This is disgusting [modified]
-
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
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true. I can provide a counter-example: a guy has a weird lesion on his arm, and asks his busboy friend what it is. "I don't know, you'd better see a doctor." Guy goes to see doctor, who says, "I know what that is, it's solar keratosis." Of course, maybe the doctor should have entertained the possibility that it was a scar from when the aliens implanted a tracking device in the guy. There's no reason why it should be, but it's possible after all.
-
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
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Synaptrik wrote:</div>But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain. </blockquote> http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=brain+damage+personality+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search[^] There. Empirical evidence. Go nuts.
-
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
Synaptrik wrote:
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.
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say. The theory that the mind is physical explains the structure of the brain, is testable, and falsifiable, and makes useful predictions. These predictions include people's minds changing in a predictable way following physical injury to the brain. There are thousands of documented instances of this. It also explains why psychoactive drugs work the way that they do. Of course the mind could be non-physical. It could be ANYTHING if you define it in such a way as to be completely useless and unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
A roller-coaster is only fun if you know that it's not going to kill you.
-
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true. I can provide a counter-example: a guy has a weird lesion on his arm, and asks his busboy friend what it is. "I don't know, you'd better see a doctor." Guy goes to see doctor, who says, "I know what that is, it's solar keratosis." Of course, maybe the doctor should have entertained the possibility that it was a scar from when the aliens implanted a tracking device in the guy. There's no reason why it should be, but it's possible after all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true.
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can provide a counter-example
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence. But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Don't give that a thumbs up. It's not even true.
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can provide a counter-example
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence. But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Make me a sandwich.
Oakman wrote:
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence.
I admit that I don't know everything. I have no problem admitting that. But I do know that it's pointless to conjure up a transcendental mind when the physical mind - at this point in scientific understanding - explains everything perfectly. It's like saying that the law of conservation of angular momentum only works because little invisible demons grab a hold of the object and make it work. Sure it's narrow-minded of me to not consider it, sure I arrogantly believe I know everything because I don't believe it, sure it's possible, sure nobody can prove that it doesn't work like that, but it's a completely empty idea.
Oakman wrote:
But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Was that before it was discovered or just before it was really understood?
-
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
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Synaptrik wrote:</div>But, by all means, provide your empirical evidence that there CAN ONLY BE physical components to MIND and/or consciousness. Not brain. </blockquote> http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=brain+damage+personality+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search[^] There. Empirical evidence. Go nuts.
-
OK, now resort to petty insults because a few of us are open to the possibilities that we don't know everything there is to know about mind and consciousness. You're really proving your point with this schoolyard bull. How old are you, 12?
This statement is false
-
Oakman wrote:
Of course it is. Now is there anything else you think you have the right to order me to do, little one?
Make me a sandwich.
Oakman wrote:
Not so far you haven't. There is, grasshopper, a big difference between admitting that you don't know everything - that, indeed, there are things that no-one knows, and giving all theories (small "t") equal credence.
I admit that I don't know everything. I have no problem admitting that. But I do know that it's pointless to conjure up a transcendental mind when the physical mind - at this point in scientific understanding - explains everything perfectly. It's like saying that the law of conservation of angular momentum only works because little invisible demons grab a hold of the object and make it work. Sure it's narrow-minded of me to not consider it, sure I arrogantly believe I know everything because I don't believe it, sure it's possible, sure nobody can prove that it doesn't work like that, but it's a completely empty idea.
Oakman wrote:
But since you want to talk about dignosis, perhaps you might want to consider all the folks dying of aids who were misdiagnosed during the '80's by doctors who never considered the possibility that they were wrong.
Was that before it was discovered or just before it was really understood?
Is it really that difficult to accept that some of us are comfortable with the idea that there could be more to mind and consciousness than the gears and pulleys you insist entirely make up the show? I'm not trying to convince you that it is. But its my stance. My belief. I'm not suggesting that you share the same thoughts. Don't twist your Mind over it so much. What bugs you about me believing this? Why do you experience cognitive dissonance regarding what I believe? I'm ok with you being atheist and Gary being a theist. Doesn't bother me at all. I'm agnostic. I'm one of those weirdos who accepts that we can't know the truth of some things. That a little mystery goes a long way. Enjoy.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
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.
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say. The theory that the mind is physical explains the structure of the brain, is testable, and falsifiable, and makes useful predictions. These predictions include people's minds changing in a predictable way following physical injury to the brain. There are thousands of documented instances of this. It also explains why psychoactive drugs work the way that they do. Of course the mind could be non-physical. It could be ANYTHING if you define it in such a way as to be completely useless and unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
A roller-coaster is only fun if you know that it's not going to kill you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say.
Who criticized you? I didn't ask you to believe me. I said what I believe and you proceeded to tell me I was wrong. You and fisty are criticizing Stan and I for what we believe which is only that we don't know. Hah! So relax. If you really are just a teenager, then relax. Not everything is testable with the tools present. N-Dimensional Non-Euclidean Geometry presents some interesting notions. If mind happened to exist in more than 3 dimensions, how would you expect it to be falsifiable in 3? Have you ever experienced time fluctuations in your mind? Of course, in dreams. Time isn't the same. That's 4th dimension. But, you'll probably respond with more insults and start quoting the uselessness of my theories.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
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.
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say. The theory that the mind is physical explains the structure of the brain, is testable, and falsifiable, and makes useful predictions. These predictions include people's minds changing in a predictable way following physical injury to the brain. There are thousands of documented instances of this. It also explains why psychoactive drugs work the way that they do. Of course the mind could be non-physical. It could be ANYTHING if you define it in such a way as to be completely useless and unfalsifiable.
Synaptrik wrote:
But the suggestion in my thinking is that a little mystery goes a long way to having an interesting experience.
A roller-coaster is only fun if you know that it's not going to kill you.
-
Is it really that difficult to accept that some of us are comfortable with the idea that there could be more to mind and consciousness than the gears and pulleys you insist entirely make up the show? I'm not trying to convince you that it is. But its my stance. My belief. I'm not suggesting that you share the same thoughts. Don't twist your Mind over it so much. What bugs you about me believing this? Why do you experience cognitive dissonance regarding what I believe? I'm ok with you being atheist and Gary being a theist. Doesn't bother me at all. I'm agnostic. I'm one of those weirdos who accepts that we can't know the truth of some things. That a little mystery goes a long way. Enjoy.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Is it really that difficult to accept that some of us are comfortable with the idea that there could be more to mind and consciousness than the gears and pulleys you insist entirely make up the show? I'm not trying to convince you that it is. But its my stance. My belief. I'm not suggesting that you share the same thoughts. Don't twist your Mind over it so much. What bugs you about me believing this? Why do you experience cognitive dissonance regarding what I believe?
Interesting...That's pretty much what I have been saying. Can you show me where I have said anything different in regard to the mind and consciousness?
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
-
Yeah, I actually have a degree in biology, with about 8 hours of organic chemistry. And at one time my goal was to actually study neural anatomy for the very purpose of understanding consciousness and integration with computers and all that cool stuff. The problem is that none of that can explain consciousness. It is simply impossible. Unless you are suggesting it resides somewhere in the sodium atoms, or the action potentials or the dendrites or the whatever. I'm not the one asking the stupid questions. There is a bigger mystery here than can be explained away by the magic of 'emergent properties'. Either you are not thinking the problem through sufficiently, or you simply refuse to confront it because it brings your entire intellectual framework into question. The real irony is that consciousness is the only aspect of the universe that we actually experience in any direct way. It is the only thing you can possibly experience which is not, in fact, an illusion. Yet it is the one thing you refuse to ackowledge has any actual reality.
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.
- You strongly believe that consciousness can not be explained by modern neuroscience but 2) You don't know enough about neuroscience or consciousness to specifically describe the aspects of the former that fail to completely describe aspects of the latter and 3) You don't particularly care about #2 because you seem to feel it's enough for you to merely lay #1 on the table and insist that it's someone else's responsibility to exhaustively describe to you how consciousness is explained by neuroscience - despite your persistent reluctance to define what consciousness actually means to you - all of which effectively ensures that no matter what explanation is made, you can always move the goalposts further away from testability and falsifiability to preserve #1 Well, okay then - have a good one!
- F
-
OK, now resort to petty insults because a few of us are open to the possibilities that we don't know everything there is to know about mind and consciousness. You're really proving your point with this schoolyard bull. How old are you, 12?
This statement is false
You're not only claiming you don't know everything, you're expressing profound disinterest in an evidenced-based approach to the human experience in favor of appealing to your ~@~feelings~@~ about it. Am I supposed to be impressed that you're are so interested in the subject of mind and consciousness and humanity that in all your years of deep consideration you've bothered to learn exactly zero about the brain, which (even if it's NOT completely responsible for the ~@mind@~, how's that for open-minded) is obviously where a huge proportion of what makes us human lives? You know who you are? You're the guy that when John Snow suggested that cholera is caused by tainted water, raised his hand, said "HAY GUYS MAYBE IT'S NOT JUST THE WATER MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING ELSE" then sat back as if that's actually some kind of contribution. It's intellectual preening, nothing more.
- F
-
You're not only claiming you don't know everything, you're expressing profound disinterest in an evidenced-based approach to the human experience in favor of appealing to your ~@~feelings~@~ about it. Am I supposed to be impressed that you're are so interested in the subject of mind and consciousness and humanity that in all your years of deep consideration you've bothered to learn exactly zero about the brain, which (even if it's NOT completely responsible for the ~@mind@~, how's that for open-minded) is obviously where a huge proportion of what makes us human lives? You know who you are? You're the guy that when John Snow suggested that cholera is caused by tainted water, raised his hand, said "HAY GUYS MAYBE IT'S NOT JUST THE WATER MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING ELSE" then sat back as if that's actually some kind of contribution. It's intellectual preening, nothing more.
- F
Look. I entertain the possibility that its more than what you describe. I'm entitled to that. I guess, that you are also entitled to calling me whatever cleverly worded insult that you can think of. Apparently though, you have more of a problem with what I think than I have with what you think. Why does it bother you that I entertain the notion that mind and consciousness can be more than just physical? I'm not denying the data you put forth. I just don't call it absolute. "You know who you are" ... not a 12 year old in the school yard trying to feel better about myself by insulting others.
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Is it really that difficult to accept that some of us are comfortable with the idea that there could be more to mind and consciousness than the gears and pulleys you insist entirely make up the show? I'm not trying to convince you that it is. But its my stance. My belief. I'm not suggesting that you share the same thoughts. Don't twist your Mind over it so much. What bugs you about me believing this? Why do you experience cognitive dissonance regarding what I believe?
Interesting...That's pretty much what I have been saying. Can you show me where I have said anything different in regard to the mind and consciousness?
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
I wasn't arguing with you. I was talking to Ravel and Fisty. The only thing I said about you was that you try to convince others to believe as you do, the same way that Ravel and Fisty do. You disagreed. I pointed to your sig. Meaning that its an implied argument. That's all. By putting Christian quotes regarding the path to salvation is an implied argument for non-believers. So you do attempt to convert. And that's the charge, to spread the good news. Which was really just to say that God is our Father. Not that Jesus died for our sins. Jesus hadn't died yet you see, so he wouldn't have been referencing a future moment. All interpretation following his death is just that. Interpretation. But I digress.
This statement is false
-
- You strongly believe that consciousness can not be explained by modern neuroscience but 2) You don't know enough about neuroscience or consciousness to specifically describe the aspects of the former that fail to completely describe aspects of the latter and 3) You don't particularly care about #2 because you seem to feel it's enough for you to merely lay #1 on the table and insist that it's someone else's responsibility to exhaustively describe to you how consciousness is explained by neuroscience - despite your persistent reluctance to define what consciousness actually means to you - all of which effectively ensures that no matter what explanation is made, you can always move the goalposts further away from testability and falsifiability to preserve #1 Well, okay then - have a good one!
- F
No, to sum up...
Fisticuffs wrote:
- You strongly believe that consciousness can not be explained by modern neuroscience
I strongly believe it has not been explained by neuroscience. Neuroscience has not even attempted an explanation aside from 'The brain is made out of neurons. Consciousness is affected by measurable chemical changes to neurons. Therefore, neurons cause consciosness.' It hasn't progressed beyond this[^] kind of bullshit. I strongly believe that the reason it has not been explained is becuase there is an a priori assumption that it must be a product of physical activities of the brain. I strongly believe that it is impossible to distinquish the origins of consciousness because there is simply no way one can devise an experiment which one can, in fact, observe consciousness. It is the ultimate 'uncertainty principle'. The observer cannot step outside of itself in order to observe itself observing itself.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You don't know enough about neuroscience or consciousness to specifically describe the aspects of the former that fail to completely describe aspects of the latter
Neither do you. If you do, please tell me what it is. Give me a little chemical formula so that I can mix the right chemicals together to generate a couple of gallons of consciousness. Oh, wait, what is the basic unit of measure of consciousness? Lets just start with that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
despite your persistent reluctance to define what consciousness actually means to you - all of which effectively ensures that no matter what explanation is made, you can always move the goalposts further away from testability and falsifiability to preserve
I define consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. It can neither be created nor destroyed. In fact, it is the only thing the universe actually consists of. It is the most basic, fundamental, elemental, property of the universe. Prove otherwise and I will happily recant.
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 loathi
-
I wasn't arguing with you. I was talking to Ravel and Fisty. The only thing I said about you was that you try to convince others to believe as you do, the same way that Ravel and Fisty do. You disagreed. I pointed to your sig. Meaning that its an implied argument. That's all. By putting Christian quotes regarding the path to salvation is an implied argument for non-believers. So you do attempt to convert. And that's the charge, to spread the good news. Which was really just to say that God is our Father. Not that Jesus died for our sins. Jesus hadn't died yet you see, so he wouldn't have been referencing a future moment. All interpretation following his death is just that. Interpretation. But I digress.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
you try to convince others to believe as you do
Synaptrik wrote:
Which was really just to say that God is our Father. Not that Jesus died for our sins. Jesus hadn't died yet you see, so he wouldn't have been referencing a future moment. All interpretation following his death is just that. Interpretation.
:rolleyes:
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
-
No, to sum up...
Fisticuffs wrote:
- You strongly believe that consciousness can not be explained by modern neuroscience
I strongly believe it has not been explained by neuroscience. Neuroscience has not even attempted an explanation aside from 'The brain is made out of neurons. Consciousness is affected by measurable chemical changes to neurons. Therefore, neurons cause consciosness.' It hasn't progressed beyond this[^] kind of bullshit. I strongly believe that the reason it has not been explained is becuase there is an a priori assumption that it must be a product of physical activities of the brain. I strongly believe that it is impossible to distinquish the origins of consciousness because there is simply no way one can devise an experiment which one can, in fact, observe consciousness. It is the ultimate 'uncertainty principle'. The observer cannot step outside of itself in order to observe itself observing itself.
Fisticuffs wrote:
You don't know enough about neuroscience or consciousness to specifically describe the aspects of the former that fail to completely describe aspects of the latter
Neither do you. If you do, please tell me what it is. Give me a little chemical formula so that I can mix the right chemicals together to generate a couple of gallons of consciousness. Oh, wait, what is the basic unit of measure of consciousness? Lets just start with that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
despite your persistent reluctance to define what consciousness actually means to you - all of which effectively ensures that no matter what explanation is made, you can always move the goalposts further away from testability and falsifiability to preserve
I define consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. It can neither be created nor destroyed. In fact, it is the only thing the universe actually consists of. It is the most basic, fundamental, elemental, property of the universe. Prove otherwise and I will happily recant.
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 loathi
Stan Shannon wrote:
I define consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. It can neither be created nor destroyed. In fact, it is the only thing the universe actually consists of.
How does this lead to testable or falsifiable hypotheses? If you can't describe that, congratulations - your definition of consciousness can't be defined by science WHICH IS WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG and what makes it really really REALLY intellectually dishonest of you to claim that neuroscience can't properly elucidate it.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I want someone to prove me wrong, or at least have a shot at it instead of sitting around pompously criticising me for not believing everything that they say.
Who criticized you? I didn't ask you to believe me. I said what I believe and you proceeded to tell me I was wrong. You and fisty are criticizing Stan and I for what we believe which is only that we don't know. Hah! So relax. If you really are just a teenager, then relax. Not everything is testable with the tools present. N-Dimensional Non-Euclidean Geometry presents some interesting notions. If mind happened to exist in more than 3 dimensions, how would you expect it to be falsifiable in 3? Have you ever experienced time fluctuations in your mind? Of course, in dreams. Time isn't the same. That's 4th dimension. But, you'll probably respond with more insults and start quoting the uselessness of my theories.
This statement is false
I don't care any more about this argument. You can believe whatever.