This is disgusting [modified]
-
- 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.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A roller-coaster is only fun if you know that it's not going to kill you.
I would take the opposite. Its very fun because it could kill you.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
I would take the opposite. Its very fun because it could kill you.
No it isn't. If you thought that there was a very real danger that you were about to die I guarantee you wouldn't be smiling and laughing.
-
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
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Stan Shannon wrote:</div>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.'</blockquote> Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in primates[^] Neurology and the Mind-Brain Problem[^] The Mind-Brain Relationship[^] Mind, Brain, and Personality Disorders[^] BRIDGING SCIENCE AND VALUES: A UNIFYING VIEW OF MIND AND BRAIN[^] Yeah, nobody has ever even considered studying it. It's all a great big conspiracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
How about I give you the 'chemical formula' for the circulatory system so you can go ahead and make one? Sounds pretty simple, huh. Unless the circulatory system doesn't actually exist! :omg:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oh, wait, what is the basic unit of measure of consciousness?
What's the basic unit of measure for happiness? For anger? For sexuality?
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Stan Shannon wrote:</div>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.'</blockquote> Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in primates[^] Neurology and the Mind-Brain Problem[^] The Mind-Brain Relationship[^] Mind, Brain, and Personality Disorders[^] BRIDGING SCIENCE AND VALUES: A UNIFYING VIEW OF MIND AND BRAIN[^] Yeah, nobody has ever even considered studying it. It's all a great big conspiracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
How about I give you the 'chemical formula' for the circulatory system so you can go ahead and make one? Sounds pretty simple, huh. Unless the circulatory system doesn't actually exist! :omg:
Stan Shannon wrote:
Oh, wait, what is the basic unit of measure of consciousness?
What's the basic unit of measure for happiness? For anger? For sexuality?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, this is officially new-age pseudoscience.
I know, eh? He's just provided a textbook tautology: redefine consciousness as something obviously outside the realm of empirical, scientific investigation (with absolutely no evidence to back up the definition) - and then proceed to loudly claim that science obviously doesn't have all the answers because it can't explain "consciousness." It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
- F
-
Synaptrik wrote:
I would take the opposite. Its very fun because it could kill you.
No it isn't. If you thought that there was a very real danger that you were about to die I guarantee you wouldn't be smiling and laughing.
So, "you" define what "I" would smile about or think is fun? Why make a guarantee that you can't back up? It is exactly the thrill of the danger that makes the experience worth it. If everything is always safe and known, it gets boring fast. But hey, we're different personality types. You like explained safe environments, and I prefer mysterious dangerous ones. Enjoy the difference.
This statement is false
-
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:
I just don't call it absolute.
And how hard, exactly, have you tried to explain mind/consciousness using the simplest explanation (only physical processes) before coming to this conclusion? Or did you start from the assumption that the brain can't explain it and leave the onus on others to convince you otherwise? Why should that be anyone else's responsibility but yours? Frankly, you seem to be a little confrontational towards anyone who actually takes a stand for their beliefs - be it evidence-based or otherwise (cough like Gary) - so would you rather we all just threw up our hands and said "I DUNNO" so that you're free to never have to defend any of your beliefs? Because it seems like you spend most of your time attacking not the arguments but the temerity of making an argument in the first place. Seems a little childish.
- F
-
Synaptrik wrote:
I just don't call it absolute.
And how hard, exactly, have you tried to explain mind/consciousness using the simplest explanation (only physical processes) before coming to this conclusion? Or did you start from the assumption that the brain can't explain it and leave the onus on others to convince you otherwise? Why should that be anyone else's responsibility but yours? Frankly, you seem to be a little confrontational towards anyone who actually takes a stand for their beliefs - be it evidence-based or otherwise (cough like Gary) - so would you rather we all just threw up our hands and said "I DUNNO" so that you're free to never have to defend any of your beliefs? Because it seems like you spend most of your time attacking not the arguments but the temerity of making an argument in the first place. Seems a little childish.
- F
You really have a problem with me believing what I want don't you? You can't accept that I believe what I do so you attempt to unravel me and/or ridicule me into adopting your view. Well, be a dickhead if you want to. I'll believe what I want. Done.
This statement is false
-
You really have a problem with me believing what I want don't you? You can't accept that I believe what I do so you attempt to unravel me and/or ridicule me into adopting your view. Well, be a dickhead if you want to. I'll believe what I want. Done.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
You can't accept that I believe what I do so you attempt to unravel me and/or ridicule me into adopting your view.
As far as I can tell, the only belief you've bothered to share is that you believe that nobody should hold an opinion because it might turn out to be wrong (but it's not up to you to show it's wrong). It's like if the Cowardly Lion did a PhD dissertation in philosophy.
- F
-
Synaptrik wrote:
You can't accept that I believe what I do so you attempt to unravel me and/or ridicule me into adopting your view.
As far as I can tell, the only belief you've bothered to share is that you believe that nobody should hold an opinion because it might turn out to be wrong (but it's not up to you to show it's wrong). It's like if the Cowardly Lion did a PhD dissertation in philosophy.
- F
Look in a mirror lately? I've said nothing regarding other's opinions. Nor your facts. I've only maintained that in the face of the data you present I still believe there is more. That's it. You have certainly exhibited behavior you accuse me of. And your attempt to call me a cowardly lion is pathetic. I don't have any names to call you though. So enjoy yet another feeble attempt to insult me. Care to give it another go?
This statement is false
-
Look in a mirror lately? I've said nothing regarding other's opinions. Nor your facts. I've only maintained that in the face of the data you present I still believe there is more. That's it. You have certainly exhibited behavior you accuse me of. And your attempt to call me a cowardly lion is pathetic. I don't have any names to call you though. So enjoy yet another feeble attempt to insult me. Care to give it another go?
This statement is false