RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

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



Message

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/22/2016 6:31:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Your hypotheses are unreasonable if they cannot be tested. If you wish to propose that a hypothesis is not unreasonable it seems incumbent upon you to suggest some form of testing. Otherwise, you are just indulging in Kirata fiction.

They're not my hypotheses, you dishonest twit, and your attempts to reduce them to some imaginary fiction infecting my mind is getting tiresome. There are a number of hypotheses in Physics and Cosmology that are not at present testable. That doesn't make them unreasonable. You're the one posting fiction here.

K.



You persist in playing word games; I call them your hypotheses because you presented them without attribution. Just a matter of literary convenience, which you repeatedly choose to twist into some plot by me. If they are not your hypotheses and their authors remain un-named then all the worst for your fuck around games.

If a hypothesis cannot be tested at the present time it must at least present some falsifiable predictions that can await testing when the proper equipment or circumstances are available. Furthermore, they should have some reference to scientific precedent. Even Einstein's general theory acknowledged the work of William Clark Maxwell's calculations on electrical and magnetic fields.

Your magical mystery fantastical sleep walking dreams fail on all accounts and are obviously just stuff you pulled out from your arse hole. Just because you learnt the word hypothesis doesn't mean you know shit about science, Elmer Fudd.

quote:

There are a number of hypotheses in Physics and Cosmology that are not at present testable. That doesn't make them unreasonable.


Simple then. Inform us of those that pertain to universal consciousness, attribute there adherents, and list their testable predictions . . . . . or stfu already.



Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/22/2016 8:59:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You persist in playing word games; I call them your hypotheses because you presented them without attribution. Just a matter of literary convenience, which you repeatedly choose to twist into some plot by me. If they are not your hypotheses and their authors remain un-named then all the worst for your fuck around games.

And you persist in making shit up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Take care when you listen to Kirata. He thinks rocks are conscious.

Nope, in fairness it was I who broached that possibility.

Moreover, to demand "attribution" to some "un-named" author is just ignorance.

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind ~Source

K.




vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/22/2016 10:09:12 AM)

quote:


Moreover, to insist on calling panpsychism my hypothesis, and to demand "attribution" as the price of stopping, is just ignorance.

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind ~Source

Make up your freakin mind. Now it is a philosophical theory, no longer a scientific hypothesis. See how easy it is to sweep away those pesky, non-existent physicists who were giving their support in growing numbers. Never mind!

And during the 19th C it was the default theory in the philosophy of mind, which has absolutely nothing to do with Kirata's comments of awareness "in materials all the way down however dim." Does it?

It's embarrassing to watch you wriggle and dance when you cannot answer some simple questions about the validity of an alleged hypothesis you published on this Board.

A 19th C philosophy and a list of steam pipe gurus! That's the best you got?

I'd laugh but it would be impolite to laugh at a confused and dissembling mind.

[sm=Groaner.gif]



Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/22/2016 10:25:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:


Moreover, to insist on calling panpsychism my hypothesis, and to demand "attribution" as the price of stopping, is just ignorance.

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind ~Source

Make up your freakin mind. Now it is a philosophical theory, no longer a scientific hypothesis.

You're making shit up again. I never claimed it was a scientific hypothesis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

And during the 19th C it was the default theory in the philosophy of mind, which has absolutely nothing to do with Kirata's comments of awareness "in materials all the way down however dim." Does it?

It has everything to do with that, you ignorant twit. Same reference:

panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/22/2016 2:22:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Your magical mystery fantastical sleep walking dreams fail on all accounts and are obviously just stuff you pulled out from your arse hole.

Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. ~Erwin Schrödinger

The stuff of the world is mind-stuff. ~Arthur Eddington

We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter…; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all through the universe. ~J. B. S. Haldane

Mind or something of the nature as mind must exist throughout the entire universe. This is, I believe, the truth. ~Julian Huxley

The laws of physics leave a place for mind in the description of every molecule… In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind. ~Freeman Dyson

That which we experience as mind… will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels… It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics. ~David Bohm

K.




vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/23/2016 11:10:36 AM)

quote:

That which we experience as mind… will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels… It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics. ~David Bohm


Oh, and isn't David Bohm quite the accomplished woo meister?

"Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."[13] Patricia Smith Churchland

Some philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett,[4] Stanislas Dehaene,[5] and Peter Hacker,[16] oppose the idea that there is a hard problem. These theorists argue that once we really come to understand what consciousness is, we will realize that the hard problem is unreal. For instance, Dennett asserts that the so-called hard problem will be solved in the process of answering the "easy" ones (which, as he has clarified, he does not consider "easy" at all).[4] In contrast with Chalmers, he argues that consciousness is not a fundamental feature of the universe and instead will eventually be fully explained by natural phenomena. Instead of involving the nonphysical, he says, consciousness merely plays tricks on people so that it appears nonphysical—in other words, it simply seems like it requires nonphysical features to account for its powers. In this way, Dennett compares consciousness to stage magic and its capability to create extraordinary illusions out of ordinary things.[17]

[SNIP]

To address the question of the hard problem, or how and why physical processes give rise to experience, Dennett states that the phenomenon of having experience is nothing more than the performance of functions or the production of behavior, which can also be referred to as the easy problems of consciousness.[4] He states that consciousness itself is driven simply by these functions, and to strip them away would wipe out any ability to identify thoughts, feelings, and consciousness altogether. So, unlike Chalmers and other dualists, Dennett says that the easy problems and the hard problem cannot be separated from each other. To him, the hard problem of experience is included among—not separate from—the easy problems, and therefore they can only be explained together as a cohesive unit.[17]
DENNENTT

Finally and most notably, I favor this prediction from the same sources:

"qualia...will be viewed as a peculiar idea of the prescientific era, much like vitalism...[Just as science dispatched vitalism] the science of consciousness will eat away at the hard problem of consciousness until it vanishes."[5]



Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/23/2016 11:41:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That which we experience as mind… will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels… It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics. ~David Bohm

Oh, and isn't David Bohm quite the accomplished woo meister?

"Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."[13] Patricia Smith Churchland

Yes indeedy, quite the woo meister....

David Joseph Bohm FRS (December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind. ~Source

And in case you think nobody will notice your quote trimming, Churchland wasn't talking about David Bohm:

Eliminative materialist philosopher Patricia Smith Churchland has famously remarked about Penrose's theories that "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."

Frankly, I don't know why you are incapable of crediting the idea that intelligent people might have valid disagreements with the views you champion. But given the number of times your ignorance and dishonesty have been exposed in this thread, you might want to at least consider the possibility that you're just making a fool of yourself.

K.



vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/24/2016 10:07:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That which we experience as mind… will in a natural way ultimately reach the level of the wavefunction and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels… It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the level of particle physics. ~David Bohm

Oh, and isn't David Bohm quite the accomplished woo meister?

"Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."[13] Patricia Smith Churchland

Yes indeedy, quite the woo meister....

David Joseph Bohm FRS (December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind. ~Source

And in case you think nobody will notice your quote trimming, Churchland wasn't talking about David Bohm:

Eliminative materialist philosopher Patricia Smith Churchland has famously remarked about Penrose's theories that "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."

Frankly, I don't know why you are incapable of crediting the idea that intelligent people might have valid disagreements with the views you champion. But given the number of times your ignorance and dishonesty have been exposed in this thread, you might want to at least consider the possibility that you're just making a fool of yourself.

K.


Well. if I am making a fool of myself then so be it. It is my prerogative to do so. Nobody else's. It should be obvious that I am a skeptic about the notion of panpsychism or cosmic mind, whichever you call it. I am not sure they are the very same thing. Perhaps they are. My skepticism sits upon a three legged stool. You have presented (1)no empirical, testable evidence for the existence of mind outside of brain (2) there is no known mechanism for the brain to receive the out of body mind broadcasts (even the wee foo of David Bohm can't be taken seriously) and (3) there is no apparent manifestation of the phenomenon that has measurable impact on our daily human lives. I realize and accept it is not your theory. But you seem a knowledgeable proponent. If you would care to discuss the practicalities and manifestations or cosmic mind versus organic mind, I would be pleased to join you leaving religion and personal insults aside. I will listen openly and studiously to your case, if you care to make it.



Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/25/2016 1:44:50 PM)


Vincent,

While I very much appreciate the tone of your post, science doesn't produce "evidence," it only produces data, and what the data may be "evidence" of often depends on its interpretation.

For example, studies involving correlation, stimulation, and ablation are offered as "evidence" that the brain produces consciousness. But as noted previously, these are simply analogues of circuit testing methods, and we would not interpret the results of such methods as "evidence" that television programs are created inside television sets.

You argued that consciousness depends on the structure and organization of the brain, but when the case was presented of a normally functioning individual who was found on x-ray to be missing all but 10% of his brain, you interpreted that as "evidence" for plasticity. But if the cells in the brain stem had reorganized themselves into the necessary structures they would have been visible on x-ray.

So you see, "evidence" is often in the mind of the beholder.

If consciousness is simply the brain in action, then it must necessarily depend on our physical senses for its input and on our body to carry out its intentions. But there is copious data in the form of presentiment studies and studies of the effects of intention on isolated physical systems to support an interpretation that the mind is neither always nor necessarily dependent on our physical senses for input or our physical bodies to effect its intentions.

Some people simply dismiss such data, regarding it only as "evidence" that either the studies are flawed or the researchers frauds, and when the results cannot be refuted then that we will be able to explain them in purely physical terms "someday," a claim that Karl Popper famously characterized as "promissory materialism."

I do not subscribe to Daniel Dennett's view that people who hold to materialism are "brights" and the rest dim-witted. But neither do I think that data is going to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. If you are genuinely interested in why so many intelligent people (albeit a minority within the scientific community) hold the view that consciousness cannot be simply an emergent property of matter under the right conditions, there is no shortage of data for you to explore.

But that is up to you. Personally, I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. When I criticize your arguments it is simply because in my view they fail, not because I want to defend what you are arguing against (panpsychism, for example, strikes me as dualistic). And I would also like to say that I do not discount the practical value of adopting materialism as a default assumption. It has provided us with a provably practical approach to myriad challenges. I just don't think that it is ultimately true.

We are often told that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But many of the things that people experience and have reported for millennia are only "extraordinary" from a materialist point of view.

Best regards,

K.




vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (7/27/2016 7:22:23 AM)

Kirata,

Thank you for your courteous and well considered reply. Inasmuch as neither of us is trying to persuade the other of anything I will try to keep my comments brief, although I have little confidence in that ability [:D]

Data, evidence and electronic wiring. . . . I agree that data becomes evidence only through interpretation and more often than not in science the data is tested (interpreted) only to support or debunk an already existing framework (theory) Nobody ever claimed that science as practiced isn't messy.

I take issue with your analogy of testing TV circuitry to biological circuitry. Localization has a long history of correlating specific parts of the brain with specific perceptions and behavioral skills. We know the role of the optic nerve from all sorts of history. We know that if a person with an intact retina suddenly experiences blindness in one eye there is usually a problem with the crossover optic nerve. "We see with our brains, not with our eyes." Localization, specific functions for specific parts of the brain, greatly reduce the likelihood that consciousness is a universal quality that pervades all matter. In my opinion the television analogy doesn't hold.

The Frenchman with ten percent brain tissue is a problem only if you assume that neuroplasticity requires a total rebuilding of the 100 billion neurons, each with their thousands of synaptic connections. That is not the case. Neuroplasticity can be accomplished at adjacent synapses or at adjacent neural nodes. That is, after all, the basis for physical therapy for brain damaged adults, and for inhibitory neurotransmitter treatment for depressives and schizophrenics.

Historically, children have presented the greater ability to remap portions of their brains. Our ten percent Frenchman did not know he was missing 90% of his brain. Presumably, neither did his parents nor his teachers. So, he lived his life as if.. . But note that he had an IQ score well below normal at 75. We can interpret that much of his cortex was missing. That is the portion of the brain that fills the bony vault.

The science of neuroplasticity has blossomed in the last 40 years and there is now evidence that even adult brains contain stem cells, which provide a basis for some restorative therapy for elderly stroke patients.

I do find it difficult to believe the intentions of the brain can be influenced by anything but sensory perceptions, or memories.

I especially have distaste for any of the ancient philosophies like idealism or pansychism that seem to be, in their reformulations, anything other than expanded vitalism. In my opinion, we are not connected to the universe and through it to each other in any vital manner other than social connections, which are doubtlessly very important.

As for Dennett’s suggestion of ‘brights,’ I can’t imagine anything more embarrassing or humiliating than that formulation. His gravestone should contain the inscription: Not so bright after all.

For the time being I will stay with my belief that consciousness is a product that arises within each individual brain and not from some outer force field. After all, would we not all have similar qualities of awareness if we were all cut from the same cloth of consciousness. Obviously, we do not.

Thanks again for the conversation. I find these Boards a vital learning platform. You would be amazed at how many times new viewpoints have changed my mind about some issue.

Cordially,

Vincent






Page: <<   < prev  19 20 21 22 [23]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
7.800293E-02