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

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 12:20:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou After years of debating religion I know that I'm not going to change someone's mind who believes that they're going to live forever. I'm not debating religion. But thanks for confirming my impression that you have been. Nuff said, eh? K.

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 1:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape I think a more accurate statement would be "Thoughts occur." Implicit, but not explicitly articulated, in his formulation is the premise that for thoughts to occur, there must be a thinking entity, him. Well hold on. What does that mean? Who is making this claim? And on what basis? Follow it through: "Thoughts exist." How do you know? "I experience them." Ergo Sum. That is Descartes' argument. It does not rest on agency. He acknowledges that the thoughts he experiences might not originate with him. That is irrelevant. It is the fact that he experiences them that establishes being: "I am. I exist." So it seems there's a semantic quibble either way. To simply say, "thoughts occur," explicitly (if not intentionally) ignores the experiencer. To say, "je pense," implicitly (if not intentionally) attributes agency to the experiencer. We do, however, know what Descartes meant. The question I'm left with is, are you trying to say something different? K.

lickenforyou -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 1:59:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou After years of debating religion I know that I'm not going to change someone's mind who believes that they're going to live forever. I'm not debating religion. But thanks for confirming my impression that you have been. Nuff said, eh? K. If it were anyone else I would assume you were being snarky, but I think you actually think I'm arguing religion because I mentioned the word religion.

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 3:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou If it were anyone else I would assume you were being snarky, but I think you actually think I'm arguing religion because I mentioned the word religion. Nah, I was being snarky. Heh. [:D] But seriously, the reason I mentioned your sarcastic remark is because it shows your attitude toward the data. And that attitude seems to carry through your posts. I say there is no detectable brain activity; you argue that there might still be some going on at an undetectable level. I point out that even if that's true we don't have the kind of coherent cortical activity that we know to be a correlate of consciousness; you say, well maybe decades of neuroscience are wrong! I mean, ya gotta admit it looks like you're reaching. So yes, it has appeared to be the case that you've been trying to defending a belief. And when you characterized our exchange as "debating religion," on the basis of a vacuous claim that I'm someone "who believes that they're going to live forever," that really did pretty much cast it in stone as a "belief" issue. But it's clear why you're certain of that: It's your belief that's at stake. Because your mind-reading claim notwithstanding, you don't have a fucking clue what I believe! K.

DomKen -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 5:01:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou If it were anyone else I would assume you were being snarky, but I think you actually think I'm arguing religion because I mentioned the word religion. Nah, I was being snarky. Heh. [:D] But seriously, the reason I mentioned your sarcastic remark is because it shows your attitude toward the data. And that attitude seems to carry through your posts. I say there is no detectable brain activity; you argue that there might still be some going on at an undetectable level. I point out that even if that's true we don't have the kind of coherent cortical activity that we know to be a correlate of consciousness; you say, well maybe decades of neuroscience are wrong! I mean, ya gotta admit it looks like you're reaching. So yes, it has appeared to be the case that you've been trying to defending a belief. And when you characterized our exchange as "debating religion," on the basis of a vacuous claim that I'm someone "who believes that they're going to live forever," that really did pretty much cast it in stone as a "belief" issue. But it's clear why you're certain of that: It's your belief that's at stake. Because your mind-reading claim notwithstanding, you don't have a fucking clue what I believe! K. You do realize that it is entirely possible that the classic NDE is an artifact of the brain shutting down? Most anyone who has ever fainted or had vertigo can describe a narrowing of the visual field, a dark place with a light at the end, and a confusion of audotory and visual information. Also keep in mind that memories are formed chemical activity not by the measureable electrical activity. As a matter of fact the memory center might do all sorts of things when electrical activity drops to nearly nil. Also why do so few report negative experiences? Does no one go to hell, hades etc.?

lickenforyou -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 8:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou If it were anyone else I would assume you were being snarky, but I think you actually think I'm arguing religion because I mentioned the word religion. Nah, I was being snarky. Heh. [:D] But seriously, the reason I mentioned your sarcastic remark is because it shows your attitude toward the data. And that attitude seems to carry through your posts. I say there is no detectable brain activity; you argue that there might still be some going on at an undetectable level. I point out that even if that's true we don't have the kind of coherent cortical activity that we know to be a correlate of consciousness; you say, well maybe decades of neuroscience are wrong! I mean, ya gotta admit it looks like you're reaching. So yes, it has appeared to be the case that you've been trying to defending a belief. And when you characterized our exchange as "debating religion," on the basis of a vacuous claim that I'm someone "who believes that they're going to live forever," that really did pretty much cast it in stone as a "belief" issue. But it's clear why you're certain of that: It's your belief that's at stake. Because your mind-reading claim notwithstanding, you don't have a fucking clue what I believe! K. I quoted a neuroscientist in charge of a Brain Bank who says that neuroscience is “still in its infancy.” I also point out that the evidence of NDEs is anecdotal. And, you won’t even admit that there’s the slightest possibility that you could be wrong. That sounds pretty dogmatic to me.

tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/26/2011 9:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: rawtape I think a more accurate statement would be "Thoughts occur." Implicit, but not explicitly articulated, in his formulation is the premise that for thoughts to occur, there must be a thinking entity, him. Well hold on. What does that mean? Who is making this claim? And on what basis? Follow it through: "Thoughts exist." How do you know? "I experience them." Ergo Sum. That is Descartes' argument. It does not rest on agency. He acknowledges that the thoughts he experiences might not originate with him. That is irrelevant. It is the fact that he experiences them that establishes being: "I am. I exist." So it seems there's a semantic quibble either way. To simply say, "thoughts occur," explicitly (if not intentionally) ignores the experiencer. To say, "je pense," implicitly (if not intentionally) attributes agency to the experiencer. We do, however, know what Descartes meant. The question I'm left with is, are you trying to say something different? K. As I understand it, Descartes was claiming that his non-sentient human entity deprived of all sensory stimulation was doing the thinking. Oddly this non-sentient entity deprived of all sensory stimulation somehow has managed to acquire a language. And not just any language but French (originally, later editions use Latin), a language it just happened to share with Descartes (oh! serendipity!). I've never been able to understand how something deprived of all sensory stimulation could learn/communicate its thoughts in French. The entity also appears to possess a similar structure of thought as Descartes. Again I am unable to imagine a process that would enable this. Meaningful communication between any human being and a non-sentient human entity with the required degree of certainty to establish a fact is not possible in the circumstances Descartes outlines. Until these little details are clarified, sorry, it is not a "fact" that Descartes' entity's thought establishes its 'being'. That is Descartes' speculation. It is seen by some as tautological (see below). One may legitimately assert its possibility as a speculation. There is no way of establishing this as fact that I'm aware of. "[...] recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought." Pierre Gassendi Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/27/2011 4:21:20 PM)
There has been a lot of speculation about what might be going on, but nothing yet that sticks.... Not all NDEs occur when the brain is shutting down. And it is difficult to see how any conscious experience, from any cause, could occur under conditions where there is anoxic loss of brain function during cardiac arrest. As for memories, to have a clear memory of events that occured in the operating theater during flatline EEG would require at minimum perception of those events. It is difficult to see how there could be any coherent perceptual processing going on under those conditions. It's a tough nut, this one... As for so few reporting negative experiences, actually some do. But the amazing thing to me is that anybody reports anything. If I had an NDE, I can assure you with confidence that I wouldn't tell a soul (except maybe my neice). Who needs it? The "look," the recommendations for psychiatric referral, the comments about what a level-headed a fellow he used to be before the operation, not to mention the talk about "pink unicorns" and "woo." No thanks. I'd just keep my mouth shut and toddle over to Marina Jack's for a margherita. K.

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/27/2011 4:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou you won’t even admit that there’s the slightest possibility that you could be wrong. Unh... that I could be wrong about what? Your post doesn't identify what claim you're attributing to me here. K.

Kirata -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/27/2011 4:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As I understand it, Descartes was claiming that his non-sentient human entity deprived of all sensory stimulation was doing the thinking. I suppose you could check yourself on that. Personally, I can't even begin to imagine what a "non-sentient human entity" might be. K.

DomKen -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/27/2011 4:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata There has been a lot of speculation about what might be going on, but nothing yet that sticks.... Not all NDEs occur when the brain is shutting down. And it is difficult to see how any conscious experience, from any cause, could occur under conditions where there is anoxic loss of brain function during cardiac arrest. As for memories, to have a clear memory of events that occured in the operating theater during flatline EEG would require at minimum perception of those events. It is difficult to see how there could be any coherent perceptual processing going on under those conditions. Who said NDE's are conscious experiences? I think it far more likely that they are something on the order of the weird nightmares people report after general anethesia.

tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post (6/27/2011 5:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As I understand it, Descartes was claiming that his non-sentient human entity deprived of all sensory stimulation was doing the thinking. I suppose you could check yourself on that. Personally, I can't even begin to imagine what a "non-sentient human entity" might be. K. To tell you the truth Kirata, I can't really imagine such a thing either. It's so nice we finally agree on something isn't it! [:D] Descartes asks us to credit the existence of a human being deprived of all sentient experience .. no vision, no sense of touch, smell, hearing taste, sex or gender, self, identity ..... (hence non-sentient). In other words something that possesses a human form (an entity) but is unable to experience anything of the world around it. Whether such a thing can exist is one thing. If it could exist, how on earth could anyone claim that such a thing is capable of thinking? How would they be able to discern this? How could this human form communicate its 'thought's (if in fact it was capable of thinking)? How and where did it acquire its access to Latin or French? Or language in general? How is it able to formulate its 'thoughts' into coherent concepts and sentences intelligible to us mere humans? I have no way of answering any of those questions. Presumably, as you tell us you can't imagine this thing, neither do you. Descartes insists that such a thing would be capable of thought. So how did Descartes arrive at this conclusion? How can Descartes' conclusion be taken at face value?

Page: << < prev 13 14 15 16 [17]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875