Too stupid to educate and conscious liars to boot

[normdoering]

In a post on my blog, "Why they want to silence us":
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-they-want-to-silence-us.html

I suggested that the people controlling the comments on certain websites were consciously lying through their deletions of posts and the banning of people. I mean this in the sense that they knew they were hiding effective criticisms of their positions which they could not effectively argue against. In order to check this out I decided to run a little experiment over at Uncommon Descent:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Within a few posts I was banned on the thread, "'Unpredictable' Does Not Equal 'Contingent'" initiated by Barry Arrington.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-does-not-equal-contingent/

As you'll see if you explore the topic, Barry Arrington had written some things that were clearly and demonstratably wrong and when presented with evidence that it was wrong simply banned the two people who had pointed it out and never published our posts.

In the initial post Barry had said:

Now JT might counter that I only believe I had a choice in writing that sentence, that my consciousness is an illusion, and that my actions were governed by law as surely as the flight of the pieces of bombshell. Well that’s the question isn’t it. JT – and other materialists – do not know that my consciousness (and theirs) is an illusion.

Okay, may be JT and some neuroscientists would say that "consciousness is an illusion" but which ones? So, RoyK, the other person banned from the site, asked a simple question; who says "consciousness is an illusion"? And that's when Barry said something clearly and demonstratably wrong, he said "all of them."

RoyK says: “I’m curious: which materialists say that consciousness is an illusion?

How about “all of them.” If the mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain, then it necessarily follows that consciousness is an illusion. All materialists say that the mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain, because all other explanations of the mind are non-materialist in nature.

RoyK, your question suggests one of two things: (1) you are deeply ignorant; or (2) you are just throwing rocks into the gears to see what happens.

Either way, you are on probation

Soon after saying that both RoyK and I were banned and I suspect it was for the same reason, we linked to some materialist neuroscientists who clearly do not say that "consciousness is an illusion" or an "epiphenomenon of the brain."

The one example I linked was Marvin Minsky's article over at Edge called, "CONSCIOUSNESS IS A BIG SUITCASE."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/minsky_p2.html

Minsky's position being not that consciousness is an illusion or an "epiphenomenon of the brain," but that the word itself lacked a clear definition:

Most words we use to describe our minds (like "consciousness", "learning", or "memory") are suitcase-like jumbles of different ideas. Those old ideas were formed long ago, before 'computer science' appeared. It was not until the 1950s that we began to develop better ways to help think about complex processes.

Computer science is not really about computers at all, but about ways to describe processes. As soon as those computers appeared, this became an urgent need. Soon after that we recognized that this was also what we'd need to describe the processes that might be involved in human thinking, reasoning, memory, and pattern recognition, etc.

And Minsky isn't the only one, but that one example was enough to get me banned from Uncommon Descent. I could have also included Francis Crick and Christof Koch and their study of consciousness or "The Neuroscience of Consciousness" or "Will neuroscience explain consciousness?" or many other such examples. I just liked Minsky's clarity and simple language and didn't want to overwhelm him with examples.

As RoyK had already said, Barry's claims had "a distinct odor of straw" about them. Not only do not ALL materialists say consciousness is an illusion, most "materialist" neuroscientists do not say it. The claim was such an obvious error and the only way Barry could protect his reputation was to ban the people who exposed his errors, thus perpetuating the error and lying to everyone who reads his thread by doing so.

The next thing Barry Arrington did was write "Materialist Hypocrisy" where he demands answers from the people he has banned from posting:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialist-hypocricy/

Talk about hypocrisy.

Why don't you go over there and see how long it takes before Barry bans you?

If interested in more detail, here's my longer blog post on the incident:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/too-stupid-to-educate-and-conscious.html

 

[KingMerv00]

Is this thread about consciousness or about your banning? I'll assume the latter since you put it in the philosophy subforum.

I don't understand the statement "consciousness is an illusion". Do you mean to say that "consciousness is governed by natural laws"?

 

[cj.23]

Dr. Susan Blackmore believes consciousness is an illusion - a post hoc justification for actions taken by the body. I saw her speak at Cheltenham Festival of Science on the subject. I think she ascribed similar thinking to Dennett but I could be mistaken. Maybe these people have run in to people who follow Susan's thinking?

cj x

 

[normdoering]

Dr. Susan Blackmore believes consciousness is an illusion - a post hoc justification for actions taken by the body. I saw her speak at Cheltenham Festival of Science on the subject. I think she ascribed similar thinking to Dennett but I could be mistaken. Maybe these people have run in to people who follow Susan's thinking?

cj x

I think you are mistaken. I believe Susan Blackmore would say "free will" is an illusion, and by that it would have a narrow meaning that referred to the experiments she notes. You'll have to dig up a credited quote before I accept your claim that she would call consciousness an illusion.

 

[normdoering]

Is this thread about consciousness or about your banning? I'll assume the latter since you put it in the philosophy subforum.

I don't understand the statement "consciousness is an illusion". Do you mean to say that "consciousness is governed by natural laws"?

I'm not the one who claimed that "consciousness is an illusion" and I don't think it is. I agree with Minsky and I have more quote from him on my blog.

As for banning -- it's an invitation for people with views similar to my own to test whether they will get banned just for presenting an effective argument in case you doubt my claims.

 

[cj.23]

I think you are mistaken. I believe Susan Blackmore would say "free will" is an illusion, and by that it would have a narrow meaning that referred to the experiments she notes. You'll have to dig up a credited quote before I accept your claim that she would call consciousness an illusion.

Possibly. here is Dr Blackmore

Human-like consciousness is an illusion; that is, it exists but is not what it appears to be. The illusion that we are a conscious self having a stream of experiences is constructed when memes compete for replication by human hosts.

from http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/JCS03.htm

hope useful?

cj x

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm not the one who claimed that "consciousness is an illusion" and I don't think it is.

I didn't say you claimed it. You did seem to understand the idea though which is why I asked for clarification.

 

[normdoering]

Possibly. here is Dr Blackmore
from http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/JCS03.htm

hope useful?
cj x

Yes, that looks interesting. I can see how her statement could be misleading to someone who wanted to be misled.

 

[normdoering]

I didn't say you claimed it. You did seem to understand the idea though which is why I asked for clarification.

I would suggest trying to understand Barry Arrington's position regarding what consciousness is would be a waste of time. What I did was point out that he had made claims that were factually wrong. He said that ALL materialists called consciousness an illusion and it's easy to demonstrate not all do -- even if Susan Blackmore did.

 

[cj.23]

Yes, that looks interesting. I can see how her statement could be misleading to someone who wanted to be misled.

There is a lot more recent stuff...

I asked at the outset 'What is all this? What is all this stuff - all this experience that I seem to be having, all the time?'. I have now arrived at the answer that all this stuff is a grand illusion. This has not solved the problems of consciousness, but at least it tells us that there is no point trying to explain the difference between things that are in consciousness and those that are not because there is no such difference. And it is a waste of time trying to explain the contents of the stream of consciousness because the stream of consciousness does not exist.

from her website.

I spent an hour and a half listening to her, and I definitely got the impression I have stated, and am convinced by her words she intends it as such?

cj x

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, that looks interesting. I can see how her statement could be misleading to someone who wanted to be misled.

Norm, are you angry at someone here, or at that other board over a banning? The tone coming across is hostile, not sure if you intend that.

My understanding of your opening post is that you would like to see how others fare in the discussion on the other board when they disagree with the powers that be.

Is there more to your desires than that from your OP?

ETA: *slaps forehead*

I just read the small subtitle under the title of that web page. Frustration with ID proponents. I think I get it.

DR

 

[normdoering]

... you would like to see how others fare in the discussion on the other board when they disagree with the powers that be.

Yes!

I would like to see how much information you can put out there before they ban you or your posts just stop showing up because they never get through moderation.

This might be a good one to start on:
Mind reading technology: In your face and in your mind - or not
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...technology-in-your-face-and-in-yr-mnd-or-not/

The first paragraph:
"Here is a Fox News interview with Japanese physicist, Michio Kaku, who is quite convinced that in the near future we will be able to read people’s minds - high tech phrenology, really."

1) Michio Kaku is Korean/American, not Japanese. (born January 24, 1947 in San Jose (CA))
2) The so called mind reading technology already exists:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/soon_well_be_reading_your_mind.php
http://www.physorg.com/news148193433.html

Another statement from the post:
"Oh yes, and … chimps think like people! Didn’t you know? When was the last time you tore off your neighbour’s arm and ate it before her eyes?"

Chimps kill other chimps less than humans kill other humans.

How many of those errors could you point out before you're banned?

 

[normdoering]

Has anyone tried posting and then get quietly booted -- or was I just ignored?

If you tried, drop a comment into my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/too-stupid-to-educate-and-conscious.html