Split Thread Scorpion's Spiritualism

[abaddon]

I met Gay Muir in a church

So what?

and she told me my aura

No such thing.
thing.

was open to the spirit world.

No such thing.

She told me how to close it

No such thing.

to keep out negative psychic energies,

No such thing.

and it worked.

BS.

Why should she not train new mediums and write books?

Because that is fraud.

At this point, YOU are concerned with my utter dismissive attitude. Likely you will go to the inevitable "you haven't tried it" style of kidney.

Well I have been that soldier and it is utter bollocks from start to finish.

You will inevitably claim that I have not checked it out and am dismissing it out of hand. And you would be flat out wrong.

I could...

Read your aura.
Perform Auric healing.
Read your Tarot.
Construct your natal astrological chart.
Dowse your soul.
Divine your daily life by means of tarot.
Divine your daily life by means of bible.
Divine your daily life by means of any random "New Age" author.
And so forth.

Want to know why I don't do it? Because I know it is utter rot and I happen to have ethics.

Unlike you.

 

[Scorpion]

Uh huh, you know more about the theory of the mind than Dennett, I'm sure you know more about ISIS than the generals and have the bigliest and best words too.

Plywood Sheep.

I know nothing about ISIS except they are homicidal fanatics. What have they got to do with consciousness, its not a sensible comparison.

As for big words, that's the only remarkable thing I found in Dennett's book. The longest word I have ever seen. heterophenomenological.

I only have to be sure that consciousness resides in the immortal spirit, and is channeled down into the brain through the chakras in the etheric body. To believe that Dennett is entirely wrong about consciousness being a property of the brain. The rest of what he theorises about is of no consequence. I don't need to understand all his prattling about brain activity.

I do not see why the occult theory of consciousness, is not as valid a theory as any other.

 

[Scorpion]

Only Descartes didn't say. Ghost in the machine was a description by Gilbert Ryle, who was a critic of Cartesian mind-body dualism.

Ok, I stand corrected.

 

[Scorpion]

I really am glad you seem to have found comfort in your healed state. As long as you just confine your proselytizing to posting on forums like this, I don't see any harm in it. If you drag someone else who is in need of psychiatric help off to the medium instead, then I have an issue with it.

I recommend that schizophrenics take the modern medication. The modern drugs target the brains chemical deficiency and have little side effects.
The drugs I was on in the early 1970's were largely knock out drops that turned you into a zombie. I read that Largactil, which was one of the drugs I was on could cause opacity of the cornea, and I decided there and then to fight my way off that drug. It took years but I succeeded in the end.

I have had reservations about telling schizophrenics to get spiritual healing as although I know it can work on the secondary damage to the etheric body, and therefore reduce some of the strange experiences that causes. I do not think spiritual healing is likely to alter the brain chemistry and therefore it will not cure the underlying cause. In any case I would hate to cause a flood of schizophrenics descending on spiritualist churches and overwhelming them with unstable people.

I feel it only fair to say that in the following years after stopping all medication I came to rely on alcohol to relax my nerves. This ended up making me a drunk , and I decided to go back on drugs for a period of time until I could stop drinking. I went on abilify a few years ago and succeeded in stopping drink. I have now been sober for five years, and I never want to be drunk again. I intended to stop the medication when I got off drink and last year I did. but I soon discovered my brain has become dependent on abilify and I suffered a lot of stress without it. So I went back on it and I am on it now. I may attempt to gradually wean myself from it one pill at a time, but I am not keen to go through the with drawl symptoms again any time soon.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I know nothing about ISIS except they are homicidal fanatics. What have they got to do with consciousness, its not a sensible comparison.

Whoosh!

As for big words, that's the only remarkable thing I found in Dennett's book. The longest word I have ever seen. heterophenomenological.

So?

I only have to be sure that consciousness resides in the immortal spirit, and is channeled down into the brain through the chakras in the etheric body.

Imaginary stuff highlighted for you. Glad to help.

To believe that Dennett is entirely wrong about consciousness being a property of the brain. The rest of what he theorises about is of no consequence. I don't need to understand all his prattling about brain activity.

Of course not understanding what a recognised expert on a subject who's spent their life studying it is saying about said subject should be no bar to dismissing it as 'prattling'. Actually learning and advancing a scientific field is obviously no substitute for a lifetime of following any wanna be guru who can spin a yarn...

I do not see why the occult theory of consciousness, is not as valid a theory as any other.

No, you probably don't and that's your biggest obstacle. Still, you just keep convincing yourself that the plywood sheep you're holding fits into the jigsaw puzzle the grownups are working on.

 

[Scorpion]

No such thing.
No such thing.
No such thing.
No such thing.

That's all you know about it. Nothing.

 

[Humots]

I am entirely certain Dennett is completely wrong. As Descartes said , we are the ghost in the machine. Obviously if the spirit survives the death of the body consciousness must have another vehicle to survive. The occult teaches we have several bodies. The soul body, the mental body and the astral body, and the etheric counterpart. The etheric body is not an actual body but a shell that channels consciousness down from the mental world into the physical body.

Only Descartes didn't say. Ghost in the machine was a description by Gilbert Ryle, who was a critic of Cartesian mind-body dualism.

Ok, I stand corrected.

That's all you have to say? Wow. You wrongly quote Descartes as making a statement that actually comes from another person who was making it to criticize Cartesian mind-body dualism?

That glitch subtracts quite a lot from your credibility.

Not that you had much to begin with.

 

[Scorpion]

That's all you have to say? Wow. You wrongly quote Descartes as making a statement that actually comes from another person who was making it to criticize Cartesian mind-body dualism?

That glitch subtracts quite a lot from your credibility.

Not that you had much to begin with.

What are you on about, anyone could make that mistake. I admitted it didn't I ?

In Dennetts book he says
" ever since Gilbert Ryle's classic attack (1949) on what he called Descartes "dogma of the ghost in the machine" dualists have been on the defensive"

Anyone could read that sentence as meaning Descartes coined the term ' ghost in the machine'

 

[P.J. Denyer]

What are you on about, anyone could make that mistake. I admitted it didn't I ?

In Dennetts book he says
" ever since Gilbert Ryle's classic attack (1949) on what he called Descartes "dogma of the ghost in the machine" dualists have been on the defensive"

Anyone could read that sentence as meaning Descartes coined the term ' ghost in the machine'

No, not 'anyone'. Do you want to know who wouldn't make that mistake? Someone who actually read Descartes before trying to claim his support for their position. Seems Dennett isn't alone in 'prattling'.

Your plywood sheep still doesn't fit the jigsaw.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Once again a chance to use my favorite quote; "Do Not Be So Open-Minded That Your Brains Fall Out."

That line was used on the most recent episode of The Orville!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Science is not wrong. It simply knows nothing about the spirit world.

Consciousness remains a mystery, in spite of outlandish claims by the likes of Daniel Dennett, who has to admit his ideas are just theories.

On the first assertion, science is s process. It will come to “know” the spirit world only if and when there is sufficient evidence of such.

On the second, simple Argument From Ignorance. Taking the form, “we can’t fully explain x, therefore y”.

As an aside, a very real mystery is why I get such a powerful sense of deja vu every time this thread re-emerges from the crypt!

 

[Scorpion]

No, not 'anyone'. Do you want to know who wouldn't make that mistake? Someone who actually read Descartes before trying to claim his support for their position. Seems Dennett isn't alone in 'prattling'.

Your plywood sheep still doesn't fit the jigsaw.

I have a bookcase full of philosophy books, and one of them is Rene Descartes, 'a discourse on method'. True I have not read it for years.

I remember the basic idea that mind is an un-extended thinking thing, and body is an extended unthinking thing. I do not think Dennett has dealt with that, he just dismisses it.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

That's all you know about it. Nothing.

And you know nothing about it either and neither does the fraud whose pilfering your pocket.

It's unexaminable gobbledygook and so far no one has come close to even slightly proving any of that woo nonsense exists whatsoever.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I have a bookcase full of philosophy books, and one of them is Rene Descartes, 'a discourse on method'. True I have not read it for years.

I remember the basic idea that mind is an un-extended thinking thing, and body is an extended unthinking thing. I do not think Dennett has dealt with that, he just dismisses it.

The body is simply receiving signals from the brain, it does not think, It cannot tell the difference between its own lungs breathing or a machine doing it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I have a bookcase full of philosophy books, and one of them is Rene Descartes, 'a discourse on method'. True I have not read it for years.

I remember the basic idea that mind is an un-extended thinking thing, and body is an extended unthinking thing. I do not think Dennett has dealt with that, he just dismisses it.

Daniel Dennett is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.
As of 2017, he is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University.

Dennett is a member of the editorial board for The Rutherford Journal.

He is the recipient of a Fulbright Fellowship, two Guggenheim Fellowships, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

In 2012, he was awarded the Erasmus Prize, an annual award for a person who has made an exceptional contribution to European culture, society or social science, "for his ability to translate the cultural significance of science and technology to a broad audience."

In 2018, he was awarded an honorary degree by Radboud University, located in Nijmegen, Netherlands for his contributions to and influence on cross-disciplinary science.

(Quickly culled from Wikipedia)


You on the other hand have a "shelf full of philosophy books" apparently unread or unremembered and the ability to buy any spiritualist nonsense that is pushed your way.... way

And on that basis you feel qualified to say

I don't need to understand all his prattling about brain activity.

Despite the fact that you can't even understand his quote about Ryle's disagreement with Descartes.

Can you see how ignorant and arrogant this appears? People spend entire lifetimes searching for real, objective, verifiable truth, test it themselves and open it to peer review and it is through their painstaking and exhaustive work that we've advanced to the point we are today, and then some ignorant jerk comes along and dismisses it as prattling because it doesn't match the discredited Victorian con job he's decided to buy into. Doesn't it occur to you that the reason that forty two pages into this thread no-one agrees with you isn't because we don't understand, it's because all you have is 'made up stuff'? Honestly, take off the Harry Potter glasses, put down the broomstick and join us in the real world.

 

[Scorpion]

Daniel Dennett is an American philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.
As of 2017, he is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University.

Dennett is a member of the editorial board for The Rutherford Journal.

He is the recipient of a Fulbright Fellowship, two Guggenheim Fellowships, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

In 2012, he was awarded the Erasmus Prize, an annual award for a person who has made an exceptional contribution to European culture, society or social science, "for his ability to translate the cultural significance of science and technology to a broad audience."

In 2018, he was awarded an honorary degree by Radboud University, located in Nijmegen, Netherlands for his contributions to and influence on cross-disciplinary science.

(Quickly culled from Wikipedia)


You on the other hand have a "shelf full of philosophy books" apparently unread or unremembered and the ability to buy any spiritualist nonsense that is pushed your way.... way

And on that basis you feel qualified to say



Despite the fact that you can't even understand his quote about Ryle's disagreement with Descartes.

Can you see how ignorant and arrogant this appears? People spend entire lifetimes searching for real, objective, verifiable truth, test it themselves and open it to peer review and it is through their painstaking and exhaustive work that we've advanced to the point we are today, and then some ignorant jerk comes along and dismisses it as prattling because it doesn't match the discredited Victorian con job he's decided to buy into. Doesn't it occur to you that the reason that forty two pages into this thread no-one agrees with you isn't because we don't understand, it's because all you have is 'made up stuff'? Honestly, take off the Harry Potter glasses, put down the broomstick and join us in the real world.

Oh come on, anyone could miss read the sentence Dennett wrote about the ghost in the machine. I just assumed it was Descartes that said it.

As for joining you in the real world. What world would that be ? The world and the universe as I see it is a planned and meaningful place of experience for the immortal soul. For you I suppose it is some big chaotic accident.

I will stick to my world, which is what my experience tells me is the true one.

As for Dennett, I tweeted him saying he should have called his book 'consciousness explored', not 'explained'. Then I could have ignored it. I told him he should study the occult for his next book, then it might be approaching the truth.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Oh come on, anyone could miss read the sentence Dennett wrote about the ghost in the machine. I just assumed it was Descartes that said it.

Unless they'd read the actual author they were citing as support of their position. Well done for completely mssing, and hence re illustration the point. As with so much of your 'evidence' you are misinterpreting it to fit your made up narrative.

[pointless claims of knowledge snipped]

As for Dennett, I tweeted him saying he should have called his book 'consciousness explored', not 'explained'. Then I could have ignored it. I told him he should study the occult for his next book, then it might be approaching the truth.

Yes, I'm sure Dennett will be so pleased to have a random, unqualified, follower of charlatans advise him to study fairytales. After all, he's only spent his entire adult life studying actual real information about the subject and publishing it for peer review, obviously what he really needs is for you to point him to imaginary stuff.

Wow, the arrogance........

Forty two pages and you have produced absolutely nothing of value just made entirely fanciful claims and pronounced your own specialness. Oh, and tried to steer someone who claimed to be suicidal toward your personal favourite con men.


You can keep trying to fit that plywood sheep into the interlocking jigsaw of knowledge but everyone else can see it for what it is. A distraction for children.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I know the "Education" is gone from the forum name, but this has got too painful to watch and there's obviously no chance of reality breaking through.

I'm going to make like Dennett and ignore Scorpion. Hey, whatdoyaknow I feel better already, Dennett does know what he's talking about!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Only Descartes didn't say. Ghost in the machine was a description by Gilbert Ryle, who was a critic of Cartesian mind-body dualism.

Uh, technically correct but not actually correct. Descartes did say we were ghosts in the machine but not in so many words. That wording is Ryle's but as you point out he was a critic of Descartes. Ryle was using that phrase to describe, or lampoon, Descartes ideas. It certainly wasn't Ryle's idea.

It was a description of Descartes idea written by Ryle.

 

[Humots]

Uh, technically correct but not actually correct. Descartes did say we were ghosts in the machine but not in so many words. That wording is Ryle's but as you point out he was a critic of Descartes. Ryle was using that phrase to describe, or lampoon, Descartes ideas. It certainly wasn't Ryle's idea.

It was a description of Descartes idea written by Ryle.

Technically but not actually correct?

Not in so many words? I'm afraid I don't get it.

Was "ghost in the machine" a phrase literally used by Descartes and Ryle was just repeating it?

PS:

Thanks everyone for your many responses on this issue. You did an excellent job, better than I could have.