0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/10/2013 20:13:27But , materialists cannot let go of their desperate attempts to try to prove their materialist belief assumptions to be "true " , regarding the origins , emergence ,evolution and nature of consciousness ,regarding their materialist conception of nature as a whole , through no-less than science , paradoxically , materialist belief assumptions they do deliberately sell to people as ...science , ironically paradoxically enough .Well, one could apply your anti-materialist reasoning to almost every kind of change or transformation in science: Do not try to convince me that water, which is a liquid, can be transformed into ice, which is solid, through your magical materialist temperature change! No way, no how! You are obviously confusing materialism with science proper to think that sunlight is magically transformed via the strip tease of photosynthesis into the energy locked in bonds of glucose molecules, or that you can some how magically change this with mere chemical reactions inside cells in a way that allows you peddle a bicycle! The sun cannot peddle your bicycle! Can't you understand just that? Are you really that stupid? Unbelievable! You cannot possibly through your materialist reductionist magic explain how a tornado "emerges" from atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and carbon and hydrogen! And Mass that's just a matter of gravity. Have you ever been to the moon or to space ,to see how much "mass " you have left ? in comparison with yours on earth? (I didn't even have to make up the last example)
But , materialists cannot let go of their desperate attempts to try to prove their materialist belief assumptions to be "true " , regarding the origins , emergence ,evolution and nature of consciousness ,regarding their materialist conception of nature as a whole , through no-less than science , paradoxically , materialist belief assumptions they do deliberately sell to people as ...science , ironically paradoxically enough .
Quote from: dlorde on 04/09/2013 09:08:56You don't need such explanations if you have faith. Apparently it's beyond logic, reason, and science...Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter...
You don't need such explanations if you have faith. Apparently it's beyond logic, reason, and science...
human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science..
.. regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary , i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/10/2013 17:13:31Quote from: dlorde on 04/09/2013 09:08:56You don't need such explanations if you have faith. Apparently it's beyond logic, reason, and science...Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter...Wow, been trawling? those posts are 7 weeks old... but it still seems fair comment - you did actually say that:Quote from: DonQuichotte on 30/08/2013 18:41:25human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science.. Quote.. regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary , i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .I think we both acknowledge your position. What we're after is the argument supporting it, the plausible explanation you might use to persuade us that consciousness cannot be emergent from the functioning of the material brain. "It is obvious" isn't an argument; at present, it just looks like a mixture of incredulity and special pleading.
Quote from: cheryl j on 19/10/2013 23:29:25There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought. That's quite reasonable if thoughts are the patterns of activation of neurons across the brain. Each pattern of activation will trigger the next (although the patterns are dynamic, so the transitions are continuous). The difficulty many people have is in grasping that thoughts are these patterns of neural activation flowing across/through the brain, they're not something separate that causes neural activity, and they're only 'caused by' neural activity in the loose sense that a wave is 'caused by' water; waves are a patterns of water movement, and thoughts are patterns of neural activity. Douglas Hofstadter discusses recursion and consciousness at length in his book 'I am a Strange Loop', where one of his themes is the use of feedback to generate complexity (e.g. video feedback, where the camera points at the screen showing its own output). I see the emergence and interaction of patterns of neural activation in the brain as analogous to the emergence of interacting patterns in Conway's Game of Life, where the individual units are static, with binary states, but the emergent patterns of their composite activities have emergent structure and interaction (oscillators, spaceships, etc). As if to emphasize the potential of such emergent complexity, these GOL patterns can themselves be used to emulate the GOL itself and as a logic language to create construct universal Turing machines (programmable computers) and computer/constructors that can be programmed to replicate themselves.If a system with such simple rules and limited degrees of freedom as GOL can generate multiple levels of emergent complexity, to the extent that it can generate replicators and emulate anything computable, it seems less surprising that a system with many more degrees of freedom and more complex rules can, given a suitable environment and couple of billion years of selection pressures, evolve structures like mammalian brains.
There's a weird recursiveness about consciousness, where brain states generate thoughts but those thoughts seem to effect the next brain state that generates the next thought.
The hard problem of consciousness remains...
QuoteThe hard problem of consciousness remains......that it is undefined.
Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter , regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary , i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .
Dear folks :Just watch and listen to the following on the subject of science and materialism in science and elsewhere , materialism in science the majority of scientists today do confuse with science :SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8ARupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ
Quote from: alancalverd on 22/10/2013 19:06:08QuoteThe hard problem of consciousness remains......that it is undefined. What is then ?Stop palying silly games , please , be serious .Every sane intelligent person knows that consciousness is a hard problem in science and elsewhere .Don't be silly .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/10/2013 19:47:19Dear folks :Just watch and listen to the following on the subject of science and materialism in science and elsewhere , materialism in science the majority of scientists today do confuse with science :SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake//www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8ARupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQI have listened to Sheldrake. Have you bothered to investigate what neuroscience says about emotion or intuition? That they are not just the ephemeral subjective feelings you assume? That they actually are an important brain processes in reasoning, interpreting sensory perceptions, and motivation to act or not? Or do you just assume "I don't need to learn anything more about emotion or intuition because I've already 'felt' it for myself. Science can't tell me anything more. My subjective impression of them is enough" ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/10/2013 17:13:31Come on : this is neither fair nor objective , let alone true , what you have been saying , you and Cheryl for that matter , regarding my own replies on the subject of emergent phenomena at least = i did state clearly to the both of you that i do not reject the emergence phenomena at the exclusively biological physical material levels ,on the contrary , i just reject that materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origin or nature of consciousness only+ i do reject that materialist mechanistic so-called computational mechanism regarding human thought or cognition .And it doesn't seem at all odd to you that human consciousness is this one, special exception? You accept very complex changes and transformations in any area of biology or science, without the hand of God helping it along, except human consciousness? And at what point did God intervene in our evolutionary history?
I came here to try to make you realise , folks, that materialism is not science
QuoteI came here to try to make you realise , folks, that materialism is not science I rather think that most of us knew that already.
Everyone seems to have a world-shattering book to sell, and Don Abdel does their online marketing... I hope he's getting his cut.
One of the rules of a discussion is that you don't send people off to read books or watch videos. If you've got a case, you express it directly yourself and in as compact a way as you can so as to avoid making other people waste time on piles of junk. The tonnage of stuff being flung into the ring by Abdel was the main problem with the discussion here. 99.9% of it wasn't helpful and it made it impossible to keep on top of what was going on in the tiny part of the discussion that might still have been on track.