, turns out the most effective one is from Feser himself. He rejects "modern philosophy", preferring instead mediaeval scholasticism. He thinks that Aristotelianism is correct, and that philosophy pretty much peaked with Thomas Aquinas. Everything since has gone downhill: “Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought”.
(The Last Superstition)
Again? You’ve been told what they are dozens, perhaps hundreds of times but you just ignore them and keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over again. What would be the point of watching you do it again?
How can a citation from Feser be evidence that he is not respected by his peers?
If arguments for atheism are so plentiful there should be no difficulty in providing one...
Present one now.
-
Vlad,
How can a citation from Feser be evidence that he is not respected by his peers?
You banana. "His peers" are practitioners of the modern philosophy he dismisses. Interestingly, having done some research I see that he's much given to temper tantrums and to insulting his critics and then blaming them for making him do it. I'm beginning to see now why he appeals to you...
If arguments for atheism are so plentiful there should be no difficulty in providing one...
Present one now.
Oh stop it now - you've seen them dozens of times and always just ignored them. Are you seriously asking me to provide you with an opportunity to ignore them again?
Seriously?
Tell you what - if you promise after all these years finally actually to respond to an argument with a counter-argument of your own rather than rely on one of your various stock-in-trade avoidance tactics of lying, abuse, misrepresentation etc then I'll set one out for you yet again.
Deal?
-
Vlad,
You banana. "His peers" are practitioners of the modern philosophy he dismisses. Interestingly, having done some research I see that he's much given to temper tantrums and to insulting his critics and then blaming them for making him do it. I'm beginning to see now why he appeals to you...
Oh stop it now - you've seen them dozens of times and always just ignored them. Are you seriously asking me to provide you with an opportunity to ignore them again?
Seriously?
Tell you what - if you promise after all these years finally actually to respond to an argument with a counter-argument of your own rather than rely on one of your various stock-in-trade avoidance tactics of lying, abuse, misrepresentation etc then I'll set one out for you yet again.
Deal?
Looks like I'll have to wait then an argument for atheism to be made.
-
Vlad,
Looks like I'll have to wait then an argument for atheism to be made.
No it doesn't - did you miss the bit when I offered to do it provided you agreeed to make today "Vlad's first annual non-trolling day"? All you have to do is to agree not just to ignore it, lie about it, use abuse as a diversionary tactic etc and you'll have it.
Why is that a problem for you?
-
Vlad,
No it doesn't - did you miss the bit when I offered to do it provided you agreeed to make today "Vlad's first annual non-trolling day"? All you have to do is to agree not just to ignore it, lie about it, use abuse as a diversionary tactic etc and you'll have it.
Why is that a problem for you?
Blue.
You had your chance and muffed it. First Dawkins let me down with his disappointing Pop science book the god delusion and now you have disappointed me. Dear agony aunt why do I keep being attracted to this type?
-
Vlad,
You had your chance and muffed it. First Dawkins let me down with his disappointing Pop science book the god delusion and now you have disappointed me. Dear agony aunt why do I keep being attracted to this type?
Is your right to troll really so important to you that you can't function without it? What does it say about you do you think that you refuse to stop it even in exchange for something you've asked for?
The only person here who's "blown it" is you.
-
I wonder how Seb would feel if he really thought he might be wrong about God and Jesus.
I really think that I might be wrong about a lot of things, that's because I freely admit that I am fallible.
Do you think that you might be wrong about God and Jesus?
-
Seb,
I really think that I might be wrong about a lot of things, that's because I freely admit that I am fallible.
Do you think that you might be wrong about God and Jesus?
That's what we doctors call "a question". Vlad doesn't answer questions - ever - (though he is keen on demanding answers to his questions), presumably because the trollng rule book forbids it.
-
I really think that I might be wrong about a lot of things, that's because I freely admit that I am fallible.
Do you think that you might be wrong about God and Jesus?
Continuing my theme about being a believer and having been a non believer, certainly earlier on in my belief I had doubts but they have always found an answer or experience which comes down on the side of belief. The doubt about secular humanism has been irreversible.
Loss of faith and doubt in SH was a painful crisis and doubts as a believer have been painful although I don't seem to doubt God as being true I do sometimes doubt myself.
Until doubt is affective and an event then you are either taking your beliefs for granted or you don't care or you are still on the fence and have never experienced commitment which is a belief in itself.
So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.
-
Continuing my theme about being a believer and having been a non believer, certainly earlier on in my belief I had doubts but they have always found an answer or experience which comes down on the side of belief. The doubt about secular humanism has been irreversible.
Loss of faith and doubt in SH was a painful crisis and doubts as a believer have been painful although I don't seem to doubt God as being true I do sometimes doubt myself.
Until doubt is affective and an event then you are either taking your beliefs for granted or you don't care or you are still on the fence and have never experienced commitment which is a belief in itself.
So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.
That isn't the question you were asked which was 'Do you think you might be wrong?'
-
So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.
That's answering a different question to that which I asked.
Why are you afraid?
-
That isn't the question you were asked which was 'Do you think you might be wrong?'
I really should read ahead more often!
-
Spoof,
Continuing my theme about being a believer and having been a non believer, certainly earlier on in my belief I had doubts but they have always found an answer or experience which comes down on the side of belief. The doubt about secular humanism has been irreversible.
Loss of faith and doubt in SH was a painful crisis and doubts as a believer have been painful although I don't seem to doubt God as being true I do sometimes doubt myself.
Until doubt is affective and an event then you are either taking your beliefs for granted or you don't care or you are still on the fence and have never experienced commitment which is a belief in itself.
So you've found some explanatory narratives that happen to make sense to you.
So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.
Yes we know you don't, but the question concerned whether you allow for the possibility that you could be nonetheless.
Why so coy?
-
That's answering a different question to that which I asked.
Why are you afraid?
What is it you are asking?
What is it I'm supposed to be frightened of.
As a former secular humanist I know talk is cheap, ignorance is a resort and all easily shrugged off because there is an intrinsic non commital modus about the whole thing.
With such a comforting crutch Christianity seems pretty alarming.
-
Spoof,
So you've found some explanatory narratives that happen to make sense to you.
Yes we know you don't, but the question concerned whether you allow for the possibility that you could be nonetheless.
Why so coy?
He asked if I think I'm wrong I don't and neither deep down do you.
-
He asked if I think I'm wrong I don't and neither deep down do you.
No, he didn't, he asked if you think you might be wrong. Could you be wrong - not do you think you are right!
-
What is it you are asking?
What is it I'm supposed to be frightened of.
As a former secular humanist I know talk is cheap, ignorance is a resort and all easily shrugged off because there is an intrinsic non commital modus about the whole thing.
With such a comforting crutch Christianity seems pretty alarming.
that would be you making a generalisation about people from your inclination to lying. It therefore means you think all Christians are liars.
-
Vlad notice
Because of the high degree of mobbing and monstering by the atheist fraternity...I am putting myself on a seven day suspension.
A merry Christmas to all my readers.
-
Vlad,
He asked if I think I'm wrong I don't and neither deep down do you.
No he didn't.
What he asked is whether you thought you might be.
-
Vlad,
Because of the high degree of mobbing and monstering by the atheist fraternity...I am putting myself on a seven day suspension.
There is no "mobbing and monstering" - only questions that you refuse to answer, and a degree of bewilderment at your relentless trolling.
-
That's a classic Vlad reversal. He's the one who is trolling and misrepresenting people on a regular basis, but now he claims that he's being mobbed and monstered, as people object to his lying. "Sir, I'm the victim here, because when I try to bully people, they don't like it. Not fair."
-
W
Some here just can't take it, eh ?!!?
-
trippy,
Some here just can't take it, eh ?!!?
He's the one-armed butler of this mb: he can dish it out, but he can't take it.
(C. Tim Vine)
-
I think that's unfair on Vlad he does 'take it', and in general pretty well. I do wish he would stop lying though
-
NS,
I think that's unfair on Vlad. Heroes 'take it', and in general pretty well. I do wish he would stop lying though
Depends what you mean by "take it". He takes it in the sense that, say, whenever he's caught red-handed in a lie he just ignores it and carries on as if nothing had happened, often by posting another one. He often doesn't though take it when his efforts are rebutted - abuse tends to be used as a place marker for "I have no way of responding to that".
-
Vlad notice
Because of the high degree of mobbing and monstering by the atheist fraternity...I am putting myself on a seven day suspension.
A merry Christmas to all my readers.
Merry Christmas to you too.
-
torridon,
Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all. So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist ......
What do they do when they bump into a tree? How do they move through a forest?
-
What are your qualifications for asserting that the gap cannot be bridged? Considering the supposed 'gaps' that have been bridged over the centuries, I am very optimistic that others will be bridged in the future too.
Judging by your post you don't really grasp what I was saying.
The people dealing with the Neanderthal remains can not claim, or assert, that this is how a Neanderthal lived as a person; how they felt, what it was like to be a Neanderthal. Making such claims would be the height of arrogance. That gap can not be bridged, ever!
Likewise, we can look at the artefacts of the brain but never know exactly what it produces per se; what it is in-itself, and also what it doesn't produce as being part of the system that is the human being and their nature.