0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
An interesting coincidence - an article by Mustafa Akyol in the 'Hurriyet Daily News' (Istambul), quoted in 'The Week':Quote... Between the seventh and 13th centuries, Muslim scientists and thinkers were "the most erudite and productive ones in the world". ... So what went wrong? There are many complicated reasons behind the loss of influence, but one factor is the change in Muslim outlook. Back then, Muslims were part of a confident, cosmopolitan civilisation that was open to foreign cultures. Today, by contrast, the "common Muslim mind" is "insular", focused on protecting the "Islamic" sphere from the ideas of "the unbelievers".Having been a target of the unpleasant side of this 'protective' attitude on this thread, I have to agree.
... Between the seventh and 13th centuries, Muslim scientists and thinkers were "the most erudite and productive ones in the world". ... So what went wrong? There are many complicated reasons behind the loss of influence, but one factor is the change in Muslim outlook. Back then, Muslims were part of a confident, cosmopolitan civilisation that was open to foreign cultures. Today, by contrast, the "common Muslim mind" is "insular", focused on protecting the "Islamic" sphere from the ideas of "the unbelievers".
The article continues: QuoteIf Muslims want more Nobel Prizes, and the knowledge and success that goes with them, "we must begin by challenging this close-mindedness".Quite; I wish them luck
If Muslims want more Nobel Prizes, and the knowledge and success that goes with them, "we must begin by challenging this close-mindedness".
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/08/2013 21:59:15The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness, Would you care to define consciouness?
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness,
Having defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/08/2013 21:59:15The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousnessThose of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness
Quote... for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .No idea what you mean by that.
... for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/08/2013 19:02:32You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .I can't parse that sentence.
You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .
QuoteTry to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously, if you want to at least ,while you are at itI don't recall posting such a link - perhaps you could repost it.
Try to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously, if you want to at least ,while you are at it
It's full of holes (it's practically made of holes) and I don't buy it. I buy this though.
I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.
Do correct me if i am wrong though , please .
Never mind , i was not done with that post of mine when you quoted it ,that's all .
Quote I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.You are the one who seems to prefer a materialistic explanation, above all ,ironically enough .
Worse : you present it as a scientific fact ,which is certainly not .
Quote from: dlorde on 24/08/2013 00:25:45Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.Indeed : you are perfectly entiteld to that opinion of yours : just do not tell me it is a scientific fact : see the difference ?
Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.
What i meant is : that so-called computation or emergence property theory cannot be applied to human consciousness, for obvious reasons ,simply because human consciousness is a non-biological process
Never mind my bold and harsh language : i mean it well .
It's only via some honest passionate hard talk that we can progress indeed .
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/08/2013 09:07:47Would you care to define consciouness? I am not qualified enough to do just that : human consciousness is as obvious as human free will is that they do not need to be defined really though, i guess.Or as Augustine used to say regarding the human free will, for example : i do not know what free will is , where it begins or where it ends , but i do know that free will does exist .
Would you care to define consciouness?
QuoteHaving defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.Please do identify a biological non-human system, as you put it , or a non-human living organism which does possess human consciousness .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/08/2013 18:49:52Quote from: dlorde on 24/08/2013 00:25:45Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.Indeed : you are perfectly entiteld to that opinion of yours : just do not tell me it is a scientific fact : see the difference ?I wouldn't dream of it; it's simply the most plausible explanation for the available evidence - see the difference?
QuoteWhat i meant is : that so-called computation or emergence property theory cannot be applied to human consciousness, for obvious reasons ,simply because human consciousness is a non-biological processClearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is non-biological, then you can't examine it from a biological perspective. But why make that assumption?
Consciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.
By studying it as a biological process, we have learned a great deal that we would not otherwise have learned. That's all we aim to do; learn about and try to explain what we observe.
For proof and truth try mathematics or logic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/08/2013 18:40:44Quote from: alancalverd on 24/08/2013 09:07:47Would you care to define consciouness? I am not qualified enough to do just that : human consciousness is as obvious as human free will is that they do not need to be defined really though, i guess.Or as Augustine used to say regarding the human free will, for example : i do not know what free will is , where it begins or where it ends , but i do know that free will does exist .
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, and you know the name of someone else who didn't know what he was talking about.
QuoteQuoteHaving defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.Please do identify a biological non-human system, as you put it , or a non-human living organism which does possess human consciousness .I didn't "put it". But since you ask, a biological nonhuman system could be a bacterium or a tree. However as you won't tell me what you mean by consciousness, I can't possibly tell you if either of them possesses it, and by your own admission above, you wouldn't understand the answer anyway.
Face it, Don, just stringing words together does not constitute intelligent conversation, especially if you don't know what they mean.
.. i can turn those statements of yours upside down ,by stating the exact opposite of your words : Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is biological , then you cannot examine it from a non-biological perspective .But , why make that assumption then ? What makes you think that consciousness is biological ?QuoteConsciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.
Look, my personal experiences ... ,my humble knowledge , ancient wisdoms, personal experiences of others on the matter , ...my own beliefs ..my intuition ...my common sense ...do tell me that humanity will never be able to know what the nature or function of human consciousness are , but i might be wrong indeed
you have to come up with some serious explanation of human consciousness ,if you wanna convince me...
And who said that consciousness functions independently via some mysterious "mechanisms " ,otherwise it would not need our bodies . Our consciousness will not need our bodies after death though
This is also no scientific statement of mine as well
human consciousness has a biological side it cannot do without indeed : our brain mainly : that's what gives you the illusion that consciousness is biological only = our brains or bodies are just its hosts it cannot do without on this earth and in this life on earth at least , but the ultimate nature and function of our consciousness is not biological
just try to explain to me then and once again , something i asked you many times to do ,but you did not try to do so far , explain to me then how , on earth, can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ?
QuoteFor proof and truth try mathematics or logic.I assume that my earlier links concerning maths had proved to you the fact that there are unprovable things out there ,and that even maths cannot prove certain true premises to be true .You just ignored that fact which was demonstrated by some brilliant mathematicians ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/08/2013 23:52:55Never mind my bold and harsh language : i mean it well .Insults are rarely meant well.
QuoteIt's only via some honest passionate hard talk that we can progress indeed .Progress is made by informed debate.
If you want to be taken seriously, try omitting the ad hominem attacks; they're are usually taken as a sign that you don't have a good argument or refutation. If you have a good argument or refutation use it, concisely if possible
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/08/2013 19:00:20Never mind , i was not done with that post of mine when you quoted it ,that's all .Oh, I see. Perhaps it would help if you finished writing it before posting it.
QuoteQuote I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.You are the one who seems to prefer a materialistic explanation, above all ,ironically enough .Well yes, that's true; you prefer a non-materialistic explanation, I prefer a materialistic one. How is that ironic?
QuoteWorse : you present it as a scientific fact ,which is certainly not .No; as always, I suggest it is the most plausible explanation given prior knowledge and the evidence to date.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/08/2013 20:54:24.. i can turn those statements of yours upside down ,by stating the exact opposite of your words : Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is biological , then you cannot examine it from a non-biological perspective .But , why make that assumption then ? What makes you think that consciousness is biological ?QuoteConsciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.QuoteLook, my personal experiences ... ,my humble knowledge , ancient wisdoms, personal experiences of others on the matter , ...my own beliefs ..my intuition ...my common sense ...do tell me that humanity will never be able to know what the nature or function of human consciousness are , but i might be wrong indeedIndeed. The history of knowledge acquisition shows that uncorroborated personal experience, intuition, ancient wisdom, and common sense, are poor guides to objective reality; that's precisely why the scientific method you made such a fuss about earlier has been so successful - it attempts to minimize the effects of those influences.
Quoteyou have to come up with some serious explanation of human consciousness ,if you wanna convince me...I don't want to (and clearly can't) convince you. Only you can do that.
QuoteAnd who said that consciousness functions independently via some mysterious "mechanisms " ,otherwise it would not need our bodies . Our consciousness will not need our bodies after death thoughTo me, this is contradictory. If consciousness doesn't need the body after death, then it must be able to function independently. To do this, there must be some means to sustain it, i.e. some unspecified and unevidenced (mysterious) mechanism
QuoteThis is also no scientific statement of mine as well Nor is it coherent or consistent.
Quotehuman consciousness has a biological side it cannot do without indeed : our brain mainly : that's what gives you the illusion that consciousness is biological only = our brains or bodies are just its hosts it cannot do without on this earth and in this life on earth at least , but the ultimate nature and function of our consciousness is not biologicalWhich is it - consciousness can't exist without the biological body, or it can?
Quote just try to explain to me then and once again , something i asked you many times to do ,but you did not try to do so far , explain to me then how , on earth, can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ? I've already explained and provided references for how it arises from coordinated brain processes. What is not yet explained is the nature of subjective experience - beyond simply 'that is what it is like to be a human/ape/dolphin/etc'. Nevertheless, it is early days in the exploration of the nature of subjective experience. So far, all indications are that it is a complex emergent phenomenon generated by brain processes. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.
QuoteQuoteFor proof and truth try mathematics or logic.I assume that my earlier links concerning maths had proved to you the fact that there are unprovable things out there ,and that even maths cannot prove certain true premises to be true .You just ignored that fact which was demonstrated by some brilliant mathematicians ... I'm well aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. He proved them using mathematics and logic. That axiomatic systems can make certain true statements that are not provable within the system is a restricted result; it has no effect on mathematical provability in general. I assumed you would know that.
So, to date, I've given numerous reasoned explanations why I take the approach and viewpoint that I do. All I've seen from you is screeds of handwaving, ad-hominems, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the science, and (mainly) argument from incredulity and assertions of belief. No reasoned or rational arguments at all.
If you wish to maintain that consciousness is somehow special, and can't be treated like any other phenomenon arising from physical processes, yet can't or won't give a reasoned explanation for that position, that's a fallacy known as 'special pleading'. But you knew that, right?
No, those were no insults ,just hard talk = my own expression of tough love for you as a fellow human being .
I was just trying to make you realise the fact that you do confuse materialism as a world view with scientifc facts , that's all .
The materialistic approach of human consciousness has thus more to do with materialism as a world view ,than with science itself .
If you want me to refute that materialistic view regarding human consciousness, then,it's pretty logical to expect from me that i just address that materialistic world view regarding consciousness ,which is certainly not a scientific fact .
Right : you are indeed perfectly entiteld to hold any world view you might prefer to hold , that's just ironic in the sense that materialism is an exclusive world view : so, when you quoted that Turkish guy talking about that true close-mindedness of many current muslims , you did not realise that materialism is also and mainly an exclusive close-minded ,narrow-minded world view = there is the irony you did not detect .
Quote... I suggest it is the most plausible explanation given prior knowledge and the evidence to date.No , it's not : i responded to that earlier : you just make the available data concerning neuro-science fit into your materialistic view of human consciousness = which makes it just a world view , not a scientific one : see the difference ? Hope so .
... I suggest it is the most plausible explanation given prior knowledge and the evidence to date.
... our subjective immaterial human consciousness cannot be approached by the material ( do not confuse the material or the physical or biological with materialism as a world view though ) science , for obvious reasons...
Well, i see that or rather speculate about that..... so, i was just speculating about the above .We can only speculate about them ......I am just speculating again ...
Again, that's just a materialistic world view regarding human consciousness , i can address only via other alternative non-materialistic world views .
... i am no expert on the matter though , not even remotely close : i just know that there are things we cannot prove to be true as such ,even though they might be true ...= there might be other levels of reality out there which escape any human reason, logic , science ...simply because we are just a very tiny tiny tiny part of the huge universe or multiuniverses which are still expanding = the materialistic key hole or tunnel vision is just that in fact .
QuoteSo, to date, I've given numerous reasoned explanations why I take the approach and viewpoint that I do. All I've seen from you is screeds of handwaving, ad-hominems, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the science, and (mainly) argument from incredulity and assertions of belief. No reasoned or rational arguments at all. ... human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science , which means that we can address them only via world views , personal experiences, wisdoms...
If human consciousness is just a biological process, then one should expect it to be 'captured " , localised , ....Did you ever see it ,touch it ....?