[dlorde]

Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................

He's called me a lot worse than that.

When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD.

These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []

[Ethos_]

Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................

He's called me a lot worse than that.

When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD.

These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []

I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP

[dlorde]

I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP

They don't seem that interested - stuff like this and this can be brushed off, but the posting of copyright material without permission may be a legal danger to the forum, and suffocating threads with screeds of repetitive assertion doesn't help.

[RD]

[moderators] don't seem that interested - stuff like ... and this

That quote from DonQ purely consisted of personal abuse which is tantamount to admission of defeat , ( don't feel too bad he doesn't like me either :¬)
Calling someone a liar, (which DonQ has done repeatedly), should  result in a ban of some duration ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language [ see "lying" ]

[cheryl j]

Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................

He's called me a lot worse than that.

When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD.

These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []

I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP

I don't agree. Crushing the discussion would only confirm Don's conspiracy theory regarding anti-materialism.
This has been in many ways a pointless, circular, and silly discussion, but in other ways quite fruitful for me - an aspect of biology I had never really thought about much in the past. My knowledge of the brain was pretty much anatomical. Until David Cooper mentioned it, I had never heard the word qualia before. 
Since this conversation started, I've read at least least 3 books that I might not have read other wise, and articles by Nagler, Chandler, Sheldrake, Ramachandron, Dennett, Searle, Chirchland, Damasio , Raymore, Carter and others. I've read interesting things from dlorde, alancalverd, RD, Ethos (and, yes, Don, although I think he has an agenda.) At anyrate,  it's given me something to think about while driving to work, or folding laundry. The occasional ad hominem doesn't bother me; I stick around until I get bored. 

[cheryl j]

Since the mainstream 'scientific world view " assumes
a-priori that "the mind is in then brain, or that the mind is just brain's activity ". then, scientists all around the world would just have to try to confirm that a priori held "scientific ' assumption empirically .
In the particular case of those experiments you mentioned , i think, personally, that they were designed as to confirm the mainstream 'scientific world view " on the subject of brain and mind ,to the point where those experiments were suggestive and confirmatory , in the sense that the subjects under "investigation " were told to perform particular decisions-making via specific instructions on how to perform them .
Those specific instructions went through the subjects' in question sensory -"inputs " to their brains first , that's why those scientists who were conducting those suggestive experiments through their suggestive confirmation bias ,in the above mentioned sense ,that's why they detected neurons' firings before those subjects were aware or conscious of their decisions.

So, you are saying the experiments were fraudulent? Were the subjects told "Please wait exactly six seconds before responding" in order to maintain the materialist conspiracy?

[cheryl j]

The very existence of confirmation bias,for example,  is evidence enough for the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed ,via the observer's a-priori held belief assumptions ,is evidence enough for the fact that the mind does have causal effect on matter , brain or body .[/i]

Seriously? That's the exactly wrong definition of bias. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me - it means the mind is wrong about its interpretation of reality, not that it changes it. 

[dlorde]

I don't agree. Crushing the discussion would only confirm Don's conspiracy theory regarding anti-materialism.

I get the feeling he does it mainly to get a response that will confirm his prejudices.
 

This has been in many ways a pointless, circular, and silly discussion, but in other ways quite fruitful for me - an aspect of biology I had never really thought about much in the past. My knowledge of the brain was pretty much anatomical. Until David Cooper mentioned it, I had never heard the word qualia before. 
Since this conversation started, I've read at least least 3 books that I might not have read other wise, and articles by Nagler, Chandler, Sheldrake, Ramachandron, Dennett, Searle, Chirchland, Damasio , Raymore, Carter and others. I've read interesting things from dlorde, alancalverd, RD, Ethos (and, yes, Don, although I think he has an agenda.) At anyrate,  it's given me something to think about while driving to work, or folding laundry. The occasional ad hominem doesn't bother me; I stick around until I get bored. 

This is a key point for me too. It's a great prompt to learn more about the subject, and to organise and integrate this new knowledge so one can express it in clear language, and consider its implications. I've learned a lot more than I knew when I started.

But moderation doesn't have to crush discussion; on some forums a short suspension follows breaking the rules; in others, the offending post is edited to remove the infringement and warning 'points' awarded, which add up over several infringements to a suspension. The problem is that this takes manpower, and moderators can become over-officious...

[dlorde]

Back on topic, I just noticed that QualiaSoup have two 10 minute videos on substance dualism (the idea that there is a physical body & brain, and a non-physical mind & consciousness). The second video covers much of what we've discussed here (with a mention of split-brain consciousness that's problematic for dualists), but it's worth viewing both:

Substance Dualism (1)
Substance Dualism (2)

[Ethos_]

But moderation doesn't have to crush discussion; on some forums a short suspension follows breaking the rules; in others, the offending post is edited to remove the infringement and warning 'points' awarded, which add up over several infringements to a suspension. The problem is that this takes manpower, and moderators can become over-officious...

I totally agree delorde, banning too quickly without opportunity for the offender to reconcile with the membership can be an extreme method of control. Nevertheless, some control is necessary to maintain order and offer the membership a place where we can learn and not just get entangled constantly in an ignorant argument with no end in sight. The direction taken in this thread also has huge philosophical overtones and, in more cases than not, ignores the scientific requirements for evidence. To call it a New Theory is without justification and as such should not even be located in the New Theories section. Maybe our forum deserves a category like this where one might discuss philosophy. Just my two cents.....................................

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... We should thus be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness ,basta .

How?   []

Silly question :


It's a bit like saying : if one detects flaws in or unexplained anomalies or unexplained phenomena ...by classical physics , before the time of Einstein, then, there is no way to disocover the still unknown  at that time  future relativity theory discovery , or quantum mechanics .
New scientific discoveries through the evolutionary nature of science might deliver the answer to your silly question thus : only time will tell then .

Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................

Don't be silly : just be brave and honest enough as to address that paradoxical thinking of yours ,instead of this non-sense of yours .
I was just teasing dlorde by calling him silly, since he implies that since there are still no falsifiable non-materialist theories of consciousness out there yet ,there will be none tomorrow, and hence   materialism must be not false .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Guys :

Try to be brave ,mature ,objective and honest enough as to face the music , concerning the fact that materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , and hence the mind is not in the brain, the mind is not brain activity ,instead of resorting to and raising irrelevant side issues .

Best of luck to you then .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Back on topic, I just noticed that QualiaSoup have two 10 minute videos on substance dualism (the idea that there is a physical body & brain, and a non-physical mind & consciousness). The second video covers much of what we've discussed here (with a mention of split-brain consciousness that's problematic for dualists), but it's worth viewing both:

Substance Dualism (1)
Substance Dualism (2)

I will take a look at those videos i am downloading as we speak , so to speak .
But ,the main issue here is that materialism is false , so, we should be looking for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness .
To continue trying to defend the indefensible materialism, by trying to refute dualism or other non-materialist theories of nature , can't make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence materialism must be rejected by all sciences .

[alancalverd]

thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The very existence of confirmation bias,for example,  is evidence enough for the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed ,via the observer's a-priori held belief assumptions ,is evidence enough for the fact that the mind does have causal effect on matter , brain or body .[/i]

Seriously? That's the exactly wrong definition of bias. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me - it means the mind is wrong about its interpretation of reality, not that it changes it.

Wrong :

You did miss my relatively long excerpt on the subject , some pages earlier .
Read it carefully ,and you might see both yourself and your outdated superseded false 19th century old materialism reflected in it , cristal clearly .
None can be more guilty of confirmation bias than materialists , since the materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " has been assuming that "all is matter , including the mind " , and hence " the mind is in the brain, or the mind is just brain activity " = the latter are "empirical scientific facts ", so , why would most scientists try to challenge those "scientific facts " ?: they would only try to confirm them , in some way or another .

Note that i cannot really explain those experiments mentioned by dlorde , those experiments the existence of which i did already encounter earlier .

Since materialism is false , there must be some non-materialist explanation of those experiments ,if they happened / happen to be flawless .
But , fact is : there are in fact no non-materialist falsifiable=scientific  theories of consciousness out there yet , but that does not mean there will none ...tomorrow .

Since materialism is false thus , any materialist attempt to try to explain or interpret those or other experiments , scientific results ....would be a paradoxical thing to do that's doomed to fail .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Since the mainstream 'scientific world view " assumes
a-priori that "the mind is in then brain, or that the mind is just brain's activity ". then, scientists all around the world would just have to try to confirm that a priori held "scientific ' assumption empirically .
In the particular case of those experiments you mentioned , i think, personally, that they were designed as to confirm the mainstream 'scientific world view " on the subject of brain and mind ,to the point where those experiments were suggestive and confirmatory , in the sense that the subjects under "investigation " were told to perform particular decisions-making via specific instructions on how to perform them .
Those specific instructions went through the subjects' in question sensory -"inputs " to their brains first , that's why those scientists who were conducting those suggestive experiments through their suggestive confirmation bias ,in the above mentioned sense ,that's why they detected neurons' firings before those subjects were aware or conscious of their decisions.

So, you are saying the experiments were fraudulent? Were the subjects told "Please wait exactly six seconds before responding" in order to maintain the materialist conspiracy?

See my reply to you here above on the same subject .
Who said there was / is a materialist conspiracy then ? Don't be too simplistic as to use this kind of terminology, please .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Are you insinuating that dlorde is incompetent by calling him silly??

I think you should apologize......................

He's called me a lot worse than that.

When his repeated unsupported assertions and declarations of incredulity fail to convince, he will post whole chapters of other people's work; when that fails, he resorts to ad-hominems and insults. What he is unable to do is provide any coherent argument or explanation for his constant straw-man assertions. This behaviour is so consistently misdirected, repetitive and apparently obsessive, I suspect OCD.

These days, I post my responses for the exercise and the lurkers []

I think it's time for a moderator to get envolved.......................HELP

I don't agree. Crushing the discussion would only confirm Don's conspiracy theory regarding anti-materialism.
This has been in many ways a pointless, circular, and silly discussion, but in other ways quite fruitful for me - an aspect of biology I had never really thought about much in the past. My knowledge of the brain was pretty much anatomical. Until David Cooper mentioned it, I had never heard the word qualia before. 
Since this conversation started, I've read at least least 3 books that I might not have read other wise, and articles by Nagler, Chandler, Sheldrake, Ramachandron, Dennett, Searle, Chirchland, Damasio , Raymore, Carter and others. I've read interesting things from dlorde, alancalverd, RD, Ethos (and, yes, Don, although I think he has an agenda.) At anyrate,  it's given me something to think about while driving to work, or folding laundry. The occasional ad hominem doesn't bother me; I stick around until I get bored.

(These discussions have  been opening up a whole unexpected universe to me, you have no idea, thanks to you all in fact,especially thanks to you, Cheryl , in the first place , no kidding or hypocrisy , and thanks to dlorde in the second place ... .)

Anyone trying to debunk the mainstream materialist false 'scientific world view " must have a hidden  agenda  of his / her own  indeed ,come on : what kind of agenda then had atheist Nagel ,Chalmers , and many other atheists as well, and others then ? by refuting materialism : you tell me : makes no sense whatsoever .

Should we brand any scientists , thinkers ...automatically as heretics , charlatans, pseudo-scientists , pseudo-thinkers or worse , with hidden agendas of their own , while having lunatic conspiracy theories of their own ,  delusions ,simply because they would happen to be challenging the "scientific world view " ? , Come on ,

How is science supposed to progress then otherwise ? Science that's not about dogmas or about definite knowledge or the truth,if science or any of its meta or sub-paradigms should not be challenged  .

Ironically and paradoxically enough , materialism has been the one that's been turning science into a dogma , into an orthodox dogmatic secular religion , by imposing its false materialist conception of nature as "the scientific world view " for so long now :

Just tell me , please , what extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism for its extraordinary claims regarding its "all is matter , including the mind " false conception of nature "scientific world view " then ?

Needless to say , and that goes without saying ,once again, that i do love science so much that i would love to see it get rid of its dogmatic and false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " : these are my real motives you can call agenda ,if you want to .

Please , try not to be too simplistic as to use that kind of self-refuting and self-defeating terminology , such as agenda , conspiracy ....


I do have no agenda , dear , as Sheldrake , as atheist Nagel and many others ,religious and non-religious people do have none : they just want to liberate science from the dogmatic outdated false superseded 19th century old materialism tha;s been holding science back ,for so long now , by imprisonning it within its materialist false walls .

Science must be liberated from materialism, if science wanna be less dogmatic and more scientific, if science wanna progress and continue evolving as it should be doing : science whose nature is evolutionary as to dispell dogmas , lies , half truths , falsehood ...

Ironically enough , it was thanks to you ,Cheryl, that i did learn to know the thought of atheist Nagel, it was thanks to you that i paid closer attention to Sheldrake's work ...that all brought me on the path of Chalmers , John Searle , Chris Carter and many others , i might not have been walking on , if it wasn't for you :

And i have been learning many things here as well, in the process , in ways i have never expected ,to be honest .

"The gain is worth the loss " as the writer of "I am  strange loop " said i did read some parts of , thanks to the fact that dlorde did mention that book , and many other ones and links ..............

I am too outraged,angry  and appaled by your unscientific denials and attitudes right now to be able to continue this discussion .

So, i am leaving this forum ,right now , in order to cool down , and i will return to this forum only when i would see you all abandoning your unscientific and irrational accusations and materialist inquisitions.

Best wishes .

Ciao .

[alancalverd]

thanks to consciousness mainly

Please define this remarkable stuff you keep talking about. What does it do?

Please , do some introspection : look within yourself : get in touch with your self ,or with your own subjective inner life .

From which I can only deduce that you have no idea what you are talking about, and your arguments and assertions are therefore worthless at best or invalid at worst. How sad to waste your considerable intellect on such a pointless exercise.

[Ethos_]

Ironically and paradoxically enough , materialism has been the one that's been turning science into a dogma , into an orthodox dogmatic secular religion , by imposing its false materialist conception of nature as "the scientific world view " for so long now :

And here your secret agenda is revealed; "into an orthodox dogmatic SECULAR RELIGION". It's becoming very clear that you want to bring FAITH into the scientific argument. Would I be mistaken if I were to assume that the FAITH of Islam had something to do with your dislike for what you refer to as the secular religion?

You did make reference once to great Muslim contributions.

Just asking..........