RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post

RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eihwaz -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 8:48:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle then it makes sense, at this level, to view the science vs religion clash as a contest over the power to pronounce and define the truths that shape and regulate the social sphere. This conflict over epistemological power, as well as temporal power, has been underway since the European Renaissance. Religious belief has increasingly been relegated to the private sphere. As discussed in previous threads, there is no essential conflict between science and religion, epistemologically speaking, as they encompass different domains of knowledge. As a worldview, science is a type of mythology, in the sense of a set of beliefs and narratives through which we order and confer meaning on our world.

SternSkipper -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 8:50:53 PM)
quote: My experiences "out there" have been the same as yours. As far as I can tell, they're mostly just in here. K. Why am I not surprised?[:D]

DomKen -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 8:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: You seem to be arguing that there is some "higher" plane or other claptrap involved. There isn't. We may still be in the early stages of understanding the brain but we can already use various interventions to change the functioning of what you call consciousness. To argue otherwise is to ignore the evidence. Altering human consciousness does not mean it does not exist... in other words, brain function and consciousness being related to each other does not mean anything but that the human brain is a structure that houses the observer. Without the brain there is no consciousness. Consciousness is a term we apply to the functioning of the brain. To make any further claim you need evidence and there isn't any. quote: To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it This experiment has been done many times before, the only novel thing seems to be the scale of the aperatures. Interference goes away because of Heisenberg. In this case the detected photon is affected by the detector and therefore is no longer coherent with the other photons. Double slit experiments have shown this since the 1920's.

eihwaz -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:00:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ..."the expression and/or function of consciousness" is strictly a matter of the physical action of the brain, nothing more. You seem to be arguing that there is some "higher" plane or other claptrap involved... Do you experience life as "the physical action of the brain, nothing more?" Sounds tedious and exhausting. "Consciousness" is an example of an emergent property, whose behavior is not derivable from the constituents of the complex system out of which it arises. So, whether or not you believe that consciousness has a metaphysical aspect (and I know that you don't), there are still higher order characteristics of interest, which don't require invocation of the 'supernatural'.

eihwaz -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ... how science works as a world view, and not just a method for a testing hypothesis... I read a paper years ago that proposed that three world views combined to produce modern science: history and progress (from Judaism) rational cosmos (from the Greeks) nature is hostile and humans can conquer it (Germanic)

tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Sorry DK I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about "the expression and/or function of consciousness". I've bolded the words above for you as you obviously missed them first time around. It does help to respond to things that people actually write. A good way of ensuring this is to look at the words actually written. I might add that for me, the interesting and significant aspects of consciousness are not its (possible) physical constitution, rather things like its expression, articulation, meaning and how it's experienced/interpreted by the subject. In much the same way as the content and meaning of thought interests me, not the physical processes that might be involved in manufacturing thoughts. That's just me of course. The relevance of such processes seems to me to be at best limited. Focussing exclusively on the physiology of consciousness and thought bolsters an epistemological space that enables, for example, determinism and similar follies. But please don't let me discourage you, feel free to pursue them to your heart's content. And I meant that "the expression and/or function of consciousness" is strictly a matter of the physical action of the brain, nothing more. You seem to be arguing that there is some "higher" plane or other claptrap involved. There isn't. We may still be in the early stages of understanding the brain but we can already use various interventions to change the functioning of what you call consciousness. To argue otherwise is to ignore the evidence. You poor thingy. So caught up in the dogma of unremitting uncompromising materialism you refuse to acknowledge that there are social aspects to consciousness. For you it's purely a matter of synaptic connections or neurochemicals or some such ..... and everything else is to be ignored. And I haven't the faintest idea what "higher plane" you might be referring to but it's completely in your head, certainly not in mine. At its broadest, the "expression of consciousness" includes every thought, idea, utterance and action made by every human being ever. It even includes your posts here. So you're telling me that I ought to pay no attention to your posts. For once your advice makes perfect sense. I'm going to take it. Please take your own advice and cease posting such gibberish.

rawtape -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:23:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There a a number of crossovers/contrasts between science and religion, depending on the level of analysis/perspective adopted. This is one of more fundamental. At an operative level in society today - outside the research institute, outside the labs, the academy, in society in general - science acts as truth production system. Science is seen as the determiner of Truth. So, in this sense, one could say that science can be seen as a secular religion. Scientists can be seen as the priests of that religion. No real disagreement, TB -- he says, as he lovingly fingers his vestments, er lab coat, before putting it away for the day. Mind you, politicians, Republican think tanks, and the media might really be the arbiters of truth. Other than in cases like attempts to force Creationism/Intelligence Design into the science curriculum, most of us practicing scientists don't really take our priestly duties that seriously.

tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:27:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There a a number of crossovers/contrasts between science and religion, depending on the level of analysis/perspective adopted. This is one of more fundamental. At an operative level in society today - outside the research institute, outside the labs, the academy, in society in general - science acts as truth production system. Science is seen as the determiner of Truth. So, in this sense, one could say that science can be seen as a secular religion. Scientists can be seen as the priests of that religion. No real disagreement, TB -- he says, as he lovingly fingers his vestments, er lab coat, before putting it away for the day. Mind you, politicians, Republican think tanks, and the media might really be the arbiters of truth. Other than in cases like attempts to force Creationism/Intelligence Design into the science curriculum, most of us practicing scientists don't really take our priestly duties that seriously. LOL. I absolve you sinner! [:D] In fairness to most scientists, this role is more foisted upon them rather than one they have chosen or adopt. And the thought of Republican think tanks being the arbiters of Truth is simply too horrifying to contemplate! They can't even distinguish between real and imaginary WMDs. Total failures as empiricists!

tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:43:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle then it makes sense, at this level, to view the science vs religion clash as a contest over the power to pronounce and define the truths that shape and regulate the social sphere. This conflict over epistemological power, as well as temporal power, has been underway since the European Renaissance. Religious belief has increasingly been relegated to the private sphere. As discussed in previous threads, there is no essential conflict between science and religion, epistemologically speaking, as they encompass different domains of knowledge. As a worldview, science is a type of mythology, in the sense of a set of beliefs and narratives through which we order and confer meaning on our world. Yes. Indeedies. As you say, there is no inherent clash at an epistemological level. The clash materialises when one factors in the power element of knowledge and truth production - when these discourses are put in the social sphere. The power that derives from dominating the production and arbitration of truth is far greater than any military or economic power IMHO. So much flows from how we see and understand ourselves, others and the world we inhabit. This understanding of ourselves shapes every thought and action, every "expression of consciousness".

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:48:54 PM)
I hope that made you feel better, but I stand by everything I said, and you're going to hurt yourself if you keep trying to pat yourself on the back in the position you're in. K.

juliaoceania -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:49:00 PM)
quote: At its broadest, the "expression of consciousness" includes every thought, idea, utterance and action made by every human being ever. It even includes your posts here. So you're telling me that I ought to pay no attention to your posts. The ideas we transmit last longer than the structure that created them...

juliaoceania -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/21/2011 9:55:07 PM)
quote: Without the brain there is no consciousness. Consciousness is a term we apply to the functioning of the brain. To make any further claim you need evidence and there isn't any. What I have been trying to impart to you is that your thinking is limited to the material world that you live in. It is your field of vision that is incredibly narrow as not to even question that perhaps there is more to the material world that we cannot measure and test yet, but that does not mean we never will be able to. It is the fantastical notion that this maybe one of trillions of universes, some of them very much like our own, where we may even exist in different sorts of permutations, and others so divergent we could not even process their existence with our puny little brains... some that may even be completely without matter at all, and just pure consciousness. But, you can stay in your three dimensional measurable universe, while others with bigger brains explore the unknown.

DomKen -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 2:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Without the brain there is no consciousness. Consciousness is a term we apply to the functioning of the brain. To make any further claim you need evidence and there isn't any. What I have been trying to impart to you is that your thinking is limited to the material world that you live in. It is your field of vision that is incredibly narrow as not to even question that perhaps there is more to the material world that we cannot measure and test yet, but that does not mean we never will be able to. It is the fantastical notion that this maybe one of trillions of universes, some of them very much like our own, where we may even exist in different sorts of permutations, and others so divergent we could not even process their existence with our puny little brains... some that may even be completely without matter at all, and just pure consciousness. But, you can stay in your three dimensional measurable universe, while others with bigger brains explore the unknown. I'm all for exploring the unknown but that requires some evidence. There is none for your "consciousness is special" claims. If you're really interested in such things I recommend doing some research on epilectics who have had the two hemispheres of their brain's disconnected. This results in two "consciousnesses" inhabiting the same body. Each is limited by what each half of the brain does. It does cast strong doubts on the mystical stuff but it really does delve down into the basics of what makes a person a person.

juliaoceania -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 9:48:38 AM)
quote: I'm all for exploring the unknown but that requires some evidence. There is none for your "consciousness is special" claims. I do not believe I have claimed anything of the sort. You are the one with all of the claims, which really have only our ability to measure the physical world to support them. There may not even be a material world.....

eihwaz -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 1:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Without the brain there is no consciousness. Consciousness is a term we apply to the functioning of the brain. At best we can say that without the brain, there's no externally observable consciousness. Only the rudiments of the neurobiology of consciousness have thus far been elucidated. No one knows whether the brain generates or mediates consciousness or a combination. The effects on consciousness of mechanical, electrical, or pharmaceutical interventions in brain structure and physiology don't answer that question.

eihwaz -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 1:31:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm all for exploring the unknown but that requires some evidence Exploring the unknown is something science fundamentally does, no? As well as data, science also relies on surmise, speculation, metaphor, intuition, and occasionally hallucination. Sometimes the data leads, sometimes it follows. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is none for your "consciousness is special" claims. I don't know which phantom teleologists you're arguing with -- no one participating in this discussion as far as I can tell.

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 4:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Consciousness is a term we apply to the functioning of the brain. To make any further claim you need evidence and there isn't any. Oh there's evidence. We've been here before. You just refuse to accept it, and instead go around preaching that it doesn't exist. K.

DomKen -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 8:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm all for exploring the unknown but that requires some evidence Exploring the unknown is something science fundamentally does, no? As well as data, science also relies on surmise, speculation, metaphor, intuition, and occasionally hallucination. Sometimes the data leads, sometimes it follows. To xplore something presently unknown there has to be some way to get useful data. If anyone has an idea that would establish that the brain is seperate from consciousness they are welcome to try to gather the data. So far all such attempts have been failures. OTOH the people investigating consciousness as a manifestation of the functioning of the human brain have made significant discoveries in the last few years. That means that at present the hypothesis that consciousness is a function of the brain is the scientifcally valid one and the psuedo mystical consciousness is seperate hypothesis is invalid.

DomKen -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 8:55:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Consciousness is a term we apply to the functioning of the brain. To make any further claim you need evidence and there isn't any. Oh there's evidence. We've been here before. You just refuse to accept it, and instead go around preaching that it doesn't exist. Try again then. Present your data, not anecdotes and not studies designed so poorly that I can come up with a better protocol in five minutes.

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/22/2011 10:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Try again then. Present your data, not anecdotes and not studies designed so poorly that I can come up with a better protocol in five minutes. Or at least that you think you can, eh? And, of course, one need only add that there is no such thing when it comes to findings that contradict your faith. With all due respect, Ken, I've come to regard you as the closest thing to Jerry Falwell that I would ever have imagined it possible to run into outside of a "Praise Jesus!" breakfast. The only thing you two differ on is doctrine. Now that's not to say that I can't appreciate your interest. It's important to draw heresy out into the open, where it can be crushed with suitable vigor and showmanship for the education of the heathen. But only a fool would credit your pretence of an open mind. So cultivate patience, good priest. I'm sure that the topic will come up again sooner or later in one thread or another. Or if not that topic exactly, then some other outrageous heresy worthy of scourging. K.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625