Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

What you think about how you think.
SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:34 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:18 pm
Steve: you fail. Each "line" you post IS subject to criticisms like Matt's that are entirely valid. You make a correct statement in one line in your explanation...........so the wrong statement Matt quotes is NOT obfuscation and diversion. Its YOU being wrong.

Rereading.....I see you employ the "taking both sides of the argument" approach.

"It is irrelevant when Consciousness started." ///// No, its not.

"The point is that, when there is Consciousness, it can affect Evolutionary outcomes." ////// I agree.

In a sense.......what you are complaining about is being accurately criticized when you are so sloppy as to be WRONG. and that is giving you benefit of the doubt. If we "score" your presentation on this point alone, you state it incorrectly twice and correctly once.

What do you actually think................and why don't you post consistently with that thought?
The phrase "... when there is Consciousness ..." implies that it is Irrelevant when Consciousness started. If you agree with the second statement then you are actually implicitly agreeing with the first statement.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:36 am

SteveKlinko wrote: The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
Life is 3.7 billion years old. The first conscious animal was only 350 million years ago.
SteveKlinko wrote:The phrase "... when there is Consciousness ..." implies that it is Irrelevant when Consciousness started.
You complete idiot. You have now just admitted that life was evolving on its own for 3.6 billion years, with no "consciousness driving" it.

You just destroyed your own "inter mind" religion again.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:02 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:34 pm
The phrase "... when there is Consciousness ..." implies that it is Irrelevant when Consciousness started. If you agree with the second statement then you are actually implicitly agreeing with the first statement.
No, it directly states the opposite.

Is English your third language or what? a fail in simple language skills as well as the long accepted science in things?

................................How long do your tee-shirts last?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Regular Poster
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by mirror93 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:21 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:19 pm
The Physicalists on The Inter Mind thread complain about three basic statements that I have made. They seem to show an emotionalism in their replies that reveals a hidden frustration with their inability to address the statements in any coherent way. They are getting more and more Delirious. They are self appointed Guardians of the knowledge base of Science but that knowledge base is empty with regard to questions about Consciousness. They will not admit that there is Zero Scientific understanding of Consciousness so they resort to Insults and other Diversionary tactics that only reveal their ignorance. If Science cannot deal with Something then that Something can only be Supernatural or Religious in their way of thinking. They therefore need to make that Something go away rather than trying to study it more and come up with a Scientific Explanation. This necessarily implies that they think that Science has obtained all the knowledge that it will ever obtain. But this is not the Science that I know. I have been taught and expect that Science is discovering New Phenomena all the time. Here are the three statements that annoy the Physicalists to the point of mental breakdown:

1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.
2) Conscious experiences are in a whole different Category of Phenomena than any known Scientific Category of Phenomena.
3) The Conscious experience of Pain can give an Organism or Animal a statistical Evolutionary survival advantage that can affect the Evolution of that Organism or Animal.

As for the first statement, the Physicalists say things like: The Neural Activity IS the Conscious Activity and then they say that Explains it, end of discussion. This is Naïve and Shallow beyond all reasonableness. It isn't even a good Scientific guess. It is Pure Belief. It's so bad I have to think the Physicalists are not really serious when they say things like this but are just messing with me. They think that Measuring Neural Activity IS the same thing as Measuring the Conscious Activity. They are Measuring the Neural Correlates of Conscious experience not the Conscious experience itself. They treat the actual Conscious experience as if it did not even exist. I can not understand how they get to this point in their Physicalist delirium. To perpetuate the Physicalist Belief they must Deny the actual existence of the Conscious experience. The Conscious experience of something like the Redness of Red is a Self Evident reality of the Universe, and they deny it. The Conscious experience of Redness is something that Science cannot Explain. The Self evident reality of it is that it exists only in the Mind. They know the Redness exists in the Mind because they See it too but still they must deny this Self Evident Phenomenon of Consciousness because if it did exist Science would have to Explain it. But Science cannot Explain it at this point in time.

The second statement points out how the Physicalists might come to understand that Science doesn't have any Knowledge of what Conscious experience could be. If Conscious experience could be found to be in any known Category of Scientific Phenomena then Science would have had a lot to say about Consciousness by now. Instead we get Silence. Conscious experience is in a Category all by itself and this new Category of Phenomena has not been integrated into the Scientific knowledge base yet. Science does not know what to do with this Category of Phenomena. Since Science does not know what to do with this Category of Conscious Phenomena the Physicalists say it is Supernatural or Religious. It's neither of these, it's simply not understood yet. Don't be afraid you little Physicalists those scary Conscious experiences will not hurt you.

I think the third statement is completely sensible from even the most basic understanding of Evolutionary mechanisms. The Physicalists completely oppose this statement however. I don't know how they can justify thinking that the Conscious experience of Pain will not actually increase the statistical Evolutionary survival advantage for an Organism or Animal and thus influence Evolutionary outcomes for an Organism or Animal. And it is not just Pain but all the multitudes of other Conscious experiences that exist in the Universe. I suppose the opposition to this is because it admits the existence of Conscious experience which they Deny. So because they have to Deny Conscious experience they must Deny a basic premise of Evolution. They say that Evolutionary literature does not mention Conscious experience so therefore the Conscious experience of Pain cannot influence Evolutionary outcomes. This takes Shallow thinking and fear of what's outside the Box to extremes. I'll go so far as to say that if Evolutionary literature does not take into account Conscious experience then Evolutionary literature needs a Big Update.
If science has no clue about what consciousness is , then you even less. Just because you believe science doesn't or can't know what consciousness is, doesn't make your bunch of word salad BS valid. You idiot.
The reason you say "Conscious" and "experience" all the time. instead of just "consciousness", just shows how full of {!#%@} you are.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by mirror93 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:25 am

Io wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:27 am
Also, what's With you making Random words In everything You type start With a Capital letter?
There's only two answers for this.

1. He is a a schizophrenic autist and needs help.
2. He is TRYING to push his agenda here by playing with shitty basic subconscious techniques of programming through 'repetition' and 'Caps Lock' to persuade and confuse the subconscious mind, the reason this idiot do his mantra is because if someone is susceptible for it, it may fall for his repetition. (Try ctrl+F and search for certain keywords, such as "conscious' 'experience" "visual' scene", etc), you will see. That's why it's important to keep debunking each one of his foolishness. (as it seems the ADM "can't do anything" to ban this obvious spamming shill)
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by mirror93 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:39 am

Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:08 pm
I think guidance is the wrong word to use here Steve, because guidance implies teleology or agency. They may not guide the species, but the trait provides a survival advantage, which allows the gene which causes that trait to be passed on through offspring. This is the selection part of natural selection.

Could we then improve Steve’s original statement to bring it more in line with natural selection?

The conscious experience of pain is a trait which provides a survival advantage, so random genetic mutation which would interfere with an organisms conscious experience of pain (such as congenital insensitivity to pain) would be selected against.

Is that a fair statement?
There is no such thing as "conscious" "experience" of pain. Pain is not a "conscious" anything. You can have pain and not know about it. There is something called 'unconscious' pain.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by mirror93 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:44 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:05 pm
Gord wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:56 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:52 am
Gord wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:56 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 am
So now what can we put into that Gap?
There's one of your problems -- you can't just put things into any ol' gaps you seem to think exist. That's the equivalent of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Image

So to begin with, how can you show that there actually is a Hard Problem?
The fact that Science does not know How Neural Activity produces Conscious Activity is the Hard Problem.
You claim that's a fact. How can you demonstrate it to be true? It seems to me that the harder problem is explaining what the Hard Problem actually is.

If an experiment were to show that neural activity produces conscious activity, it can easily be dismissed by others simply by saying "that doesn't explain how it does it". Their response doesn't counter the experimental results, though. It would be like saying, "You turned the key and the car started, but it doesn't explain how the car started." Well, it does and it doesn't. For most people who don't understand the workings of an internal combustion engine, "he turned the key" is all we need to know. Sure there's more to it, but that's for another experiment to explain.

So, what experiment can we set up to demonstrate that neural activity and consciousness activity are two separate things?
From this I think that maybe you do understand that there is an Explanation missing here. Now that we have established that, then yes that is a good question as to what kind of Experiment could be set up to further investigate. The difficulty of designing that Experiment is another manifestation of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The important thing here is to at least know that you don't know something.
A non-physical metaphysical thingee from another unknown dimension magically created earth, the humans and directed evolution? Is that your theory? And where is this nonphysical creature and where it resides? Which "god" is it? Which realm it exists? In ur mind?
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by mirror93 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:47 am

Poodle wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:40 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:51 pm
Do you deny the existence of a Conscious Phenomenon. Of course you do because to you there is no Conscious Phenomena only Neural Phenomena. The absurdity of a Consciousness research project based on the preconceived denial of Consciousness is par for the course for the Physicalist mentality.
I wish that you would actually read the responses on this thread before demonstrating your intransigence yet again. WHAT DENIAL???
Once again for the hard of reading ... Consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural activity.
And again ... Consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural activity.
This does not say that all complex neural activity will result in consciousness. It DOES say that consciousness will not arise in the absence of complex neural activity. Do we understand how this occurs? No. Does this give us licence to invent fairy stories of external reference libraries for consciousness to visit and look up what red is? No. Big No. Huge No.
There is no difference in essence between your claims and those of Gorgeous. In terms of evidence, they're precisely the same (i.e. nothing). Your accusations of preconceived notions are hypocritical in the extreme - no one but you is demanding an external thingamijig to make human consciousness work merely because of a failure to understand emergent phenomena.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scienceno ... er-nf.html
Even if someone argues for the hard problem and says consciousness goes deeper than the complex neural activity. That would still be all in the brain. There is no escape. consciousness requires a brain.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Regular Poster
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by mirror93 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:54 am
Poodle wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:57 pm
I'm not arguing against your statement, Steve. I'm pointing out that it is nonsense. Allow me to simplify - you have stated that A belongs to a category which cannot be found in the group of known categories. So tell, me, Einstein - how would you know? The logic is completely invalid. it's the same as "my mother belongs to a group of people who cannot be found in any known group of people". See?
Everyone else on the planet can see that Conscious Experience is not in any Category of Phenomena that Science can deal with. If you are implying that maybe someday that Conscious experience will be found to be in one of the existing Categories then that is what I have also been saying. But as of this point in time Science does not know how to deal with Conscious Experience as a Phenomenon.
Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience. Consciousness is not an experience.
:paladin:

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Cadmusteeth » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:13 pm

It's a state of being.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:55 pm

I think consciousness IS an experience. Its category remains an emergent property of the brain which is being studied/measured from various different aspects. So, its is a non-material thing in itself but the "self awareness" property of it makes it an experience too. Its what LSD trips and beer for myself is all about.........or pain killers too? Or thrill rides, movies, first kiss. etc. If those aren't "experiences" we enjoy observing/reflecting on, what would they be?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:59 am

mirror93 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:39 am
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:08 pm
I think guidance is the wrong word to use here Steve, because guidance implies teleology or agency. They may not guide the species, but the trait provides a survival advantage, which allows the gene which causes that trait to be passed on through offspring. This is the selection part of natural selection.

Could we then improve Steve’s original statement to bring it more in line with natural selection?

The conscious experience of pain is a trait which provides a survival advantage, so random genetic mutation which would interfere with an organisms conscious experience of pain (such as congenital insensitivity to pain) would be selected against.

Is that a fair statement?
There is no such thing as "conscious" "experience" of pain. Pain is not a "conscious" anything. You can have pain and not know about it. There is something called 'unconscious' pain.
Okay. I would agree that pain can be acted on unconsciously, or implicitly, however, in a human, eventually that sensation of pain will work itself into conscious awareness. Either that or the sensation of pain is below a certain threshold which doesn’t contain enough of a signal to evoke interest within the nervous system. A third option is the pain signal may be competing for attention with other signals, and therefore does not filter through to conscious awareness. But a pain sensation of sufficient strength will enter into consciousness.

Given that, I’m not sure what you mean exactly by the statement, ‘There is no such thing as "conscious" "experience" of pain’. How do you define conscious and how do you define experience? Is it that because pain can be acted on without direct awareness of a pain sensation, at least for the first few milliseconds, that you consider pain to not be to do with conscious experience? And if pain is not part of conscious experience, then what to you is part of conscious experience?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11296
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:28 pm

All organisms have ways to warn them of potential danger. Most organisms, which are the simpler life forms have not evolved the sensation of pain. They rely on a set of stimuli and mostly hard-wired responses to that stimuli. Higher organisms, which have evolved the ability to learn new behaviors have incorporated the sensation of pain into their learning system. So once again for the hundredth time at least, pain has nothing to do with the direction of evolution.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:54 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:28 pm
All organisms have ways to warn them of potential danger.
My cousin doesn't.

.........BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I mean: "No they don't." Most of life is just a soup. You are thinking as you later post about higher order organisms===even when considering single cell organisms. There are very simple ones before any defense mechanisms are present. Fun Fact: I don't know this to be true, but it feels right. Life is like that.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Cadmusteeth » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:26 pm

That's not really any different from what he said except for the "no, it's this" bit.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:32 pm

Who/What are you responding to Cad? It should be "me" but I am making a different observation by disagreeing.....and I don't see any "no, its this" bit...without really forcing it. No response is any different except where it is?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Cadmusteeth » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:13 am

Ok, I checked and I realized I was mistaken. Damnit.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:47 am

Well thanks Cad. That happens to me a lot. Quite a few here think checking their work by copy and paste is an insult to their dignity. My review, goes downhill from there.................... If you want to: did you get a rush/sense of humor/realizing you made a mistake? I value those moments when I find out I have made one. It provides balance. Can't be FORCED on you, have to recognize it yourself. A kind of joy actually...... to learn anything.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Cadmusteeth » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:48 am

Only when I wrote "damnit" at the end there.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:52 am

yeah....I chuckled at that too.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:02 am

mirror93 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:39 am
Dimebag wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:08 pm
I think guidance is the wrong word to use here Steve, because guidance implies teleology or agency. They may not guide the species, but the trait provides a survival advantage, which allows the gene which causes that trait to be passed on through offspring. This is the selection part of natural selection.

Could we then improve Steve’s original statement to bring it more in line with natural selection?

The conscious experience of pain is a trait which provides a survival advantage, so random genetic mutation which would interfere with an organisms conscious experience of pain (such as congenital insensitivity to pain) would be selected against.

Is that a fair statement?
There is no such thing as "conscious" "experience" of pain. Pain is not a "conscious" anything. You can have pain and not know about it. There is something called 'unconscious' pain.
Did you stop and think that maybe that's why I say Conscious Pain and not Unconscious Pain.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:20 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Did you stop and think that maybe that's why I say Conscious Pain and not Unconscious Pain.
Yes. You are the religious nut case who claims consciousness existed before the big bang, as you have no basic understanding of science.
SteveKlinko wrote: We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:49 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:20 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Did you stop and think that maybe that's why I say Conscious Pain and not Unconscious Pain.
Yes. You are the religious nut case who claims consciousness existed before the big bang, as you have no basic understanding of science.
SteveKlinko wrote: We can, for example, speculate that Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang. The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I specifically say "We can Speculate". What is it that you don't understand about the word Speculate? By definition a Speculation is a thought, or a pondering often given without evidence. When you ask for Evidence you are showing your lack of understanding of the word Speculate. That particular section of the Inter Mind that you like to quote from, "The Primacy of Consciousness", is dedicated to promoting the importance of Consciousness as opposed to the usual Physicalist approach which tries to minimize Consciousness as some kind of unimportant secondary effect or even an Illusion. The section is clearly a cheerleading session for Consciousness and many Speculations are suggested. But Speculations are all that we have when it comes to Consciousness. If you continue to ridicule Speculations then you are ridiculing the only attempts at understanding Consciousness that exist.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11296
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:59 pm

Consciousness is more than simple "awareness." My dog is aware of the water in the toilet bowl, and prefers to drink it instead of the water in his water bowl. That's because he has a different level of awareness about it than I do. But he can hear a car approaching long before I do that belongs to someone he knows, and causes him to get excited. He also barks with other dogs in the distance at night, communicating something beyond our awareness.

But consciousness is the ability to model the entire universe to the limits of your understanding, and imagine scenarios within it. Animals don't have it and I doubt that primitive humanoids had it either. My cat claws the door, wanting to go outside, but once outside, immediately wants to come in again because its too cold outside. This is repetitive behavior because the cat has no consciousness that can imagine that it's too cold to go outside, even if it was that way 15 minutes earlier.

We may not understand how consciousness works, but we know that we have it. Our ability to think about things outside our sphere of sensory awareness is primarily how it operates. Our ability to conceptualize something we can build is also uniquely human. A bird can construct an elaborate nest, but once it's damaged, the bird starts over building one from scratch. It can't conceptualize a simple repair. The notion that simpler organisms have consciousness as we do, is simply a fallacy. Hard-wired behaviors come from genetic programming, not reasoned thought.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:00 am

SteveKlinko wrote:I specifically say "We can Speculate". What is it that you don't understand about the word Speculate?
"Speculate" means considering alternative hypotheses for an observed phenomena. Your religious fairy tale, that a magical "god" consciousness existed outside of the initial singularity is simply a religious fairy tale that doesn't match any observed phenomena.

You may as well say a "leprechaun existed outside of the Big Bang and made all rainbows" :lol:
Leprechaun 1.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:00 am
"Speculate" means considering alternative hypotheses for an observed phenomena.
No it doesn't..........and not made so by underlining it. (bwahahahahahahahah!)

Speculate: Think deeply about a subject or question over a period of time //// I'd focus on how shallow Klino's deep is. do love the leprechaun AND the notion that speculate "should" be related to what we can see. But I won't make the same error Klinko does...........nor the one you do.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Speculate" means considering alternative hypotheses for an observed phenomena.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist" wrote:No it doesn't..........and not made so by underlining it. (bwahahahahahahahah!) Speculate: Think deeply about a subject or question over a period of time


Why are you so stupid Bobbo?

Bobbo : I speculate this thing is green because......
Matthew : It's not green you idiot.....

Bobbo : I speculate there was something outside the singularity because....
Matthew : There is no second thing outside the singularity, because by it is one single thing by definition ....a "singularity"

Again... why are you so stupid Bobbo? :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist fails, again, and " wrote:Speculate: Think deeply about a subject or question over a period of time
How do you speculate about a non existent subject Bobbo?

In reality
speculate : form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

to guess possible answers to a question when you do not have enough information to be certain:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:42 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist fails, again, and " wrote:Speculate: Think deeply about a subject or question over a period of time
How do you speculate about a non existent subject Bobbo?
What can you do EXCEPT speculate? You can't look at it...............yuk, yuk!!!
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:45 am

Speculating is basically philosophy. Some speculations can be ruled out just by their internal inconsistency or their discrepancies with the observed phenomena or other scientific paradigms, I.e. mind-body dualism. That doesn’t stop someone speculating, however their speculation can be shown to be inconsistent and wrong. Once a speculation is shown to be wrong it is typically abandoned, or relegated to the great big scrap heap of ideas.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Cadmusteeth » Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:59 pm

People do like taking things out of that scrap bin and reusing them though.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What can you do EXCEPT speculate? You can't look at it...............yuk, yuk!!!
I will walk you and Steve Klinko through this as you both don't know what "speculate" means or what "the singularity" means.

Steve Klinko "speculates" there was an evolved consciousness outside of the singularity (an object) , without any evidence. :lol:

Step 1) As soon as Steve Klinko claimed there was something outside the singularity, it stopped being the singularity. That is because there there is no space or anything or even time, outside this single singularity, by definition. Steve Klinko isn't "speculating" about anything.

Step 2) We do have evidence. Steve Klinko simply ignores it. We know about the cosmic background radiation, the homogeneity of the universe, its observable shape and so on. Steve Klinko is simply ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit his religious "speculation".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:33 am

Your error Matt is asking as you so often do to prove a negative.

You can ONLY SPECULATE on something that does not exist because IT DOESN'T EXIST. Since you are addled on this subject: you can't point to, provide an example of, or submit a pen and paper, or reed and papyrus, or stylus and tablet representation of documentation that has been lost to history.....all you can do is SPECULATE. You are denying the very definition of the word. The first step toward crazy..........and as you never admit to error..........you have taken lots of steps.

Well thats not quite correct.................you actually are running at high sprint. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Matt: you so funneee.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Your error Matt is asking as you so often do to prove a negative.
No Bobbo. We already proved you don't know what "proving a negative" means. JO753 made a positive claim that ancients drew picture of all the major event........and was unable to produce one example or any historian saying that or any evidence at all. You then got confused again and again,,,,and again.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You can ONLY SPECULATE on something that does not exist because IT DOESN'T EXIST.
No Bobbo. The singularity did exist and we have lots of evidence for it. You didn't know.

You and Steve Klinko simply don't know what the singularity is. .
:lol: :lol: :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19342
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:43 am

Ha, ha..............poor Matthew. Nothing but Smoke and Mirrors...........gets lost in his own smoke, winds up arguing with his own statements.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:45 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:43 am
Ha, ha..............poor Matthew. Nothing but Smoke and Mirrors...........gets lost in his own smoke, winds up arguing with his own statements.
Good. you admit I am right and Steve Klinko was not speculating. Say "Thank you Mr Ellard for educating me" :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:42 am

landrew wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:59 pm
Consciousness is more than simple "awareness." My dog is aware of the water in the toilet bowl, and prefers to drink it instead of the water in his water bowl. That's because he has a different level of awareness about it than I do. But he can hear a car approaching long before I do that belongs to someone he knows, and causes him to get excited. He also barks with other dogs in the distance at night, communicating something beyond our awareness.

But consciousness is the ability to model the entire universe to the limits of your understanding, and imagine scenarios within it. Animals don't have it and I doubt that primitive humanoids had it either. My cat claws the door, wanting to go outside, but once outside, immediately wants to come in again because its too cold outside. This is repetitive behavior because the cat has no consciousness that can imagine that it's too cold to go outside, even if it was that way 15 minutes earlier.

We may not understand how consciousness works, but we know that we have it. Our ability to think about things outside our sphere of sensory awareness is primarily how it operates. Our ability to conceptualize something we can build is also uniquely human. A bird can construct an elaborate nest, but once it's damaged, the bird starts over building one from scratch. It can't conceptualize a simple repair. The notion that simpler organisms have consciousness as we do, is simply a fallacy. Hard-wired behaviors come from genetic programming, not reasoned thought.
I am not talking about awareness or the ability to rationalize when I talk about Consciousness. I am always talking about Sensory Consciousness. Like the Redness of the color Red or the Awfulness of the Pain Experience, or etc.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:00 am
SteveKlinko wrote:I specifically say "We can Speculate". What is it that you don't understand about the word Speculate?
"Speculate" means considering alternative hypotheses for an observed phenomena. Your religious fairy tale, that a magical "god" consciousness existed outside of the initial singularity is simply a religious fairy tale that doesn't match any observed phenomena.

You may as well say a "leprechaun existed outside of the Big Bang and made all rainbows" :lol:
Leprechaun 1.jpg
Only you would say Leprechauns might have existed outside the Big Bang. Leprechauns don't Exist at all but Consciousness does Exist. My Speculation is within the realm of reason and yours is just an intentional idiotic diversion and disruption.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:52 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:38 am
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:00 am
"Speculate" means considering alternative hypotheses for an observed phenomena.
No it doesn't..........and not made so by underlining it. (bwahahahahahahahah!)

Speculate: Think deeply about a subject or question over a period of time //// I'd focus on how shallow Klino's deep is. do love the leprechaun AND the notion that speculate "should" be related to what we can see. But I won't make the same error Klinko does...........nor the one you do.
You can certainly Speculate about what you can't See. We can't See Consciousness in the Neurons so we in fact Must speculate about how the Neurons produce the Conscious Experiences. Speculation is all there is when it comes to Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 992
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:04 am
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: What can you do EXCEPT speculate? You can't look at it...............yuk, yuk!!!
I will walk you and Steve Klinko through this as you both don't know what "speculate" means or what "the singularity" means.

Steve Klinko "speculates" there was an evolved consciousness outside of the singularity (an object) , without any evidence. :lol:

Step 1) As soon as Steve Klinko claimed there was something outside the singularity, it stopped being the singularity. That is because there there is no space or anything or even time, outside this single singularity, by definition. Steve Klinko isn't "speculating" about anything.

Step 2) We do have evidence. Steve Klinko simply ignores it. We know about the cosmic background radiation, the homogeneity of the universe, its observable shape and so on. Steve Klinko is simply ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit his religious "speculation".
Your arrogant assumption that you think you know what was really going on before the Big Bang is laughable.