The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?  (Read 307409 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #300 on: 24/09/2013 17:27:06 »
Quote
See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Apart from everyone else, that is.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #301 on: 24/09/2013 18:04:47 »
Quote
See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .
Apart from everyone else, that is.
Yeah. We covered that at length in What's the real origin of the scientific method?, where it turned out the title was less a question, more a rhetorical preface to a diatribe on the Islamic contribution. For example:
Those muslims did much much more , including giving birth to science itself ... i am talking here mainly about the fact that science owes its very existence to muslims indeed .
and so-on.
« Last Edit: 24/09/2013 18:15:35 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #302 on: 24/09/2013 19:11:06 »
We should thus stop seeing religion, or Islam in this case ,  and science as concurrents or as opposite opponents .

*** Exactly my point!

You appear to be attacking science because it is not religious enough.

No, i was just attacking that untrue ideological reductionism as a secular religion in science : see the difference ?

Quote
it is a false conception of nature and the universe

That cannot be. Science, by its very nature, is only a tool to "investigate" and "explain" the nature of the universe. This is like saying that a microscope is a conception of the nature of micro-biology.

I am talking , once again, about reductionism as an ideology in science,not about science proper  : can't you see the difference ?

Quote

we cannot know everything there is to know out there via our human limited faculties

Nobody on this forum would disagree with you there but, as you said, we have more to come. I am sure that this universe - Gods universe - hasn't finished with us yet - one day we may not even be able to call ourselves human by any yardstick we use today. Until then, and beyond, I hope with all my heart, that science continues on its mission, using whatever tools best fit the job, and tries to explain absolutely everything WITHOUT reference to God; better still, on the fundamental assumption that there is no God - it's ALL up to us. This is the best way to learn. Whether by chemistry or divine will we have been given the drive to classify and the tools with which to do it. My guess is, either way, that means that we are meant to use them.

God is not the field of science : science is not interested in God ,so to speak,  science can thus neither pretend to prove nor disprove the existence of God : why bring God up in this discussion then , discussion concerning reductionism in science ?.
The main issue here is that dominance of that untrue reductionism in science , not science proper .
That reductionism in science that gotta be replaced by a more or less valid conception of nature .


Quote
Gennlemen, if this works then thank you indeed!

What are you talking about ?
« Last Edit: 24/09/2013 19:16:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #303 on: 24/09/2013 19:21:27 »
... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..
Ouch - there goes another irony meter...

Thanks for that cheryl, I missed it first time round.

I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...

As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool".

I did already say that that alleged "radar " haha was not really realiable, as my own belief warns me about by the way .
Why don't you try to focuss on the real issues i was bringing up, instead of this unnuanced none-sense of yours ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #304 on: 24/09/2013 19:22:57 »
Quote
See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .
Apart from everyone else, that is.
Yeah. We covered that at length in What's the real origin of the scientific method?, where it turned out the title was less a question, more a rhetorical preface to a diatribe on the Islamic contribution. For example:
Those muslims did much much more , including giving birth to science itself ... i am talking here mainly about the fact that science owes its very existence to muslims indeed .
and so-on.

Well, that thread in question speaks for itself ,so.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #305 on: 24/09/2013 19:24:37 »
Quote
See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Apart from everyone else, that is.

What do you have to say about reductionism in science , genius ?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #306 on: 24/09/2013 19:35:43 »
... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..
Ouch - there goes another irony meter... I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...
I did already say that that alleged "radar " haha was not really realiable, as my own belief warns me about by the way .
Oh boy... your own belief warns you when the 'sophisticated radar or 6th sense' that allows you to tell what's reliable, is unreliable?

Quote
Why don't you try to focuss on the real issues i was bringing up, instead of this unnuanced none-sense of yours ?
If you could post them clearly and concisely instead of camouflaging them in flannel and distractions, they might be easier to focus on. Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #307 on: 24/09/2013 19:50:03 »

There gotta be some more fundamental underlying principles , more fundamental than those laws of physics , otherwise , neither the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of evolution , nor the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of the origin of life , to mention just that , can explain the emergence of life from dead or inanimate inorganic matter , or can explain consciousness ...






Well, when you discover them and can identify them, and verify to others that they exist, let me know. So far this is all I could find in the past 12 pages of posts that you have offered as an alternative a means to understanding consciousness, and I quote:

"The real awareness or self awareness ,  the real consciousness or self-consciousness do exist only at the levels of some adult humans , and they can be improved as well = extended levels of awareness , self-awareness, consciousness, self-consciousness ...they can be extended via meditation , personal experiences , ....via prayers ...via hard work ...via certain world views ...
Action triggered by or in fact as equal to the human mind put in motion via Higgins' field that maybe , just maybe gets in its turn made in motion by a higher power that might hold everything existing together for that matter, our minds that depend on or tend to long for unity with that fundamental root capacity of that higher power or root  Self  , that action might be the core " building block element " of the  "structure "  of the universe , who knows ?
(Heart's intelligence as the highest form of intelligence or intellect , heart as no emotions feelings , or biological organ , once again. Heart as intuition or intuitive insights : informed experienced developed extended intuition, not the ordinary intuition that 's not really reliable though  )
...we can try to approach consciousness via trying to extend our levels of consciousness via personal experiences shaped by certain world views, by the personal experiences of others on the subject , by ancient wisdoms on the subject..
I think that human consciousness does not only hold THE  key to unveiling major mysteries in this universe , but also that  the most important and next level of human evolution at the level of consciousness  is yet to be undertaken by humanity as a whole  , while grasping its incredible implications for all humanity...
But, it takes hard work, life experiences, it takes flirting with death itself and looking it deep in the eye  ....it takes blood sweat and tears , joy , rise and fall ,setbacks and breakthroughs ....to just be able to develop that 6th sense that makes one sharp alert and awake sober lucid enough to know , not just believe in, there are   whole unimaginable dimentions and levels of reality out there our powerful developed mind can make us able to approach somehow , to some degree at least .
humans can be trained to develop those consciousness powers or skils in themselves, by developing their 'contacts " with their consciousness via some means
High levels of consciousness can also be experienced only under certain meditation and other spiritual circumstances where the body or the material world cease to "exist " or cease to be perceived as such for the given person under those meditation or under other spiritual states ,due to that extremely targeted attention or focuss of the given person at the level of the pure consciousness
Critical thinking might be a better word to approach what people claim to experience , but then again, critical thinking fails short at the level of "pure " consciousness  "beyond thought "
This might seem to you as just semantics , but i see no better way to put it to you , since "pure 'consciousness via meditation and via other spiritual means is , per definition, uncommunicable = words fail short to describe it .
The only way to figure out all that for yourself in that regard is by trying to experience those states of consciousness yourself via meditation or via other spiritual means : science or critical thinking alone cannot help you in that regard ,since "pure " consciousness is beyond thought , science .
But then again, you would say : there is nothing more tricky deceptive and elusive than spirituality ,i would say : that's the beauty of it : we gotta try to figure it out for ourselves = an endless restless dynamic journey = a journey far more exciting and challenging difficult ..than science can ever be ,even thou science can help us somehow on that spiritual path we gotta take as well
I see this natural reality as just a veil that deprives us from seeing  the underlying true real reality ,the latter we can only See above : the only way to figure that out for yourself is by trying to experience those states of consciousnsess, via meditation and via other spiritual means = that's beyond the territory of conventional science and thought . try to approach via spirituality,once again
Only real true mystics can experience the relatively full scale of human consciousness or pure consciousness and beyond
But , art , meditation, spirituality , creative work ....music ....love...do make me get in touch , sometimes , with incredible states of consciousness , awareness, self-awareness ...that are , per definition, uncommunicable as the mystics say , science can never be able to give me .
Words cannot describe those states of consciousness i do experience sometimes , and i can tell you with relative confidence= i am not really sure , who can be in that context ?,  that i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..
Did it ever occur to you that human consciousness might exist and function outside of the laws of physics ?"

End Quote

Well, do not try to derail the discussion, honey, please :
In a discussion, views change , thanks to that discussion exchange: that's the purpose ,beauty ,meaning , value, and utility of a constructive discussion .
I was  just  talking about the disease and its sympthoms in science = reductionism and its exclusively physical biological conception of nature that's obviously untrue .
Nagel ,so far as i can tell from reading some parts of his "Mind and cosmos ..." book , proposes an alternative to reductionism in the form of a non-reductionist naturalism : that's all what a secular guy can come up with : a non-reductionist naturalism in science that allegedly can explain the fact concerning how nature might have  generated the mind or consciousness ,reductionism cannot explain the latter via its handicaped reductionist and incomplete exclusive physical biological approach or rather conception of nature ,obviously  .
I ,personally , think that science cannot alone explain consciousness, there gotta be a holistic approach to that that can try to tackle that hard problem of consciousness,life ...and their evolutions via a non-reductionist conception of nature . .
Sheldrake, for example, talks about morphic fields underlying the laws of physics, i suppose , if i am not mistaken .
In short :
The best way to solve the  problem of reductionism in science is by trying to put the finger on the problem itself and its sympthoms ,by defining them  clearly,as Nagel does ,for example,  ,and then by trying to look for some alternatives to the reductionism problem in science that has been crippling science in trying to figure out consciousness, life ...and their evolutions via a complete valid alternative that's not reductiionistic  . .


There gotta be some fundamental underlying principles out there , obviously, more fundamental than and underlying those laws of physics themsleves , otherwise , there is no true scientific way to approach the hard problem of consciousness, life ...their origins or their evolutions , a true eventual scientific way that should include the fact that consciousness , life ...their origins and evolution cannot be exclusively explained by just physical biological reductionist approaches ,no way  : that materialist reductionist magical approach of consciousness,life ...their origins and their evolutions ... is just a way to avoid the problem that cannot be avoided that way for a long time thus .
See what Nagel has to say on the subject then .
I am really fed up with your silly denials and exit starategies .
Just know that : ideas are first opposed , ridiculed and then accepted as such as obvious evidence afterwards = you gotta try to go through just that process, or not , who cares ...- your silly attitudes won't change the facts on the reality ground concerning all the above ...
Scientific guys  you are , my ass , excuse my French ...


« Last Edit: 24/09/2013 20:10:40 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #308 on: 24/09/2013 20:00:04 »
... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..
Ouch - there goes another irony meter... I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...
I did already say that that alleged "radar " haha was not really realiable, as my own belief warns me about by the way .
Oh boy... your own belief warns you when the 'sophisticated radar or 6th sense' that allows you to tell what's reliable, is unreliable?

Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .
I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .
Quote
Quote
Why don't you try to focuss on the real issues i was bringing up, instead of this unnuanced none-sense of yours ?
If you could post them clearly and concisely instead of camouflaging them in flannel and distractions, they might be easier to focus on. Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?

What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .
I have even referred you to a more competent guy on the subject than myself .
If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations  and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #309 on: 24/09/2013 20:22:51 »
Quote
Quote
I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
Care to explain how God is relevant to science?

Did i say that God is to science ?
You know what : you are out of the pic again : i am not even gonna respond to the rest of your silly denials,misinterpretations of my views , lack of understanding what people tell you .. ...I will ignore you from now on , simply because you are not only not serious , but you are also a guy who are not willing to consider non-reductionist views ...so, why should i bother wasting my time on you ? I will not , from now on :
Just read that book of Nagel then , or not , who gives a f...?
What kindda "scientific " guys are you ? Unbelievable .


This issue of reductionism in science is an  extremely  relevant one to the progress of science ,you have no idea , not just only to  non-reductionist sites or whatever ...This issue of that untrue rductionism in science is a huge issue to mankind's evolution, progress , development ............................to say just that .
« Last Edit: 24/09/2013 20:26:39 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #310 on: 24/09/2013 21:08:19 »
Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .
I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .
I know; but it's hard to be serious when you say stuff like that. Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque :)
 
Quote
Quote
... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?
What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .
So, you can't remember either? :)

Quote
If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations  and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .
If I don't agree with you I need a psychiatrist? Disappointing stuff... playground taunts really don't help your credibility.
« Last Edit: 24/09/2013 21:10:08 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #311 on: 24/09/2013 21:24:52 »
Quote
Quote
I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
Care to explain how God is relevant to science?

Did i say that God is to science ?
C'mon Don, it's simple logic; if, as you say, God is not irrelevant for science, then in what way is God relevant to science?

Quote
... i am not even gonna respond to the rest of your silly denials,misinterpretations of my views , lack of understanding what people tell you .. ...I will ignore you from now on , simply because you are not only not serious , but you are also a guy who are not willing to consider non-reductionist views ...so, why should i bother wasting my time on you ? I will not , from now on :
Oh no, not again... :)

For everyone else's benefit, why don't you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged?
« Last Edit: 24/09/2013 21:56:15 by dlorde »
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #312 on: 24/09/2013 22:11:17 »
No, i was just attacking that untrue ideological reductionism as a secular religion in science : see the difference ?
..
I am talking , once again, about reductionism as an ideology in science,not about science proper  : can't you see the difference ?
 

I can see the difference between a saw and the art of carpentry. Reductionism is a tool, a method, and it produces results. I cannot understand how it could be considered an "ideology" or a "religion".

God is not the field of science : science is not interested in God ,so to speak,  science can thus neither pretend to prove nor disprove the existence of God : why bring God up in this discussion then , discussion concerning reductionism in science ?.
I absolutely agree with the first part of this statement, I do not believe that science is pretending anything - or trying to and I see no reason to imagine that it is. In answer to your question, I didn't; actually you did. I followed your reference to see if you agreed with the first part of your statement.

I would be fascinated to hear what it is about reductionism that makes you classify it as any more than a method or tool, if that would not stray to far off the subject of this thread.

The thanks was for your information on using the quote feature - it wasn't a bad first try! :)
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #313 on: 25/09/2013 01:20:11 »
Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them. No matter what logical evidence you support your arguments with, no matter what credible scientific studies provide positive proof for something, they will say "But it fails to explain this other thing," followed by an ideological rant about why something is "obviously" false just because they keep saying it is.  What's worse, they offer no reasonable, verifiable alternative for any of it.
Don essentially says you cannot expect him to provide scientific proof of the immaterial because it is immaterial. And my response is "Great! Go post these immaterial things on the The Mystical Angel My Little Pony Website."

« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 01:34:51 by cheryl j »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #314 on: 25/09/2013 01:54:23 »


For everyone else's benefit, why don't you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged?


Yes, Don, I have asked this, as have several other posters. What is "science proper" ???You keep saying science proper is "more than" reductionism, so tell us how science proper works without isolating and controlling certain variables in an experiment and taking things apart to see how things work?  Tell me how to do a scientific experiment in a "non-reductionist" or "holistic" way. Give me an example. If you can't do that, everything you've said is basically BS, or at least, not science.   
« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 02:04:36 by cheryl j »
 

Offline Europan Ocean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #315 on: 25/09/2013 05:40:44 »
dlorde, these Doctors are interested in the dualism or humanism, what creates consciousness question:

There is Dr Melvin Morse:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts06.html

Dr Pim Van Lommel
Dr Eben Alexander who recommends:
http://www.lifebeyonddeath.net/reading-list-0
Dr Peter Fenwick.
Dr Bruce Greyson.
Dr Charbonier.
Dr Donald Whitaker.
Dr Maurice Rawlings.
Dr Heather Ross.
Dr LLoyd Rudy.
Dr George Ritchie.
Dr Raymond Moody.
They are on youtube free...
« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 05:47:54 by Europan Ocean »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #316 on: 25/09/2013 09:56:22 »
dlorde, these Doctors are interested in the dualism or humanism, what creates consciousness question:
OK, thanks. So not doctors in general, but 11 particular doctors.

There are lots of people interested in the dualism/monism issue; I was wondering why you decided to pick a few doctors?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #317 on: 25/09/2013 10:05:07 »
Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them.
They can be useful practice... up to a point. This one either becomes insulting and rude or stops responding (temporarily) when you point out flaws in his logic or try to pin him down to reasoned arguments.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #318 on: 25/09/2013 12:17:09 »
Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque :)
 

But it happens in real life. "Flight 401" is an infamous instance. Approaching their destination, the crew lowered the undercarriage but one of the "three greens" (lamps signifying "undercarriage locked") didn't appear. So they faffed around trying to change the bulb, peer out of the window at the wheels, and generally do everything except fly the plane, which flew itself into the Everglades and killed 101 people.   

I have the same problem with officious twits who insist (at your expense) on putting "warning lights" outside x-ray rooms. If the bulb fails (which it does, because the light is on for most of the working day) you have signalled a dangerous area as safe!   
« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 12:20:10 by alancalverd »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #319 on: 25/09/2013 14:39:54 »
Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque :)
 

But it happens in real life. "Flight 401" is an infamous instance. Approaching their destination, the crew lowered the undercarriage but one of the "three greens" (lamps signifying "undercarriage locked") didn't appear. So they faffed around trying to change the bulb, peer out of the window at the wheels, and generally do everything except fly the plane, which flew itself into the Everglades and killed 101 people.
Sorry, I don't get it - how is that similar to having a reliability indicator for a reliability indicator?

I was also wondering if he could use each 'sixth sense' to tell whether the other was reliable, and how reliable the combination could be - which one would he believe? :)
« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 14:42:26 by dlorde »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #320 on: 25/09/2013 15:05:28 »
It's an unreliable indicator of the reliability of an unreliable system, which is actually less unreliable than the indicator. These things abound on aircraft, fuel gauges being the most prominent. Because fuel is stored in the very flat wings and the whole thing tilts in all directions, "level" isn't a reliable indication of content. Because it is also subject to varying g forces, weight isn't a useful indicator either. In fact for most small aircraft, sticking your finger in the tank before you start, and using a stopwatch, is the most reliable indication of remaining fuel, but the Authorities demand that (a) you must have an expensive and useless bit of electical gadgetry and (b) you must be taught to ignore it. 

I think DonQ is actually female. When accused of talking improbable nonsense my mum used to say "I just know". 
« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 15:22:53 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #321 on: 25/09/2013 16:23:28 »
Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .
I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .
I know; but it's hard to be serious when you say stuff like that. Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque :)

I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :

This is a side issue you're making such a fuss about,an easy one  : I told you that that "radar " ,so to speak, is relatively unreliable : my own faith or religion  tells me it is indeed.
Got it ?
When i said that you should not try to derail this discussion you cannot handle obviously : I meant : you either misinterpret my views or do not understand them properly as i meant them to be at least , you distort them beyond any recognition, you quote parts   of my statements by isolating them from their actual context , ...and you do put words in my mouth that are not mine ...to say just that :
Just try to compare  what i said in my previous posts to  how you responded to them as described above .
Example : I said that the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian approach or conception of evolution ( as the direct consequence  of the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature thus ) ,  for instance ,  is just  a reductionist misinterpretation of evolution   = the reductionist version of evolution that has no evidence to support it : in the sense that evolution is not exclusively biological physical , otherwise we cannot explain life , consciousness, their origins and their evolution fully .
You did not understand that : your response was like this : there is plenty of or overwhelming empirical evidence regarding   evolution ....
Compare what i said here to your reply then : i said 1 thing and you responded with a totally  different other  .
There is indeed overwhelming evidence regarding the biological physical side of evolution , but i was not talking about the latter , just about the reductionist exclusively biological physical version of evolution as a whole .

What i meant by  the reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian misinterpretation of evolution that has nothing to support it ,once again= the reductionist version of evolution, was  rather this in fact : evolution cannot be explained by just those reductionist naturaist neo-Darwinian exclusive biological physical explanations approaches , simply because evolution has a non-biological non-physical side to it as well , so , there is nothing out there that supports the reductionist assumption or reductionist version of evolution that evolution  is just a matter of exclusively physical biological processes .
Got it ?
Plus , those reductionist exclusive biological physical approaches  of evolution give just an incomplete acccount of evolution, simply because evolution has a non-physical non-biological side to it also = the reductionist version of evolution has nothing to support it = evolution is not exclusively biological physical .
Another example : i see it here below in 1 of your posts , i will respond to in a sec .
There are plenty of statements of mine like that , either you do not understand, misquote way out of their context , misinterpret ...beyond ny recognition...
Another example : i said that the reductionist "emergence " trick regarding consciousness is indeed reductionistic , in the sense that it reduces consciousness to biological processes : i did not say that the purely physical biological emergence phenomena were / are reductionist = only that "emergence " reductionist magical trick regarding consciousness is reductionist : see the difference ?

 
Quote
Quote
Quote
... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?
What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .
So, you can't remember either? :)

Quote
If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations  and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .
If I don't agree with you I need a psychiatrist? Disappointing stuff... playground taunts really don't help your credibility.

These statements of yours are yet another major example of what i was saying here above regarding your  gross misinterpretations of my words :
That you would agree-disagree with me is certainly  not the issue here : that's a rather pretty normal fact = that's 1 of the reasons why i am here , in order to learn from different views, different conceptions of nature , from different world views ...from science proper that shuld not be confused with those reductionist world views, reductionist conception of nature ......
What i meant was : if you cannot either understand what i was saying regarding reductionism to the point that you distort and misinterpret my words on the subject beyond any recognition , or if you cannot see how you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by reductionism you obviously still do confuse with science proper , than is that not my problem, but yours to handle, otherwise go see a shrink : that's what i meant when i said shall i draw you a pic ,when you responded that i was not clear enough or not concise : it is not that i was not clear enough , maybe  i was ,to some degree at least : it is in fact you who do not understand my words , distort them , misinterprets them , takes them out of context ,...beyond any recognition ....

« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 16:37:23 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #322 on: 25/09/2013 16:48:10 »
I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :
You're funny :)

I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
So anyway Don, are you going to explain this? how is God relevant to science?

And while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?

Both questions have been asked more than once and ignored so far.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #323 on: 25/09/2013 17:21:38 »
Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them. No matter what logical evidence you support your arguments with, no matter what credible scientific studies provide positive proof for something, they will say "But it fails to explain this other thing," followed by an ideological rant about why something is "obviously" false just because they keep saying it is.  What's worse, they offer no reasonable, verifiable alternative for any of it.
Don essentially says you cannot expect him to provide scientific proof of the immaterial because it is immaterial. And my response is "Great! Go post these immaterial things on the The Mystical Angel My Little Pony Website."

You got it all wrong , honey : see what i said to dlorde on the subject right here  above .
The exclusively biological physical reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is false , simply because it obviously and intrinsically inherently misses the non-biological non-physical side of nature ,as Nagel said, that's why he proposed a non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature,as an alternative to reductionism  .
Besides, that reductionist exclusively biological physical conception of nature has therefore implications for how reductionists approach ,see and explain the emergence of life , the emergence of consciousness in nature ,and for their respective origins and evolution , logically =reductionism gives thus an incomplete account of evolution in general , of life's origins , emergence and evolution, of consciousness ' emergence origins and evolution ...

But, there is indeed overwhelming empirical evidence indeed for the biological physical side of evolution ,it's just that evolution has also a non-physical non-biological side to it as well ,reductionism tries so desperately to reduce to just physical biological processes , simply because reductionism , per definition, cannot do otherwise .

All those wonderful amazing great "miracles " achieved by science proper were the direct consequences of the scientific method used by scientists  ,were  the direct consequences of the effective and unparralleled scientific method thus that's like no other : reductionism in science has absolutely nothing to do with all those scientific results and huge advances ...= reductionism just takes a free ride on the  unwilling back of science proper , in order to validate itself  so desperately  , in vain .

In short :

The main core issue here is that reductionist naturalist neo-Darwinian misconception of nature in science .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #324 on: 25/09/2013 17:54:58 »
I will give you yet another chance , the very last one , after that , if you screw up again, we will have to go our separate ways :
You're funny :)

No, i am certainly not in this case , i am deadly serious : remember your oversensitivity whenever someone misquotes you : you were not only misquoting my words , but you also did not understand them properly as i meant them to be at least , you distorted misinterpreted them beyond any recognition ...so.
Maybe , i did not formulate my answers properly : in that case , you should have asked for a better formulation, instead of  distorting my views ..
If one would continue  doing just that , there is absolutely no point in continuing any discusions for that matter with him / her : that would be an utter and total waste of time .

Quote
I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
So anyway Don, are you going to explain this? how is God relevant to science?

I told you here above that i would react to that , didn't i ?
I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?
You still continue to misquote me , i see : my patience with you is really running out .
Anyway :
This is another example  concerning the fact that you were taking my words out of context by just quoting some parts of my statements on the subject : why didn't you quote the whole sentense  ?

I said : God is not the field of science , i see dlorde here saying to you that God is irrelevant to science , it is not the case , God is irrelevant only to reductionism in science in fact , reductionism as a secular religion in science ...stuff like that .
So, God is neither  irrelevant nor relevant  to science proper , simply because God is not the field of science,so to speak then ...
You're really making me nuts with these misquotes , distortions ...of my words .

Quote
And while you're at it, can you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged as you advocate?

Science has its own effective unparalleled method thanks to and through which science has been able to achieve all those "miracles " : what has reductionism as a misconception of nature  to do with science proper or with the scientific method , scientific approaches, scientific results = absolutely nothing= reductionism was/is  just crippling science via its reductionist meta-paradigm in science in fact ... .
Reductionism is no method , just a world view in science = a misconception of nature in science = science needs to be guided by a more or less valid non-reductionist  meta-paradigm in science = a non-reductionist naturalist one maybe , as Nagel proposes at least ...........

Quote
Both questions have been asked more than once and ignored so far.

Both questions were  previously  answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .
« Last Edit: 25/09/2013 18:01:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What, on Earth, is The Human Consciousness?
« Reply #324 on: 25/09/2013 17:54:58 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums