Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34502
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:56 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Gord wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:53 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:19 pm
1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

...

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.
Alright then, I'm curious now. How do you propose to demonstrate that neural activity and conscious activity are not essentially the same thing?
You are asking me to prove a Negative. If you think that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing then you must prove that. That would not be proving a Negative. The Website at http://TheInterMind.com is dedicated to showing how Conscious experience is a whole different thing than anything Science can talk about. The Arguments are all there. Sorry if they did not convince you.
Um, no. This is your fight, not mine. And no, I have no interest in visiting your website.

Your complaint about having to prove a negative is just whining. "It's too hard!..." Well, you're wrong. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to demonstrate a difference between two things that you claim are different. If you can't demonstrate that they are different, then you can't justifiably claim to know that they are different, which is what you are doing.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:33 pm

gorgeous wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:41 pm
Ellard, astronauts and govt people have been trained in obe's at the Monroe Institute...
No they haven't. There are no training courses at the Monroe Institute, you complete idiot. There are rooms for chanting, talking to rocks and home made isolation chambers. It is a "new age" scam for separating idiots from their money. :lol: :lol:

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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:36 pm

Gord wrote: If that's a spelling mistake of epigenetics then it is freakin' widespread.
I made a spelling mistake. It is indeed epigenetics.

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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:55 pm

SteveKlinko wrote: The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko wrote: What I say about Pain has nothing to do with Lamarckian Evolution.
Yes it does. You are directly claiming an animal's conscious thoughts creating new genes frequency ratios, to control evolution in a particular way.

Plants, fungi, and so on are not conscious and were evolving for 3.3 billion years before the first animal turned up. No conscious though is required

The human appendix does not "feel pain" and nor is it conscious, yet it has evolved.

You pretended that you had read Darwin's 1859 book Origin of the Species, yet you are totally unaware what Darwin wrote. It is the environment that causes different gene pools to be more or less successful at evolutionary adaption. :lol: :lol:


Steve Klinko is an idiot
SteveKlinko wrote: When an Organism, by random genetic processes, develops the ability to feel Pain, it will enhance the Organisms survival rate.
How about ......"When a bacteria develops mutation to resist antibiotics it will enhance its survival rate." See how stupid your claim is? You are simply saying any "any mutation that increases an organisms survival rate will increase its survival rate. :lol: :lol:

You simply don't understand basic concepts of scientific Darwinian evolution.
Evolution for dummies.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by gorgeous » Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:59 pm

they did-----
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:16 pm

gorgeous wrote:they did-----
Who is "they" and "what did they "do"?

Are you still claiming alien lizard people rule the world? Or is it the "Illuminati" this week? Perhaps you are going to finally tell us why none of "Seth the channeled spirit's " predictions ever came true?

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by gorgeous » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:19 pm

I posted a video of Monroe saying an astronaut had trained with him....and there's this from the Monroe Institute--------military colonel's 's experience with the crew from the doomed space shuttle through his training at the Institute..----- (TMI Focus, Vol. XXIV, No. 3 & 4, Summer/Fall 2003)

Space Shuttle Columbia Retrieval

by Col. Douglas M. Black, USMC, retired

Colonel Douglas M. Black, USMC, retired, has worked in the commercial and defense information technology industries and has been a student of TMI methods for over a decade. He has attended four residential programs, including LIFELINE®. Doug is active in the Dolphin Energy Club, which supports healing, and recently joined the Professional Division. In his memoir, Finding My Way, Colonel Black highlights his personal journey of spiritual discovery through his training in and application of the Hemi-Sync® technology. He and his wife, Leslie, currently live in Salisbury, North Carolina, where he writes.

At 9:30 A.M. EST, on February 1, 2003, Leslie took a phone call from our son Jonathon. He said that space shuttle Columbia had been lost during reentry over Texas. I had not paid any attention to this flight or to the space program in general for several years, but I immediately felt a compelling sense of urgency to work the LIFELINE® process. Immediately I went to my bedroom, closed all doors, set the fan on medium, put on my headphones (connected to nothing), lay down, and began my cool-down period. An overwhelming sense of grief made this particularly difficult. Tears seeped from the corners of my eyes and slipped gently down my cheeks into my beard. All loss of life hits hard. However, loss of military personnel involved in high-profile national and international missions is the hardest for me to minister to and usually evokes intense emotion. Cool-down took about ten minutes. I followed standard LIFELINE procedures and finished at 10:00 A.M.

During the session, I coordinated with my guide, Thomas, who indicated there was work to be done. After proceeding to Focus 15,1 rolled back the time sequence to just before the shuttle breakup and joined the crew in the main cabin—standing just behind the pilot. The windscreen was filled with the yellow-orange flame of reentry friction and the entire vehicle was buffeted roughly.1

I asked to “see” the issue that would cause the disaster and was instantly viewing gaseous fumes seeping out of an upright panel that appeared to be an equipment storage locker. I then asked, “What does this mean?” The answer came, “There has been a mistake made by a crew member, an experiment was not stowed properly and once the gas reaches a spark, it will explode.2 This is a known issue but is considered to be of little significance.”3 (As always, the speaker is unidentified. It’s my habit to go with the data and trust the process. I certainly know virtually nothing about space flight or the workings of a shuttle.)

At that moment there was a violent yaw to the left and then to the right. The yaw continued on into a complete roll to the right, and the shuttle came apart.4 The bulk of the flaming wreckage continued down and away from us at a terrific speed, leaving the crew suspended in midair with a panoramic, beautiful view of the earth. Then it was suddenly quiet, absolutely quiet. I sensed one or maybe two females and perhaps six or seven males floating in a sitting position.5 They appeared to be glassy-eyed and semi-dazed but remained in a tight formation.

I consciously approached the commander, a middle-aged man with an “R”-sounding name.6 He was very distraught. He obviously grasped the magnitude of what had just transpired and was frantically reproaching himself for making an “error.”7 I spoke up and told him that he could not have prevented it. A small error got out of hand at an unfortunate juncture in the reentry sequence.

“Who are you?” he demanded in a distracted manner.

“I’m Colonel Black, USMC.”

“I don’t have a Marine Corps colonel on my crew,” he replied with a pained and confused expression.

“You do now,” I replied. “I’m here to help you move on to your next location if you want the help.”

He gave me a penetrating stare, looked around at the others, and then turned back to me. “We’re dead, aren’t we?” he stated in resignation, but quietly, as though he didn’t want to disturb the rest of the crew, who floated nearby but took no notice of our conversation.

“Dead is a highly overrated assessment, but, yes, your shuttle is gone and your bodies with it,” I replied gently—keeping direct eye contact all the while.

“What is it you do?” he asked, as he struggled to comprehend the situation.

“I’m a volunteer who comes to events such as this and offers to provide some company as you travel to your next location.”

“Are you dead, too?” he managed to ask.

“No, I’m not,” I replied simply.

He eyed me quizzically. Two and two were not adding up to four, but he seemed too fatigued and distracted to try to sort it all out.

At that moment four “family members” approached our location from above; they reached out and made contact with one of the women and another of the crew. (I did not get a strong enough impression to tell if the other crew member was a male or a female.) They shortly began to pull away from the tight little group. As they rose up and away the commander jolted himself to action. “Hey, where are they going with my crew?” “It’s OK,” I reassured him. “They are probably deceased family members who are familiar to those crew members. It’s common for ‘dead’ people to be met by family members or dear friends. Because this was an unexpected event, it took them a while to get here. In many cases they are waiting at the bedside.”

A look of vague understanding crossed his face; some things were starting to make sense.

“I see,” he said pensively. “What about us?”

“That is where I come in, if you desire the help.”

“Well, sure, I guess so,” he replied.

“Fine,” I said, “then join hands and follow me.”

“Wait,” he said, in a sudden burst of linear thought. “What about our families? We’ll want to see them.”

“Don’t worry,” I reassured him, “you can visit them whenever you like.”

“How?” he demanded.

“By simply thinking of them,” I replied. “Think of them and you’ll be with them.”

He relaxed, satisfied for the moment, as we all joined hands and turned our gaze upward. Then I noticed three bright yellow, teardrop-shaped figures approaching from below. Although traveling independently, they were definitely converging on our location. While studying this unusual event I heard the commander say, “Those more of your folks?”

“Why do you say that?” I asked.

“They have on the same yellow space suit or covering,” was his matter-of-fact reply. (This “yellow covering” was mentioned to me while dealing with the Russian submarine Kursk disaster. This may be how others perceive our Resonant Energy Balloons (REBALS). Also, the others felt like TMI folks.)

“Yes,” I said, “those are some of my associates from Monroe, here to assist, too.”

With the astronauts linked hand-in-hand and the newly arrived Monroe helpers on either side and in the rear, we got under way. Thomas suggested the central tunnel entrance to Focus 27. “We are ready,” he confirmed in a somber but confident tone. We moved rapidly and without incident up through all the Focus levels. They flew by at breakneck speed, and we soon emerged into the bright sunlight and brilliantly blue sky of Focus 27.

As we slowed and settled on the cloudy surface, several figures started toward us. I released my grip on the pilot’s hand and receded to the background, standing to the right of Thomas. We watched quietly. The Columbia’s crew haltingly walked toward the approaching group of perhaps three dozen people. Suddenly I recognized Alan Shepard in the silver space suit he wore for his first suborbital flight. Shepard stepped up with a big smile and gave the commander a hearty handshake and a reassuring pat on the back. His eyes were locked intently on the new arrival, almost as if he was “grounding” him. Also, Shepard looked about forty years old, in his prime. “Well done and welcome,” he said in a firm voice.

Others from Shepard’s group stepped forward, each warmly greeting one of the newcomers. It soon looked like two fighter squadrons meeting at the officer’s club for a drink after a day of hard training. Some of the group wore the space suits of Russian cosmonauts. Talk became more and more animated and cries of recognition were heard as the newcomers became more aware and accustomed to their new environment.

Thomas and I watched with great fascination from the sidelines. “This is real nice,” I managed, as waves of emotion rolled over me. To avoid loss of control I tried to focus on useful data collection. “What are the qualifications for the welcoming committee?” Thomas replied, “Volunteers, like most everywhere else, but they must have played a significant role in the space program in Time and Space. It’s a real plus if they gave their life for the cause.”

“I’m overwhelmed by the pure humanity of it. It’s real nice,” I repeated, as my voice failed me and tears streamed from my physical eyes. My thoughts turned to the countries that had lost astronauts in this accident. I sent waves of comforting love to the families and then to the nations of those brave souls.

“These risky multinational endeavors dared on the part of all people have a real value in binding one nation to another,” said Thomas. I’m certain he was trying to help me see the bigger picture.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:24 pm

gorgeous wrote: I posted a video of Monroe saying an astronaut had trained with him.
......and here you are.
1) Unable to name that astronaut
2) Unable to state what "course" that astronaut studied at the Monroe "New Age" Mantra retreat
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:33 pm

gorgeous wrote: by Col. Douglas M. Black, USMC, retired
You are an idiot. Douglas Black works for the Monroe Institute at their "Dolphin Energy Club" He writes a regular column for their web magazine.

Share the power of group dynamic meditation and make a difference! In 1991, The Monroe Institute® (TMI) established the Dolphin Energy Club (DEC) on this very principal – to promote emotional and physical comfort in times of need using the special frequency patterns of Hemi-Sync®.
https://www.monroeinstitute.org/Dolphin%20Energy%20Club

He worked for the Navy and had nothing to do with NASA or any astronauts. :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by gorgeous » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:44 pm

didn't say he worked at NASA....it mentioned he now works for the Institute...after he was trained there....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 » Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:11 am

gorgeous wrote: didn't say he worked at NASA....it mentioned he now works for the Institute...after he was trained there....
Soooooo.... your evidence that an astronaut studied a course at the Monroe New Age Retreat is an unrelated story by a ex-navy bloke, who works for the Monroe's meditation retreat, the "Dolphin Energy Club"

Are you really that stupid?
:lol: :lol:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:46 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko wrote: What I say about Pain has nothing to do with Lamarckian Evolution.
Yes it does. You are directly claiming an animal's conscious thoughts creating new genes frequency ratios, to control evolution in a particular way.

Plants, fungi, and so on are not conscious and were evolving for 3.3 billion years before the first animal turned up. No conscious though is required

The human appendix does not "feel pain" and nor is it conscious, yet it has evolved.

You pretended that you had read Darwin's 1859 book Origin of the Species, yet you are totally unaware what Darwin wrote. It is the environment that causes different gene pools to be more or less successful at evolutionary adaption. :lol: :lol:


Steve Klinko is an idiot
SteveKlinko wrote: When an Organism, by random genetic processes, develops the ability to feel Pain, it will enhance the Organisms survival rate.
How about ......"When a bacteria develops mutation to resist antibiotics it will enhance its survival rate." See how stupid your claim is? You are simply saying any "any mutation that increases an organisms survival rate will increase its survival rate. :lol: :lol:

You simply don't understand basic concepts of scientific Darwinian evolution. Evolution for dummies.jpg
If Evolutionary Literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary Literature needs a Big Update.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:51 pm

Gord wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:56 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Gord wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:53 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:19 pm
1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

...

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.
Alright then, I'm curious now. How do you propose to demonstrate that neural activity and conscious activity are not essentially the same thing?
You are asking me to prove a Negative. If you think that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing then you must prove that. That would not be proving a Negative. The Website at http://TheInterMind.com is dedicated to showing how Conscious experience is a whole different thing than anything Science can talk about. The Arguments are all there. Sorry if they did not convince you.
Um, no. This is your fight, not mine. And no, I have no interest in visiting your website.

Your complaint about having to prove a negative is just whining. "It's too hard!..." Well, you're wrong. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to demonstrate a difference between two things that you claim are different. If you can't demonstrate that they are different, then you can't justifiably claim to know that they are different, which is what you are doing.
Your inability to show How Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity completely proves my statement. You cannot just say Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity over and over again. You have to have a Clue about what you are saying. You have to think Deeper about what you are saying.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10593
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Poodle » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:19 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:51 pm
... You cannot just say Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity over and over again.
... says the man who says neural activity IS NOT conscious activity over and over again.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11407
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by TJrandom » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:48 pm

gorgeous wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:19 pm
...
Space Shuttle Columbia Retrieval

by Col. Douglas M. Black, USMC, retired

Colonel Douglas M. Black, USMC, retired, has worked in the commercial and defense information technology industries and has been a student of TMI methods for over a decade. He has attended four residential programs, ...
Sooo he has been a slow learner. That figures.... he'd have been ahead if he quit that nonsense from the git-go. :roll:

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:53 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:19 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:51 pm
... You cannot just say Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity over and over again.
... says the man who says neural activity IS NOT conscious activity over and over again.
First of all I don't actually say it's NOT. I'm only asking for an Explanation or Logical chain of facts that would lead to Validity of the statement that Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity. The lack of an Explanation or Chain of Logic at this time in our understanding still does not mean it's NOT. But since there is no forthcoming Explanations or Logic we must Suspect that it might be NOT.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34502
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:49 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:51 pm
Gord wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:56 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:52 pm
Gord wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:53 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:19 pm
1) Science has Zero, I repeat Zero, understanding with regard to Consciousness.

...

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.
Alright then, I'm curious now. How do you propose to demonstrate that neural activity and conscious activity are not essentially the same thing?
You are asking me to prove a Negative. If you think that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing then you must prove that. That would not be proving a Negative. The Website at http://TheInterMind.com is dedicated to showing how Conscious experience is a whole different thing than anything Science can talk about. The Arguments are all there. Sorry if they did not convince you.
Um, no. This is your fight, not mine. And no, I have no interest in visiting your website.

Your complaint about having to prove a negative is just whining. "It's too hard!..." Well, you're wrong. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to demonstrate a difference between two things that you claim are different. If you can't demonstrate that they are different, then you can't justifiably claim to know that they are different, which is what you are doing.
Your inability to show How Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity completely proves my statement.
My unwillingness to play with you in no way proves your point.
You cannot just say Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity over and over again. You have to have a Clue about what you are saying. You have to think Deeper about what you are saying.
I don't take directions from numbnuts like you.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

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 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:23 am

Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote: If Evolutionary Literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary Literature needs a Big Update.
Jean Baptiste Lamark did attempt to take consciousness into account in his 1801 book on evolution. Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, . His theory was proven wrong for the same many reasons that your theory is completely wrong.

I have set those same scientific reasons out to show you your errors and you simply ignored them. If fact you are unable to actually state how your mechanism is meant to work at all. You are simply posting fairy tales with contradictions. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What makes you a complete idiot is that you lied and said you had read "Origin of the Species, from 1859 which specifically destroyed Lamark's claims..........yet you still don't know what they are.

Why do you lie so much? :lol: :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:41 am

SteveKlinko wrote:. I'm only asking for an Explanation or Logical chain of facts that would lead to Validity of the statement that Neural Activity IS Conscious Activity.
The scientific view
Consciousness is an evolved activity in animals with central nervous systems . Only physical DNA carries evolved characteristics, Therefore as DNA can only produce physical protein chains, that form the physical brain and its electro-chemical processes consciousness must be a physical activity of the physical brain.


Steve Klinko's fairy Tale
Another magical dimension exists. In this magical dimension a magical non-physical alien exists that sucks out data electro-magnetic data from animals brains, for no logical reason, converts it into colour and sends it back as colour data, to the animal's brain although the physical brain has no way of actually receiving that colour information according to the same fairy tale.


The fairy tale gets worse. Despite billions of animals continuously seeing terabytes of colour information continuously, no scientist has ever noticed the energy loss from physical brains. Even sillier. No scientist has ever seen any energy input as this data is returned by the alien to physical brains in our dimension.

Even sillier, living things that don't see colour, but react to photon amplitude, ( Trees that use red blue frequencies for photosynthesis, sea-monkeys that follow bright torches, chameleons that change skin colour according to the environment,) are all happily able to evolve without requiring any of this fairy tale happening to them.
Reading fairy tale book 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:56 am

Klinko t-shirt.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:13 am

Imagine if neuroscience, in the next few years, developed a clear and detailed understanding of the exact neural processes which occur during a specific neural event. They could describe the exact process by which sensory information entered via the sense organs, travelled to the various parts of the brain involved, and we identified the shared physical process involved in each and every conscious event, even between different senses.

Basically this explanation would satisfy the so called easy problem of consciousness. We could describe this process and we would be satisfied that this was the very physical process, in its entirety, which leads to a conscious event occurring within awareness. No stones left unturned, no loose ends. We don’t currently know what this exact description would entail. But it would need to describe certain properties.

1. How the processes within the brain create a qualitative state, i.e. there is something it is like to be in that particular state.

2. How processes within the brain create a subject which the qualitative state belongs to.

3. How processes within the brain integrates these qualitative states into a useful and conglomerated scene.

There could be several more properties which would require explanation, but these three are probably the most widely cited.

If neuroscience could provide explanations for these properties, would it then have also explained the hard problem of consciousness? Would there be anything left to explain?

I think there would be nothing left to explain.

By answering question 1. It would also be able to explain why sight is not like sound or smell, and this would actually form part of the explanation for this question. Quality entails a difference. Within vision there are many different possible states, and those differences have different meanings, or can basically signal another possible piece of information, an inference. Why is it that contrasted colours stand out so distinctly from one another. This answer would be found within this explanation. And all of these explanations would almost certainly be found within the neurological processes and related sense organs.

The problem arises in accepting this explanation because by understanding the process by which a qualitative state arises doesn’t actually instantiate that qualitative state. Just as simulating a storm doesn’t create wetness anywhere. This could be one reason why those who support the idea of the hard problem of consciousness oppose any possibility of an easy explanation being satisfactory. Basically due to a misunderstanding of how explanation doesn’t equal instantiation. The dual consequence of this might be that simulated consciousness is not possible. I may have some error in logic here, as there seems to be something paradoxical about these conclusions. Or it could be that simulating consciousness simply leaves out crucial important aspects of the real thing, such as sense organs, actual information which could become useful, and meaning of those qualitative states, which would entail action in the world, and a body with an integrated nervous system, chemical and physical drives and survival based motivational states.

Question 2. Would explain why when we enter a “flow state” the sense of being a subject disappears, and qualitative states seem to not belong to anyone in particular, but seemingly occur and produce action. It would explain why it is useful and important for there to be a subject which owns those qualitative states. And it would more deeply explain what the subject actually is, even if it is representing something else, such as the wider collection of brain processes and which are responsible for novel action. This would further tie in with explanations of why working memory during these subjectless states seems less accessible, and less required.

Question 3. Would explain how qualitative states combine together to form wholes, which are both combinations of those features, but distinct from the individual features. It would also tie in with attention, and the way we have a central focus, while still seemingly having a very blurry and uninformed surrounding encompassing the central focus. It would explain how visual features remain qualitative even when not part of the central focus, but why those non focussed features are much less likely to be committed to working memory. It would also explain the seeming serial nature of that central focus, why only one thought can occur at once, and why it is advantageous compared to having multiple thoughts intruding upon the central focus.

There are so many more quandaries that a total understanding of how consciousness arises might answer. And all these related quandaries would combine to form a completed picture of our understanding of consciousness. Eventually, I think, given answers to enough of these related quandaries, our need to explain any hardness of consciousness might evaporate.

Just some thoughts

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:57 am

If I could add one of my own, It's interesting to think what might happen once AI is able to properly model the human brain (if ever).
Would the computer model achieve consciousness? Or is consciousness something unique to the human brain?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10593
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Poodle » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am

I would place a large bet right now that consciousness will be found to be an emergent property of a highly-complex (stick a mega-big qualifier in here, please) neural system. My great-great-grandchildren may be able to collect on that bet. So yes, landrew - I suspect the discovery may come via a complex AI model. But (note for Mr. Klinko) if it comes at all, it will undoubtedly be as a result of an intense and properly-structured research program rather than wishful thinking.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:38 pm

Dimebag wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:13 am
Imagine if neuroscience, in the next few years, developed a clear and detailed understanding of the exact neural processes which occur during a specific neural event. They could describe the exact process by which sensory information entered via the sense organs, travelled to the various parts of the brain involved, and we identified the shared physical process involved in each and every conscious event, even between different senses.

Basically this explanation would satisfy the so called easy problem of consciousness. We could describe this process and we would be satisfied that this was the very physical process, in its entirety, which leads to a conscious event occurring within awareness. No stones left unturned, no loose ends. We don’t currently know what this exact description would entail. But it would need to describe certain properties.

1. How the processes within the brain create a qualitative state, i.e. there is something it is like to be in that particular state.

2. How processes within the brain create a subject which the qualitative state belongs to.

3. How processes within the brain integrates these qualitative states into a useful and conglomerated scene.

There could be several more properties which would require explanation, but these three are probably the most widely cited.

If neuroscience could provide explanations for these properties, would it then have also explained the hard problem of consciousness? Would there be anything left to explain?

I think there would be nothing left to explain.

By answering question 1. It would also be able to explain why sight is not like sound or smell, and this would actually form part of the explanation for this question. Quality entails a difference. Within vision there are many different possible states, and those differences have different meanings, or can basically signal another possible piece of information, an inference. Why is it that contrasted colours stand out so distinctly from one another. This answer would be found within this explanation. And all of these explanations would almost certainly be found within the neurological processes and related sense organs.

The problem arises in accepting this explanation because by understanding the process by which a qualitative state arises doesn’t actually instantiate that qualitative state. Just as simulating a storm doesn’t create wetness anywhere. This could be one reason why those who support the idea of the hard problem of consciousness oppose any possibility of an easy explanation being satisfactory. Basically due to a misunderstanding of how explanation doesn’t equal instantiation. The dual consequence of this might be that simulated consciousness is not possible. I may have some error in logic here, as there seems to be something paradoxical about these conclusions. Or it could be that simulating consciousness simply leaves out crucial important aspects of the real thing, such as sense organs, actual information which could become useful, and meaning of those qualitative states, which would entail action in the world, and a body with an integrated nervous system, chemical and physical drives and survival based motivational states.

Question 2. Would explain why when we enter a “flow state” the sense of being a subject disappears, and qualitative states seem to not belong to anyone in particular, but seemingly occur and produce action. It would explain why it is useful and important for there to be a subject which owns those qualitative states. And it would more deeply explain what the subject actually is, even if it is representing something else, such as the wider collection of brain processes and which are responsible for novel action. This would further tie in with explanations of why working memory during these subjectless states seems less accessible, and less required.

Question 3. Would explain how qualitative states combine together to form wholes, which are both combinations of those features, but distinct from the individual features. It would also tie in with attention, and the way we have a central focus, while still seemingly having a very blurry and uninformed surrounding encompassing the central focus. It would explain how visual features remain qualitative even when not part of the central focus, but why those non focussed features are much less likely to be committed to working memory. It would also explain the seeming serial nature of that central focus, why only one thought can occur at once, and why it is advantageous compared to having multiple thoughts intruding upon the central focus.

There are so many more quandaries that a total understanding of how consciousness arises might answer. And all these related quandaries would combine to form a completed picture of our understanding of consciousness. Eventually, I think, given answers to enough of these related quandaries, our need to explain any hardness of consciousness might evaporate.

Just some thoughts
Those are the questions I have been asking only you are able to state them with more elegance. Specifically, as I always have to repeat, How does Neural Activity produce that experience of Redness in the Mind. What type of Neural Activity and at what Complexity of Neural Activity does an experience of Redness appear in the Mind? And yes what is the Mind. How is the Mind created from Neural Activity. And of course the Binding Problem. How does all that Neural Activity create the total experience that we have.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:46 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:57 am
If I could add one of my own, It's interesting to think what might happen once AI is able to properly model the human brain (if ever).
Would the computer model achieve consciousness? Or is consciousness something unique to the human brain?
If you look at what a Computer Model actually is you will know the answer is that there will be no Consciousness magically appearing from a Computer program of any kind. This is pure Superstition to even think such a thing is possible.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:55 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am
I would place a large bet right now that consciousness will be found to be an emergent property of a highly-complex (stick a mega-big qualifier in here, please) neural system. My great-great-grandchildren may be able to collect on that bet. So yes, landrew - I suspect the discovery may come via a complex AI model. But (note for Mr. Klinko) if it comes at all, it will undoubtedly be as a result of an intense and properly-structured research program rather than wishful thinking.
A properly structured research program would be all anyone could ask for. But they will have to acknowledge existence of the Phenomena of Conscious Activity before any such research will Explain Consciousness.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:58 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:23 am
Dodgeball.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote: If Evolutionary Literature does not take into account Conscious Experience then Evolutionary Literature needs a Big Update.
Jean Baptiste Lamark did attempt to take consciousness into account in his 1801 book on evolution. Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, . His theory was proven wrong for the same many reasons that your theory is completely wrong.

I have set those same scientific reasons out to show you your errors and you simply ignored them. If fact you are unable to actually state how your mechanism is meant to work at all. You are simply posting fairy tales with contradictions. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What makes you a complete idiot is that you lied and said you had read "Origin of the Species, from 1859 which specifically destroyed Lamark's claims..........yet you still don't know what they are.

Why do you lie so much? :lol: :lol:
So you continue to maintain that the Conscious experience of Pain will have no affect on the survival rate of an Organism or Animal?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10593
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Poodle » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:19 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:55 pm
Poodle wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am
I would place a large bet right now that consciousness will be found to be an emergent property of a highly-complex (stick a mega-big qualifier in here, please) neural system. My great-great-grandchildren may be able to collect on that bet. So yes, landrew - I suspect the discovery may come via a complex AI model. But (note for Mr. Klinko) if it comes at all, it will undoubtedly be as a result of an intense and properly-structured research program rather than wishful thinking.
A properly structured research program would be all anyone could ask for. But they will have to acknowledge existence of the Phenomena of Conscious Activity before any such research will Explain Consciousness.
I've just checked on the meaning of your phrase 'Phenomena of Conscious Activity' and I'd say its existence was a given, given "cogito ergo sum". I do not necessarily think that YOUR definition is the same thing at all. What I will say is that the phrase does not demand any extraneous entities (and I have looked at several definitions). But it's not possible to do any meaningful research when the acceptance of an unproven, unnecessary pie in the sky is a prerequisite. If that is the kind of thing you're talking about, Steve, then it's doomed to irrelevance.
You haven't done much research, have you?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:51 pm

Poodle wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:19 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:55 pm
Poodle wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am
I would place a large bet right now that consciousness will be found to be an emergent property of a highly-complex (stick a mega-big qualifier in here, please) neural system. My great-great-grandchildren may be able to collect on that bet. So yes, landrew - I suspect the discovery may come via a complex AI model. But (note for Mr. Klinko) if it comes at all, it will undoubtedly be as a result of an intense and properly-structured research program rather than wishful thinking.
A properly structured research program would be all anyone could ask for. But they will have to acknowledge existence of the Phenomena of Conscious Activity before any such research will Explain Consciousness.
I've just checked on the meaning of your phrase 'Phenomena of Conscious Activity' and I'd say its existence was a given, given "cogito ergo sum". I do not necessarily think that YOUR definition is the same thing at all. What I will say is that the phrase does not demand any extraneous entities (and I have looked at several definitions). But it's not possible to do any meaningful research when the acceptance of an unproven, unnecessary pie in the sky is a prerequisite. If that is the kind of thing you're talking about, Steve, then it's doomed to irrelevance.
You haven't done much research, have you?
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.

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 » Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:20 am

SteveKlinko" wrote: The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko" wrote: So you continue to maintain that the Conscious experience of Pain will have no affect on the survival rate of an Organism or Animal?
1) The genes to feel pain have already evolved in the creature feeling pain, you complete idiot. You are still getting evolution back to front because you don't know what evolution is. :lol: :lol:

2) Life was evolving for 3.3 billion years before any creature evolved a central nervous system to feel pain. Do you still deny evolution was taking place before animals evolved consciousness? :lol: :lol:

3) What organism other than an animal feels pain? Have I now educated you by informing you jellyfish are the earliest animals and are not conscious? :lol: :lol:
Jellyfish.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10593
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Poodle » 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

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:52 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
Thank you for saying that you don't know how Conscious experience Emerges from the Neural Activity. The How of the Emergent Consciousness proposition is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. There is a Huge Explanatory Gap in the concept of Emergent Consciousness. So now what can we put into that Gap?

I don't Demand an External Thingamajig. I do Speculate that there could be an External Thingamajig. But I do this mostly because I think the problem that most Physicalists have with Consciousness is that they don't think about the actual Consciousness Phenomenon itself. They are always in the Neurons and they trivialize the actual Conscious experience of anything. They literally do try to make Consciousness go away. I simply try to get the Physicalists to think outside the Neural Box that they are trapped in.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:01 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:20 am
SteveKlinko" wrote: The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience.
SteveKlinko" wrote: So you continue to maintain that the Conscious experience of Pain will have no affect on the survival rate of an Organism or Animal?
1) The genes to feel pain have already evolved in the creature feeling pain, you complete idiot. You are still getting evolution back to front because you don't know what evolution is. :lol: :lol:

2) Life was evolving for 3.3 billion years before any creature evolved a central nervous system to feel pain. Do you still deny evolution was taking place before animals evolved consciousness? :lol: :lol:

3) What organism other than an animal feels pain? Have I now educated you by informing you jellyfish are the earliest animals and are not conscious? :lol: :lol:
Jellyfish.jpg
You are a Fool to even suggest that you know anything about the Genesis of Consciousness in the Universe. Nobody knows anything about when Consciousness occurred. No one can say if Consciousness occurred at any particular point in time or if it has always existed. You also continue to do your Pathological Liar routine. I have never denied that Evolution was taking place before Animals evolved Consciousness. Nobody knows anything about when Animals evolved Consciousness.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:43 pm

I'm not such a fool as to try to define consciousness, but I don't know of an animal which could put itself into another being's point of view. Being conscious of another's point of view is something we learn by about age 4 or 5. I don't believe animals ever gain that ability.
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 » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:20 am

SteveKlinko wrote:. No one can say if Consciousness occurred at any particular point in time or if it has always existed.
You did exactly that you complete idiot.
SteveKlinko previously wrote:Consciousness might have existed prior to the Big Bang and might have even been the cause of the Big Bang."
Now Steve? Tell us all. Do you think plants are conscious? ( That's a bit no, right?)

Do you think the first animals, without central nervous systems, 500 million years ago, were conscious? ( That's also a big no, right?

So why are you claiming, in your hilarious fairy tale, there was an evolved consciousness 13 billion years ago that caused the big bang?

////////////////////////////////
SteveKlinko wrote:. I have never denied that Evolution was taking place before Animals evolved Consciousness.
You did exactly that you complete idiot.
SteveKlinko previously wrote:The Evolution of life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience
Why are you so stupid and keep contradicting your own fairy tale. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34502
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » 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?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » 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.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:56 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?
Very good. I remember that cartoon. It depicts the only thing that Science can say about Conscious Activity at this point.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Cadmusteeth » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:51 pm

I noticed that Steve didn't answer tge question.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10093
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:26 pm

It becomes religious once you invoke the "you can't disprove it" clause. "God of the gaps" comes from the notion that you should believe something emotionally satisfying in lieu of evidence of sound rationale. In fact, the emotional vector is the best reason to doubt a belief. Truth and reality have nothing to do with how we may feel about it.

Skepticism and science dictate that you shouldn't believe something you can't support with evidence. Consciousness seems self-evident, but it's difficult to define. Our own definition can stand as a personal theory until something better comes along. Personal theories can be refuted, debated and even disproved, but it should never be said that consciousness does not exist, therefore it's wrong to debate it.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.