"I don't know"

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A

I like this guy! A true man of science.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A

I like this guy! A true man of science.

Cheers.

Sriram

Well, as someone who has said on here a few times thar I worship the great god Dunno, I'm not really going to object that. The problem you have though Sriram is that you have exactly claimed the sort of knowledge that he disparage at around 20.20 in the talk.

I should note that I think he effectively misrepresents 'neo atheists', in particular Dawkins for espousing certainty and 'strict atheism' by which he means as far as I can see 'There.is no god'. When he talks about others making a false dichotomy, I think he is himself doing that.

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A

I like this guy! A true man of science.

Cheers.

Sriram

That was good. I think you would do well to heed his message.

[Enki]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice TED talk by David Eagleman (22 minutes). Makes lot of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A

I like this guy! A true man of science.

Cheers.

Sriram

Excellent and entertaining. My position is very similar. How often do people make assertions without any evidence, and the best you can say is that they are possibilities?

[Sriram]

Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end.  He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.

What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. 

[Nearly Sane]

Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end.  He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.

What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. 

What is a 'neo atheist'?

[Sriram]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I could discuss whether it's a valid term but since based on the description I am not a neo atheist, it's incorrect for you to describe me as such, but then that's one if the problems of lazy generalisations.

You haven't, as stated, just been pointing out possibilities. You have been making categorical statements. Again, go and listen to what he says at around 20.20, and perhaps reflect a little.

[Aruntraveller]

Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end.  He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.

What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. 

What you have been arguing for is that we accept unsubstantiated claims. What others have asked for is proof of these claims. This isn't difficult. Whilst ever you offer opinions without facts to back them up it will remain the same.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Hitchens razor, apparently.

That doesn't make me a neo-atheist, btw.

It makes me a realist.

[Enki]

Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end.  He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.

What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. 

I have been an atheist since at least the early sixties, long before the attitudes of the 'new atheists' were formed. From that time to the present day I have never suggested that there is no god nor any overriding intelligence, only that I have no belief in such things because of the complete lack of evidence that such things exist. Furthermore I have no ideology that I know of. To link me in as a 'neo atheist' smacks of ignorance, a blinkered approach and prejudice on your part. It is also incorrect.

I have long liked David Eagleman's approach. He dislikes the idea that one should assert things in absolute terms, and suggests we should keep an open mind as much as possible with due attention to evidence, especially scientific evidence. Science, it seems to me, should always be open to new ideas and new evidence, and its methodology is the most objective way we have of finding things out about our natural world.

On the other hand, you have this tendency to make assertions in an absolute form which are not even backed by evidence at all. Recent examples, for instance, are:

"Lets not start that again! I have highlighted many times how evolution happens because of an inner intelligence (consciousness) that prompts suitable adaptations to the phenotype in line with the environment. Millions of such adaptations, seemingly unrelated, lead to humans.   A miracle indeed....obviously directed by a common consciousness from within."

"In a broad sense....yes. Like the elaborate process of evolution leading to intelligent life (humans). It is a miracle that obviously has a superior intelligence driving it. "

"Consciousness exists independently of the body/brain but it projects itself into the Personality through the mind. That is why when the Personalty (body) gets damaged the mind also gets affected. The mind incidentally, is different from consciousness. "

"The only way the hard problem of consciousness can be explained is by realizing that consciousness is a basic property of the soul that exists independent of the body/brain.  The body and brain are only platforms....like a computer hardware being used by a human."

So, perhaps it should be me who questions you on why you are happy with this video when Eagleman criticises in his entertaining way such blind assertions as you tend to produce?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end.  He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open. That is what I have been arguing for all the time.

What you people are so happy about in the video I don't know. 

I do. Much as I admire and like Eagleman, if by "neo-atheists" he means someone who says "there certainly are no gods" that's not what Dawkins et al say, and nor is it a position anyone here that I've seen holds, notwithstanding your straw manning about that. You seem to have become caught again in your basic misunderstanding of the burden of proof - ie, that "I have no good reasons to think that gods exists" and "gods don't exist" are the same statement. They're not the same statement at all though, and the only atheists I'm aware of subscribe to the former position but not the latter.

You on the other hand precisely fall foul of the tendency Eagleman warns about, namely that you are certain – really, really certain it seems – that your various claims and assertions are true, even though they rest on very bad reasoning and no evidence at all. He's admonishing people like you, not actual atheists.       

[Sriram]

Eagleman is clearly placing atheists (neo) at one extreme end and religious myths at the other end. He does not accept both the positions....with which I agree.

He is however not saying anything explicitly about non material phenomena that could indicate an after life or anything about the true nature of the mind or consciousness.  He is 'open' in other words....unless proven wrong. I agree with this too.

He clearly doesn't want to 'cowboy up' and commit himself to any thing that might become controversial.

The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years.... and second because of phenomena such as  RED's and the documented cases of reincarnation by Jim Tucker, besides other phenomena. And third because of the open position that many scientists take on the nature of consciousness and the subtle power of the unconscious mind.  All these things match up as far as I am concerned.

[jeremyp]

Eagleman is very clear about neo atheists (such as yourselves) and their ideology being in one extreme end of the spectrum with religious myths being at the other end.  He is advocating a middle path where numerous possibilities are open.

Didn't you listen to the bit where deliberately denied the "anything goes" mentality that you seem so keen on?

[Enki]

Eagleman is clearly placing atheists (neo) at one extreme end and religious myths at the other end. He does not accept both the positions....with which I agree.

Leaving aside as to whether he is misrepresenting the position on the 'new atheist' I also agree with his point that "that we know too little to commit to a position of strict atheism" (4.48 mins) where strict atheism involves the idea that God is non existent is held as a truth and that "we know way too much to commit to a particular religious position" (5.00 mins)

He is however not saying anything explicitly about non material phenomena that could indicate an after life or anything about the true nature of the mind or consciousness.  He is 'open' in other words....unless proven wrong. I agree with this too.

I also agree. Remember though he makes the point that "It's not anything goes. it's anything goes at first. And then what we do is import the tools of science, right?" (he then gives the example of ESP and the fact that we cannot find any evidence in favour of it. So he rules it out.) (14.29 mins)

He clearly doesn't want to 'cowboy up' and commit himself to any thing that might become controversial.

It's nothing about being 'controversial' but everything to do with being appropriate and looking at the evidence. "And there's other domains where it's appropriate to not commit to a particular idea in the complete absence of evidence to do so." (20.12 mins)

The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years.... and second because of phenomena such as  RED's and the documented cases of reincarnation by Jim Tucker, besides other phenomena. And third because of the open position that many scientists take on the nature of consciousness and the subtle power of the unconscious mind.  All these things match up as far as I am concerned.

And a Catholic, such as Alan Burns, might say "The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years.... and second because of the phenomena of miracles, besides other phenomena. And third because of the historical evidence for the resurrection. All these things match up as far as I am concerned.

Quite honestly I see no important differences between your approach and that of any hardened religionist, both of which, incidentally, I reject.

[Sriram]

You are interpreting 'anything goes' as RED's and such phenomena. I see it as referring to religious myths. 

[Enki]

You are interpreting 'anything goes' as RED's and such phenomena. I see it as referring to religious myths.

I'm simply following what he is saying. He suggests that it's 'anything goes' at first but that we bring the tools of science to bear  and follow the evidence.  You can think it is simply about religious myths, but he clearly doesn't limit it to that because he gives the example of ESPs. So, I see this as your own interpretation.

[Sriram]

Eagleman clearly talks of (at 15 minutes) when we are beyond the tool box of science which is the interesting part of the possibility space. We need to have tolerance for multiple ideas because there is so much that we are missing. Words to that effect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Eagleman is clearly placing atheists (neo) at one extreme end and religious myths at the other end. He does not accept both the positions....with which I agree.

Except there’s no particular evidence that “neo-atheists” of this type – ie people who assert that gods definitively do not exist – are actually real. If instead he (and you) are thinking of the so-called “new” atheists (Dawkins, Harris et al) then none of them say this.

He is however not saying anything explicitly about non material phenomena that could indicate an after life or anything about the true nature of the mind or consciousness.  He is 'open' in other words....unless proven wrong. I agree with this too.

Pretty much everyone is “open” to the possibility of anything that’s logically coherent. Richard Feynman famously said that all scientific theories begin with guesses for example. You think you’re making a point with significance here, but you’re not.   

He clearly doesn't want to 'cowboy up' and commit himself to any thing that might become controversial.

The reason why I am able to take a more definitive position in such matters is firstly because of my own spiritual experiences over the years....

Your “spiritual experiences” are just explanatory narratives handed to you by the culture into which you happened to be born. Had you been born a remote Amazonian tribesman instead your “spiritual experiences” would have been that tree spirits guided you home after a hunt. This is a point Eagleman makes, and it’s a point against you not for you. 
 

…and second because of phenomena such as  RED's and the documented cases of reincarnation by Jim Tucker, besides other phenomena.

All of which have been falsified without difficulty and without rebuttal.

And third because of the open position that many scientists take on the nature of consciousness and the subtle power of the unconscious mind.

An “open position” tells you nothing at all about whether something is likely rather than just possible. I have an “open position” about leprechauns. That tells me nothing at all though about whether or not they actually exist.

All these things match up as far as I am concerned.

All these things are very, very bad reasons for thinking your various truth claims and assertions are justified. The reasons they are very, very bad reasons for thinking that have been explained to you many times, and yet you refuse point blank to engage with the falsifications you’re given.

What does this tell us? It tells that that in addition to the various logical fallacies on which your claims rest, you’re also a victims of the sunk cost fallacy (ie, you’re so personally invested in your beliefs that you cannot allow yourself even to consider that they’re all wrong) and the theory stickiness fallacy (ie that no matter how unarguable the reasoning that undoes you, you’re determined to cling to your beliefs as a man clings to a cement lifebelt nonetheless).

It's all a bit sad really.     

[Sriram]

I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.

[jeremyp]

I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.

I think you need to re-examine your attitude. Everybody here is trying to engage in good faith. Your insults are unbecoming.

[Sriram]

Oh really?! Look who is talking!!

[jeremyp]

Oh really?! Look who is talking!!

Yes, really.

[Enki]

I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.

I understand how it must feel when you are faced with arguments you are unable to answer. It can lead to a sense of utter frustration which can then come out in the form of insults. I always find my own sense of spirituality helps me to keep on an even keel most of the time. Perhaps your adherence to your own spiritual leanings might do the same.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I think you should confine your essays to your understanding of out dated early 20th century science and stop waxing eloquent about spirituality, on which you clearly have no background.

You believe things for very bad reasons. Why they're very bad reasons is set out for you here calmly and clearly, but you cannot or will not engage with those arguments - presumably because you're either so logically illiterate (ie, you can't) or so invested in the edifice of beliefs that nothing can be allowed to challenge them (ie, you won't). Or both.

Here for example you've just ignored the arguments again and tried instead yet another fallacy - the Courtier's reply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

What do you hope to achieve by behaving this way in front of people who are capable of rational thinking?

 

[Sriram]

Maybe it is partly a spill over from the Empire days and partly your impressions of impeccable scientific knowledge or whatever .... but many of you do  seem to think that you can insult me and others in every other post and then if I am a bit harsh in one post ...oh...you are so insulted!!   Its a joke really!

The number of times many of you have been down right insulting to me I have lost count...and on top of that you people tend to gang up and rush to each others support on a relay basis ....which in fact shows how weak you people really are!

Be that as it may, I have no intention to insult anyone and I am sorry if Blue or anyone else has felt hurt. I will be more careful in the future.