0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/09/2013 15:05:28It's an unreliable indicator of the reliability of an unreliable system, which is actually less unreliable than the indicator.OIC - yes; sorry, I'm a bit slow today...QuoteI think DonQ is actually female. When accused of talking improbable nonsense my mum used to say "I just know". It's a lovely thought! (not)
It's an unreliable indicator of the reliability of an unreliable system, which is actually less unreliable than the indicator.
I think DonQ is actually female. When accused of talking improbable nonsense my mum used to say "I just know".
[/thread]Cause of death - suffocation...
As far as Nagel himself is concerned, people who throw spears at things they don't understand worry me, whether they admit their ignorance or not. As far as his idea is concerned, his admission was certainly honest.A process that caused a photo-tropic behaviour in a bacteria would, with a bit of trial and error and some recording, become a photo-receptor on a worm some time later. Simple statistics. Recordings get changed – DNA gets corrupted – and useful changes survive. From there to an eye and, with an eye, a centralisation of nerves to handle additional sensory info. From there to a brain requires no more than chemistry and statistics. Bigger, more powerful brains become a survival factor. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that one of the many species of “brainy” animals would live in groups, possess opposable thumbs, well developed sensory apparatus and a sophisticated social structure to handle all that brain power – still just statistics. In a social order of brainy apes, where order is pretty much dictated by the biggest chap and his cronies – it is logical that a sense of “knowing your place” would develop; without it you'd be quickly dead or exiled. That leads, statistically, to personal identity. If a process is good enough to go from a photo-tropic bug to an eye and the optic centre behind it, then it can certainly go from “knowing your place” to what you call consciousness. If it isn't broke don't fix it.Having had so much thrust upon me I'll give him credit for a reasonable style of writing, but this “science can't explain” argument smacks of aliens in Peru – and that was a better read.God is irrelevant to science. God is not relevant to science. If you insist on a distinction, then both statements are true; God has no place in science. Science must explain “where we live” and it must do that by itself – “on the evidence of its own eyes”. If there is no evidence of a phenomenon then science must ignore it; that is what science is. Other disciplines consider other aspects of our existence rather than “where we live”– Theology, Psychology, Art – but these are not within the realm of science. I have no idea what the future holds.Everything you've said indicates that you object to the idea that God has no place in science although you are trying to portray this as a blunt “science is wrong!” argument. Your dedication to this blunt argument is very telling; you refuse to accept the evidence of your own eyes - the "explaining" that science has already done. I thought you were merely having difficulty distinguishing between a method and an ideology, now I see it runs deeper; you seem to think science is all there is or, worse, you seem to think that scientists think that science is all there is. I am certainly not the only member of this discussion who disproves that! Do you find the basis of science somehow “blasphemous”? The idea that God has no place in science?I'm quite happy to replace science with reductionism anywhere in this post; the meaning would be the same, considering your arguments.
Yes, I should have said very blunt argument.I assume the brevity of your answer indicates that you have realised this.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 24/09/2013 20:00:04Stop 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
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 .
QuoteQuote... 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? QuoteIf 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.
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 .
... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?
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 .
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."
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/09/2013 16:23:28I 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 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 :
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/09/2013 19:16:31I 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 see dlorde saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...
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.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/09/2013 17:54:58I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?I thought so; 'Not irrelevant', says 'relevant' to me. If this isn't what you meant, you only had to say so.
I did not say that God is relevant to science ,did i ?
Quotewhy didn't you quote the whole sentense ?What, "God is irrelevant to reductionism in science"? It appeared to confirm my interpretation - by implying that God might somehow be relevant to non-reductionist science (whatever that might be). The rest of it was fluff.
why didn't you quote the whole sentense ?
QuoteQuoteAnd 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 " :<...blah...>If you mean the scientific method, that's the framework within which an approach (e.g. reductionism) is used. As I'm sure you're aware.
QuoteAnd 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 " :<...blah...>
QuoteBoth questions were previously answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .Ah; such subtle answers they just appeared to be ignoring the questions altogether...OK; I suppose that's that then
Both questions were previously answered : your own failure to see just that is your problem, not mine .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/09/2013 20:57:38<... tl;dr ...>The normal way to discuss on forums is to post your own thoughts about what you've read, not copy-paste reams of someone else's work.
<... tl;dr ...>
You started this discussion by asking what on Earth human consciousness was. You explained your reasons for asking and opened the conversation. In your initial reasoning you asserted that Science alone cannot explain it. You backed this up during the conversation by frequent – and lengthy – extracts from T. Nagel. Most of the other participants, myself included, oppose your assertion and believes Science adequately explains human consciousness. Most of the other participants, myself included, have debunked Nagels work as a piece of pseudo-scientific speculation with little basis in fact. Your responses to opposition have been dismissive, evasive and often downright rude, from the point of view of this Mr. Eagle Has Landed at least; you do not like opposition.To believe that anything other than Science is responsible for something as mundane as my consciousness would be the hight of arrogance. But here, of course, you combine all the facets of the Mind – the Human Condition, if you like – and call it “human consciousness”. It has clearly not occurred to you that, even if there is some element of the Mind/human consciousness that cannot be observed and explained by Science, there is definitely a large portion that can. So, by your definition, human consciousness is composed of “a part that science can explain” and “a part that science cannot explain”. Of course you get nowhere holding such a position up to scrutiny; it is a ridiculously circular argument.It is, however, a definition of the Mind – Existence even - that I would be happy with, but what place does that have on a science forum? I cannot defend my “spirituality” from “scientific scrutiny” - my spirituality is not scientific. Basta! To attempt to do so would be preaching, not discussion. Do you see the difference?That's what I'm talking about.
My dear fellow, Don Q,You are casting your pearls before swine. I think you should write all this stuff up as a proper book and make it available on the Kindle where it can be read more comfortably and without being derailed repeatedly by other people with their ludicrous objections.