This is disgusting [modified]
-
Oakman wrote:
You really have a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that everything that is known is not everything there is to know, I guess. Unfortunately it's the underpinning for the the scientific method. Without it, science devolves into a worship of the status quo. Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
You need to stop being a jackass. Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing. Just because there is a limit to scientific understanding, doesn't mean that suddenly everything is a possibility. There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that. Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to stop being a jackass.
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be. When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing.
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that.
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullshit. Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously
ROFL. Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing, I do not need to, nor am I at all worried about being taken seriously by someone not out of highschool.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Okay, so you have no evidence that there's anything beyond the brain to explain human behavior.
And you have no evidence that proves that it does - so the Never mind. A long time ago I was told that wehen the wise man argues too long with the fool it becaomes difficult to tell the differenbce. I have no interest in continuing this discussion - someone might question my wisdom in doing so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And you have no evidence that proves that it does - so the
- Science doesn't prove things by definition - continuing to harp on this point just enforces the fact you don't really get science at all despite your persistent lecturing 2) My evidence is from autopsies, lesion studies, brain imaging studies, live brain stimulation studies, and animal studies. What do you have again? Right. Nothing except for tired old cliches and parables. Whoopie.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to stop being a jackass.
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be. When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing.
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that.
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullshit. Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously
ROFL. Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing, I do not need to, nor am I at all worried about being taken seriously by someone not out of highschool.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Science is about asking testable and falsifiable questions. Science is about repeatable and empirical evidence. I say again: you are not well versed on the philosophy of science and would do yourself better to get educated on it before opening your mouth.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You need to stop being a jackass.
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be. When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science may not know everything, but it doesn't know nothing.
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that the mind is confined solely to the brain, none to the contrary, and no quantity of misunderstanding or badly formulated questions is going to change that.
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullshit. Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Until you can clearly demonstrate the feasibility of an ethereal 'mind field' or shimmering tendrils of sentience extending down from the heavens, you're going to have to live with not being taken seriously
ROFL. Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing, I do not need to, nor am I at all worried about being taken seriously by someone not out of highschool.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Oh what a big tough boy you're growing up to be.
What do you mean? You're the one that said that you only liked me when I was saying hurtful and clever things to/about people.
Oakman wrote:
When are you going to start using *fool* to dismiss anyone who advances a position that challenges you?
It doesn't challenge me, that's the point. Troy ignores evidence that he doesn't like. Me, I'm craving some evidence from you and Stan's side.
Oakman wrote:
Among other things it knows that double negatives are a sign of bad-breeding and poor education. Maybe you need to pay attention in class more.
I'd contest that it was an appropriate time to use the double negative, and it was intentional. It isn't always bad practice, you know. In this case, it's a direct refutation of your position, that 'science knows nothing'.
Oakman wrote:
Yadyadaya. When -- make that if - you grow up, you might discover all the other things that there's been a staggering amount of evidence for or against that have been proved to be a load of bullsh*t.
In science, that happens a lot less frequently than you would imagine, assuming that by 'bullshit' you mean 'completely wrong'.
Oakman wrote:
Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view.
Hey, I'm asking these questions. When there's a good answer, let me know.
Oakman wrote:
Since I have never advanced any argument supposing there is such a thing
You're certainly fighting hard to make sure that we consider it equally as likely when it so clearly isn't.
-
Ask a general question, get a general answer. You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Synaptrik wrote:
You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind.
I absolutely can, and it's suggested by Ravel's posts - that there are discrete aspects of what we would consider personality affected in a predictable way when that part of the brain is lesioned. That the complexity of the brain is consistent with the complexity of human behaviour. Etc. All of that is certainly empirical evidence. It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.' I'll give that opinion all due consideration.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Gary isn't a threat. You are using your generic example to justify attempting to sway Gary's beliefs. I do find it funny that you both attempt to sway the other. Nothing like watching two true-believers going at it trying to convince the other.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I absolutely can,
Provide it then. And let me preface that Stan wasn't suggesting that what Ravel was presenting wasn't true on its own, but not exclusive to the debate. That there could in fact be more than what's presented. That mind may in fact be more than the interaction of synapses and neurons. But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
This statement is false
-
Ask a general question, get a general answer. You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Synaptrik wrote:
You cannot provide empirical evidence that there is only a physical component to mind.
I absolutely can, and it's suggested by Ravel's posts - that there are discrete aspects of what we would consider personality affected in a predictable way when that part of the brain is lesioned. That the complexity of the brain is consistent with the complexity of human behaviour. Etc. All of that is certainly empirical evidence. It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.' I'll give that opinion all due consideration.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.'
What I called a fool's quest was both you and Gary attempting to convince the other of your position. That is a fool's quest. The attempt of a true believer to convince an opposing true believer. Believe me, I harbor no delusions of grandeur. No great wisdom here. Just some suppositions and a healthy open minded skepticism. "He who knows says he knows not, while he who knows not says he knows." I'm saying that we don't know. And I'm open to the possibilities that it could be more than physical, or just physical. Both are fine with me.
This statement is false
-
Jesus loves you, why do you keep rejecting Him?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Oakman wrote:
Had Einstein listened to you, we'd still think newtonian physics were the end all and be all.
Einstein took his hypothesis that better explained observations inconsistent with existing hypotheses and formulated testable predictions from it. Where's yours? I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of the soul if you show me some evidence. But instead of doing that, you seem to concentrate your discussion on telling me what I think. You really have the temerity to lecture me on the scientific method? When was the last time you were near a science lab or involved in research, the 1950s? The irony here is that if your doctor went to you and said, "Well, your child has leukemia, but it might be because of God's plan, so we might want to just let it go and see what happens, after all, there are things we don't know about the universe" you would throw a shit fit. Nevertheless, this is exactly the attitude you are complicit in encouraging. The simple fact is that while it will always be incomplete about the knowledge of the universe, scientific thinking affords us the luxury of being able to manipulate natural forces for our own benefit, whereas focusing on the fact that aspects of the universe will remain unknowable accomplishes absolutely nothing. I reiterate: It's lazy. The brain houses the entire human experience: consciousness, self-awareness, personality. I await any evidence demonstrating differently.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
The brain houses the entire human experience: consciousness, self-awareness, personality. I await any evidence demonstrating differently.
Just state something unverifiable and call it fact huh? I hope you realize that you haven't proven that your position is "ABSOLUTE". Good luck. But your attempts at convincing us of your absolutes remind me of evangelicals.
This statement is false
-
Oakman wrote:
Once again I point out that true science is based on a willingness to ask questions - all questions, not just the ones that agree with your world view. Until and unless, you learn that, you will remain in the Ilion camp, like your buddy fisti.
Science is about asking testable and falsifiable questions. Science is about repeatable and empirical evidence. I say again: you are not well versed on the philosophy of science and would do yourself better to get educated on it before opening your mouth.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
estable and falsifiable questions. Science is about repeatable and empirical evidence.
Then maybe you should refrain from absolutes such as there can be no non-physical component to mind. Dimensional awareness imposes some interesting notions if taken further.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Can you prove that you are not really dreaming this experience? Empirically?
No. That's because the question is formulated in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
Leave some mystery to life. Not everything has to have a rational explanation. There's a proverb, Sufi I think, that suggests that if you remove all of the falsities from your reality, you might find yourself left with nothing. Take it as you will.
So you think I should cloak myself in fantasy and ignorance? The Auroras are beautiful; they're even more beautiful when you know how they work.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No. That's because the question is formulated in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.
Exactly. Absolutes are testy beasts. My point is that its silly to state that we know absolutely, anything. There will always be a bit of mystery involved. And...
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So you think I should cloak myself in fantasy and ignorance?
Not at all. Its a proverb. I'm not supposed to impart any meaning onto you. You are to derive from it what you will. But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
This statement is false
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
You asked generally about beliefs. Yes, some beliefs are erroneous. A schizophrenic may believe that they are the King of England. This belief is not correct.
Gary isn't a threat. You are using your generic example to justify attempting to sway Gary's beliefs. I do find it funny that you both attempt to sway the other. Nothing like watching two true-believers going at it trying to convince the other.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I absolutely can,
Provide it then. And let me preface that Stan wasn't suggesting that what Ravel was presenting wasn't true on its own, but not exclusive to the debate. That there could in fact be more than what's presented. That mind may in fact be more than the interaction of synapses and neurons. But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
I don't need to provide evidence that there can ONLY be - you would essentially be asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible or pragmatic. It's the difference between me telling you to prove you're not a homosexual and you claiming that you are a heterosexual (eg citing a wife/girlfriend) and challenging me to demonstrate otherwise. How the hell would you prove that you aren't? In the face of evidence you might provide I guess I could claim that you *might* be a homosexual, but what difference does it make to claim things about what might be? So I only need to provide evidence that the brain is sufficient to explain human behaviour. And to that I respond with (again) the brain lesion studies, brain imaging studies, live brain stimulation studies, studies of drug effects, studies of known neuroanatomy, in-vitro studies of neuronal plasticity mechanisms (eg potentiation), and animal models. This massive amount of empiric knowledge reasonably explains human behaviour as a function of the brain. So you have two options: 1) go get a neuroanatomy/physiology text and learn it, then pick out inconsistencies, because I'm certainly not going to offer a comprehensive education on the subject here 2) provide a counter-example that can not be explained by existing mechanisms, which would be sufficient to demonstrate your point So if you want to ACTUALLY claim that there is more than the brain, then do it. If all you want to do is claim there MIGHT be, well, that's swell, but it's useless meandering of no practical consequence. FYI, I'm ignoring your other posts as this already addresses those points.
- F
-
There you go proving my point. You mock, but your goal never changes. Your sig highlights your need to spread the good news, which depends upon manipulating another's belief towards your ideal of salvation.
This statement is false
Let me see if I have this right...we were having a discussion about the mind, the brain and neuroscience and you somehow thought my sig was relative to the discussion, in the absence of any other reason for singling me out. I wasn't mocking "Al," I was asking him a serious question. Since you didn't respond to "Al," I can only assume that you believe he was not mocking me and agree with what he wrote. Have I missed anything?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's nice, however, that because you, from your vast worldly experience, have decreed that the pursuit of a genuine understanding of human behaviour and personality is a 'fool's quest.'
What I called a fool's quest was both you and Gary attempting to convince the other of your position. That is a fool's quest. The attempt of a true believer to convince an opposing true believer. Believe me, I harbor no delusions of grandeur. No great wisdom here. Just some suppositions and a healthy open minded skepticism. "He who knows says he knows not, while he who knows not says he knows." I'm saying that we don't know. And I'm open to the possibilities that it could be more than physical, or just physical. Both are fine with me.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain.
I don't need to provide evidence that there can ONLY be - you would essentially be asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible or pragmatic. It's the difference between me telling you to prove you're not a homosexual and you claiming that you are a heterosexual (eg citing a wife/girlfriend) and challenging me to demonstrate otherwise. How the hell would you prove that you aren't? In the face of evidence you might provide I guess I could claim that you *might* be a homosexual, but what difference does it make to claim things about what might be? So I only need to provide evidence that the brain is sufficient to explain human behaviour. And to that I respond with (again) the brain lesion studies, brain imaging studies, live brain stimulation studies, studies of drug effects, studies of known neuroanatomy, in-vitro studies of neuronal plasticity mechanisms (eg potentiation), and animal models. This massive amount of empiric knowledge reasonably explains human behaviour as a function of the brain. So you have two options: 1) go get a neuroanatomy/physiology text and learn it, then pick out inconsistencies, because I'm certainly not going to offer a comprehensive education on the subject here 2) provide a counter-example that can not be explained by existing mechanisms, which would be sufficient to demonstrate your point So if you want to ACTUALLY claim that there is more than the brain, then do it. If all you want to do is claim there MIGHT be, well, that's swell, but it's useless meandering of no practical consequence. FYI, I'm ignoring your other posts as this already addresses those points.
- F
So far throughout this thread Ravel and you both have argued that there is no other component other than physical to explain consciousness. Stan and I have suggested that its possible that there is more. You have rebuttled with "Nuh uh." Now, we have not claimed this as fact, but as a possibility and more to the point a direction we favor in our musings. So, yes. The onus is on you to provide empirical evidence if you wish to sway our musings. And you correctly assert that that isn't possible. So leave it at that. Note also, that we have not attempted to convince you of our position. Only to get you to admit that it is possible. You have attempted to convince us of your position. Hence the onus of empirical evidence resides with you.
This statement is false
-
Let me see if I have this right...we were having a discussion about the mind, the brain and neuroscience and you somehow thought my sig was relative to the discussion, in the absence of any other reason for singling me out. I wasn't mocking "Al," I was asking him a serious question. Since you didn't respond to "Al," I can only assume that you believe he was not mocking me and agree with what he wrote. Have I missed anything?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Clever bit of sophistry there. Evaded my point entirely. Nicely done.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Have I missed anything?
Entirely.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Clever bit of sophistry there. Evaded my point entirely. Nicely done.
Ditto
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I wasn't referring to the scientific community. I was refering to you, fisty, and the entire social movement that uses every otherwise unrelated bit of scientific research to give its political views some sort of phoney legitimacy. I realize that it might be difficult for you to accept, but you have no relationship at all to any entity that can be legitimately called 'the scientific community' and probably never will.
This may come as a huge shock for you, but I don't actually really consider myself to have a political affiliation. Simply because I don't care. I certainly wouldn't intentionally bastardise scientific research to further my 'political views'. I would gladly accept some good scientific evidence for what you're saying, but there isn't any. I know you think you have good arguments, but you don't. They show a profound lack of understanding in the matter.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I certainly wouldn't intentionally bastardise scientific research to further my 'political views'.
That fact is that you belong to a very well developed political movement which does just that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I would gladly accept some good scientific evidence for what you're saying, but there isn't any.
I never said there was. The point is that science cannot progress at all without someone thinking outside the box about something. The problem with the modern politicalization of science is that it now prohibits certain lines of thought which have not already been validated by scientific results. If either Einstien, Newton, or even Darwin had existed in such an intellectual environment, our science would not have progressed at all to where it is now.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
know you think you have good arguments, but you don't.
Thats an arrogant statement. I think no such thing. I think about things because they are fun to think about, not because they are validated by someone's exeperimental evidence. Its fun to consider possible alternatives of the standard model validated by science, free of the confining influence of intellectual authority. The only sad thing is that an old man has to tell you that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They show a profound lack of understanding in the matter.
No, they show an understanding of something far more profound than your young mind has yet considered.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is actually a perfect example. The traffic jam consists of component parts, what does conscioiusness consist of?
It's a good analogy, but not in the way that you think it is. The cars represent the neurons in the brain, and a 'traffic jam' is the name of the phenomenon arising from a specific kind of interaction between them. A traffic jam is not a 'thing' per se, in the same way that the mind is not a 'thing'. A traffic jam doesn't just consist of component parts, it's also very much about how they interact.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why would there be space itself?
I dunno. But there is. And it's existence doesn't prove the other thing's.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I never suggested that. Perhaps it pervades everything as a fundamental property of the universe. Perhpas the brain is merely adpated to provide observational properties to consciousness.
Perhaps it does. Or perhaps we're all figments of a dream of a wise and very ancient ice-cream man who lives in the centre of Saturn? It has just as much evidence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps we don't - only different perspectives.
And this is a good explanation...how?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't know, but my guess would be teenagers...
The fact is that it didn't. Its purpose is to concentrate bile produced by the liver, and that's why it's there. It doesn't see light, feel heat, point North. It evolved because it's useful, and so did the brain. It's there to help organisms survive by processing information and making rational judgments based off it, to learn from mistakes, to remember, etc.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a good analogy, but not in the way that you think it is. The cars represent the neurons in the brain, and a 'traffic jam' is the name of the phenomenon arising from a specific kind of interaction between them. A traffic jam is not a 'thing' per se, in the same way that the mind is not a 'thing'. A traffic jam doesn't just consist of component parts, it's also very much about how they interact.
Than we are back to my previous comment - consciousness has no reality. It isn't real. It is nothing more than ... well... something else. For your analogy to be correct, you would have to suggst that a collection of cars in some particular arrangment can generate a conscious state. Whats the difference between cars and neurons? Why couldn't a traffic jam be conscious? If neurons can do it, why not cars?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It has just as much evidence.
What evidence do you have that neurons generate consciousness?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And this is a good explanation...how?
I didn't say it was an explaination of anything. Its just a different way of thinking about things. seeing the universe from a different point of view.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact is that it didn't. Its purpose is to concentrate bile produced by the liver, and that's why it's there. It doesn't see light, feel heat, point North. It evolved because it's useful,
And it is useful due to the physical parameters confronted by the overall organism.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's there to help organisms survive by processing information and making rational judgments based off it, to learn from mistakes, to remember, etc.
But that isn't an explanation of how it acutally works. If the gall bladder can function without being conscious, why can't the brain?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
"He who knows says he knows not, while he who knows not says he knows."
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
So far throughout this thread Ravel and you both have argued that there is no other component other than physical to explain consciousness. Stan and I have suggested that its possible that there is more. You have rebuttled with "Nuh uh." Now, we have not claimed this as fact, but as a possibility and more to the point a direction we favor in our musings. So, yes. The onus is on you to provide empirical evidence if you wish to sway our musings. And you correctly assert that that isn't possible. So leave it at that. Note also, that we have not attempted to convince you of our position. Only to get you to admit that it is possible. You have attempted to convince us of your position. Hence the onus of empirical evidence resides with you.
This statement is false
You saying so doesn't make it so. If you'd like to emphasize the fact that I'm not going to teach you biochemistry and neuroanatomy to prove a point on the internet, I guess you can count that as a moral victory. :laugh: But you're still ignorant. My point is that you can claim all the possibilities you want, but who cares? There's a slim chance that pink unicorns farting make up human consciousness. Have fun with your endless possibilities. :rolleyes: The only useful ones are the ones that are testable.
- F