Materialism

[DanishDynamite]

I've already explained that I have zero interest in crazy pointless laws. I wouldn't remove it. It's as simple as that.

And how is your opinion on this matter of the slightest import?

 

[Girl 6]

I've already explained that I have zero interest in crazy pointless laws. I wouldn't remove it. It's as simple as that.

You may have no interest in crazy pointless laws. I, unfortunately do have to protect the JREF from the crazy, pointless laws.

So, I'm asking, once again politely before I swoop down and edit the post. Please provide the link.

G6

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

That chapter was all about there being FOUR different viewpoints which some people mix together. The most extreme view is scientism.

Yes, I understand that. I suppose I should just let this drop, but I think that his definition of scientism is a charicature of the extreme end of scientism. The dictionary definition of scientism is:

an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities

To say, as the author did, that "Scientism unjustifiably extends the authority of science beyond its proper limits, and it assumes that science can solve all of humanity's problems." is just over the top. I don't know anyone who thinks science is going to solve all our problems.

No! We are talking about the scientific world in particular here. I do not think society in general is scientistic - in fact it is obvious that the reverse is true. That is precisely what the scientistic people are paranoid about.

Well, to hell with scientistic people then! For crying out loud, they don't have a hold on authority. If other people want to investigate subjective things and figure out how to glean the ultimate truth from master meditators, then they should do it. If it's only the scientistic bastards who are objecting, what difference can they make? The vast majority of people are open minded, as you say, and they have the power.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Apparently the meaning of the entire post eluded you. I made no such suggestion. Neither did I quote you out of context.

Your sig says this

"A rational person does not dismiss all evidence other than scientific evidence. Only retards do that. -Interesting Ian

" I want to make it clear that I have absolutely zero interest in research design, nor have I any interest in correlational studies."-Interesting Ian

The second quote is blatently taken out of context. As I made absolutely clear, I have absolutely zero interest in research design, nor have I any interest in correlational studies within the context of them being able to shed any light on what consciousness is! Consciousness simply does not lie within the purview of science. It is utterly pointless providing any links to arsehole scientists pontificating about consciousness when in fact they only ever refer to the neural correlates of consciousness. I keep saying this to you lot, but it goes in one ear and comes out of the other.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, the sample chapters posted at the Oxford site are copyrighted. I suggested that they include a copyright notice on each Web page with links to sample chapters.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

You may have no interest in crazy pointless laws. I, unfortunately do have to protect the JREF from the crazy, pointless laws.

So, I'm asking, once again politely before I swoop down and edit the post. Please provide the link.

G6

Girl 6,

I haven't quoted anything. And I wouldn't quote anything without supplying a link in anycase.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I've already explained that I have zero interest in crazy pointless laws. I wouldn't remove it. It's as simple as that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how is your opinion on this matter of the slightest import?

I don't know. Why is the opinion of anyone on any matter of any import.? Are you going to forever ignore the opinions of those whom you dislike or disagree with?

 

[Interesting Ian]

OK, Girl 6 and I have kissed and made up

 

[BillHoyt]

Your sig says this



The second quote is blatently taken out of context. As I made absolutely clear, I have absolutely zero interest in research design, nor have I any interest in correlational studies within the context of them being able to shed any light on what consciousness is! Consciousness simply does not lie within the purview of science. It is utterly pointless providing any links to arsehole scientists pontificating about consciousness when in fact they only ever refer to the neural correlates of consciousness. I keep saying this to you lot, but it goes in one ear and comes out of the other.

Oh, certainly, Ian. I will, forthwith, modify the quote to make the context clear. That will greatly improve its rationality.

Cheers,

 

[BillHoyt]

Oh, certainly, Ian. I will, forthwith, modify the quote to make the context clear. That will greatly improve its rationality.

Cheers,

Oh, yes, that's it. Much better.

 

[Girl 6]

Just popping in to say thanks to UCE for providing a link.

Carry on.

G6

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oh, certainly, Ian. I will, forthwith, modify the quote to make the context clear. That will greatly improve its rationality.

Cheers,

It's no better. I think research into consciousness is extremely important. But it has nothing whatsoever to to with explaining what consciousness is, or what phenomenal consciousness is if you prefer. The most that scientists can ever hope to explain are p-zombies, not real people.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

It's no better. I think research into consciousness is extremely important. But it has nothing whatsoever to to with explaining what consciousness is, or what phenomenal consciousness is if you prefer. The most that scientists can ever hope to explain are p-zombies, not real people.

Wait, haven't we concluded that there is no discernable difference? That would make the explanation just as good for one as the other.

I'm so confwoozd!

~~ Paul

 

[DanishDynamite]

I don't know. Why is the opinion of anyone on any matter of any import.? Are you going to forever ignore the opinions of those whom you dislike or disagree with?

I only ignore those who perpetually have nothing new to add.

 

[Guest]

Well, to hell with scientistic people then! For crying out loud, they don't have a hold on authority. If other people want to investigate subjective things and figure out how to glean the ultimate truth from master meditators, then they should do it. If it's only the scientistic bastards who are objecting what different can they make? The vast majority of people are open minded, as you say, and they have the power.

Perhaps society works best with all viewpoints represented. I didn't call anyone a bastard because of their philosophical position.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos:

Well, to hell with scientistic people then! For crying out loud, they don't have a hold on authority. If other people want to investigate subjective things and figure out how to glean the ultimate truth from master meditators, then they should do it. If it's only the scientistic bastards who are objecting, what different can they make? The vast majority of people are open minded, as you say, and they have the power.

~~ Paul

Well said, Paul. I feel likewise.

I just find it odd that these pervayours of new insight not only can't all agree but can't show the slightest reason why their unagreedupon results should be seriously considered.

Seriously, how do these gurus expect the World to notice them if they can't produce any new convincing results? Guru1 will claim A, guru2 will claim B, etc. And since they all claim that the scientific method has no relevance, why don't they suggest another referee?

One would almost think that they were all just a bunch of crackpots (perish the thought).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

Perhaps society works best with all viewpoints represented. I didn't call anyone a bastard because of their philosophical position.

That's pronounced "bah-starrrds," with a sort of French accent.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

I don't know. Why is the opinion of anyone on any matter of any import.? Are you going to forever ignore the opinions of those whom you dislike or disagree with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I only ignore those who perpetually have nothing new to add.

If you're being truly serious then put me on ignore. Otherwise quit your childishness.

 

[Socrates]

It seems to me that...

1. Humans are made up of what is in the universe.

2. Ideas and thoughts are processed in the brain.

3. The brain is made up of what is in the universe.

So then, ideas and thoughts of humans are the result of biological processes.

I'm not certain that you have identified all that makes up the universe. And, can we be certain that the whole of the Universe is not greater than the sum of it's parts?

I am often baffled by the notion that a Subjective sense of being can arise from objective biochemical reactions. The observed forces of the universe are scientifically described as a mindless dance of cause and effect. I have yet to see anyone convincingly demonstrate how mind can magically appear simply by virtue of the volume of chemical reactions in a given period of time or by the complexity of said chemical reactions.

Furthermore, Naturalists insist that there is no scientific evidence for the idea that the Universe is a Living Intelligent Entity. If we accept this at face value, then we must assume that mind is created Ex Nihilo (from nothing). Through the magic of biochemistry (or should I say Alchemy), mind arises from the Mindless and life arises from the Lifeless. Is this any less nonsensical than the Christian notion of Ex Nihilo Creation? Can you show me how mind can arise from the mindless? Can you show me how mind arises from biochemical processes? What is that crucial chemical reaction that separates a sentient being from a really complicated jellyfish?

Clearly, without proof of this critical chemical reaction there is little convincing evidence that the phenomenology of conscience and mind are solely created by and contained within the brain. Without that crucial scientific proof, the notion that mind is created by and contained within the brain is merely a gratuitous assertion and may, therefore, be just as gratuitously rejected.

What are we left with? If the Christian notion of Ex Nihilo Creation of mind and the Naturalist's notion of Ex Nihilo creation of mind are both with out scientific proof, then what are our options?

It seems to me that our options are to speculate about the possibilities based upon what we know.

We know that the conservation of energy and laws of relativity reject the notion that something can be created Ex Nihilo. Therefore, it may be possible that the Universe indeed has parts that you have not yet identified. It may be that the Universe has Mind.

Could it be anything less than neurotic to insist that mind arising from Mind and life arising from Life is less probable than the mind arising from the Mindless and life arising from the Lifeless?

Why can't the brain be the biological interface between Mind and Body? Hummmm? Until the Naturalists empirically identify that magical chemical process which creates the seed of Subjectivity, I maintain that the logical probability lies with the Living Intelligent Universe because the likelihood of mind arising from a Mindless Universe is slim to none.

Love,
Socrates

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Socrates, the not really very old Greek guy, said:

I maintain that the logical probability lies with the Living Intelligent Universe because the likelihood of mind arising from a Mindless Universe is slim to none.

How did you compute that likelihood?

~~ Paul