Karma

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!

[Gordon]

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 #341

Nothing 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 #348

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.

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'. 

[Gonnagle]

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 Are you having a drink tomorrow, I will be asking you to repeat that after a couple of pints

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

That's easy for you to say Are you having a drink tomorrow, I will be asking you to repeat that after a couple of pints

Gonnagle.

I'll commit it to memory tonight: be word perfect by tomorrow (yep: I'm drinking, no motorcycles tomorrow) 

[Nearly Sane]

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

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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".

[Walter]

I am not dismissing any true findings of science.

do you think science makes untrue findings?


 

[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 .

[bluehillside Retd.]

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]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

was he called Sriram?

He's more logically naked than unclothed I'd have thought.

[Walter]

Walter,

He's more logically naked than unclothed I'd have thought.

Blue

you're right about that.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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. 

[Jack Knave]

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...

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.