Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

What you think about how you think.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:16 am

Must be aliens.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote: You are a Fool to even suggest that you know anything about the Genesis of Consciousness in the Universe.
Hey Steve Klinko!!!! You didn't answer my question about your conscious aliens in the universe.

According to your "theory", do the other conscious aliens in our dimension, see red because the alien in the other dimension , that allows humans to see red,.....also lets them see red?
Reading fairy tale book.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:21 am

Cadmusteeth wrote: I noticed that Steve didn't answer the question.
Steve Klinko is the expert at not answering questions.

Gosh.......it is as if he was dodging facts that ruin his fairy tale
Dodgeball.jpg
Klinko 5.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Addressing the Ellard Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:19 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:16 am
SteveKlinko wrote: You are a Fool to even suggest that you know anything about the Genesis of Consciousness in the Universe.
Hey Steve Klinko!!!! You didn't answer my question about your conscious aliens in the universe.

According to your "theory", do the other conscious aliens in our dimension, see red because the alien in the other dimension , that allows humans to see red,.....also lets them see red?
If you ask a question about the issues in this thread then I will answer. If you start talking about Aliens then you will not get an answer to that which I have never written about. You really are Delirious.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » 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?
"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
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:08 am

Must be aliens.jpg
SteveKlinko wrote: If you ask a question about the issues in this thread then I will answer.
You never answer any questions anyway.
SteveKlinko wrote: If you start talking about Aliens then you will not get an answer to that which I have never written about. You really are Delirious.
It is you who is claiming aliens.

We have shown you that the first conscious creatures on Earth were those who evolved central nervous systems. That means there was no consciousness on Earth until after 500 million years ago.

You then continued to claim that consciousness directed the evolution of life on Earth and started the "big bang" 13 billion years ago.

QED You are claiming conscious aliens
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:17 am

SteveKlinko wrote: Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans.
You forgot about evolved innate behaviour again.
SteveKlinko wrote:The Universe might have been created by Consciousness and for Consciousness. We can also speculate that the ultimate goal of Physical Evolution is to provide a better and better host for Consciousness.
Evolution doesn't have "a goal" you complete idiot. You still don't know what evolution is.

SteveKlinko wrote:We can speculate that maybe the very Existence of the Physical Universe is pointless without Consciousness.
As consciousness only evolved 500 million year ago, you are now claiming the first 12.5 billion years of the universe "were pointless"

You are just making up religious gibberish as you go. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:09 am

Gord wrote:So, what experiment can we set up to demonstrate that neural activity and consciousness activity are two separate things?
Just to clarify Gord, do you mean consciously correlated neural activity?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:32 am

Dimebag wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:09 am
Gord wrote:So, what experiment can we set up to demonstrate that neural activity and consciousness activity are two separate things?
Just to clarify Gord, do you mean consciously correlated neural activity?
I don't know, I was trying to use the same terms SteveKlinko used. Did I get them wrong?

Yes, I got them wrong. I meant to say "that neural activity and conscious activity are two separate things".
"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?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:43 am

Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:32 am
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:09 am
Gord wrote:So, what experiment can we set up to demonstrate that neural activity and consciousness activity are two separate things?
Just to clarify Gord, do you mean consciously correlated neural activity?
I don't know, I was trying to use the same terms SteveKlinko used. Did I get them wrong?

Yes, I got them wrong. I meant to say "that neural activity and conscious activity are two separate things".
Oh, I wasn’t referring to the grammatical error but rather the general statement about neural activity; I just think it’s important to clarify that not all neural activity results in consciousness.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:45 am

Dimebag wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:43 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:32 am
Dimebag wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:09 am
Gord wrote:So, what experiment can we set up to demonstrate that neural activity and consciousness activity are two separate things?
Just to clarify Gord, do you mean consciously correlated neural activity?
I don't know, I was trying to use the same terms SteveKlinko used. Did I get them wrong?

Yes, I got them wrong. I meant to say "that neural activity and conscious activity are two separate things".
Oh, I wasn’t referring to the grammatical error but rather the general statement about neural activity; I just think it’s important to clarify that not all neural activity results in consciousness.
I agree. But that doesn't mean we can disentangle the two. As an analogy, neural activity is to jelly beans as consciousness is to red jelly beans -- some neural activity appears to be directly implicated in consciousness, even if it all isn't.

But we can't even be sure of that. For instance, it's possible that the human mind consists of multiple consciousnesses, only one of which is able to express itself to others. For example, what we call the "subconscious" could be another separate consciousness, engendered by separate structures or processes within the brain, to which our "more prominent" consciousness is generally unaware.

That's just speculation, but how can we separate the workings of the brain to be sure?
"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: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » 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.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm

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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
"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: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:16 pm

Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm
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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
You are asking me to prove a Negative again. I have tried to prove this Negative for a year and a half on the Inter Mind thread, and The Inter Mind website is dedicated to showing and proving that Negative. I think the Arguments on the website are quite comprehensive and convincing. You apparently do not. Sorry I am unable to convince you.

But in all fairness, since this is a Negative you are requiring me to prove, you know it would be the easiest thing for you to just tell me what the Explanation actually is. Since you can not provide an Explanation, that in itself is the proof of my claim of lack of Explanation.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:24 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:16 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm
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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
You are asking me to prove a Negative again.
No I am not. I am asking you to demonstrate your positive claim that two things are different things. That is not a negative.

When people claim it is impossible to prove a negative, they are often making that claim out of confusion. Not all negatives are impossible to prove. In fact, most claims can be phrased as both a positive and a negative, such as "some swans are black" and "not all swans are white"; it is possible to prove this negative by proving the positive version.

So when you claim there is a difference between two things, you only need to demonstrate a single example where there is a difference between two things. You do not have to track down every instance when there are not differences between those two things -- that would be a case of being unable to prove a negative.

But that's not what I'm asking. Here you are saying "there is something missing". Please demonstrate that something is missing by showing at least a part of what this missing thing is.
"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
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:15 am

Gord wrote: No I am not. I am asking you to demonstrate your positive claim that two things are different things. That is not a negative
We had already falsified this claim of Steve Klinko. If consciousness was separate from the physical brain there must be a time gap between the data going from the physical brain to this separate consciousness "thingy", this separate consciousness thingy processing the colour information and then, this separate "thingy" sending the colour information back. However no such gap has ever been observed.

Considering there a billions of billions of animals sending back & forth terabytes of information of data, every second, this gap would be pretty simple to observe, if it were real........which it isn't.
:D

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:52 am

If SteveKlinko can come up with an experiment to demonstrate his claims, I would be very interested to hear how it's conducted and what results he gets.
"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?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10356
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 » Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:49 am

I'm joining that queue.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:19 am

Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:45 am
I agree. But that doesn't mean we can disentangle the two. As an analogy, neural activity is to jelly beans as consciousness is to red jelly beans -- some neural activity appears to be directly implicated in consciousness, even if it all isn't.
Absolutely, I think anyone who is motivated by truth rather than flights of fancy would come to that conclusion.
Gord wrote: But we can't even be sure of that.
Well maybe not 100%, but close enough to not pay it a second thought.
Gord wrote: For instance, it's possible that the human mind consists of multiple consciousnesses, only one of which is able to express itself to others. For example, what we call the "subconscious" could be another separate consciousness, engendered by separate structures or processes within the brain, to which our "more prominent" consciousness is generally unaware.
I’ve often wondered what it would be like to have multiple conscious minds within the one brain. It’s hard to imagine, but what I imagine is something like a split brain patient, or even a person with DID (dissociative identity disorder), basically an unintegrated mind. The problem there is for them to be unintegrated they would also need to be physically disconnected, and since the brain contains such specialised areas there would be some parts with certain faculties and some others lacking, meaning functionally as a mind compared to a normal human, it would probably be lacking normal functions, depending on how it was divided. And then there is the problem of who’s in control. The speculation is too complicated to give it too much thought without getting highly specific, so probably not worth the effort.

The idea of conscious vs unconscious is interesting. The brain is set up in such a way that certain neural activity becomes conscious whereas others don’t. What is it about the difference between these different structures and circuits which lead them to either remain unconscious, or to be conscious. I think that’s a good area of investigation for neuroscience. Why is it that heuristic processes remain unconscious, apart from their end result. There is no insight into the inner workings of such a process, like a computer spitting out the results of a calculation.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:47 am

Gord wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:52 am
If SteveKlinko can come up with an experiment to demonstrate his claims, I would be very interested to hear how it's conducted and what results he gets.
It gets a bit sticky here, and it depends of what stance you take as to what consciousness is. If consciousness is a weakly emergent phenomenon, which means it contains no new or unexpected properties which aren’t already contained within the workings of the functional neural structure which comprises it, then based on a reductionist view you could conclude that consciousness is the same as neural activity. This is still a bit tricky, because if you agree that consciousness has properties, then those properties must exist within the neural activity which comprise consciousness, in a bottom up way, and the connecting and integrating of neural structures amounts to the collecting and combining of all of these individual properties into an integrated whole, which we identify as consciousness. So you still have the issue of a sub property of consciousness present with a sub element of a neural structure. But without being connected to the greater whole it cannot be broadcast widely and be functionally useful, and would therefore not reach consciousness. It would seem then that this sub property can’t be fully realised unless it is connected to the rest of the neural structure.

This implies that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, more than weak emergence.

I would love for an expert on emergence to clear this up a bit, however I am yet to come across one.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:13 pm

Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:24 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:16 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm
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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
You are asking me to prove a Negative again.
No I am not. I am asking you to demonstrate your positive claim that two things are different things. That is not a negative.

When people claim it is impossible to prove a negative, they are often making that claim out of confusion. Not all negatives are impossible to prove. In fact, most claims can be phrased as both a positive and a negative, such as "some swans are black" and "not all swans are white"; it is possible to prove this negative by proving the positive version.

So when you claim there is a difference between two things, you only need to demonstrate a single example where there is a difference between two things. You do not have to track down every instance when there are not differences between those two things -- that would be a case of being unable to prove a negative.

But that's not what I'm asking. Here you are saying "there is something missing". Please demonstrate that something is missing by showing at least a part of what this missing thing is.
The statement that the Physicalists make is that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say that they are not the same thing. That would be a negative. If the Physicalists could give any kind of Coherent explanation of how these two obviously different Categories of Phenomena could be the same thing then that would completely disprove my statement. I hear the Silence.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:25 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:13 pm

The statement that the Physicalists make is that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say that they are not the same thing. That would be a negative. If the Physicalists could give any kind of Coherent explanation of how these two obviously different Categories of Phenomena could be the same thing then that would completely disprove my statement. I hear the Silence.
I'm not sure how it's a negative, but I agree that neural activity and conscious activity are not the same thing. "Neural activity" is basically the "CPU" turned on with current flowing through its circuits. "Conscious activity" is "management software" running, monitoring, reporting, adapting, reprogramming certain functions and generally having a measure of self-awareness and managing the well-being of the system.

"Smart" or "expert" systems are our rudimentary attempt at creating basic "consciousness" in my crude computer analogy here. Of course the human brain has achieved a far higher level of "management" than any machine we have so far developed, but I hope the analogy still holds, at least in principle.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10356
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 » Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:18 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:13 pm
... The statement that the Physicalists make is that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say that they are not the same thing ...
WILL YOU STOP DOING THAT!!!

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:36 pm

Steve Klinko / Self contradiction No#418
Steve Klinko claims that a "consciousness" must be able to experience pain to allow it to evolve. He then claims there is an alien non-physical consciousness in another dimension that allow animals, to see red, in our dimension.

How does this non-physical consciousness from another dimension feel pain?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:22 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:13 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:24 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:16 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm
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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
You are asking me to prove a Negative again.
No I am not. I am asking you to demonstrate your positive claim that two things are different things. That is not a negative.

When people claim it is impossible to prove a negative, they are often making that claim out of confusion. Not all negatives are impossible to prove. In fact, most claims can be phrased as both a positive and a negative, such as "some swans are black" and "not all swans are white"; it is possible to prove this negative by proving the positive version.

So when you claim there is a difference between two things, you only need to demonstrate a single example where there is a difference between two things. You do not have to track down every instance when there are not differences between those two things -- that would be a case of being unable to prove a negative.

But that's not what I'm asking. Here you are saying "there is something missing". Please demonstrate that something is missing by showing at least a part of what this missing thing is.
The statement that the Physicalists make is that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say that they are not the same thing. That would be a negative.
You're doing it again. I just explained the difference between the difference between proving a negative and proving a positive that has been phrased as a negative.

"They are not the same thing" and "they are different" are basically identical statements. Please tell me how you think you can demonstrate the latter, positive stament. It should be possible to try since it does not require proving a negative.
If the Physicalists could give any kind of Coherent explanation of how these two obviously different Categories of Phenomena could be the same thing then that would completely disprove my statement. I hear the Silence.
Your statement is false. Merely proving that something could be does not prove that they are.

Rather than go down this false trail of yours, let's stick with you own claims. If they are obviously different, then please explain how you can determine it. Let's come up with an experiment and then follow it through as best we can.
"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?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:37 am

Dimebag wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:19 am
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:45 am
I agree. But that doesn't mean we can disentangle the two. As an analogy, neural activity is to jelly beans as consciousness is to red jelly beans -- some neural activity appears to be directly implicated in consciousness, even if it all isn't.
Absolutely, I think anyone who is motivated by truth rather than flights of fancy would come to that conclusion.
Gord wrote: But we can't even be sure of that.
Well maybe not 100%, but close enough to not pay it a second thought.
Gord wrote: For instance, it's possible that the human mind consists of multiple consciousnesses, only one of which is able to express itself to others. For example, what we call the "subconscious" could be another separate consciousness, engendered by separate structures or processes within the brain, to which our "more prominent" consciousness is generally unaware.
I’ve often wondered what it would be like to have multiple conscious minds within the one brain. It’s hard to imagine, but what I imagine is something like a split brain patient, or even a person with DID (dissociative identity disorder), basically an unintegrated mind. The problem there is for them to be unintegrated they would also need to be physically disconnected, and since the brain contains such specialised areas there would be some parts with certain faculties and some others lacking, meaning functionally as a mind compared to a normal human, it would probably be lacking normal functions, depending on how it was divided. And then there is the problem of who’s in control. The speculation is too complicated to give it too much thought without getting highly specific, so probably not worth the effort.

The idea of conscious vs unconscious is interesting. The brain is set up in such a way that certain neural activity becomes conscious whereas others don’t. What is it about the difference between these different structures and circuits which lead them to either remain unconscious, or to be conscious. I think that’s a good area of investigation for neuroscience. Why is it that heuristic processes remain unconscious, apart from their end result. There is no insight into the inner workings of such a process, like a computer spitting out the results of a calculation.
The concept of multiple consciousnesses is fascinating to me. See for example the articles "alien hand syndrome" and "spit-brain syndrome" (basically the same thing) at wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Here's an article by Dr. Gregg Henriques that talks about alien hand and what he calls "the unity of mind": https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... unity-mind
... one of the chief attributes of experiential consciousness is its unity. However, as alien hand syndrome puts in dramatic relief, we should be very clear that the mind—and even human consciousness more specifically—is in fact made up of many different parts and streams.
"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?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:41 am

Dimebag wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:47 am
I would love for an expert on emergence to clear this up a bit, however I am yet to come across one.
That would be nice. Also, gross.
"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?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:02 am

I've been receiving the eSkeptic newsletter for years, and in one issue it was claimed in an article that you can indeed prove a negative. But it was a bit of a trick, because it applies to binary events such as a coin-toss. For example, you can prove the negative claim that a coin did not land on heads because it landed on tails.

It's a different problem to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, based on the fact that no one has so far found evidence. Because of the fact that there could be millions of possible hiding places, it's not a binary condition, therefore it can't be proven that Bigfoot does not exist. While few in this forum believe Bigfoot exists, it would be intellectually dishonest logically inconsistent to claim categorically that it does not exist.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:50 am

There's an eSkeptic newsletter?
"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?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Dimebag » Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:54 am

Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:37 am
Here's an article by Dr. Gregg Henriques that talks about alien hand and what he calls "the unity of mind": https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... unity-mind
... one of the chief attributes of experiential consciousness is its unity. However, as alien hand syndrome puts in dramatic relief, we should be very clear that the mind—and even human consciousness more specifically—is in fact made up of many different parts and streams.
Thanks, good article Gord. The question is, how does the brain integrate these seemingly separate streams. That is in effect the binding problem as they mentioned in that article. We know that the singular stream of consciousness can become unbound based on the several examples given in that article. Therefore something about such cases speaks to the way in which separate streams of consciousness can become bound and integrated. Is it merely by being connected, by sharing information? Or is there a more elaborate network involved in the integration process? This is definitely a question neuroscience can attack.

It doesn’t necessarily have to look at how entire streams of consciousness are integrated together, maybe it could focus on specific aspects of vision, as we know there are separate and distinct features of vision which become integrated, such as movement, colour detection, facial recognition, etc.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:09 pm

Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:22 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:13 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:24 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:16 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm
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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
You are asking me to prove a Negative again.
No I am not. I am asking you to demonstrate your positive claim that two things are different things. That is not a negative.

When people claim it is impossible to prove a negative, they are often making that claim out of confusion. Not all negatives are impossible to prove. In fact, most claims can be phrased as both a positive and a negative, such as "some swans are black" and "not all swans are white"; it is possible to prove this negative by proving the positive version.

So when you claim there is a difference between two things, you only need to demonstrate a single example where there is a difference between two things. You do not have to track down every instance when there are not differences between those two things -- that would be a case of being unable to prove a negative.

But that's not what I'm asking. Here you are saying "there is something missing". Please demonstrate that something is missing by showing at least a part of what this missing thing is.
The statement that the Physicalists make is that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say that they are not the same thing. That would be a negative.
You're doing it again. I just explained the difference between the difference between proving a negative and proving a positive that has been phrased as a negative.

"They are not the same thing" and "they are different" are basically identical statements. Please tell me how you think you can demonstrate the latter, positive stament. It should be possible to try since it does not require proving a negative.
If the Physicalists could give any kind of Coherent explanation of how these two obviously different Categories of Phenomena could be the same thing then that would completely disprove my statement. I hear the Silence.
Your statement is false. Merely proving that something could be does not prove that they are.

Rather than go down this false trail of yours, let's stick with you own claims. If they are obviously different, then please explain how you can determine it. Let's come up with an experiment and then follow it through as best we can.
This is getting monotonous and just plain ridiculous. The Physicalists say that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say in multiple places on the website that it all could be in the Neurons, or in effect, be the same thing. I'm open to all possibilities when it comes to Consciousness. It is not up to me to do any kind of Experiment. But it is up to the Physicalists to prove their Oneness of Neurons and Consciousness statement using a Logical chain of thought or with an Experiment. The Physicalists have no Logical Chain of Thought or an Experiment. After a hundred years of trying I think the lack of results are leading more and more to the conclusion that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are not the same thing. I am completely justified in saying that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are not the same thing based solely on this lack of results that I see so far. No Negative proof Experiment is necessary.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:20 pm

Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:22 am
If you did have some Chain of Logic or Experiment that would prove that Neural Activity is Conscious Activity you would have provided it a long time ago. The Physicalists make statements like that and just say you must Believe it. You are suggesting Magical connections between Neural Activity and Conscious Activity when you cannot provide Explanations. No one can disprove your Magic.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9046
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by landrew » Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:51 pm

Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:50 am
There's an eSkeptic newsletter?
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/?utm_s ... 5ec4a64833
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:45 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:09 pm
Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:22 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:13 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:24 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:16 pm
Gord wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 pm
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.
I understand that you are claiming there is an explanation missing. I'm asking you to further explain how you can demonstrate there is an explanation missing.
You are asking me to prove a Negative again.
No I am not. I am asking you to demonstrate your positive claim that two things are different things. That is not a negative.

When people claim it is impossible to prove a negative, they are often making that claim out of confusion. Not all negatives are impossible to prove. In fact, most claims can be phrased as both a positive and a negative, such as "some swans are black" and "not all swans are white"; it is possible to prove this negative by proving the positive version.

So when you claim there is a difference between two things, you only need to demonstrate a single example where there is a difference between two things. You do not have to track down every instance when there are not differences between those two things -- that would be a case of being unable to prove a negative.

But that's not what I'm asking. Here you are saying "there is something missing". Please demonstrate that something is missing by showing at least a part of what this missing thing is.
The statement that the Physicalists make is that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say that they are not the same thing. That would be a negative.
You're doing it again. I just explained the difference between the difference between proving a negative and proving a positive that has been phrased as a negative.

"They are not the same thing" and "they are different" are basically identical statements. Please tell me how you think you can demonstrate the latter, positive stament. It should be possible to try since it does not require proving a negative.
If the Physicalists could give any kind of Coherent explanation of how these two obviously different Categories of Phenomena could be the same thing then that would completely disprove my statement. I hear the Silence.
Your statement is false. Merely proving that something could be does not prove that they are.

Rather than go down this false trail of yours, let's stick with you own claims. If they are obviously different, then please explain how you can determine it. Let's come up with an experiment and then follow it through as best we can.
This is getting monotonous and just plain ridiculous. The Physicalists say that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are the same thing. I say in multiple places on the website that it all could be in the Neurons, or in effect, be the same thing. I'm open to all possibilities when it comes to Consciousness. It is not up to me to do any kind of Experiment. But it is up to the Physicalists to prove their Oneness of Neurons and Consciousness statement using a Logical chain of thought or with an Experiment. The Physicalists have no Logical Chain of Thought or an Experiment. After a hundred years of trying I think the lack of results are leading more and more to the conclusion that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are not the same thing. I am completely justified in saying that Neural Activity and Conscious Activity are not the same thing based solely on this lack of results that I see so far. No Negative proof Experiment is necessary.
Oh my glob, this is ridiculous. You keep posting that you think they are different things! I'm asking you HOW WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT! I'm not asking you to DO any experiments, I'm asking HOW CAN WE FIND OUT!

This is not a "negative proof" requirement. At all. Showing a difference is a "positive proof" result.

Now quit belching out BS and suggest a way we can find out if your claims are correct.
"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?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:49 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:20 pm
Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 12:22 am
If you did have some Chain of Logic or Experiment that would prove that Neural Activity is Conscious Activity you would have provided it a long time ago. The Physicalists make statements like that and just say you must Believe it. You are suggesting Magical connections between Neural Activity and Conscious Activity when you cannot provide Explanations. No one can disprove your Magic.
:facepalm:

So your response to "how can we demonstrate that the two are different things" is to provide a tu quoque fallacy?

Whatever it is you claim to be looking into, you suck at it.
"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?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34151
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:52 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:51 pm
Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:50 am
There's an eSkeptic newsletter?
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/?utm_s ... 5ec4a64833
Yayyyy!

Y'know, I've looked at that webpage at least twice before without ever seeing the eSkeptic newsletter. Is it just me, or are these pages just too damned complicated and colourful and outright dazzling for older human brains?
"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
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29872
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:49 pm

SteveKlinko" wrote:If you did have some Chain of Logic or Experiment that would prove that Neural Activity is Conscious Activity you would have provided it a long time ago.
We did. You ran away. :lol: :lol:

10,000,000,000,000 colour seeing animals process terabytes of colour information every second. Under your fantasy belief system, all this raw data is sucked out of the animals physical brains by a mythical non-physical consciousness "thingy" in another dimension. This mythical non-physical consciouness "thingy", in another dimension, then converts this data into colour and then the revised colour data is sent back to 10,000,000,000,000 colour seeing animals in our dimension.

Yet scientists have not observed any information being sucked out of any physical brain. Nor have scientist observed any time gap in physical brains while this information is being processed in another dimension. Nor have scientists observed terabytes of data being sent back into physical brains.

QED the neurons are producing the colour representations themselves.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10356
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 25, 2018 8:27 am

Whoops!! Wrong page.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Addressing the Physicalist Delirium

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:26 pm

Gord wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Oh my glob, this is ridiculous. You keep posting that you think they are different things! I'm asking you HOW WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT! I'm not asking you to DO any experiments, I'm asking HOW CAN WE FIND OUT!

This is not a "negative proof" requirement. At all. Showing a difference is a "positive proof" result.

Now quit belching out BS and suggest a way we can find out if your claims are correct.
But you are ignoring what I said. I said my justification for saying that they are different is because of the lack of any Explanation of How such different Phenomena like Neural Activity and Conscious Activity could be the same thing. It is a Self Evident reality of the Universe that they are different Categories of Phenomena. To say they are the same is the statement that needs an Explanation. Saying that they are Different is the only Logical and Coherent starting point. So then, exactly How is it that Neural Activity and Conscious activity are the same thing? It is a Preposterous thing to say in view of the obvious Difference that is Self Evident. You will have to find an Explanation or develop one that recognizes the Difference between the two Phenomena first, and then shows how the synthesis of the two can be Explained.

It has been recognized before that this Physicalist Oneness of the Neural Activity and the Conscious Activity is similar to the New Age Oneness where they say that there is only Consciousness and there is no real Material Universe. So the New Agers are Claiming everything is a Oneness of Consciousness and the Physicalists are Claiming everything is a Oneness of Physical material substance. The New Agers make their Oneness Claim without any Coherent Explanation and the Physicalists make their Oneness Claim without any Coherent Explanation. The Physicalists say you must just Believe what they say.

Watching the Physcialists try to defend the Oneness Claim is humorous and ultimately pathetic. The Physicalists are at the end of their rope and can only sputter out things like "everyone else must prove their Belief to be wrong". If they had any kind of Explanation then we could study that Explanation to see if it was Coherent or incoherent. Instead we get "you must Believe or you are just ignorant of their Truth". Sounds quite a bit like the New Agers.

SteveKlinko
Regular Poster
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Debunk / Inter Mind Religion

Post by SteveKlinko » Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:33 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:49 pm
SteveKlinko" wrote:If you did have some Chain of Logic or Experiment that would prove that Neural Activity is Conscious Activity you would have provided it a long time ago.
We did. You ran away. :lol: :lol:

10,000,000,000,000 colour seeing animals process terabytes of colour information every second. Under your fantasy belief system, all this raw data is sucked out of the animals physical brains by a mythical non-physical consciousness "thingy" in another dimension. This mythical non-physical consciouness "thingy", in another dimension, then converts this data into colour and then the revised colour data is sent back to 10,000,000,000,000 colour seeing animals in our dimension.

Yet scientists have not observed any information being sucked out of any physical brain. Nor have scientist observed any time gap in physical brains while this information is being processed in another dimension. Nor have scientists observed terabytes of data being sent back into physical brains.

QED the neurons are producing the colour representations themselves.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Scientist don't in fact know how to observe Consciousness yet. So you are admitting that Science does not know how to deal with Consciousness. Very Good. You are beginning to understand.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10356
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 25, 2018 7:49 pm