• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Girl with "X-ray" vision

Ian said:
It's true that ones pain sometimes is correlated with a certain physical state of the environment, but nevertheless it is usually held that pain is not actually constitutive of the external world. If I smash my fist against a door I feel pain, but it is not constitutive of the door.
What does constitutive of mean? Does it mean an essential property of?

Seems to me that one quality of the door is that it is good at stopping my fist, compared with, say, fog. Where do you draw the line between a light rubbing revealing the texture of the door and a harder rubbing causing pain?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
That's silly. Conciousness doesn't seem contrary to natural laws OR scientific understanding to me. Neural nets are truly amazing things, but they're hardly supernatural.

I don't care what it seems to you. Until and if anyone can justify the conflation of the experienced with the experiencer, then consciousness must be regarded as supernatural.

Read my sig and follow the link.
 
Last edited:
Ignorance in defense of ignorance

Apart from a few people on here, everything I have ever read or heard holds there are 5 senses.

Ian, why do you think citing your ignorance somehow justifies your ignorant statement or your stubbon defense of it?​

"It is certainly true that I haver never studied any psychology or biology.
But it's very well known that there are only 5 senses. Sometimes kinesthesis is included as a 6th sense, but this provides no information regarding the environment. Pain and temperature are either subsumed under touch, or they give no information about the environment."

Are you out of your senses? I'd really like to see you try to navigate through your environment with out those other senses. While the sense of touch nerves in the skin of your feet may tell you that they're pressed hard against something firm, you'd have no idea where in space your feet are in the dark without kinesthesis information telling you the position of your muscles and leg joints. And it's information sent to the brain from the ear that tells us where the direction of up is in the world and tells us whether we are moving, accellerating, or remaining still. Do you ever bother to read what you write before posting? Apparently not. Not when you claim that the sense of pain and temperature doesn't give a person information about his or her envirnoment. If you really mean this, then I dare you to sit on a hot griddle. No, I beg you! Please go sit on a hot griddle. I want to see if the information you'll get will teach you something about the experience.​

"Sometimes they include the sense of balance/limb position awareness as a 6th sense -- sometimes esp as a 6th sense. You think differently, a few others on here think differently. Fine, but why do you imagine that:

a) that I would take the word of anonymous non-entities on a discussion forum, none of whom demonstrate much understanding of my posts."

If you mean that your posts make little or no sense, I'll have to agree.​

b) Why you think I am remotely interested in this issue anyway.
You think it's clearly wrong, then go argue about it with them.

Because YOU are the one who posted the ignorant statement that there are only 5 senses. I can understand why you would rather not have to defend it. That statement is no more accurate than claiming everything in the world is made up of only 4 elements. Belief in only 5 senses goes back to time when people thought the world was made out of just earth, fire, air, and water. Some of us have advanced in our knowledge. Some, woefully not.​

"Go and argue with someone else Astronut. I can't be bothered to communicate with people on intellectual subjects who continually responds to my posts with non-sequiturs and tedious nitpicking and who clearly has little or no understanding of my posts. Go and pester someone else."

In other words, "stop correcting my ignorant statements." If you can't defend your statements, then keep them to yourself and no one here will criticize you. If you post your ignorant and irrational comments here, you're just asking for it. And you will get it.​
 
Last edited:
Ian says it must, so it must

I don't care what it seems to you. Until and if anyone can justify the conflation of the experienced with the experiencer, then consciousness must be regarded as supernatural.

Read my sig and follow the link.

The fact that you say it must be is not the least bit compelling. Scarcely a thing you've posted on this thread has been accurate or sensible.

Not even your alias, "Interesting Ian," is very accurate.

By definition, science does not study the supernatural. And scientists are studying and learning about the origins of consciousness.

Now here's a really tough choice: Do we believe the facts or do we accept what Ian says must be?
 
Ian said:
What about the pain? Is that part of the door?
No, but it's caused by the door, just like the feeling of scratchiness is caused by the roughness of the door and the smell of new wood is caused by the material from which the door is made. Attributes of the door trigger various senses.

I'm surprised that you, of all people, would make a distinction between two sorts of senses when you claim that all my senses are driven by the Metamind.

~~ Paul
 
Askolnick said:
By definition, science does not study the supernatural. And scientists are studying and learning about the origins of consciousness.
Nope, no they're not. Not a bit. They are learning about the neural correlates of consciousness, not about consciousness itself. Anything you do to my brain that appears to affect consciousness does not in fact do so. It merely changes the aspects of consciousness that I can perceive at the moment.

Or something like that. I haven't quite got the hang of Iantology yet.

~~ Paul
 
By definition, science does not study the supernatural.

But for Christ's sake you stated it does before!!

I paste in your relevant post and my response:

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
If it is potentially scientifically explicable then it cannot be paranormal by definition.

But information being acquired by means other than the 5 senses must by definition be paranormal. Anything which in principle cannot be and could never be scientifically explained is paranormal, yes?


Astronut
These statements I believe are not true. One of the most important assumptions of science is that every observed phenomenon is potentially scientifically explicable. So that's hardly a definition.


II
What on earth do you mean by scientifically explicable?? OK, let's say chanting spells is causally efficacious i.e they work. Therefore they are potentially scientifically explicable. Seems to me you are misusing how the words "scientifically explicable" are normally used. If even supernatural phenomena (should they exist) by definition are scientifically explicable, what on earth would it mean to say something is in principle scientifically inexplicable?? It would be entirely vacuous!


Astronut, you're a waste of space.
 


Are you out of your senses? I'd really like to see you try to navigate through your environment with out those other senses.



Who the hell is suggesting I could? I said information about the environment. Some of the senses that you mention give no information about the environment external to the body eg balance, cramp, toothache etc. The rest of it is subsumed under what other people regarded as one of the 5 main senses. You claim that psychologists have decided to classify the senses differently. Well fine if they have. But you can scarcely argue that that they didn't know about the experience of heat or pain a decade or so back! It is fashion pure and simple. I have never been impressed by fashion. Deal with it because I don't intend to communicate again with you.

Indeed I'm tired of wasting my life attempting to communicate with incorrigible dimwits so don't expect me to further participate in this thread.

And don't address me in any other thread either.​
 
No, but it's caused by the door, just like the feeling of scratchiness is caused by the roughness of the door and the smell of new wood is caused by the material from which the door is made. Attributes of the door trigger various senses.

Well this approach sounds like representative realism. Isn't the feeling of roughness, and the roughness itself, essentially one and the same thing? Surely you agree that what you feel by touch i.e its roughness, is normally considered to be a quality of the touched object, where as hitting it and experiencing pain is not part of the said object??

I'm surprised that you, of all people, would make a distinction between two sorts of senses when you claim that all my senses are driven by the Metamind.

Ignore my real beliefs. I'm trying to express what most people believe about our qualia and their relationship to a mind-independent reality.
 
"Interesting" Ian - You've only been back for a short time and you've already managed to make my Ignore list.

I vote for speciation.
 
Who the hell is suggesting I could? I said information about the environment. Some of the senses that you mention give no information about the environment external to the body eg balance, cramp, toothache etc. The rest of it is subsumed under what other people regarded as one of the 5 main senses. You claim that psychologists have decided to classify the senses differently. Well fine if they have. But you can scarcely argue that that they didn't know about the experience of heat or pain a decade or so back! It is fashion pure and simple. I have never been impressed by fashion. Deal with it because I don't intend to communicate again with you.

Indeed I'm tired of wasting my life attempting to communicate with incorrigible dimwits so don't expect me to further participate in this thread.

And don't address me in any other thread either.

I hate to say it, But II has it correct here.
Go to any elementary or High school text. There are 5 senses. Hearing, Taste, smell, touch, sight. It is through these we gather information about our environment and communicate

Several hits, here are a couple:
http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/lc/humanbio/1/lchb1_1a.html
"The human body has five major senses which operate to gather information from the world around us, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Any stimulus to one of the sense areas is detected by sensory nerves and is sent to the brain for interpretation."
The BBC lists the same 5, and adds a 6th: Ballance

 
Well this approach sounds like representative realism. Isn't the feeling of roughness, and the roughness itself, essentially one and the same thing? Surely you agree that what you feel by touch i.e its roughness, is normally considered to be a quality of the touched object, where as hitting it and experiencing pain is not part of the said object??



Ignore my real beliefs. I'm trying to express what most people believe about our qualia and their relationship to a mind-independent reality.

Actually that should be sense data rather than qualia. There is a difference.
 
I don't care what it seems to you. Until and if anyone can justify the conflation of the experienced with the experiencer, then consciousness must be regarded as supernatural.
Sigh. Tired old argument from ignorance and lack of imagination.

I suppose next you'll tell me that until I can justify the mysterious appearance of my old wallet under my bed, its disappearance from my back pocket last year must be regarded as supernatural.

The only meaningful definition I know of for "supernatural" is the one used in D&D: It's a class of abilities that don't work in antimagic fields, and usually don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
 
.... Until and if anyone can justify the conflation of the experienced with the experiencer, then consciousness must be regarded as supernatural.

Read my sig and follow the link.

No.
Have you read Pinker for a good (imho) hypothesis for 'consiousness'?
He suggests 'Mind is what the brain does'.

[PETULANT_MODE]
No, I won't read you sig, nor follow your link.
[/PETULANT_MODE]
 
I hate to say it, But II has it correct here.
Go to any elementary or High school text. There are 5 senses. Hearing, Taste, smell, touch, sight. It is through these we gather information about our environment and communicate

Several hits, here are a couple:
http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/lc/humanbio/1/lchb1_1a.html
"The human body has five major senses which operate to gather information from the world around us, sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Any stimulus to one of the sense areas is detected by sensory nerves and is sent to the brain for interpretation."
The BBC lists the same 5, and adds a 6th: Ballance

Sorry to say it, you have it wrong. See F. Geldard, The Human Senses, (1960, 1972) John Wiley and Sons. In this college and graduate level text, he listed and described the ones I described a page or so ago. If that is not available, try http://www.howstuffworks.com/question242.htm
 
How to Ianosize

Nope, no they're not. Not a bit. They are learning about the neural correlates of consciousness, not about consciousness itself. Anything you do to my brain that appears to affect consciousness does not in fact do so. It merely changes the aspects of consciousness that I can perceive at the moment.

Or something like that. I haven't quite got the hang of Iantology yet.

~~ Paul

Paul, let me help: Take a bunch of disordered ideas and drop them into a bag and shake them up. Reach in without looking or thinking and pull out a few and post them into this thread. It's actually very easy. :D
 
A wasted mind is a terrible thing

(Askolnick wrote: "By definition, science does not study the supernatural.")

But for Christ's sake you stated it does before!!

I paste in your relevant post and my response:

Astronut, you're a waste of space.

But for Christ's sake you stated it does before!!

I paste in your relevant post and my response:

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
If it is potentially scientifically explicable then it cannot be paranormal by definition.

But information being acquired by means other than the 5 senses must by definition be paranormal. Anything which in principle cannot be and could never be scientifically explained is paranormal, yes?

Astronut
These statements I believe are not true. One of the most important assumptions of science is that every observed phenomenon is potentially scientifically explicable. So that's hardly a definition.

First of all, you keep getting my name wrong, which of course is consistent with every thing you post. Second, you either stupidly or deliberately distorted what I wrote. I said that by definition science does not study alleged supernatural phenomenon (and also by definition, supernatural phenomenon are happenings beyond natural processes and therefore not capable of scientific investigation).

I made a distinction between supernatural and paranormal. Alleged paranormal phenomena are not outside scientific study. The existance of God and other alleged supernatural phenomena has long been understood as being outside of scientific investigation -- except obviously by you. What is a waste of space is your head. Judging by the nonsense you keep posting, there's very little substance within that bony box.:eek:
 

Back
Top Bottom