[dlorde]

...there is no reason to say that any species for that matter is superior or inferior to any other one for that matter , in the materialistic sense at least= i think humans are obviously and essentially way too superior to any other known living species or  known  living organisms on earth at least , despite the fact that many other  living organisms do surpass us in this area or that  .

I thought this was worth re-quoting just for surreality

[alancalverd]

Some people have a pretty high opinion of homo sapiens. But every other species sees us only as food or the enemy. Now with several million other species out there, the majority opinion among God's creation is clearly against us. And when I encounter a pompous fool, I'm tempted to side with the majority.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Small minds discuss...people .

and morons rehash drivel whilst throwing insults at those trying to hold an intelligent discussion.

Though I'm not even sure about the precepts here. Anyone can come up with an idea, but it takes a great mind to suggest a critical experiment (i.e. a series of events) that might support or disprove the idea. And it takes a bold mind to question a popular authority. Which is why I value science way above philosophy, and have no time for the discussion of undefined abstractions.

Finished preaching ?

It takes only xerox machines sort of people to repeat or copy  what others might say ,while distorting the actual reality at hand ;but the real xerox machines do make good copies though : see the sifference ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Some people have a pretty high opinion of homo sapiens. But every other species sees us only as food or the enemy. Now with several million other species out there, the majority opinion among God's creation is clearly against us. And when I encounter a pompous fool, I'm tempted to side with the majority.

I think you really should consider a career , as a wanna -be bombastic materialistic preacher : you might attract some followers ...who knows ?

Beware of temptations : they might be  deceptive , elusive , delusive ..:

The truth is not a matter of the opinion of the majority , is not a matter of some sort of democracy: it takes only 1 single mind to turn even science itself upside down , no matter what  the  overwhelming  majority  in science might  say on the matter .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

...there is no reason to say that any species for that matter is superior or inferior to any other one for that matter , in the materialistic sense at least= i think humans are obviously and essentially way too superior to any other known living species or  known  living organisms on earth at least , despite the fact that many other  living organisms do surpass us in this area or that  .

I thought this was worth re-quoting just for surreality:)

What's so surreal about it then ?

Why did you ignore my other quotes ? because you could not answer them maybe ?

[David Cooper]

Here's another banana for the troll.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What is "science proper" ?  How  does science work without empirical evidence and reproducible results? Even physics, one of the most theoretical areas of the physical sciences, uses empirical observations and measurements to confirm mathematical propositions or conclusions generated by thought experiments. It may, as in the case of Einstein and relativity, take technology decades to catch up with theory, but empirical experiments are eventually done. And when there are contradictions, it causes a lot of head scratching and consternation. But they don't just ignore the data.

Well, darling :

When you're gonna learn to separate between materialism as just a world view and science , when you will learn to separate science from the materialistic interpretations of science ,when you will learn to separate materialistic  world views and materialistic approaches from  science results and from scientific approaches , then , and only then , you will be able to understand what i was saying all along .

Our physical brain might be just a receiver , in almost the same fashion as the tv set is just a receiver of tv signals, tv signals that stop getting received by that tv set when the tv set or some parts of it at  least cease to function or are damaged ...= no comparison, just an analogy .

Does that mean that the tv set used to create those tv signals or images when it used to function ?


Need more examples or rather analogies?  .Just shoot .

I would be delighted to learn how to separate science from materialism, just explain how science works with out empirical evidence and reproducible results. Think of the money universities could save without all those fancy laboratories and particle accelerators!

You're distorting my views : Who said that science can be or rather exist , let alone function without observation, experience, empirical evidence , without verifiable falsifiable reproducible results ? = that's the very definition of science by the way : what has that to do with materialism as a world view then ?

How can you confuse that with materialism as a world view ? : how can you confuse materialism with science ? - you are confirming my earlier and core point on the subject .Thanks for that .

I have heard of the radio/receiver analogy for consciousness, and it is an interesting idea. But it remains just an idea until you can tell me something scientifically verifiable about that mysterious transmitter.

Nobody can , for the time being at least , if ever : i am no exception to that rule .

That "transmitter " happens to be immaterial though ,that's why i said that that radio or tv set example was just that : an analogy, no comparison  : a logical analogy  , not a scientific one .

In medicine there is something called a "zebra diagnosis." When you hear the sound of hooves, you expect to see a horse. Occasionally though, it turns out to be a zebra. The same set of observations, even though accurate, can lead you to a false conclusion, because you may be missing (or didn't think to look for) some small piece of critical information that makes a difference. Scientists have wandered down dead end paths for that reason. These kind of errors do not invalidate the entire scientific process and empiricism itself.

Ok, there  is also what we can call learned cultural or other habits of thought and behaviour out there as well that are shaped by their corresponding cultural and other world views via nurture environment , as the case here is in this thread .

(There are also biological social cultural psychological and other factors that do shape our thought and thus our behaviour )
............
Organic chemist Linda Jean Shepherd in her unique book : " Lifting the veil : the feminine face of science " : neo-feminist philosophy of science , ethics ....combined  with the so-called depth Jung's psychology she said she studied for more than 15 years , combined with  the theory of chaos , with physics of chemistry ....

She told the tales of many brilliant mathematicians and scientists who dared to say that intuition, feeling and even love made them discover some breakthroughs in their respective fields .

A great mathematician , for example , even said to her : many great ideas of mine were the products of intuition, feeling ...and that he developed the habit to tell his students : what do you feel   about this ? when he displays certain mathematical equations on the board for them .

Linda Jean left science as a result of what she described in that interesting book of hers concerning her own experiences with science and scientists , what she went through ... ,because of that exclusive rational empirical reductionist approach in science she tried to improve by a more  holistic approach  , because of that ossified dogmatic exclusive bureaucratic hieriarchial , insensitive blind reductionist specialised materialism in science : she said , or in words to that same effect at least,for example  :

We were all raised a certain way , in order to think and behave a certain way , in order to approach a certain level of reality , missing the whole spectrum of other potential levels of reality in the process .

One example among many to illustrate the above she described as follows :

The Indians , from India , to be more precize , used to tame their elephants this way :

They used to tie their new born elephants babies to a soft leaf via a soft rope .

When they grown up to become adult elephants , they would destroy their metal chains tying them to solid big trees , together with the latter sometimes, but , and here where or when the amazing thing happened :

When those same grown -up adult elephants  would be tied to a soft leaf via a soft rope , they do not even try to make the slightest effort to break free from those soft "chains " they could do so easily .

Learned helplessness is also another example of the conditioned behaviour and thought at the level of  humans , and other species ...

Theer are many examples and scientific facts like that ,so  i will leave it at this then .

She said also, for example , that she tried to observe , look at , experience , grasp ..what she sees, experiences ... differently ...

...........

Say,  you decide to travel to a foreign country , you buy a travel guide that tells you where to go in the country of your choice , what to look for , what  to expect to find , to see , what food to eat , what clothes to wear depending on the weather there , what kindda culture and people you would meet and encounter ....

But , say , you decide to overlook some aspects of those info contained in that travel guide , by unlearning some of them , you might stumble across new experiences ,facts , events ...that might startle you , and that travel guide might not turn out to be really accurate .

You would experience things yourself , not what that guide tells you what to experience or find , expect ...

.........

There was an ancient tale of a famous Arab fool that goes a bit as follows :
He was so drunk once that he lost his  home  keys in the street while trying to go back home in that drunk state of his :
A friend of his happened to see him on his knees on the ground searching for something : that friend said : what 's going on ? What are you looking for ? Can i help ? Yes , i lost my keys , the fool responded :
After hours of exhausting search on their knees covering many blocks in the process , that exhausted friend said to the fool : Are you sure  you lost your keys here ,in this area ?

The fool answered : no ,i am not .

"Why didn't you say that ,in the first place to begin with ? , Why did you  let me search all this time on my knees  for nothing ? " said the angry friend .

 "Well i thought i should  better search for them here , because there is street light  only in this area:, responded the fool  .

We might be all behaving like that Arab fool indeed ...who knows .


...

A chinese old tale goes a bit as follows i did extract from "Geography of Thought : or how westerners and Asians think and why ?" by Richard E.Nisbett  , unique book by the way , even though i do not agree much with its core secular liberal so-called evolutionary "geographic " approach :

An old poor chinese farmer lost his only horse once that he used to rely on for farming his poor tiny piece of land .
His tiny village neighbours visited him to express their empathy for his loss .
He said : we do not know whether the loss of my only horse is a good or bad thing .

A week later , the old man's lost horse came back accompanied by another horse as well : a female horse then .

The neighbours were overjoyed : the old farmer said ,once again the same thing .

After a while , the young son of the old farmer injured his knees after falling from the back of his father's returning horse .
The neighbours visited the old man again to express their sorrow for his son's injury  .

The old farmer said the same thing again .

A month or so later , the emperor's army came to towm or to that village , in order to recruit all healthy men and boys by force , by direct order of the emperor himself .

Only the old farmer's son , old men  ,and little kids , together with women girls of course ...were allowed to stay in the village .

The old farmer said the same thing again to the villagers  who rushed to him to express their joy for the fact that his injured son  was not taken by the army ...

This story goes on and on indefinitely ...like that ...

..........

Here is an analogy regarding what you said also :

Logic or reason are also as less infaillible as common sense is by the way , as David Hume used to say .

.......

Take also , for example , this analogy :

As a western lady , i assume , say , you go to the US  where many foreigners taxi-drivers are out there , or  to any foreign country for that matter :

You talk to the first taxi-driver in English after landing in the airport , he/she turns out to be no English speaker , you go to the next one , the same happens, to the third one and so on , the same happens , there is no reason to assume that the next one after all that would also turn out to be no English speaker .

Take care

[cheryl j]

If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it?  It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so.

I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up.

If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.

[cheryl j]

You're distorting my views : Who said that science can be or rather exist , let alone function without observation, experience, empirical evidence , without verifiable falsifiable reproducible results ? = that's the very definition of science by the way : what has that to do with materialism as a world view then ?

Because experiments, observations, measurements, and empirical evidence are all material processes involving material things!

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Here's another banana for the troll.

Welcome back , Mr . machine jesuit : I am delighted to have you back  .

I thought you said you were gone haha

What happened ? Was i able to trigger some mechanical mechanism in you , somehow ?

I know what particular "buttons " to push in you, don't worry .

If you happen to be looking for just that , all you have to do is just : shoot indeed.

You are welcome .

I would love to conduct some harmless innocent ethical experiments here , to be honest , i must admit .

I love bananas , i have enough of them by the way , thanks .

Can you sink even lower ?I wonder ,  I think you have already reached the bottom : you do not need any further push from anyone for that matter ,  i was not even responsible for , i was not even causing ...

Congratulations .

You are really turning into a real troll now , i see : do not preach what you do not do , Mr.mechanical hypocrit preacher .

Interesting sudden development worth studying carefully indeed .

I feel i am gonna have some real fun here : awesome .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

You're distorting my views : Who said that science can be or rather exist , let alone function without observation, experience, empirical evidence , without verifiable falsifiable reproducible results ? = that's the very definition of science by the way : what has that to do with materialism as a world view then ?

Because experiments, observations, measurements, and empirical evidence are all material processes involving material things!

Do not confuse material things, the material nature of science , or the material side of reality with ...materialism as a world view , philosophy , life style, paradigm....= 2 entirely different categories  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it?  It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so.

I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up.

If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.

There is also another option regarding the approach of consciousness, mainly because no single approach of consciousness can ever be able to claim itself to be totally scientific , not even remotely close thus , including the magical materialistic approach of consciousness thus :

Either we wait for some radical shift of paradigm in science ,or rather for a radical shift of meta-paradigm in  science,meta-paradigm  that's underlying all those paradigms or sub-paradigms in science , a radical shift of meta-paradigm that would disprove the actually mainstream materialistic dominating meta-paradigm in science =the materialistic meta-paradigm in science = that the universe is exclusively material .

Or combined with the fact that 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 , by trying to be up to date regarding what science can  relatively  say about consciousness via studying its alleged receiver some more : the brain : we still do not know much about the extreme complexity of the latter though .... = a multi-approach then that might result in some sort of holistic synthesis someday = science alone cannot really approach consciousness ...we should combine science with a holistic approach ....of consciousness ...

Art, literature , philosophy , .....can also have some say on the subject as well thus ...

I dunno .

That's just my take on that .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Later , alligators ...kidding

[cheryl j]

If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it?  It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so.

I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up.

If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.

There is also another option regarding the approach of consciousness, mainly because no single approach of consciousness can ever be able to claim itself to be totally scientific , not even remotely close thus , including the magical materialistic approach of consciousness thus :

Either we wait for some radical shift of paradigm in science ,or rather for a radical shift of meta-paradigm in  science,meta-paradigm  that's underlying all those paradigms or sub-paradigms in science , a radical shift of meta-paradigm that would disprove the actually mainstream materialistic dominating meta-paradigm in science =the materialistic meta-paradigm in science = that the universe is exclusively material .

Or combined with the fact that 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 , by trying to be up to date regarding what science can  relatively  say about consciousness via studying its alleged receiver some more : the brain : we still do not know much about the extreme complexity of the latter though .... = a multi-approach then that might result in some sort of holistic synthesis someday = science alone cannot really approach consciousness ...we should combine science with a holistic approach ....of consciousness ...

Art, literature , philosophy , .....can also have some say on the subject as well thus ...

I dunno .

That's just my take on that .

I don't see where you have really provided another option than the ones I listed above.

ancient wisdom - appeal to authority, divine revelation
philosophy -  a prior reasoning, appeal to authority
personal experience - intuitive process, lucky guess, or divine revelation
other people's personal experience - appeal to authority
Expanding consciousness to understand consciousness - intuitive, or a priori reasoning
art, literature - intuitive process, more appeals to authority.
Paradigm shift - to what? Belief in the immaterial? Which can be known or understood by what means? See above.

Combining all of the above in some "holisitic" way does not solve your problem.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it?  It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so.

I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up.

If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.

There is also another option regarding the approach of consciousness, mainly because no single approach of consciousness can ever be able to claim itself to be totally scientific , not even remotely close thus , including the magical materialistic approach of consciousness thus :

Either we wait for some radical shift of paradigm in science ,or rather for a radical shift of meta-paradigm in  science,meta-paradigm  that's underlying all those paradigms or sub-paradigms in science , a radical shift of meta-paradigm that would disprove the actually mainstream materialistic dominating meta-paradigm in science =the materialistic meta-paradigm in science = that the universe is exclusively material .

Or combined with the fact that 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 , by trying to be up to date regarding what science can  relatively  say about consciousness via studying its alleged receiver some more : the brain : we still do not know much about the extreme complexity of the latter though .... = a multi-approach then that might result in some sort of holistic synthesis someday = science alone cannot really approach consciousness ...we should combine science with a holistic approach ....of consciousness ...

Art, literature , philosophy , .....can also have some say on the subject as well thus ...

I dunno .

That's just my take on that .

I don't see where you have really provided another option than the ones I listed above.

ancient wisdom - appeal to authority, divine revelation
philosophy -  a prior reasoning, appeal to authority
personal experience - intuitive process, lucky guess, or divine revelation
other people's personal experience - appeal to authority
Expanding consciousness to understand consciousness - intuitive, or a priori reasoning
art, literature - intuitive process, more appeals to authority.
Paradigm shift - to what? Belief in the immaterial? Which can be known or understood by what means? See above.

Combining all of the above in some "holisitic" way does not solve your problem.

I have little time left at my disposal, so , i am gonna just say the following  very quickly  ,for the time being at least :

Once again, science alone cannot help in that regard ,can just partly help by sheding light on the alleged receiver of consciousness : the brain , mainly due to the fact that consciousness is immaterial , science must be combined with what i mentioned .

Philosophy is no appeal to authority , philosophy can be enriched and developed by science results as well , not to mention the philosophy of science ...

Personal experiences do contain some cognitive elements as well ,not just subjective ones,  and can be developed by life experiences, scientific knowledge  ...by experienced spirituality, experienced art ...

Ancient wisdom also contains some cognitive elements ,  some cognitive elements of other people's personal experiences as well ....

For example, you can try to get in touch , so to speak, with your self , consciousness, inner life via meditation, via mindfulness, ....via other means as well .

Literature , art , music , philosophy, world views, ancient wisdoms , personal experiences, life experiences, psychology  ...combined with sciences can deliver some holistic approach of consciousness ...

It's not my problem that science is guided by a false meta-paradigm ...I am not responsible for just that haha

Just take a look at the following then :

 http://keentalks.com/primacy-consciousness/

P.S.: I am not really responsible for the potential errors that might or might not be contained in this post of mine , blame that eventually on  the speed of "light " through which i wrote this post .

Good night

[dlorde]

What's so surreal about it then ?

You're just not trying...

Why did you ignore my other quotes ? because you could not answer them maybe ?

Most of your questions have been asked and answered repeatedly; did you have some particular question in mind that hasn't yet been asked or answered?

[dlorde]

I dunno .

That's just my take on that .

Can't argue with that; you could have just omitted all the preceding blah.

[dlorde]

P.S.: I am not really responsible for the potential errors that might or might not be contained in this post of mine , blame that eventually on  the speed of "light " through which i wrote this post .

Your choice, your post, your responsibility.

[cheryl j]

Why  I like science:

Materialists may be like the guy searching for his keys under the lamp post because the light is better there, but at least he will know whether or not they are there. He can rule out that part of the lawn. The materialist hopes to build a better light to extend the search to more distant areas. At any rate, it seems preferable to groping around the dark, hoping to get lucky.

Rhythmic Brain Waves: Fluctuations in Electrical Activity May Allow Brain to Form Thoughts and Memories
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121121130815.htm

The above link discusses research about one small aspect of brain activity linking cells to thoughts: "A new study from researchers at MIT and Boston University (BU) sheds light on how neural ensembles form thoughts and support the flexibility to change one's mind. The research team, led by Earl Miller, the Picower Professor of Neuroscience at MIT, identified groups of neurons that encode specific behavioral rules by oscillating in synchrony with each other."

To the philosopher looking for big answers to big questions, it would not seem terribly impressive, but it is to me. Perhaps I have a small mind, but I  would rather know one small detail about the world with some degree of certainty than have a vague, fuzzy concept about life, the universe, and everything. I would rather understand the workings of a cricket.

Although there have been revolutionary shifts in thinking in  science, I think the bulk of scientific knowledge advances in these small increments, chipping away slowly at the nature of reality, one chemical reaction or oscillating neuron or particle experiment at time.

[dlorde]

Why  I like science:
<wise words>

Well put.