Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.



~
HypnoPsi

Um, no you haven't. Unless consciousness is self-sustaining, which you have argued that you have no evidence for, then there is something more fundamental than consciousness giving consciousness its "motion".

 

[HypnoPsi]

You use it when it suits you and then throw it away when it doesn't.

No. I keep demonstrating that the God theory is more parsimonious than any atheist theory and haven't wavoured from that point - at all.

BTW: You making fun of the self-aware toasters is amusing since it just shows your ignorance. Keep poking fun at the toaster, I don't think it cares.

Ah.. no. Sorry to disapoint you. The funny folks aren't the toasters. They're the people who believe toasters are self-aware.

I don't recall ever having poked fun at a toaster oven in my life.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[rocketdodger]

Utterly wrong. Even the Buddhist ideas of a totally "self-less" Nirvana are absolutely fine with me - in fact, I think several aspects of that view have much more going for them than certain traditionally western views of God.

Now you claim to be reading my mind... I see "God" and psi, etc., as entirely different things.

Again, I would not be troubled in the slightest if "God" turned out to be a non-entity in terms of the single conscious being of western thought.

Furthermore, the fact that you only responded to the first third of my post here, and avoided addressing the actual issues brought up in the other two thirds, is strong evidence that you realize your arguments have been weighed, measured, and found quite wanting.

Am I wrong?

 

[rocketdodger]

Um, no you haven't. Unless consciousness is self-sustaining, which you have argued that you have no evidence for, then there is something more fundamental than consciousness giving consciousness its "motion".

Isn't it amazing how people can not understand this?

Isn't it amazing how people can really think that replacing "stuff we can't understand" with "magic we can't understand" solves any problems?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, the more I think about it, we know quite a few things without doubt. And we know them to be more fundamental than thought itself because the reason we know them is becaused they are implied by thinking just as knowledge implies thinking in the first place.

We know that time exists, because the act of doubting unfolds. If it didn't then it could not be -- thought would jumble together and be impossible. We know that an animating force exists, because without it thought would not be possible.

Here's a question, do we know that extension exists? There clearly must be extension in time, so there is some form of extension. Does this count? We cannot clearly know that extension in space exists by the cogito, but we clearly know much more than what is commonly stated about it.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Neurons -- the cell thing-a-majigs in your brain -- function via electrochemistry. A signal propagating along a neuron is actually a wave of ions moving across the cell membrane powered by an electrochemical gradient that has been set up across the membrane.

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?

So if you remove the electrochemical reactions -- by burning a guy's head off, for instance -- there will be no more consciousness. Hence consciousness is completely dependent upon electrochemical reactions.

That's your opinion. Now see the question above. I look forward to your answer.

That we have to explain this to you, when you presume to argue with us about the mechanisms of consciousness, is indicative of the quality of your arguments in this thread.

And it is the reason why I am not going to even bother trying to explain things to you anymore -- you literally do not know what you are talking about. You apparently don't even have a foundation in science that we can build on if we wanted to.

I have a foundation in science.

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are wrong about everything.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?



~
HypnoPsi

Cite me a case of a known NDE in a patient that occurred during the time that the EEG was flat and we can talk.

Sorry, didn't notice your earlier statement -- no the sodium pottasium ATPase pump has nothing directly to do with triggering an action potential. It helps to maintain the resting membrane potential that permits the action potential to occur.

 

[rocketdodger]

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?

There are people who have communicated their NDE while they had no brain activity? I haven't heard of such a thing...

That's your opinion. Now see the question above. I look forward to your answer.

My answer is that I am not aware of any data showing people to have had any kind of mental activity whatsoever when their brain is entirely dead.

If such data did exist, then clearly there would be another aspect of consciousness that we are missing right now.

I have a foundation in science.

Then you might want to start applying it.

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.

First, I do not agree that such results are as credible as you insist. I side with Pixy on this.

However, if they were credible, then I don't see why EM would be so farfetched. A common celluar phone, which is capable of producing far less energy than your brain, can easily communicate with other devices through multiple buildings within the noise of literally millions and even billions of wireless communications.

At the very least, that is a known phenomena. Why would you jump to the conclusion that "psi" is magic when -- assuming credible evidence for psi existed -- there are so many other plausible explanations?

Because your entire line of thinking is biased by your desire for magic to be real.

 

[paximperium]

No. I keep demonstrating that the God theory is more parsimonious than any atheist theory and haven't wavoured from that point - at all.

No you haven't. Just about everyone here has shown your argument to be complete and utter garbage and based on nothing but semantic dancing and a blanket claim supported by nothing but semantics. You can't even support your silly claim with math.

Any "Atheist"(more appropriately Secular) Hypothesis on the basis of the cosmos is based on mathematics and is currently only theoretical due to the lack of hard evidence but is supported by mathematical evidence. Secular science continues the search for the truth, while the crazies continue to play semantic games and pretend to known the truth.

Someone who keeps claiming things despite evidence on the contrary is called deluded.

Ah.. no. Sorry to disapoint you. The funny folks aren't the toasters. They're the people who believe toasters are self-aware.

I don't recall ever having poked fun at a toaster oven in my life.

Ah so sorry, everyone is still laughing at you.

 

[paximperium]

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential.

No it doesn't. It maintains the ionic gradient. Did I mention the laughter?

Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?

Really? Someone who is braindead has come back to life? Please do show us this miracle resurrection? (and what the hell is someone doing an EEG on a person undergoing CPR?)

That's your opinion. Now see the question above. I look forward to your answer.

No. We all are awaiting you to support your claim above.

I have a foundation in science.

So, it'll be very easy for you to provide this evidence of a resurrection?

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.

So a 2-4%(depending on how tight the experiment is) beyond random chance is all you have as evidence for you psi? Color me super impressed.

Now if psi was shown to actually exist, it would be a really interesting field of research, in fact it would be exceedingly amusing if we find out that this "psi" is actually a materialistic process...I can see certain people throwing a fit and claiming that psi is still magic even after such a discovery.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Agnosticism: The view that even though the Universe and Natural Laws clearly exist one does not know how they exist.

Deceptively valid so far.

Theism: The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained by a supreme conscious thinker and that some property or substance that inherently supplies itself with the necessities of maintaining it's own existence is superfluous.

Ah, nope. Belief in worshiped beings called gods, regardless of what those worshiped beings do, is the only minimum requirement for theism. These gods could just sit around and do nothing. They could have evolved from the universe themselves like we did. They could just be really powerful people who are venerated as deities.

Atheism The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained as self-sustaining and that a supreme conscious thinker is superfluous.

Nope again. Rejection of belief in worshiped beings called gods, regardless of what these worshiped beings are supposed to do, is the only minimum requirement for atheism. Furthermore, atheism is not mutually exclusive from agnosticism, and thus leaves room open for unknowns.

Theism is predicated on a known thing: Consciousness. Atheism is predicated on nothing known.

Since you got both definitions wrong, what makes you think you got this last part right?

You have no more logical justification for postulating a God based on consciousness than you would postulating one based on matter, for that matter, and yes it matters. Knowledge is what is predicated on consciousness. You don't leap from "knowledge" to "God" just because it makes you feel good to think you have all the answers. By your reasoning, one could postulate God after staring into the sun for several hours.

I have no intention of spoon feeding you anything or of getting involved in another debate I'll likely not have any time to participate in from Monday onwards.

Hey, it's your claim. Too bad you're not willing to defend it in any way other than assertion. I think I just heard a toilet flush.

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.

Yet you also tried to refute my objection by saying you never once claimed consciousness was self-sustaining, which leads me to wonder where this ridiculous strawman was derived from, if not the framework of your own theistic beliefs.

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?

Patients who "recall" NDEs are drawing it from "memory." Yet as I explained, memories are patterns of chemicals and neural connections. When the brain suffers trauma, these connections break down and get rearranged. Even when there's an EEG flatline, as you claim, there are still reactions going on in the brain. This can cause new memories to form. The very fact that these NDE patients have been revived means that brain function never irrevocibly ceased. They weren't brain dead, in other words.

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 3...

 

[Dancing David]

I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.

Then how can you say it exists?

So? I can't prove I'm conscious to anyone else either. All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.

Sure, whatever.

peace to you and yours.

I have no idea if the God-thinker is self-sustaining or everlasting. All I know is that the God-thinker is predicated on the personal thinker and the self-sustaining energy is based on nothing.

The two are equivalent and you may not style yourself an idealist but you avoid it just like them.

Whatever. (Old hippy phrase of acceptance, not Reese Withersppon)

This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read.

~
HypnoPsi

Sigh, that figures, it always happen, you are the same as the rest. Not willing to overcome your own issues and really talk about things. HammeGK was a cranky old fart but at least he didn't engage in the run away mentality you have just shown.

Too bad it was going well up until you did the same as all idealists or whatever you want to style yourself. As Brave Sir Robin said...

Later.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.





Why? Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?




I couldn't care less. This is all your stuff that you need to figure out.

~
HypnoPsi

Sure whatever.

You can not prove that your are conscious, you assume then that god is conscious.

What a hoot!

later gator!

 

[Dancing David]

Nope.

Well, there are some materialists who assume that, I'll grant you. But look at what the actual materialists in this thread actually say.

They are not talking about what matter is, only what it does, only behaviours.

Maybe you don't consider such people as materialists, but that's how they label themselves, and there's gotta be a Scotsman in there somewhere.


P-zombies are not a coherent concept under materialism anyway.

Nope, it was all rhetorical baiting.

Gosh that is the last thing I need another True Scotsman around the house, they just gather dust and scare the cat...

 

[PixyMisa]

I have no intention of spoon feeding you anything or of getting involved in another debate I'll likely not have any time to participate in from Monday onwards.

I see. So you get to make any assertion you like, with no responsibility for providing supporting evidence or logic, while we have to prove a negative?

No.

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.

No. You have repeatedly asserted this, despite being shown that its complete dingo's kidneys.

Toasters have 1's and 0's and particular patterns of input into the mechanics/programing of the toaster results in specific sets out outputs.

Indeed. Just like humans, except explicitly binary-coded.

That's it for toasters. They have no thoughts about said input or output

You just said they did:

Toasters have 1's and 0's and particular patterns of input into the mechanics/programing of the toaster results in specific sets out outputs.

That's thought. That's awareness. Not self-awareness, not without reflection, but awareness.

or the processing that goes on inbetween.

That, as I have said, depends on the toaster.

Thoughts is a good place to start. Where is your evidence that
toasters think, have qualia and subjective experience?

I just explained all that.

Again, if you think there is anything to subjective experience beyond memory, perception, and reasoning, tell me what it is and I can address that.

Oh, and the concept of qualia has as much validity as p-zombies, i.e. none whatsoever.

 

[articulett]

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.
~
HypnoPsi

I just have to say that I think it's so funny when the woo make assertions like this-- as though repeating it can make it true. I suppose he's "successfully defended" his argument in his own head, but I don't think anyone other than him can even reiterate what his argument IS.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ooh, I know:

1. Consciousness exists. I don't know what it is, but I do know that all research into neuroscience and psychology ever can be safely ignored. Because I say so.
2. Ganzfeld! Sheldrake! NDEs! Because I say so.
3. Therefore God exists. I don't know what it is, but it's not up to me to even define my terms. Because I say so.

 

[articulett]

Wasn't that the same argument Interesting Ian used to use?

(I tend to mix up my woos).

 

[Malerin]

Actually, Hypno's argument is very easy to understand. It's just that none of you agree with the premises:

1. There is no evidence matter exists.
2. If the physical universe does exist, it is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.
2.1 Nothing in the physical universe suggests it has the property "eternal"
or "cause in and of itself".
3. Consciousness exists, and is a non-physical phenemenon (it has none of the qualities of physical matter).
4. Under materialism, there is no coherent story to explain how an assemblage of physical matter can create a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness).

:. (therefore) Because there is no evidence of matter, no reason to believe matter is either a cause in and of itself or eternal, and no explanation how consciousness can arise from physical matter (or even why consciousness is possible under materialism), materialism contains more assumptions than theism, and is the less parsimonious theory.

The arguments from the materialists here have been less than persuasive. They attack (1) by basically kicking a rock and saying, "Did you see that? That's a material thing! I felt it, so it must be a physical object!" I haven't seen anyone yet take on (2). (3) and (4) have led to absurd claims of doubting your own consciousness and the existence of conscious toasters (the extra-fancy model actually possessing self-awareness).