RE: The Covert Messiah

RE: The Covert Messiah (Full Version)

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

Message

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 8:43:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML To your first point, K: When prefrontal lobotomies were performed routinely damage was invariably done to that moral part of consciousness which informed of appropriateness. I say apparently because I don't have access to all case histories. Damage to the angular gyrus invariably results in interference with language and spatial related cognition among other predictable problems. I could go on to show cause and effect between brain and consciousness. The evidence seems far more convincingly causal than correlational. But the operative word there is "seems". The evidence you describe is correlational. I can demonstrate that flipping a switch will cause an electric light to illuminate. But that doesn't prove that the switch is what's causing the illumination. In fact, of course, it's not. The switch is just functioning as a gateway. You commented earlier with regard to meditation that it's just the brain deciding to meditate. But as anyone who has meditated will tell you, there comes a point where the brain doesn't like it at all. It gets cranky, and demands to know what the fuck all this has to do with lunch. Whereupon, consciousness is obliged to insist that it do what it's told whether it likes it or not. I think it would be fruitful, here, to draw a distinction between consciousness and mind. Our associational mind is constantly processing and making connections. We are conscious of this. We can observe it at work. That's our brain. And it is, as you say, a wondrous thing. But sometimes we need to take control of it, either to use it for something or just to shut it up because it's driving us crazy. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML To your second point: Yes, it might. I agree. However, it seems to be expanding at accelerating speed so the "cosmic dendrites" will need to be damned elastic, I would think. Or growing very fast. Heh. But I have a question, because I was surprised to see you go here. Wouldn't something of the kind you're suggesting constitute a "cosmic consciousness"? K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 10:59:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Which part of: quote: Please rest assured I'm totally uninterested in anything you have to say on any topic and have no wish to receive any communication from you unless it is to apologise for your past repulsive utterly unfounded abuse and generally obnoxious behaviour. is beyond your comprehension? The part where you can make me do anything. If you don't like your it when the stupid things you post are deconstructed then stop making stupid posts on the internet.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 6:57:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If you don't like your it when the stupid things you post are deconstructed then stop making stupid posts on the internet. Not that I've never made a typo myself, but stupid mistakes are always particularly embarrassing when one is attempting to accuse someone else of being stupid. And it only makes things worse when you are insisting on something stupid yourself. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It does not say we cannot ever understand the brain enough to understand consciousness. If you wish to not be compared to a creationist stop spouting mystical claptrap like it is science and stop misusing Gödel in exactly the same way creationists do. Godel argues that Materialism is false and that "the Platonistic view is the only one tenable." This position allows no possibility of understanding consciousness by studying the brain. Either you don't understand Godel or you are misrepresenting him. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/ K.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 7:24:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel As was pointed out earlier in the thread being unconscious is not the same as being brain dead. As nobody ever claimed that it was, tossing a stupid fish onto the table is just rude and messy. K.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 8:58:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It does not say we cannot ever understand the brain enough to understand consciousness. If you wish to not be compared to a creationist stop spouting mystical claptrap like it is science and stop misusing Gödel in exactly the same way creationists do. Godel argues that Materialism is false and that "the Platonistic view is the only one tenable." This position allows no possibility of understanding consciousness by studying the brain. Either you don't understand Godel or you are misrepresenting him. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/ I'm not discussing Gödel's spiritual beliefs I'm discussing Gödel's mathematical theorem of incompleteness. It is not a spiritual belief it is a rigorous mathematical proof. Maybe you should try understanding the difference. And before you start, Gödel's theorem was not based on his spiritual beliefs but on his insight into a particular aspect of mathematics that people had been working on since Fermat, i.e. was there some demonstrably true thing in mathematics that could not be established to be true by mathematical proof.

Kirata -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 9:32:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm not discussing Gödel's spiritual beliefs I'm discussing Gödel's mathematical theorem of incompleteness. It is not a spiritual belief it is a rigorous mathematical proof. Maybe you should try understanding the difference. This is not about anybody's "spiritual beliefs," or for that matter simply a "mathematical theorem." Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with logic. They are considered to be among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle, and necessarily therefore the boundary between his mathematical and philosophical work must remain, in nearly all cases, an artificial one. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 10:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: What is the demarcation point between science and mysticism? I'm not sure that there an absolute one. Evidence based explanations seem to me to be far superior to those that lack supporting evidence. But all that hangs on what is allowed as admissible evidence, who gets to make those definitions, and on what basis the decisions are made doesn't it? The system of seeking some sort of veracity in evidence based explanations (may I say: science?) has built in mechanisms of referees for journal publications and replication of experiments by other investigators, all subject to debate unless a UN committee decides on settled science[8\|] Like democracy it is messy but it is the best we have, don't you think? The search for knowledge is intrinsically faulty conducted by us lessor gods. [;)] Yes. That is always a danger. Perhaps those religious opportunists ought to be locked into a room with their secular counterparts, the acolytes of Scientism, and they could both talk over each others heads for an eternity. Or for as long as it takes for them to realise that they are far closer to each other than either of them will admit. quote: Great thread drift. Great fun. Have we exhausted the discourse? If so, please take the last word. I've enjoyed it too. Thank you for a pleasant exchange of ideas and thoughts.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 10:41:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata This is not about anybody's "spiritual beliefs," or for that matter simply a "mathematical theorem." Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with logic. They are considered to be among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle, and necessarily therefore the boundary between his mathematical and philosophical work must remain, in nearly all cases, an artificial one. K. Yes. The limits Godel proved apply whether one chooses to designate their field of application as 'mathematics' or 'science' or 'philosophy', or.that matter 'goobldegook'. They apply regardless of whether one acknowledges their existence or not, their truth or not, their relevance or not. Our personal reactions to Godel's limits, whether we accept them or we try to dress those reactions up as logic or limit their application to certain esoteric fields matter not an iota. Just as all of Canute's orders, ranting and raving to turn back the tide were laughable failures that had zero effect on the tides. Ultimately our personal reactions to Godel reveal much more about ourselves than anything else.

Arturas -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/31/2013 11:18:27 PM)
quote: Clearly almost everything in the NT about a person named Jesus is fiction Why? How would you know that? Ah, silly me. This is just an opinion that is presented as fact by using the word "clearly". Clever.

hardude -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 1:40:45 AM)
Just to drop in, there is very little authenticated historical evidence of this man, other than having been executed.....writings after his death are, to my mind, suspect. Self-serving bulshit

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 1:49:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm not discussing Gödel's spiritual beliefs I'm discussing Gödel's mathematical theorem of incompleteness. It is not a spiritual belief it is a rigorous mathematical proof. Maybe you should try understanding the difference. This is not about anybody's "spiritual beliefs," or for that matter simply a "mathematical theorem." Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with logic. They are considered to be among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle, and necessarily therefore the boundary between his mathematical and philosophical work must remain, in nearly all cases, an artificial one. K. Bullshit. It's a mathematical proof. This looks like the whole thing but it is from a lecture and I can't find Gödel's actual formal proof explicitly online anywhere. http://web.yonsei.ac.kr/bkim/goedel.pdf It can be applied to certain situations where the requirements of Gödel are true, in short a set of axioms define the rules and a set of states could be represented as numbers. People outside the mathematics field make a big deal about it and it is important but it isn't philosophy, it does not apply to everything and it sure as hell does not prove a single thing about there being any mystical claptrap being true.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 2:04:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata This is not about anybody's "spiritual beliefs," or for that matter simply a "mathematical theorem." Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with logic. They are considered to be among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle, and necessarily therefore the boundary between his mathematical and philosophical work must remain, in nearly all cases, an artificial one. K. Yes. The limits Godel proved apply whether one chooses to designate their field of application as 'mathematics' or 'science' or 'philosophy', or.that matter 'goobldegook'. They apply regardless of whether one acknowledges their existence or not, their truth or not, their relevance or not. Our personal reactions to Godel's limits, whether we accept them or we try to dress those reactions up as logic or limit their application to certain esoteric fields matter not an iota. Just as all of Canute's orders, ranting and raving to turn back the tide were laughable failures that had zero effect on the tides. Ultimately our personal reactions to Godel reveal much more about ourselves than anything else. WRONG! Gödel's theorems only apply if the subject fulfills the requirements he stipulates. And it is vitally important to understand it does not ever say that any specific thing is not provably true in the system just that there must exist some demonstrably true things that cannot be proven to be true. For instance it is trivial to prove that 1+1=2 or that in addition a whole number greater than 1 is only odd if it is the result of adding an even and odd number. As a matter of fact it is at present, and may never be possible, to analyze an as yet unproven conjecture and say it cannot be proven if the system qualifies for Gödel. For instance Fermat's Last Theorem was finally proven fairly recently after more than 3 centuries of people trying.

vincentML -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 8:49:56 AM)
quote: But the operative word there is "seems". The evidence you describe is correlational. I can demonstrate that flipping a switch will cause an electric light to illuminate. But that doesn't prove that the switch is what's causing the illumination. In fact, of course, it's not. The switch is just functioning as a gateway. We are aware of the pathway between the light switch and the light bulb. If you wish to say the angular gyrus is only a gateway to some forms of cognition or that the prefrontal lobes are only a gateway to moral decisions you need to show the extraneural pathways beyond the gates. quote: You commented earlier with regard to meditation that it's just the brain deciding to meditate. But as anyone who has meditated will tell you, there comes a point where the brain doesn't like it at all. It gets cranky, and demands to know what the fuck all this has to do with lunch. Whereupon, consciousness is obliged to insist that it do what it's told whether it likes it or not. How is this any different than saying that one part of the brain is responding to another part of the brain? That a willful neural network is stifling a perceptive/complaining neural network? quote: I think it would be fruitful, here, to draw a distinction between consciousness and mind. Our associational mind is constantly processing and making connections. We are conscious of this. We can observe it at work. That's our brain. And it is, as you say, a wondrous thing. But sometimes we need to take control of it, either to use it for something or just to shut it up because it's driving us crazy. This is precisely where we differ. I am saying my brain, my mind, my consciousness, my will, my awareness, and me are one. There is no separation. All of the latter are functions/identities of the first. Where the brain goes so go we all. What the brain is so are we all. quote: Or growing very fast. Heh. But I have a question, because I was surprised to see you go here. Wouldn't something of the kind you're suggesting constitute a "cosmic consciousness"? More like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is present is there sound? If the Universe were and there were no brains capable of perceiving it would there be a universe? Who would give a shit?

Zonie63 -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 11:18:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML More like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is present is there sound? If the Universe were and there were no brains capable of perceiving it would there be a universe? Who would give a shit? All the angels who can dance on the end of a pin would, although I don't know how many that would be. [;)]

Rule -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 12:59:01 PM)
That depends on the size of the pin.

GotSteel -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 7:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As has been pointed out to you previously the Godel argument is not the only way of supporting my position. However sticking with it for a moment, please reconcile your claim that " your Godel argument is intelligent sounding jibberish[sic] fit only for creationist websites" with this paper by Stephen Hawking titled "Godel and the end of Physics". I'm aware of that talk, it doesn't say what you think it does AND it demonstrates the incorrectness of your position. "Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Goedel's theorem." Ponder for a moment that Hawking who was perfectly well aware of Godel's work spent the amount of time he did working on an ultimate theory. He would have to have been a blithering idiot to waste his time like that if your understanding of Godel's theorems was sound. Hawking and "most people" certainly don't share your understanding of Godel's work. I agree with Hawking, to paraphrase myself from my last post maybe it's not possible, so what?

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 11:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As has been pointed out to you previously the Godel argument is not the only way of supporting my position. However sticking with it for a moment, please reconcile your claim that " your Godel argument is intelligent sounding jibberish[sic] fit only for creationist websites" with this paper by Stephen Hawking titled "Godel and the end of Physics". I'm aware of that talk, it doesn't say what you think it does AND it demonstrates the incorrectness of your position. "Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Goedel's theorem." Ponder for a moment that Hawking who was perfectly well aware of Godel's work spent the amount of time he did working on an ultimate theory. He would have to have been a blithering idiot to waste his time like that if your understanding of Godel's theorems was sound. Hawking and "most people" certainly don't share your understanding of Godel's work. I agree with Hawking, to paraphrase myself from my last post maybe it's not possible, so what? It's odd that you have chosen to represent a paragraph taken from the middle of the paper as the paper's conclusion. Most often conclusions are found in the paper's concluding paragraph(s) not the middle. Hawking's concluding paragraph (in full) reads: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles.I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery.wIthout it, we would stagnate. Goedels theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians.I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved." This is Hawking's conclusion, not the spin your post puts on Hawking's paper. I recommend any one in any doubt read the paper for themselves. Your claim that Hawking equivocates on the main conclusion of his paper is not backed by the text - "I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end" - which is an explicit rejection of the interpretation you are advancing. I can appreciate that you are clinging to straws in a desperate attempt to maintain your position, but that is no excuse for misrepresentation on this scale. Others can decide for themselves whether this amounts to outright dishonesty. What is the significance of Hawking's rejection of the view that Science will succeed in discovering a complete answer to these questions? Obviously, if we want a complete understanding, we need to find a method, or methods beyond Science. The position that only the scientific method can deliver the results we seek is untenable, as I have been asserting all along.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 11:21:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The position that only the scientific method can deliver the results we seek is untenable, as I have been asserting all along. Your misuse of Gödel is really annoying. At least learn what it means. Gödel does not say any specific issue cannot be solved. All he says is if the domain in question can be broken down to his requirements then there must be a demonstrably true conjecture that cannot be rigorously proven to be true. That is all. It definitely does not mean that there is anything supernatural or mystical or whatever label you want to put on the stuff you keep asserting.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/1/2013 11:41:54 PM)
quote: Please rest assured I'm totally uninterested in anything you have to say on any topic and have no wish to receive any communication from you unless it is to apologise for your past repulsive utterly unfounded abuse and generally obnoxious behaviour. You seem unable to grasp what the above means. If you can't understand simple English, what makes you think that your interpretation of something a little more complex, like Godel, is any good? Please leave me alone.

DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (11/2/2013 6:40:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Please rest assured I'm totally uninterested in anything you have to say on any topic and have no wish to receive any communication from you unless it is to apologise for your past repulsive utterly unfounded abuse and generally obnoxious behaviour. You seem unable to grasp what the above means. If you can't understand simple English, what makes you think that your interpretation of something a little more complex, like Godel, is any good? Please leave me alone. As long as you keep posting nonsense I'll keep pointing it out. Either develop a thicker skin or stop posting nonsense.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875