The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:18 am

mirror93 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:39 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:17 pm
mirror93 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:00 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:26 pm
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:31 am
Dodgeball.jpg
Steve Klinko claims conscious thought can change DNA and direct evolution
SteveKlinko" wrote: I did say that Evolution could quite possibly be directed by Consciousness avoiding Pain and Seeking Pleasure.
Matthew Ellard wrote: How does an animal's consciousness change DNA in any direction at all? Where has this been observed? It doesn't and you are simply claiming magic.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko" wrote:You think that saying "Pain is the physical suffering" explains anything?
I didn't write that. I actually posted for you how scientific evolution actually works and gave you evidence for scientific evolution. When I asked you, about your religious claim, if anyone had seen DNA magically changing does to an animals conscious thought you changed subject again to hide your errors.

Tell us how an animals conscious thoughts can "direct and change" all the millions of variations of DNA sequences in their sperm or eggs? Why has no one seen this in any of the millions of sperm or eggs ?

Is that because your "theory" is 100% rubbish that you just made up?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
don't you ever get tired of lying about things? i never said that conscious thought directly can change dna and you know that. i said that the experience of pain can cause an animal or organism to avoid the pain and therefore avoid things that might be bad. this should increase their survival probabilities. then i said that pain is a ̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶; ,experience. so a ̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶, experience can increase the survival rates of species are that better able to avoid the pain.
Pain is not a conscious anything, you idiot. Pain is SIMPLY : the physical feeling caused by disease, injury, or something that hurts the body. : mental or emotional suffering : sadness caused by some emotional or mental problem. : someone or something that causes trouble or makes you feel annoyed or angry.
That's the universal definition.
Yours don't exist.
what is the physical feeling that you talk about? you can't just say physical feeling and think that explains anything. how do you have that physical feeling? what is the thing that is experiencing that physical feeling? these are the hard problems of understanding consciousness.
Go on a bonfire and put your finger on the fire, that's the physical feeling you will feel. And now you are trying to weaken the facts by asking questions, this is called a fallacy.
"When you feel pain, such as when you touch a hot stove, sensory receptors in your skin send a message via nerve fibres (A-delta fibres and C fibres) to the spinal cord and brainstem and then onto the brain where the sensation of pain is registered, the information is processed and the pain is perceived by you."
You say "... the pain is perceived by you". I am unable to see how this Explains what Pain is and How we experience it as a Conscious thing. All you are doing is saying we perceive it. Of course we Perceive it. But How does this happen. We all know Neurons are involved. How do Neurons produce that experience of Pain?

mirror93 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:39 pm
Your questions are those you read on a advaita forum, not here. It's not a "thing" who is experiencing the feeling, it will be you. not a rock, not someone else, YOU. Pure and simple. There are no hard problems anywhere. The only hard problem is you trying to diverge these facts.
And please, don't come up with some "who are you" "what is this you" BS semantic questions. Why do you exist? Who knows? That's a philosophical question that won't be answered so soon.........the one who feels, have emotions, eat, sees and perceives is you. your brain, your neurons, etc is the "universal system" that allows you to feel and etc....
You are wrong about the Advaita website. I have never even looked at that website, but I suppose I should just to see what you are talking about. My thoughts are based on years of studying Brain Physiology, and Philosophy with regard to Consciousness. My thoughts and conclusions about things are my own derived from everything I have ever read.. The Hard Problem question and the Explanatory Gap question are directly from my Philosophy readings.

When I say a Thing is having the Conscious experience I am referring to your Conscious Mind. What is the Thing that you are as a Conscious Mind?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:45 am

mirror93 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:46 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:30 pm
mirror93 wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:05 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:48 am
are you saying that there is no conscious ; light because you don't like that i don't use the word qualia? or are you saying that there is no qualia too?
Qualia has nothing to do with your ugly, wrong and fake premises. Light is nothing of what you're saying. consciousness has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with light, Is it difficult for you to understand and grasp this FACT? Don't EVER ask me this again, something about being conscious AND seeing light, both are distinct topics. Don't ask me questions with your BS premise, it's false, I don't want to stress myself with you. Being conscious and seeing light are not even related, plain and SIMPLE. There never was nothing of what you say. None, Zero, NADA. You're COMPLETELY delirious. You exaggerate and even invent something for light. Even the most enthusiastic and idealistic extremist about illusion are not talking about light or disputing that light you see is external and has no participation in further processing in the nucleus of your brain, you're the only troll who does this.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:48 am
̶i̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶.̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶u̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶t̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶i̶c̶u̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶n̶u̶c̶l̶e̶u̶s̶ ̶d̶u̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶l̶e̶e̶p̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶d̶r̶e̶a̶m̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶e̶a̶m̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ EPIC FACEPALM.
How dumb are you? You idiot, if it's outside, then I'm clearly seeing it outside of me (which is shared to others, if someone else can also see it, then it's outside, not a hallucination), you dumbtard idiot, what I see outside is OBVIOUS OUTSIDE of me (Same with the color red, there is something red in the apple, or something that causes the apple to be red that is external, as we both see it and it's not a hallucination. AND What i see inside, is inside, even if appears to be outside (Such as hallucination), HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE TO NOT GRASP THIS? Are you like 5 years old?

And you're again talking about dreams. You AGAIN repeating something that we already refuted, explained to your brainless mind 7-8 pages ago. Jesus Christ. You need help. I'm not stressing over this.
Poodle wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:32 am
Steve - you really, really, need to read up on a phenomenon called 'secondary elaboration'. You are treating dreams as if they were episodes in a soap opera, complete with scripts, made in real time and in accordance with all the laws of physics. A dream experience (ie not a REAL experience) is not duty-bound to have a correlation with the universe we all know and love. It's weakening your thesis.
Poodle wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:39 am
Steve - you really, really, need to read up on a phenomenon called 'secondary elaboration'. You are treating dreams as if they were episodes in a soap opera, complete with scripts, made in real time and in accordance with all the laws of physics. A dream experience (ie not a REAL experience) is not duty-bound to have a correlation with the universe we all know and love. It's weakening your thesis.
Poodle wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:25 pm
This, Steve, is your big problem. You see no light in a dream - it's a dream and your brain is 'pretending' to see light. When you rub your eyes you are stimulating the optic nerve and your brain 'pretends' to see light. Similarly with an after image - you have overstimulated your optical receptors and your brain is 'pretending' to see light. You know this - but then go on to invent a Surrogate Conscious Light (complete with capital letters) as though it was a real thing and then claim that it is what we actually see. Well - it plainly is not. Please desist from creating pretentious labels for what the human visual system and/or brain does as a matter of course.
If you could do that just once, you would understand that vision - the ability to sense a restricted but continuous range of frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum - is merely a result of evolution and no different in effect from hearing, touch, taste or smell. Why are you not asking "What is the human experience of tasting salt?" or "What is the human experience of hearing middle C?" Looking for an "Experience of Red" outside the normal perception of colour is tantamount to asking about the sound of one hand clapping - it is pseudoscientific rubbish.
If you choose to respond to this post, I would appreciate it if you would describe your experience of reading it in terms of "The Experience of Word Recognition and How Those Words Convey Information Beyond the Normal Conveyance of Information" (it's a theory I'm working on).
Poodle wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:59 pm
No. Absolutely not. And there lies your problem. You are dreaming and, in most cases, that means your eyes are closed. With the exception of VERY bright light sources, therefore, there is no incident light upon your retinae. That, in a nutshell, is the end of the story. The red that you may or may not 'see' in your dream is a construct of your brain. What is most certainly is NOT is light, and if it isn't light then you ain't having a light experience and, therefore, no red experience. You readily discount the apple as real. You're halfway home, then - there's hope for you yet.
I dreamt about my ex-wife last night (no - not one of those dreams). Take my word for it - she wasn't really in my head.
Poodle wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:56 pm
Of course it's part of reality. Externally-sourced light of a particular wavelength enters your eye and precipitates a chain of events ending with your brain telling you you're seeing red. The physical stimulus is real. A dream of red bears no relationship to that chain of events. Your experience is the dream, not the physical process. We all have dreams of situations which we cannot possibly have experienced - Dreamland is full of them. Why would the laws of Dreamland suddenly change because we are dreaming of something which actually exists in the physical world?
Are you experiencing the real world when you dream of elephants? What about that elephant in the middle of the herd with red and green spots? Steve is claiming that the colours on the non-existent spots on the non-existent polychrome elephant are real.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:48 am
But the developmental issue is besides the point of this thread. the developmental issue is a diversion tactic that distracts from the fact that you, or anyone else, does not know what consciousness is.
Oh, of course, no one has a clue, but the idiot who is spamming and babbling such incoherent absolute BS here, is the one who has a clue. :lol
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:48 am
So in a normally developed visual system, how do the neurons result in you being conscious AND having an experience?
Well, What results you being conscious is your brain.
Experiences are results of your actions or practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
now that you have admitted that you are a direct realist (couple of pages ago) i can understand your confusion. one of my goals for the website was to directly refute the direct realist belief. i think i have accomplished this goal by your agitated posts. i think you are about to pop your cork over this. take it easy and think more deeply about these things.
Everyone is a direct realist, even those who are not arguing for it, are direct realists, we are direct realists all the time, even when we are against it, funny thing isn't it?
The only idiot who is confused here is you. Direct realism is not a belief, indirect realism is a belief, that's why we all born direct realists, because it's true, you actually need a lot of confusion and insistence to make your mind believe otherwise, you need a lot of spams on forums and a lot of repetition to believe otherwise, like you.
Actually you did not achieve {!#%@}, I'm refuting you, and will do again and again and again and again and over and over and over til your {!#%@} is absolutely destroyed.

Here are all the arguments against direct realism debunked:
http://www.tcnj.edu/~lemorvan/DR_web.pdf
Thank you for the paper. I learned that there are even more arguments against Direct Realism than I thought. The arguments against Direct Realism are compelling and the refutations are kind of like the stuff you get when you read someone try to defend conspiracy theories like that the Moon missions were faked. The paper tries to hide the embarrassment for some of the Beliefs by distinguishing between a Naïve Realism and a Direct Realism. But Naïve Realism is not some other theory, it is just a derogatory name for Direct Realism itself. So the paper is throwing out some original premises of Direct Realism by bashing Naïve Realism as some other philosophy than Direct Realism.

Ok lets say that all the refutations of arguments against Direct Realism hold up, then exactly what is Direct Realism saying that it is?
Last edited by SteveKlinko on Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:52 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:58 am
SteveKlinko a day ago" wrote: I did say that Evolution could quite possibly be directed by Consciousness avoiding Pain and Seeking Pleasure.
SteveKlinko today" wrote: I never said that Conscious thought directly can change DNA..
Matthew Ellard wrote:Steve Klinko? How can there be evolution unless the DNA changes? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SteveKlinko today" wrote: I never said that Conscious thought directly can change DNA
Sooooo Steve Klinko....how can consciousness direct evolution if it doesn't change the DNA? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You don't actually know what DNA is, do you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko today" wrote:The Genetic change has already happened. It was Genetic mutation that by chance let the organism feel Pain.
Buuuuuuuttttt Steve Klinko? You are claiming a non-physical consciousness evolved to allow for the "conscious experience". DNA is only for physical evolution.

You have just destroyed your own "inter mind" claim again.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I thought you knew how Evolution and Genetic mutation works. If a structure can be built that enables the Conscious experience of Pain then that structure must very well be contained in the Genes somewhere. But I guess you deny that Consciousness even exists. Think Deeper about your own Conscious Experience. You might discover something.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:41 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:58 am
You say "there it is, in your Brain - an ever changing picture using all available sensory data ... ", and you think that just saying this explains it. All you did was say Consciousness is in your Brain using different words. If this is the kind of Explanation that you say I'm ignoring. It's because it is not an Explanation of anything. How does this "ever changing picture" happen?. You will have to do more to reject the common sense realization that there is an Experiencer of any Experience. The Arguments for the Conscious Mind section on the website is my best attempt to justify the Conscious Mind. I accept that it does not work for you, but the website and everything else I have ever said is my best shot. Sorry if I am unable to convince you. You are also unable to convince me.
Well, apart from replying that the ever-changing picture happens because it's one of the primary functions of the brain (and the brain is also the observer), your denial leaves me nowhere to go. The 'ever-changing picture' happens because that's one of the functions of the sensory part of the brain. If you jump off a cliff unaided, you fall to the ground - it's really that basic. However, I see that no matter what arguments are put up against you, your response will be simply to invent another level of complexity. You'd do well in the UK Civil Service.
No matter - I now understand that your entire thesis borders upon the religious, an area that always seems to me to be far less exciting than Alice in Wonderland or Wind in the Willows. So - best of luck, Steve, and I hope you come to your senses soon.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:14 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:41 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:58 am
You say "there it is, in your Brain - an ever changing picture using all available sensory data ... ", and you think that just saying this explains it. All you did was say Consciousness is in your Brain using different words. If this is the kind of Explanation that you say I'm ignoring. It's because it is not an Explanation of anything. How does this "ever changing picture" happen?. You will have to do more to reject the common sense realization that there is an Experiencer of any Experience. The Arguments for the Conscious Mind section on the website is my best attempt to justify the Conscious Mind. I accept that it does not work for you, but the website and everything else I have ever said is my best shot. Sorry if I am unable to convince you. You are also unable to convince me.
Well, apart from replying that the ever-changing picture happens because it's one of the primary functions of the brain (and the brain is also the observer), your denial leaves me nowhere to go. The 'ever-changing picture' happens because that's one of the functions of the sensory part of the brain. If you jump off a cliff unaided, you fall to the ground - it's really that basic. However, I see that no matter what arguments are put up against you, your response will be simply to invent another level of complexity. You'd do well in the UK Civil Service.
No matter - I now understand that your entire thesis borders upon the religious, an area that always seems to me to be far less exciting than Alice in Wonderland or Wind in the Willows. So - best of luck, Steve, and I hope you come to your senses soon.
I don't invent any increasing levels of complexity. I have always stuck to the basic themes on the Inter Mind website. The chain of argument is not simple. I think you are looking for a simple interpretation of the website. The thoughts on the website need to be read and re read. You may be seeing more complexity now because you are getting closer to an understanding of what the website says. The arguments are slightly complicated but the underlying concepts are simple when realized. No Religion. The website just points out the reality of Consciousness as a separate existing Phenomenon that is not Explained by Science. I know from past posts that you think that anything not explained by Science is Religious. You should think Deeper about things and realize that Science has only been around for a couple hundred years. Science will continue to learn new things for thousands and millions of years. Science is a child. It's time for the child to leave Grammar school and start High School where it will learn about topics like Consciousness. Science will see that Consciousness is not some Religious thing but is some new Phenomenon of Nature that can be Explained.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:46 pm

Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote:I thought you knew how Evolution and Genetic mutation works. If a structure can be built that enables the Conscious experience of Pain then that structure must very well be contained in the Genes somewhere.
DNA is a physical molecule that carries evolved genetic information. It produce physical proteins that make up the physical brain and body.

You are claiming there is a separate magical non-physical "thingee" that takes data from the physical brain and then converts it into colours and somehow sends it back so we can see colours in our consciousness. That is obviously complete rubbish because..........

1) Your non physical "thingee" can't interact with physical things otherwise we could detect it.

2) Your non-physical thingee has no DNA or means of evolving and thus could not change to interface with all the various evolving species on Earth that can see colour

3) Human eyes evolved "cones" to receive this light frequency data and wold not have evolved unless normal DNA created physical proteins could use all that data accordingly.

This means your fantasy land non-physical thingee is not required and doesn't exist.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:46 pm
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote:I thought you knew how Evolution and Genetic mutation works. If a structure can be built that enables the Conscious experience of Pain then that structure must very well be contained in the Genes somewhere.
DNA is a physical molecule that carries evolved genetic information. It produce physical proteins that make up the physical brain and body.

You are claiming there is a separate magical non-physical "thingee" that takes data from the physical brain and then converts it into colours and somehow sends it back so we can see colours in our consciousness. That is obviously complete rubbish because..........

1) Your non physical "thingee" can't interact with physical things otherwise we could detect it.

2) Your non-physical thingee has no DNA or means of evolving and thus could not change to interface with all the various evolving species on Earth that can see colour

3) Human eyes evolved "cones" to receive this light frequency data and wold not have evolved unless normal DNA created physical proteins could use all that data accordingly.

This means your fantasy land non-physical thingee is not required and doesn't exist.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If you actually read what the website says you would know that the only thing I am trying to drive home is that Conscious experience, and in particular the Conscious Experience of Light, and even more specifically the Experience of Red Light is something very special. It is something that can not be explained by Science at this point in time. Think about the Red itself. The website specifically says nobody knows How Conscious experience happens. I know you think you know How it happens but You don't supply any good Explanations. We may not know How it happens but one thing we do know is that it sure does happen.

The website says multiple times that Consciousness could very well all be in the Neurons. But How that could be true is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I don't claim to know how Consciousness happens anywhere on the website or in any post that I have ever written. If you are honest you will admit that all I ever do is ask the question: How? But I do promote the special nature of Conscious Experience. It's the Experience of the Redness of the Color Red that I am interested in.

The Redness exists in our Conscious Minds. I don't know how that works but I can sure claim that it does because I Experience it. It could be an Illusion but that has never been Explained in any credible way. I know you reject out of hand any mention of the Special nature of the Redness of the Color Red. But you also know that you cannot describe Redness to anyone because Redness is not part of the Physical world that Science knows. Redness is truly Special. Think about the Redness itself as a thing in itself. Yes the Redness of the Color Red has an existence, but only in your Mind.

I know that I have to say that this Special nature also applies to all the other Colors, and to Sound, and the to Salty Taste, etc. because you are unable to extrapolate to these things yourself. The totality of our Conscious experience is something Special that can not be denied. Also, it is not Religious to think that the Conscious experience of the Redness of Red is something Special that is not Explained by Science at this point in time. Ancient People have always attributed Religious interpretations to the things they did not understand. Ironically you don't realize, that is exactly what you are doing. Don't be afraid, the Consciousness Demon is not going to hurt you, although it looks like it is shattering your Beliefs.

So don't ask me how Consciousness works anymore. I don't know and I never claimed that I did know. I specifically always say that nobody knows How Consciousness happens. But since you claim that you do know How Consciousness happens then it is your responsibility to Explain that. You say you have explained it, but you have not Explained anything. Since your track record shows you are a total Liar it is too easy for you to say you know How Consciousness happens when you know you don't.

All I can say to you is that you must learn to think more Deeply about Conscious experience, and you should concentrate on one feature of Consciousness like the Experience of a Color, or the Sound of a pure Tone, or the Salty Taste, etc. Think about the Experience itself of these things. These experiences are not anything that Science can even talk about. These experiences are in your Mind. Go into your Mind and Experience the Salty Taste, etc.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9746
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Poodle » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am

Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:57 pm

Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote:If you actually read what the website says you would know that the only thing I am trying to drive home is that Conscious experience,
..........and that your non-physical consciousness god created the universe and directed evolution on Earth to make humans.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
How did modern human consciousness or your non-physical paranormal consciousness go back in time before any life had evolved Steve Klinko? You keep running away from that question. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a religious forum next time.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:44 am

Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am
Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.
Yes the explanations for Consciousness that I have read on this thread are unacceptable to anyone who can think a little Deeper about things. I don't claim any Superior Knowledge about anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious Self Evident truth of the existence of Conscious experience. See the Redness of Red or Taste the Saltiness of a Salty food in a Deeper way. The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon on the part of the Physicalists is putting up the Brick Wall to further advancement in Consciousness research. The cold hard evidence is recognizing that your own Conscious experiences are something Special that is currently beyond what Science can explain. Doesn't mean it has to be Religious, but just something that Science has to start working on.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:57 pm
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote:If you actually read what the website says you would know that the only thing I am trying to drive home is that Conscious experience,
..........and that your non-physical consciousness god created the universe and directed evolution on Earth to make humans.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
How did modern human consciousness or your non-physical paranormal consciousness go back in time before any life had evolved Steve Klinko? You keep running away from that question. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a religious forum next time.
Are you actually a Direct Realist?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dimebag » Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:12 pm

Steve, I must say I feel for you on this one, because for several years I was of the same opinion regarding the hard problem of consciousness. It is certainly a problem, however, science is neither currently equipped with the tools necessary to solve such a problem, and no one could imagine what tools would be necessary to solve the why of this problem.

Now this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t focus our efforts on solving the “easy” problems of consciousness. This is the what of consciousness. What conditions are necessary for consciousness to occur. How we go about achieving this will be difficult, as experimentation is unethical, and our inability to measure subjectivity directly means we have to rely on self report and observation of behaviour. Reductionism doesn’t seem an option due to the seeming unitary indivisible nature of conscious awareness, how can you uncover the moving parts if you can’t pry the damn thing apart? In all, honesty, I personally think if you are interested in consciousness, and I get the impression that you are, that you shouldn’t worry yourself with the hard problem, at least until we start to uncover some satisfying answers to the easy problems of consciousness. To understand how consciousness functions, what conditions are necessary within the brain for an event in the brain to become conscious would be extremely satisfying, even to the most zealous of hard problem proponents. And in the end, it might just be all we can hope for based on our current methods of scientific enquiry.

What I hope is, before I die (in theory I have about 50-55 years) that I can look at a textbook concerning consciousness, read it, and understand the processes necessary for consciousness to emerge.

Now it may be that once we answer these questions, something will become more clear concerning the hard problem, in the same way that our understanding of life changed once we understood the mechanisms behind it, there was no more mystery to uncover.

In saying all this, it won’t stop a part of my mind from wondering about that hard problem.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:22 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:12 pm
Steve, I must say I feel for you on this one, because for several years I was of the same opinion regarding the hard problem of consciousness. It is certainly a problem, however, science is neither currently equipped with the tools necessary to solve such a problem, and no one could imagine what tools would be necessary to solve the why of this problem.

Now this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t focus our efforts on solving the “easy” problems of consciousness. This is the what of consciousness. What conditions are necessary for consciousness to occur. How we go about achieving this will be difficult, as experimentation is unethical, and our inability to measure subjectivity directly means we have to rely on self report and observation of behaviour. Reductionism doesn’t seem an option due to the seeming unitary indivisible nature of conscious awareness, how can you uncover the moving parts if you can’t pry the damn thing apart? In all, honesty, I personally think if you are interested in consciousness, and I get the impression that you are, that you shouldn’t worry yourself with the hard problem, at least until we start to uncover some satisfying answers to the easy problems of consciousness. To understand how consciousness functions, what conditions are necessary within the brain for an event in the brain to become conscious would be extremely satisfying, even to the most zealous of hard problem proponents. And in the end, it might just be all we can hope for based on our current methods of scientific enquiry.

What I hope is, before I die (in theory I have about 50-55 years) that I can look at a textbook concerning consciousness, read it, and understand the processes necessary for consciousness to emerge.

Now it may be that once we answer these questions, something will become more clear concerning the hard problem, in the same way that our understanding of life changed once we understood the mechanisms behind it, there was no more mystery to uncover.

In saying all this, it won’t stop a part of my mind from wondering about that hard problem.
You're probably another new-ager passing yourself off as a skeptic.

There is no such thing as "indivisible nature of awareness"
Awareness is SIMPLY THE knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. and it requires a brain.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by mirror93 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:25 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:46 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:57 pm
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote:If you actually read what the website says you would know that the only thing I am trying to drive home is that Conscious experience,
..........and that your non-physical consciousness god created the universe and directed evolution on Earth to make humans.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
How did modern human consciousness or your non-physical paranormal consciousness go back in time before any life had evolved Steve Klinko? You keep running away from that question. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a religious forum next time.
Are you actually a Direct Realist?
What matthew is saying is that your non physical magical god does not exist. what is so hard to understand about this simple fact?
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:28 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:44 am
Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am
Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.
Yes the explanations for Consciousness that I have read on this thread are unacceptable to anyone who can think a little Deeper about things. I don't claim any Superior Knowledge about anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious Self Evident truth of the existence of Conscious experience. See the Redness of Red or Taste the Saltiness of a Salty food in a Deeper way. The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon on the part of the Physicalists is putting up the Brick Wall to further advancement in Consciousness research. The cold hard evidence is recognizing that your own Conscious experiences are something Special that is currently beyond what Science can explain. Doesn't mean it has to be Religious, but just something that Science has to start working on.

Who told you that things are not special? It may not be for you but my experiences are always special, tho, they aren't conscious, cos experiences aren't conscious, we are.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:30 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:44 am
Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am
Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.
Yes the explanations for Consciousness that I have read on this thread are unacceptable to anyone who can think a little Deeper about things. I don't claim any Superior Knowledge about anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious Self Evident truth of the existence of Conscious experience. See the Redness of Red or Taste the Saltiness of a Salty food in a Deeper way. The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon on the part of the Physicalists is putting up the Brick Wall to further advancement in Consciousness research. The cold hard evidence is recognizing that your own Conscious experiences are something Special that is currently beyond what Science can explain. Doesn't mean it has to be Religious, but just something that Science has to start working on.
So, your own definition of physicalist is someone who doesn't believe that there are paranormal gods? That's stupid
:paladin:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:34 am

mirror93 to Dimebag wrote:You're probably another new-ager passing yourself off as a skeptic.
Dimebag, like Steve Klinko refuses to answer direct questions. They pretend they are "speculating" which, to them, means not answering questions while posting religious propaganda. :lol:

I have directly asked Dimebag how Steve Klinko's evolved "non physical consciousness" could go back in time to cause the Big Bang (13,8 billion years ago) and additionally direct evolution on Earth (3.8 billion years ago). Dimebag ignored that although it makes no sense. :lol: :lol:

This isn't speculation. It is simply religious propaganda. :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:40 am

Dodgeball.jpg
Matthew Ellard wrote:How did evolved modern human consciousness or your non-physical paranormal evolved consciousness, go back in time before any life had evolved Steve Klinko? You keep running away from that question..
SteveKlinko wrote:Are you actually a Direct Realist?
Nope. I simply studied evolution at university and clearly stated the life on Earth started 3.8 billion years ago. If your magical evolved non-physical consciousness directed evolution on Earth.....it must be an alien. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Steve Klinko, answer my direct question.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Dimebag » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:01 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:34 am
mirror93 to Dimebag wrote:You're probably another new-ager passing yourself off as a skeptic.
Dimebag, like Steve Klinko refuses to answer direct questions. They pretend they are "speculating" which, to them, means not answering questions while posting religious propaganda. :lol:

I have directly asked Dimebag how Steve Klinko's evolved "non physical consciousness" could go back in time to cause the Big Bang (13,8 billion years ago) and additionally direct evolution on Earth (3.8 billion years ago). Dimebag ignored that although it makes no sense. :lol: :lol:

This isn't speculation. It is simply religious propaganda. :lol: :lol:
I don’t answer questions which are ridiculous. That one was pretty obvious. I don’t share those beliefs so I felt no need to defend them. In fact, the only belief I share with Steve is that there is something to explain as far as consciousness is concerned. Now I just explained why I don’t think science is capable of answering the hard problem, it’s partly because of the way science operates, and partly because the question being asked is beyond the scope of what science can answer, and maybe that means it’s not the right question for us to be asking right now.

Now you can concoct or fabricate lies about me if you wish, calling me a religious peddler, however as you do so your credibility erodes to everyone with an ounce of integrity. I realise you have resorted to these tactics out of sheer frustration, but maybe you should have simply opted out of the discussion a while ago instead of spreading false information and overusing the laugh emoji.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:43 am

Dimebag wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:12 pm
Steve, I must say I feel for you on this one, because for several years I was of the same opinion regarding the hard problem of consciousness. It is certainly a problem, however, science is neither currently equipped with the tools necessary to solve such a problem, and no one could imagine what tools would be necessary to solve the why of this problem.

Now this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t focus our efforts on solving the “easy” problems of consciousness. This is the what of consciousness. What conditions are necessary for consciousness to occur. How we go about achieving this will be difficult, as experimentation is unethical, and our inability to measure subjectivity directly means we have to rely on self report and observation of behaviour. Reductionism doesn’t seem an option due to the seeming unitary indivisible nature of conscious awareness, how can you uncover the moving parts if you can’t pry the damn thing apart? In all, honesty, I personally think if you are interested in consciousness, and I get the impression that you are, that you shouldn’t worry yourself with the hard problem, at least until we start to uncover some satisfying answers to the easy problems of consciousness. To understand how consciousness functions, what conditions are necessary within the brain for an event in the brain to become conscious would be extremely satisfying, even to the most zealous of hard problem proponents. And in the end, it might just be all we can hope for based on our current methods of scientific enquiry.

What I hope is, before I die (in theory I have about 50-55 years) that I can look at a textbook concerning consciousness, read it, and understand the processes necessary for consciousness to emerge.

Now it may be that once we answer these questions, something will become more clear concerning the hard problem, in the same way that our understanding of life changed once we understood the mechanisms behind it, there was no more mystery to uncover.

In saying all this, it won’t stop a part of my mind from wondering about that hard problem.
Hello. I agree that we should always continue studying the Easy Problem. The thing that I am trying to argue against is the claim that the Easy Problem is the only Problem. The Physicalists on this thread deny that there even is a Hard Problem. They say that solving the Easy Problem solves the Consciousness Problem. Using my usual example of Red perception, they say that if you measure some group of Neurons that are firing and at the same time there is a Red experience happening then those firing Neurons Explain what the Red experience is. They don't think Deeper about the actual Experience of Redness that is happening in their Minds. They literally say that there is no Conscious experience at all. It is just an Illusion. It's almost as if they really don't have the Conscious experience of Redness or of Light in general.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:52 am

mirror93 wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:25 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:46 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:57 pm
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote:If you actually read what the website says you would know that the only thing I am trying to drive home is that Conscious experience,
..........and that your non-physical consciousness god created the universe and directed evolution on Earth to make humans.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
How did modern human consciousness or your non-physical paranormal consciousness go back in time before any life had evolved Steve Klinko? You keep running away from that question. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Try a religious forum next time.
Are you actually a Direct Realist?
What matthew is saying is that your non physical magical god does not exist. what is so hard to understand about this simple fact?
It's hard to understand because I never claimed any kind of God concept or Religious concept. I simply argue for the Special nature of Conscious experience that is Self Evident to any thinking person. Conscious experience is in a separate Category of Phenomena than any other Category of Phenomena in Science. Tell me which Category of Phenomena in Science does Conscious experience fall under. Is it Material, is it Electromagnetic, is it Chemical, etc?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:56 am

mirror93 wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:28 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:44 am
Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am
Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.
Yes the explanations for Consciousness that I have read on this thread are unacceptable to anyone who can think a little Deeper about things. I don't claim any Superior Knowledge about anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious Self Evident truth of the existence of Conscious experience. See the Redness of Red or Taste the Saltiness of a Salty food in a Deeper way. The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon on the part of the Physicalists is putting up the Brick Wall to further advancement in Consciousness research. The cold hard evidence is recognizing that your own Conscious experiences are something Special that is currently beyond what Science can explain. Doesn't mean it has to be Religious, but just something that Science has to start working on.
Who told you that things are not special? It may not be for you but my experiences are always special, tho, they aren't conscious, cos experiences aren't conscious, we are.
You're just blurting out semantic rhetoric.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:10 am

Putting aside that "The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon" is pure semantic and not at all rhetoric ….Steve: what do you see/imagine/suppose/hypothesize/think a fuller understanding of the Consciousness that Phsicalists are denying will reveal? IOW==>what are the multiple explanations of the conscious experience even in this thread missing?

Lets take the Saltiness of Salty food? What do the Physicalists miss by explaining it so materialistically?

Any ideas?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:12 am

mirror93 wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:30 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:44 am
Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am
Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.
Yes the explanations for Consciousness that I have read on this thread are unacceptable to anyone who can think a little Deeper about things. I don't claim any Superior Knowledge about anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious Self Evident truth of the existence of Conscious experience. See the Redness of Red or Taste the Saltiness of a Salty food in a Deeper way. The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon on the part of the Physicalists is putting up the Brick Wall to further advancement in Consciousness research. The cold hard evidence is recognizing that your own Conscious experiences are something Special that is currently beyond what Science can explain. Doesn't mean it has to be Religious, but just something that Science has to start working on.
So, your own definition of physicalist is someone who doesn't believe that there are paranormal gods? That's stupid
A Physicalist is someone who Believes that the Physical Universe that Science knows about today is all there is and can be. They don't think more Deeply about things. If they did then they would realize how new Science actually is at this point in time. They never think that Science could learn a few new things in the next hundred, thousand, or million years. They really are Shallow thinkers protecting the status quo.

There's an old story that someone who worked at the Patent office a hundred years ago once said "I think that just about everything that can be invented has already been invented". This is the same Shallow thinking that the Physicalists exhibit in every post.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:19 am

Dimebag wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:01 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:34 am
mirror93 to Dimebag wrote:You're probably another new-ager passing yourself off as a skeptic.
Dimebag, like Steve Klinko refuses to answer direct questions. They pretend they are "speculating" which, to them, means not answering questions while posting religious propaganda. :lol:

I have directly asked Dimebag how Steve Klinko's evolved "non physical consciousness" could go back in time to cause the Big Bang (13,8 billion years ago) and additionally direct evolution on Earth (3.8 billion years ago). Dimebag ignored that although it makes no sense. :lol: :lol:

This isn't speculation. It is simply religious propaganda. :lol: :lol:
I don’t answer questions which are ridiculous. That one was pretty obvious. I don’t share those beliefs so I felt no need to defend them. In fact, the only belief I share with Steve is that there is something to explain as far as consciousness is concerned. Now I just explained why I don’t think science is capable of answering the hard problem, it’s partly because of the way science operates, and partly because the question being asked is beyond the scope of what science can answer, and maybe that means it’s not the right question for us to be asking right now.

Now you can concoct or fabricate lies about me if you wish, calling me a religious peddler, however as you do so your credibility erodes to everyone with an ounce of integrity. I realise you have resorted to these tactics out of sheer frustration, but maybe you should have simply opted out of the discussion a while ago instead of spreading false information and overusing the laugh emoji.
Ellard is definitely a Liar. He also seems pretty Immature and is definitely a Shallow thinker. But his little Laughing things can give me a chuckle. It's difficult to understand why he puts so much time into the Spectacle that he makes of himself.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:10 am
Putting aside that "The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon" is pure semantic and not at all rhetoric ….Steve: what do you see/imagine/suppose/hypothesize/think a fuller understanding of the Consciousness that Phsicalists are denying will reveal? IOW==>what are the multiple explanations of the conscious experience even in this thread missing?

Lets take the Saltiness of Salty food? What do the Physicalists miss by explaining it so materialistically?

Any ideas?
They miss the Saltiness experience itself. Think about the Salty Taste experience as a thing in itself. The Salty Taste is in a Category of Phenomena that is apart from any other Category of Phenomena in Science. Salt is a Chemical. Deeper thought will show that the experience of Saltiness is not a Property of Salt. The Salty Taste experience is only in the Mind. Salty Taste is a Property of a Conscious Phenomenon. It is not a Property of a Chemical. Conscious Phenomenon like the Salty Taste, Redness, Standard A Tone, etc. are all Consciously experienced Phenomena. What Category of Scientific Phenomena would you put the Salty Taste experience into?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:48 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:12 am
mirror93 wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:30 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:44 am
Poodle wrote:
Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:38 am
Just my final word on this, Steve. Consciousness HAS been explained several times on this thread. You, however, have rejected the explanations. That is certainly your prerogative, but it means that the onus is now on YOU rather than anyone else to provided an alternative explanation which consists of more than faith in a future discovery. You have put up many claims, but none of those amount to an explanation of your assertions - you, yourself, say that you don't know although you claim to have superior knowledge of what the explanation may be. I fail to see the logic in that claim, as will most other members of this forum. However, them's the rules. Consciousness not wholly contained within and formed by the brain is your baby and very few people here who are, in fact, scientific skeptics will accept your story that 'there's something else out there but I don't know what it is'. You need cold, hard evidence.
Yes the explanations for Consciousness that I have read on this thread are unacceptable to anyone who can think a little Deeper about things. I don't claim any Superior Knowledge about anything. I am merely pointing out the obvious Self Evident truth of the existence of Conscious experience. See the Redness of Red or Taste the Saltiness of a Salty food in a Deeper way. The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon on the part of the Physicalists is putting up the Brick Wall to further advancement in Consciousness research. The cold hard evidence is recognizing that your own Conscious experiences are something Special that is currently beyond what Science can explain. Doesn't mean it has to be Religious, but just something that Science has to start working on.
So, your own definition of physicalist is someone who doesn't believe that there are paranormal gods? That's stupid
A Physicalist is someone who Believes that the Physical Universe that Science knows about today is all there is and can be. They don't think more Deeply about things. If they did then they would realize how new Science actually is at this point in time. They never think that Science could learn a few new things in the next hundred, thousand, or million years. They really are Shallow thinkers protecting the status quo.

There's an old story that someone who worked at the Patent office a hundred years ago once said "I think that just about everything that can be invented has already been invented". This is the same Shallow thinking that the Physicalists exhibit in every post.
Depends on the definition of "physical". What makes the physical many will argue that is not physical, but that doesn't mean it's "god" or "super consciousness", it has some logic behind. Some idiots will claim that quantum mechanics prove that there is no physical reality; NO, QM proves no such thing, QM is basically what makes the physical. You can say consciousness, a thought or any mental content is not physical because it's not made of matter, but consciousness comes from something that also makes the physical, I'm sure there is no "super consciousness" behind all that, that simply cannot be found.
:paladin:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:07 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
They miss the Saltiness experience itself.
No. "Experience" is 100% "perceptual" by the observer using the materialistic explanations we all know. There is no experience without an experienceR. This is antagonistic to any idea of "saltiness" existing on its own.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
They miss the Saltiness experience itself. Think about the Salty Taste experience as a thing in itself."
No. as just explained above, you can't have a Salty taste experience without two things: salt + an experienceR. As you present the issue, it by your own definition cannot be a thing in itself.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
The Salty Taste is in a Category of Phenomena that is apart from any other Category of Phenomena in Science.
Totally circular and true of every discrete item we can identify. Lots of chemicals are "salts" with salty taste. Other chemicals are sweet, bitter and so forth. You offer only meaningless blather.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
Deeper thought will show that the experience of Saltiness is not a Property of Salt.
Purely definitional.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
The Salty Taste experience is only in the Mind.
No. As above, it takes two elements: the salt and the experienceR.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
Salty Taste is a Property of a Conscious Phenomenon. It is not a Property of a Chemical. Conscious Phenomenon like the Salty Taste, Redness, Standard A Tone, etc. are all Consciously experienced Phenomena. What Category of Scientific Phenomena would you put the Salty Taste experience into?
Repetitious.

……...and you failed to answer the question. "If" saltiness were only a property of a conscious phenomenon, what knew understanding would be gained? How would a world view change? What new insights would this lead to? IOW: so what?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

The Inter Dumbness By STEVE KLINKO the Meme Master

Post by mirror93 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:11 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:10 am
Putting aside that "The Insane denial of Consciousness as a Special Phenomenon" is pure semantic and not at all rhetoric ….Steve: what do you see/imagine/suppose/hypothesize/think a fuller understanding of the Consciousness that Phsicalists are denying will reveal? IOW==>what are the multiple explanations of the conscious experience even in this thread missing?

Lets take the Saltiness of Salty food? What do the Physicalists miss by explaining it so materialistically?

Any ideas?
they miss the saltiness itself. think about the salty taste as a thing in itself. the salty taste is in a category of phenomena that is apart from any other category of phenomena in science. salt is a chemical. deeper thought will show that the of saltiness is not a property of salt. the salty taste; salty taste is a property of a phenomenon. it is not a property of a chemical. chemical phenomenon like the salty taste;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; redness, standard a tone, etc. are all phenomena. what category of scientific phenomena would you put the salty taste into?
I removed all the "experience" words and meaningless BS words. Look how stupid your answer looks like. What on earth the tons of the red that you see has to do with the taste of salt that you taste with your tongue? :lol: that's like saying the way your rods and cones filter the red light coming from the apple influences the price of tea in China. That's your incoherent garbage :lol:

If your idiotic theory about salty being in the MIND WAS TRUE, tongue senses and the salt itself wouldn't be needed you dull-witted idiot. Something in the chemical HAS to make it salty, otherwise why would you need a salt, and tongue to taste something that is not in the salt? CAN YOU EVEN READ YOUR IDIOCY? Try something better, try to taste the salty in your tongue without anything in your tongue, only with your mind. TRY IT........................

you utttter DUMBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB, I can't seem to have patience with flat-earth type of idiots like you. Your next post should be promoting gnostictard agendas, such as mandela effect and how the world is a matrix, I BET you believe in all these woo
dsdasdasdas.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by mirror93 on Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:47 pm, edited 19 times in total.
:paladin:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:33 pm

Well, THAT is a very salty response. ………. or, is it all in my mind???
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

The Inter Dumbness By STEVE KLINKO

Post by mirror93 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:33 pm
Well, THAT is a very salty response. ………. or, is it all in my mind???
Ask Steve :lol:
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by mirror93 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:02 pm

"People with normal colour vision have all three types of cone/pathway working correctly but colour blindness occurs when one or more of the cone types are faulty. For example, if the red cone is faulty you won’t be able to see colours containing red clearly. Most people with colour blindness can’t distinguish certain shades of red and green."
source: http://www.colourblindawareness.org/col ... blindness/

then we have Steve Klinko:
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri May 05, 2017 12:41 pm
let go of the cones. They have nothing to do with seeing red.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

how will we ever take this idiot as seriously?

Someone tell Steve to make a surgery to remove all the cones in his eyes, and ask him if he can see any red afterwards :lol:
:paladin:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:06 pm

Most true believers have little to no science in their upbringing, and refuse to add to it. Practically an education in sense/perception in this thread if the links provided were actually read and thought about. Simple basic facts that cannot be argued, LIKE: red/green color blindness, are simply ignored and never dealt with.

Unanswered challenges: always telling.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:40 pm

Dimebag wrote: I don’t answer questions which are ridiculous.
Soooooo............ Steve Klinko makes a ridiculous religious claim, which requires his magical evolved non-physical consciousness.......to time travel back to the Big Bang and to the start of evolution on Earth.........and you don't criticize him? However, when I, a skeptic, on a skeptic forum, ask Steve Klinko to explain his claim ..... I am asking a "ridiculous question"?

Why are you here on a skeptic forum that promotes science?
Dimebag wrote: Now you can concoct or fabricate lies about me if you wish, calling me a religious peddler, however as you do so your credibility erodes to everyone with an ounce of integrity.
The members here aren't laughing at me. They know my work. They are laughing at Steve Klinko playing dodgeball to avoid all the enormous holes in his religious claim. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:38 am

SteveKlinko wrote:It's hard to understand because I never claimed any kind of God concept or Religious concept.
Hey Steve Klinko. Tell us again how your magical evolved non-physical consciousness "thingee" was god like and caused the Big Bang, 13 billion years ago?
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."

Hey Steve Klinko. Tell us again how your magical non-physical consciousness "thingee" was god like and directed evolution on Earth 3.8 billion years ago.
SteveKlinko previously claimed and wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.

Hey Steve Klinko? How did this evolved non-physical consciousness "thingee" go back in time as you are claiming?
Reading fairy tale book.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote: A Physicalist is someone who Believes that the Physical Universe that Science knows about today is all there is and can be .
Who has said that here? :lol: :lol:

A scientist uses the scientific method to compose and test a scientific hypothesis to explain observed data.

However Steve Klinko, who is anti-science, is claiming that because he doesn't understand how evolution caused brains to represent external data, that there must be a magical interface between the brain and a magical non-physical consciousness "thingee" that no one has ever observed. Steve Klinko then claims this magical "thingee" caused the Big Bang and evolution on Earth.
Reading fairy tale book.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14854
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:37 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:06 am
SteveKlinko wrote: A Physicalist is someone who Believes that the Physical Universe that Science knows about today is all there is and can be .
Who has said that here? :lol: :lol:
I haven't...….but I could. Its just a sloppy restatement of materialism/non-duality/rational/objective based reality? This "defines" the non-corporal "consciousness"/spirit/mind as a "function" of the physical Universe......like a ball rolling on the floor: there is no "rolling" in and of itself, but it is a "function" of the physical universe. Whats "cool" is: even if there is something "not physical" in the Universe, its much more efficient to just deal with the physical. It avoids an ocean of BS.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
machinegun1
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:49 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by machinegun1 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:59 am

Matthew is using a common fallacy called 'appeal to ridicule'. [Appeal to Ridicule is a type of logical fallacy. Logical fallacy is using false logic to try to make a claim or argument. Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy that attempts to make a claim look ridiculous by mocking it or exaggerating it in a negative way.] He is only making a ignorant of himself. Although Steve is ignorant on his assumptions too, he is right on doubting the ridiculous assumptions made by Matthew.

In no post Steve has claimed anything about going back in time with anything "magical", Matthew is the one postulating something that hasn't even crossed Steve's mind. Will ridicule Steve if he says otherwise, and try to maintain his position about something magically going back in time. This is not true, no one has ever said that in this post. Steve does not believe in Darwinian evolution, and you pretty sure know about it, and you act like you don't.
If there is anything magical here, is your brain creating consciousness. The irony is that, it's not "immaterial" or "physical", what we are talking about here transcends both your idea of non physical and physical. Actually, you seem confused about both words Matthew. You think everything in the universe has a physical reality, which it doesn't. Let that sink in for a while. https://www.thoughtco.com/examples-of-t ... ter-608349
https://www.thoughtco.com/light-and-hea ... ter-608352

The point here is not if consciousness is made from the physical or non-physical. As we know, there are non physical, and there are physical and solid. But even the physical, solid matter, an atom, of for example, wood, if you go deep into the quantum scale, you find something else that is not an atom, not physical. You seem to be some form of Placid of materialism, Matthew. You are a blind hard materialist who believes in Monism and the laughable and hilarious already disproved hypothesis of Lucy and is not really understanding anything you are saying. Consciousness is completely out of debate here. It's of course, neither immaterial dualistically speaking, nor material in our physical universe, it transcends any of your idea of both. It goes even deep than that, as we talk, we talk with our consciousness, so, there is no way to debate that subjectivity without saying that dualistically , you cannot debunk and will NEVER debunk dualism, and you would love to, because of your monistic and reductionist beliefs. Actually, even a hard materialistic would not claim such absurd. They claim, erroneously that consciousness comes from the physical, but it's not physical, the results are not the cause Matthew. No one has ever taught you that? Even if consciousness was physical, which isn't.

The choice of words made by Matthew seems like he is the opposite of Placid but from a false hard materialistic side, he is "arguing against" Placid, but also using the same words Placid is. He is arguing for monism but for the materialistic side, and Placid is arguing for the spiritual side. It's almost like you're on the same team. Both are stupidly wrong. But even the discussion between both are beyond dualism.

Steve has NEVER claimed that there is anything magical "" That's what YOU Matthew is saying. Steve is talking about how our consciousness is still the hard problem. And it is.
And you are not a "thingee", nor you are magical, this is something believed by you, there is nothing magical about consciousness, it's go absolutely beyond that magical hypothesis of yours. You're only fighting your own confused memories, about things you studied back then, that were proved wrong subsequently. As we can see, darwinian evolution keeps getting debunked year by year, with new evidences replacing the old ones and removing some of the old nonsense. There is nothing magical or non-magical, it transcends both. Stop repeating magic, there was no Mr.M getting back in time Matthew. No one has ever claimed that, you're the only one doing it.

Things to consider:
Matthew does not understand that the discussion here is about the immaterial and physical. As there are things that are non physical in the universe already, that is not a discussion.

There is nothing magical or dull about anything here, this is not Mr.M show for Matthew to keep repeating the same false preposition about Steve. Consciousness transcends any idea about magic. Magic came after. Mr.M is the one doing the magic. Mr.M has the consciousness that transcends any lies from Matthew here. Yes, I'm talking about Mr.M, because Matthew seems to love Mr M.'s magic and the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

No one is interested if you studied Darwinian evolution in the university, if it's wrong (which it is, by the fact it keeps changing, and old theories are being rewritten), then you are wrong too.
Last edited by machinegun1 on Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:53 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
machinegun1
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:49 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by machinegun1 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:07 am

Poodle wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:06 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:43 pm
Ok so now you are asking me to prove that nobody knows what Conscious Experience is? I might see the source of your confusion.

We all know what our own personal Conscious Experiences are and that is the crux of you dilemma. In a sense we all actually do know what Conscious Experience is in our own personal way. But that's not the question. The question is How do we receive that personal Conscious experience from Neural Activity? Think more Deeply about these things.
No, Steve, I'm asking no such thing. I'm saying that you have neither to prove nor disprove it because you're the only one (on this forum, at least) who is claiming that no one knows. Let's get this settled ... I AM STATING THAT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH KNOWS WHAT A CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IS. I have given you definitions of consciousness which are generally accepted, but you say these are wrong. You do NOT say how they are wrong. You claim that my 'holistic' explanation is based upon a New Age buzzword (which is silly - it's a perfectly good word meaning 'characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole') which is in my opinion a very apt definition of the function of the human nervous system, and then you claim that the universe itself may be conscious which, lets face it, is as holistic as it's possible to get.
It has been explained to you several times how we receive a personal conscious experience from neural activity - in this case via the eyes and all the way along to the visual cortex of the brain but also along similar pathways dealing with other sensory information and all of those pathways being used to build up a sensory image of what is outside us. It is that constantly-changing sensory image which you call consciousness (and it's that sensory image which is holistic by its very nature). There it is, in your brain - an ever-changing picture using all available sensory data to inform each and every one of us about our environment and enable us to act accordingly. Everything you need to stay alive from moment to moment is in that sensory image. You are experiencing the world from moment to moment because of the sensory image. There is no additional 'you' to receive it from there - that's it. That sensory image IS YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
That, Steve, is the baseline. It provides an explanation of how we operate. Most people would accept it. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's correct in all its details, but it DOES mean that if you say it isn't so, then it is incumbent upon your good self to come up with something which fits the bill better. All you have done so far is claim that there is another 'level of awareness' hidden away in the realms of apparent mysticism.
I don't know how much more simply I can put all of this, Steve.

.
So, according to you, if someone is blind (the back of his retina is not receiving any images of the world, therefore he cannot have a sensory perception of what is happening outside himself) AND deaf, then this someone does not have a consciousness and does not exist? HAHAHA, YEAH RIGHT!!!

No, poodle, there are not images in the brain, that's a absolutely basic understanding of neuroscience, you're just making things up or you just didn't explain yourself well. What you said is utterly absurd.

"A topographically arranged sensory area is not an image of anything; there are no images in the brain, and the brain does not have images" "Even mental imagery involves no actual images in the brain" (p.183); Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind, and Language by Maxwell Bennett, Daniel Dennett, Peter Hacker, John Searle
Poodle wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:06 pm
additional 'you' to receive it from there
Weird, that sounds exactly what Placid talks about, but in a opposite way.
What would be like to be an "additional you" in opposite of who you are now? Can you differ?
The reason you can't do that, it's because what you are saying is bollocks.
The reason you can't pinpoint 'you', it's because it's subjective. 'You' is not additional. You are already you. There is no need to add anything. The reason you say about sensory data and the nonsense of "imagery", is because you wanna avoid the experiencer and the agent with free-will from scene. But I'm remembering here you are wrong.

Paint;
sensory-data-paint.png
Doesn't matter the sensory data, you will always be in the middle, and prior to any experience, the one who perceives and who thinks. that's subjectivity 101, it can be confirmed through you by you, not by anyone externally to you.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28915
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:57 am

machinegun1 wrote: Matthew is using a common fallacy called 'appeal to ridicule'.
No. I am a skeptic using science on a skeptic forum. Let me explain to you how this works.

Firstly. Steve Klinko admits he hasn't even got a scientific hypothesis. All he is doing is "speculating". If you think Steve Klinko has a scientific hypothesis then write it down so we can laugh at both of you at once. :lol: :lol:

Secondly, Steve Klinko say he doesn't understand how evolution creates representational things like colour, taste, feelings of warmth and so on in the physical mind. Fair enough. Steve Klinko doesn't know what the basic theory of evolution is. However, all because Klinko doesn't understand how the physical brain has evolved, where is the logical progression that allows his to claim a non-physical evolved consciousness magically interfaces with the brain to create colour? Can you write down the steps Steve Klinko has used? Of course you can't. :lol: :lol:

Thirdly, if this non-physical consciousness is evolved to match humans , then how does it go back in time to start the Big Bang and then also to direct evolution of life on Earth? Do you have an explanation? Obviously it is a fairy tale that makes no sense. :lol: :lol:

Fourthly, if this magical non-physical conscious can interface with the normal physical brain, then we must be able to measure it. Yet no such thing exists or has ever been measured. Do you have an explanation for that? Obviously you don't, :lol: :lol:

Fifthly, the cones in your eye didn't evolve on their own without any ability for earlier animals to process colour. That's how evolution works. Therefore Steve's magical non-physical evolved consciousness must be specific to modern humans. Does that mean dogs, pis, bats and paramecium all have their own magical non-physical evolved consciousness thingees? Please explain in your own words so we can laugh at you some more. :lol: :lol: