The Blind Spot of the Materialist Worldview

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The Blind Spot of the Materialist Worldview

Below is a link to a "Google Tech Talk" YouTube video given by B. Alan Wallace on science and the study of consciousness. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7gBW9HoTg8&feature=PlayList&p=B2CA29A4B3268623&playnext=1&index=1

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


whatever
whatever's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If it has not

Paisley wrote:

If it has not been empirically verified, then it is simply an assumption. And why should we assume that mental phenomena are physical when our first-person experience tells us otherwise? The burden of proof is on the materialist to demonstrate that our "folk psychology" is wrong.

My first person experience doesn't tell me weather mental phenomena are physical or non-physical.  The idea of physical is something that I wasn't born with, but something that I learned latter in life.  If personal experiences should make it obvious that mental phenomena are not physical then why wasn't I born knowing these things.  After all I have always had experience even if my method of interpreting them has changed. 


whatever
whatever's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:You said that

Paisley wrote:

You said that you were unimpressed because you didn't have the humility to admit that you were wrong. If you had actually bothered to watch the video, then you would have known that Wallace was quoting Koch.

this is a blatant appeal to authority.


whatever
whatever's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

The claim that thought is not clearly physical differs from the claim that it is not physical. By analogy, an ancient Greek would have agreed that "the sun is not clearly composed of the same sorts of particles that the earth is composed of" - and at that point in time, he would have been correct. This means only that it is not proven that the sun is made of the same sorts of particles as the earth. The Greek is not saying that the sun is made of something different (though he may believe that), but only that you have not made the case for its being made of the same things as the earth. Likewise, the speaker is only saying there that the atheists have not made a good positive case for thought being physical -- and objectively, he is correct. He may go on to argue that it is not physical later, of course.

     Saying that scientists have not made a strong case for the mind being physical is about the same as saying scientists have not made a strong case for waves being physical.  After all waves travel threw a physical medium, yet they are not the median themselves.  Let’s consider waves moving threw the ocean.  There is a 100 percent correlation between the existence of ocean waves and the existence of the water, but as Paisley has repeatedly pointed out correlation does not equal causation.  Just because every ocean wave we observe is traveling threw water doesn't mean that ever ocean wave has to travel throw water right?  Maybe ocean waves have some kind of none physical element that we can’t observe.   The idea that ocean waves are not a physical phenomenon is ridicules.  I don't see how saying that the mind is none physical because it can’t be descried in the same terms as a brain is any different then saying that ocean waves are none physical because they can't be described in the same terms as water.  Obviously ocean waves are physical phenomena, and so are human minds. 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:My mental

nigelTheBold wrote:
My mental laziness kicked in because he says at the beginning that he's presenting something that is eminantly-contestable, meaning that he is presenting something for which he has only speculation and no evidence; and for the presentation of wave-collapse as being tied to consciousness. That, and the statement that he spent years trying to coerce physics and the study of consciousness into the buddhist framework, basically meant there was little to gain by listening to what he had to say.

Okay, if you didn't watch the video in its entirety, then you bar yourself from participating in this thread. I am not going to waste my precious time responding to drive-by critics.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Okay, if you

Paisley wrote:

Okay, if you didn't watch the video in its entirety, then you bar yourself from participating in this thread. I am not going to waste my precious time responding to drive-by critics.

Hey everyone, check it out. Paisley thinks that he is lord and master of this thread. If you don't follow his rules then you are barred from participating in this thread. Wow, I didn't know he could do that. I guess starting a thread gives you total control over who is allowed to comment in it.

So Paisley, I didn't watch the video. I listened to it in the background while I did other stuff. Do I have your permission to keep posting? Or should I delete all of my old posts to conform to your rules on this thread? From now on I'll be sure to ask you permission before participating in discussions. I wouldn't want the moderators to ban me from the site for commenting in threads that I am barred from participating in.

Maybe we need a way of flagging threads that Paisley is in complete control over, that way we know that we aren't allowed to comment in them.

But in all seriousness Paisley, by the time you are fifteen minutes into that video it is pretty clear how full of shit Wallace is. He so grossly misrepresents the physical basis of the mind and is so confused on quantum mechanics that I pretty much discounted him as being a serious scholar by 15 minutes into it. I can easily imagine someone hearing his mind-bogglingly odd statements about quantum mechanics and stopping the video since he has proven himself to be a quack. Toss in some misrepresentation of other peoples' views and a fundamental misunderstanding of the mind and you get a man who does not deserve your attention for that long. To use internet speak: I kept listening to the speach, but only for the LOLs.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I think I'm beginning to understand the meaning of Rush Limbaugh's term "drive-by" media. You guys just drive by, without an inkling of what the hell is being debated, and then make an idiotic statement, believing it to be somehow profound.

If you can't muster up the energy to watch the video, then you shouldn't participate in this thread. It's that simple.

I don't think I'd make the mistake of considering what I wrote profound.

Good, because it wasn't profound; it was inane.

HisWillness wrote:
I watched a few minutes of the video and reached the same conclusions as a bunch of people here already.

You came to a conclusion after a couple of minutes? Translation: "I didn't bother to actually watch the video. It's easier to just drive by and make inane comments."

HisWillness wrote:
Why would someone who claims to have been a physics student keep making clumsy, inaccurate statements?

What exactly did he say about physics that was incorrect? I want specifics.

HisWillness wrote:
His short biographies of individuals misrepresent their intellectual environments so much that I can't take him seriously. At around 20 minutes in, he takes Skinner's statements that there are no subjective experiences in such a literal sense (that is, that we do not experience what we are experiencing) that his misrepresentation is obvious. That's where I had to stop.

Behaviorists and eliminative materialists deny the existence of subjective experiences. This is not a mispresentation. It's merely a statement of fact. Attempting to have a rational discussion with an individual who subscribes to such irrationality is truly an exercise in futility.

HisWillness wrote:
What am I going to debate with you, Paisley? That there really is a non-physical? How can I do that and remain "intellectually honest"? Subjectivity is notoriously unreliable, regardless of how impressed this guy is with his own experience. I can't see that changing.

Yes, for the last time, there is a bias among scientists towards the physical. A scientist in a scientific context would be laughably outside of their range discussing things that defy falsification. You can keep making the "materialism of the gaps" charge, but all we ever seem to find is physical things, so it's not like we're losing the stochastic battle, here.

Will we eventually find the non-physical, despite its total nonsense as a concept? Stay tuned ... forever.

The term physicalism is preferable to materialism because it includes "non-material forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Hey

Jormungander wrote:
Hey everyone, check it out. Paisley thinks that he is lord and master of this thread. If you don't follow his rules then you are barred from participating in this thread. Wow, I didn't know he could do that. I guess starting a thread gives you total control over who is allowed to comment in it.

So Paisley, I didn't watch the video.

I don't respond to drive-by critics. If you're not willing to watch the video in its entirety, then you shouldn't expect me to respond to your posts.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Just FYI...The argument that

Just FYI...The argument that B. Alan Wallace makes in this presentation is the same argument that Sam Harris made in his book entitled "The End of Faith."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Jormungander

Paisley wrote:

Jormungander wrote:
Hey everyone, check it out. Paisley thinks that he is lord and master of this thread. If you don't follow his rules then you are barred from participating in this thread. Wow, I didn't know he could do that. I guess starting a thread gives you total control over who is allowed to comment in it.

So Paisley, I didn't watch the video.

I don't respond to drive-by critics. If you're not willing to watch the video in its entirety, then you shouldn't expect me to respond to your posts.

Settle down. It is a speach, listening to it is the only thing that you can do. If you watch it while listening to it you don't gain anything extra out of it. Seeing his face while he talks does not make his points more clear than not seeing his face while he talks. Why not just listen to the speach while looking at something else?

While you are at it, stop acting like you are in control of this thread. I was joking around with my last post, but seriously, don't act like you get to determine who takes place in this discussion. That is just not the way internet forums work. Deal with the fact that Wallace reveals his intellectual sloppiness a few minutes into the speech or don't post lengthy videos at all. It is not our fault that you choose such a poor candidate for your cause. If we all can't take this man seriously that is your problem. It is not being a drive by critic to point out that he is too full of bullshit to justify listening to for lengthy periods of time. Think of it this way, I think I am the only one here to bothered listening to the whole thing, and I did it only because I wanted some comedy to listen to while I wrote a dreary lab report. Thank you for giving me some humor while I write boring things, but don't act like your poor choice of representative is our problem.

But I understand that you don't want to defend this man's positions, so instead you will demand that we stop commenting on him as a way of giving yourself an excuse not to respond to our posts.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Okay, if you

Paisley wrote:

Okay, if you didn't watch the video in its entirety, then you bar yourself from participating in this thread. I am not going to waste my precious time responding to drive-by critics.

Did you read what I said? I said I watched it. I ended up watching it twice, the second time because I didn't pay a lot of attention the first time. The second time didn't give me much more, honestly, but I enjoyed it more. Of course, it's hardly the scathing indictment of materialism you seem to think. He's a buddhist, talking about concepts in science from a buddhist point of view. In the end, he says more about buddhism than science.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term physicalism is preferable to materialism because it includes "non-material forces."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Physicalism is a monistic view that the universe is composed entirely of matter and energy and the relationships between them. You're suggestion here (by sin of omission) is that these "non-material forces" are somehow not physical. In fact, in that very same section, it states: "Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."

The term "phsyicalism" is a form of materialism that also includes the concept that properties and relationships convey information. Information does not exist external to the physical. Information affects interactions, and is the source of supervenience, which is sufficient to explain the mind as an aspect of the brain.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Physicalism is monism AND

Physicalism is monism AND emergentism. Everyone understands this except apologists, apparently.

 

Kind of like everything else.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I don't

Paisley wrote:

I don't respond to drive-by critics [who in a few words trashes your arguement with elementary reason].

Corrected.

Your lack of response is indicative of your refusal to deal with anyone who does not surrender to your baseless fantasy.

But it doesnt matter if you dont respond because everyone reads the "drive-by-critics". Probably the best way to deal with your refusal to participate in the discussion would be to simply ignore you and carry on the critique without you.

Quote:
If you're not willing to watch the video in its entirety, then you shouldn't expect me to respond to your posts.

It is obvious that you think that if anyone exposes wallace's baseless claims and points out his lack of knowledge of physics that they didn't watch this ridiculus video.

Please explain how watching the video makes what wallace is harping on about true. 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

Physicalism is monism AND emergentism.

... and a Wikipedia article is not guaranteed to have been worded with any precision, Paisley. I already pointed you (Paisley) to the Stanford philosophy site's article on physicalism, which I'd say is a more accurate representation than some yahoo writing on Wikipedia.

To quote the Stanford article:

Daniel Stoljar wrote:
The reason for speaking of physicalism rather than materialism is to abstract away from this historical notion [of the material], which is usually thought of as too restrictive -- for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983).

Honestly, now. Are we back on the merry-go-round again? You were actually forming arguments for a second there, and now we're back to this petulant "atheist materialism" nonsense that remains a straw man. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Did you

nigelTheBold wrote:
Did you read what I said? I said I watched it. I ended up watching it twice, the second time because I didn't pay a lot of attention the first time. The second time didn't give me much more, honestly, but I enjoyed it more. Of course, it's hardly the scathing indictment of materialism you seem to think. He's a buddhist, talking about concepts in science from a buddhist point of view. In the end, he says more about buddhism than science.

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Did you read what I said? I said I watched it. I ended up watching it twice, the second time because I didn't pay a lot of attention the first time. The second time didn't give me much more, honestly, but I enjoyed it more. Of course, it's hardly the scathing indictment of materialism you seem to think. He's a buddhist, talking about concepts in science from a buddhist point of view. In the end, he says more about buddhism than science.

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

Did you bother reading his comment Paisley? He has watched it more than once. Your demands that other people watch the videos that you post have gone too far. Now even watching the video twice does not qualify someone to comment on it. It is getting more obvious that you plan to silence dissent by claiming people didn't bother watching the video rather than defending your position. If your position is so weak that you can not defend it, then I suppose you should use a tactic like this as an excuse to not respond to valid criticisms.

The worst part of this is that Nigel honestly put some time into watching this and he is treated like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:... and a

HisWillness wrote:
... and a Wikipedia article is not guaranteed to have been worded with any precision, Paisley. I already pointed you (Paisley) to the Stanford philosophy site's article on physicalism, which I'd say is a more accurate representation than some yahoo writing on Wikipedia.

To quote the Stanford article:

Daniel Stoljar wrote:
The reason for speaking of physicalism rather than materialism is to abstract away from this historical notion [of the material], which is usually thought of as too restrictive -- for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983).

Actually, the "yahoo" on Wikipedia cited Stoljar.

Clearly, probability waves and geometrical points (mathematical abstractions) are not physical.  The reason there's no "ghost in the machine" is because the "machine" itself is a ghost. It's completely ephemeral. You have not been able to grasp this simple fact. But it is understandable. Grasping the ephemeral is difficult.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Clearly,

Paisley wrote:

Clearly, probability waves and geometrical points (mathematical abstractions) are not physical.  The reason there's no "ghost in the machine" is because the "machine" itself is a ghost. It's completely ephemeral. You have not been able to grasp this simple fact. But it is understandable. Grasping the ephemeral is difficult.


Trying to blur the boundary between the physical and the non-physical. I don't see how that helps your position, but lets see where you go with this. Lets say we concede that mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical, how does this imply that our emotions and experiences are non-physical?

For that matter, our material brains only processes these mathematical abstractions as information encoded in our neurons. That is an entirely physical process. You are trying to tack on needless non-physical phenomena to describe entirely physical processes. Though, for that matter, you seem to be constantly trying to do that.

 

Paisley wrote:

You have not been able to grasp this simple fact.

Correction, we don't agree with you on this point. That doesn't mean that we are not able to grasp these concepts, it means that we grasp the concepts and think that they are wrong. As an example: my disbelief in phogiston does not mean that I don't grasp the concept, it means that I grasp the concept and reject it. Your problem is that we reject some of your beliefs due to you lacking any evidence to support them, not that we are too dense to get what you are talking about.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:HisWillness

Paisley wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
That you are not impressed only reveals that you lack the intellectual honesty to admit that you're wrong. 

That actually made me laugh out loud. I'm not writing the abbreviation, for that is sad and teenage, but thanks for the belly laugh.

I love your touchdown celebrations, Paisley, I really do. Especially when they're not warranted. Those are the best.

Nigel: "I think that's a misrepresentation of Koch's judgement"

Paisley: "That's because you're wrong and dishonest about being so very, very wrong."

Let me get this straight: regarding a topic that's already controversial, disagreeing with one guy (or even two) makes Nigel "wrong"? C'mon.

I think I'm beginning to understand the meaning of Rush Limbaugh's term "drive-by" media. You guys just drive by, without an inkling of what the hell is being debated, and then make an idiotic statement, believing it to be somehow profound.

If you can't muster up the energy to watch the video, then you shouldn't participate in this thread. It's that simple.

 

Paisley, it's a long video, perhaps you should muster up the energy to sum up exactly what it is you're intending to debate here. The thread title is a rather ambiguous statement about the philosophy of materialism possessing some flaw, it's supported by a link (uncommented), which, if I am not mistaken, is a form of posting subject to specific forum policy - you may not be aware of - that, I'm pretty sure, was written with the intent of deterring forumers from linking other material as essentially their whole post; basically what you've done in the OP.

Later you have indicated almost as ambiguously that the issue you wish to debate is whether introspection is a necessary exercise in the study of consciousness. It is fair debate, then, for anyone to attack the premises of Wallace's argument to that effect, right? That is, providing what you want is to debate Wallace's conclusion of introspection being necessary, then you should probably be prepared to defend his premises as well, or if not provide alternative premises that beget the same resolution. Don't you think?

That is, of course, if that's what you actually want to debate here, and I've given you the reasons why I'm not sure about that already.

So, if you please Paisley, can you do us all the favour of clearing up precisely what your argument is here? And then maybe we can all begin to agree on what constitutes a relevant response to that argument.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Did you read what I said? I said I watched it. I ended up watching it twice, the second time because I didn't pay a lot of attention the first time. The second time didn't give me much more, honestly, but I enjoyed it more. Of course, it's hardly the scathing indictment of materialism you seem to think. He's a buddhist, talking about concepts in science from a buddhist point of view. In the end, he says more about buddhism than science.

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

All right now, everyone knows the rules.

1. Watch the video

2. Kiss Paisley's butt

Paisley, do I have to watch the video if I'm only commenting on what a jackass you're being?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Actually, the

Paisley wrote:
Actually, the "yahoo" on Wikipedia cited Stoljar.

... and obviously misrepresented what Stoljar wrote. "Non-physical" isn't the same as "not traditionally material".

Paisley wrote:
Clearly, probability waves and geometrical points (mathematical abstractions) are not physical.

Clearly, human behaviour is a whole host of things bubbling up from emergent chemical evolution. Our ability to abstract and communicate is a result of physical memory retention and using physical means to communicate. I need you to point to the ghost in all of that.

Paisley wrote:
The reason there's no "ghost in the machine" is because the "machine" itself is a ghost.

Is this a "God is everything" argument?

Paisley wrote:
It's completely ephemeral. You have not been able to grasp this simple fact. But it is understandable. Grasping the ephemeral is difficult.

Grasping what you're on about is difficult, I'll give you that. What, exactly, is ephemeral? Do you mean the "machine"? What machine are we talking about? In fact, what are we talking about, here? How do you describe something that you'd have to once again borrow physical attributes to describe? If everything is God, what's the point of calling any one thing "God"?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yes, I read

Paisley wrote:

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

Because I disagree with either the presenter or you, I didn't watch the video?

You, Sir, haven't even addressed the issues I've raised. I suspect you are attempting to avoid any actual discussion by using vague arguments, aspersions on my character, and misdirection. The presenter used Koch to support dualism, when it is obvious Koch himself is a physicalist. That is but one of the points raised; you are attempting to avoid that point.

This is just like the  thread on consciousness, in which I pointed out that one of the most promising hypothesis in quantum gravity requires causality. There, you just completely abandoned the discussion. Must you always evade the issues, rather than addressing them? I realize your worldview is fragile in the face of actual scientific inquiry, but surely you can muster some sort of relevant defence.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

Because I disagree with either the presenter or you, I didn't watch the video?

You, Sir, haven't even addressed the issues I've raised. I suspect you are attempting to avoid any actual discussion by using vague arguments, aspersions on my character, and misdirection. The presenter used Koch to support dualism, when it is obvious Koch himself is a physicalist. That is but one of the points raised; you are attempting to avoid that point.

This is just like the  thread on consciousness, in which I pointed out that one of the most promising hypothesis in quantum gravity requires causality. There, you just completely abandoned the discussion. Must you always evade the issues, rather than addressing them? I realize your worldview is fragile in the face of actual scientific inquiry, but surely you can muster some sort of relevant defence.

No offense Nigel but seriously dood have you not figured this out, everytime and I mean EVERYTIME paisley does this, he avoids any direct quesiton that shows a problem with his premise of the OP, as well if you give him direct evdience of his complete misunderstanding of a definition of a word, or subject he changes the topic, attacks your character, or tries to say that you don't know anything because he tries to use a very vague definition (conciousness is conciousnes awareness is a example) and then accuses you of not knowing what the defintion is. This is his tactic, avoidence really.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Paisley, it's a

Eloise wrote:
Paisley, it's a long video, perhaps you should muster up the energy to sum up exactly what it is you're intending to debate here.

The intent here is to have participants watch the video and discuss it.  This is not a complicated proposition. And, if you're not willing to watch the video, then you should not be participate in this thread.

Eloise wrote:
The thread title is a rather ambiguous statement about the philosophy of materialism possessing some flaw, it's supported by a link (uncommented), which, if I am not mistaken, is a form of posting subject to specific forum policy - you may not be aware of - that, I'm pretty sure, was written with the intent of deterring forumers from linking other material as essentially their whole post; basically what you've done in the OP.

Puhlease! If you truly feel that I have violated some kind of forum policy, then file a complaint with a moderator. 

Eloise wrote:
Later you have indicated almost as ambiguously that the issue you wish to debate is whether introspection is a necessary exercise in the study of consciousness. It is fair debate, then, for anyone to attack the premises of Wallace's argument to that effect, right? That is, providing what you want is to debate Wallace's conclusion of introspection being necessary, then you should probably be prepared to defend his premises as well, or if not provide alternative premises that beget the same resolution.

What is not fair is to attack an individual's argument without giving it a fair hearing! Basic debate etiquette demands that you at least listen to the argument before you attack it.

Eloise wrote:
Don't you think?

What I actually think is that your attitude leaves something very much to be desired.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Yes, I read what you said. This is how I know that you didn't actually watch the video. Evidently, your tack is simply to parrot the comments of some skeptical blogger. You pulled the same stunt with the Dean Radin video. Next time, either watch the video or don't bother responding.

Because I disagree with either the presenter or you, I didn't watch the video?

What aren't you getting? You come with preconceived notions of what the video is about based on a skeptical blog of Wallace's views and then you make drive-by snide remarks that really have nothing to do with the subject matter of the presentation.

nigelTheBold wrote:
You, Sir, haven't even addressed the issues I've raised. I suspect you are attempting to avoid any actual discussion by using vague arguments, aspersions on my character, and misdirection.

I'm simply calling a spade a spade. You're not a free-thinker. You're just a closed-minded slave to the dogma of materialism, who doesn't have the basic deceny to listen to a man's argument before going into attack mode.

nigelTheBold wrote:
The presenter used Koch to support dualism, when it is obvious Koch himself is a physicalist. That is but one of the points raised; you are attempting to avoid that point.

No, I am not avoiding it. You're misrepresenting what Wallace said. He simply quoted Koch in order dispel the myth that NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness) are equivalent to consciousness.

nigelTheBold wrote:
This is just like the  thread on consciousness, in which I pointed out that one of the most promising hypothesis in quantum gravity requires causality. There, you just completely abandoned the discussion. Must you always evade the issues, rather than addressing them? I realize your worldview is fragile in the face of actual scientific inquiry, but surely you can muster some sort of relevant defence.

What relevance does a hypothesis on quantum gravity have with evolutionary theory and the emergence of consciousness?  Perhaps I should refresh your memory. In that thread, I posed the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected if, on the materialistic worldview, consciousness is not causally efficacious? Of course, we came to an impasse because you were too dense to see that the only possible causal role that consciousness could have was the exercising of free will. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:jcgadfly

latincanuck wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Your argument must proceed from facts that we actually have, not facts that you think we will have in the future, and the facts we have do not establish physicalism.

But we already have the facts on this and the facts very clearly show that the actions of the brain are mental states. I am really confused as to how someone could see what fMRIs have shown us and then think to themselves "Nope, no evidence for a physical basis of the mind here." The only explanation I can think to explain why people think we are lacking in crystal clear evidence for the physical basis of the mind is that they don't know what fMRIs have revealed. It is either that, or willful ignorance on this matter.

I wish we could take the people that don't beleive in the physical basis of the mind and, with their consent of course, connect electrodes to their brain and show then how all of their emotions can be produced at the touch of a button. Rage, pleasure, fear, relaxation and hallucinations can all be artifically produced by manipulating the brain. If that isn't strong evidence that those sensations are actions of the brain, then I don't know what is.

It shows that there is a strong correlation between certain physical states and certain mental states. That's it. It does not show that mental states ARE physical states.

It can be measure physically and has its origin in a physical organ but it's not a physical state?

I'm confused.

How about this one, all those that don't believe the mental states aren't physical, please provide the evidence for it, because so far everyone here that has argued that the mental states (emotions, thoughts, etc) are controlled physcially by the brain has shown evidence for it, for those opposed what evidence do you have other than mere speculation?

I made two arguments for dualism above, actually (perhaps in my first post in this thread? not sure exactly).

 

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Clearly, probability waves and geometrical points (mathematical abstractions) are not physical.  The reason there's no "ghost in the machine" is because the "machine" itself is a ghost. It's completely ephemeral. You have not been able to grasp this simple fact. But it is understandable. Grasping the ephemeral is difficult.

Trying to blur the boundary between the physical and the non-physical.

I'm not trying to blur the boundary. This is the actual description that science presents of the phenomenal world. It reduces everything to probability waves and/or geometrical points (having location, but lacking dimension) in space-time. 

Jormungander wrote:
I don't see how that helps your position, but lets see where you go with this. Lets say we concede that mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical,

I'm the one who should be asking the question: How does this support your worldview that only the physical exists? Answer: It doesn't.

Jormungander wrote:
How does this imply that our emotions and experiences are non-physical?

I don't know how mathematical abstractions interacting with each other in the void give rise to emotion. I was hoping that you could explain this to me.

Jormungander wrote:
For that matter, our material brains only processes these mathematical abstractions as information encoded in our neurons. That is an entirely physical process. You are trying to tack on needless non-physical phenomena to describe entirely physical processes. Though, for that matter, you seem to be constantly trying to do that.

You have failed to established that the so-called physical is actually, well, physical. Quite the opposite. It is unintelligible to speak of mathematical abstractions existing independently of a mind that abstracts.

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:
You have not been able to grasp this simple fact.

Correction, we don't agree with you on this point. That doesn't mean that we are not able to grasp these concepts, it means that we grasp the concepts and think that they are wrong.

I'll call and raise you on that "correction." I'm afraid you have already conceded the point earlier in your post when you said that "mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical."

Jormungander wrote:
As an example: my disbelief in phogiston does not mean that I don't grasp the concept, it means that I grasp the concept and reject it. Your problem is that we reject some of your beliefs due to you lacking any evidence to support them, not that we are too dense to get what you are talking about.

In a sense, you actually do believe in the concept of phlogiston. You believe that mass/energy is a material substance when it's really not a substance at all.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Paisley

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Clearly, probability waves and geometrical points (mathematical abstractions) are not physical.  The reason there's no "ghost in the machine" is because the "machine" itself is a ghost. It's completely ephemeral. You have not been able to grasp this simple fact. But it is understandable. Grasping the ephemeral is difficult.

Trying to blur the boundary between the physical and the non-physical.

I'm not trying to blur the boundary. This is the actual description that science presents of the phenomenal world. It reduces everything to probability waves and/or geometrical points (having location, but lacking dimension) in space-time. 

Jormungander wrote:
I don't see how that helps your position, but lets see where you go with this. Lets say we concede that mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical,

I'm the one who should be asking the question: How does this support your worldview that only the physical exists? Answer: It doesn't.

Jormungander wrote:
How does this imply that our emotions and experiences are non-physical?

I don't know how mathematical abstractions interacting with each other in the void give rise to emotion. I was hoping that you could explain this to me.

Jormungander wrote:
For that matter, our material brains only processes these mathematical abstractions as information encoded in our neurons. That is an entirely physical process. You are trying to tack on needless non-physical phenomena to describe entirely physical processes. Though, for that matter, you seem to be constantly trying to do that.

You have failed to established that the so-called physical is actually, well, physical. Quite the opposite. It is unintelligible to speak of mathematical abstractions existing independently of a mind that abstracts.

Jormungander wrote:
Paisley wrote:
You have not been able to grasp this simple fact.

Correction, we don't agree with you on this point. That doesn't mean that we are not able to grasp these concepts, it means that we grasp the concepts and think that they are wrong.

I'll call and raise you on that "correction." I'm afraid you have already conceded the point earlier in your post when you said that "mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical."

Jormungander wrote:
As an example: my disbelief in phogiston does not mean that I don't grasp the concept, it means that I grasp the concept and reject it. Your problem is that we reject some of your beliefs due to you lacking any evidence to support them, not that we are too dense to get what you are talking about.

In a sense, you actually do believe in the concept of phlogiston. You believe that mass/energy is a material substance when it's really not a substance at all.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:What relevance

Paisley wrote:

What relevance does a hypothesis on quantum gravity have with evolutionary theory and the emergence of consciousness?  Perhaps I should refresh your memory. In that thread, I posed the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected if, on the materialistic worldview, consciousness is not causally efficacious? Of course, we came to an impasse because you were too dense to see that the only possible causal role that consciousness could have was the exercising of free will. 

Why is consciousness not causally efficacious?  You have never given this argument, and without this argument non of your other arguments make much sense to me.  Are you saying that consciousness in a materialistic world view can not be causally efficacious because in is not physical?  If so then your argument is based on circular reasoning.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eloise

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Paisley, it's a long video, perhaps you should muster up the energy to sum up exactly what it is you're intending to debate here.

The intent here is to have participants watch the video and discuss it. 

Really? Why is it you're claiming to have started a debate then? It would appear you haven't, moreover, that you never intended to deal exclusively with any one specific subject introduced in the video. In that case, anyone posting relevant to any point raised in the video is participating within your stated expectations ~ so I don't see what possible objection you can have to the majority of the posts here.


Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
The thread title is a rather ambiguous statement about the philosophy of materialism possessing some flaw, it's supported by a link (uncommented), which, if I am not mistaken, is a form of posting subject to specific forum policy - you may not be aware of - that, I'm pretty sure, was written with the intent of deterring forumers from linking other material as essentially their whole post; basically what you've done in the OP.

Puhlease! If you truly feel that I have violated some kind of forum policy, then file a complaint with a moderator. 

Your response is a little selective don't you think? I really don't care if you've breached some loose forum policy I heard about, the whole point is that your intent for this thread was ambiguous from the start, and you've spent the best part of it bitching at everyone for not reading your mind to know what you wanted from them in a reply. Yeah, I mentioned there may be a rule about when it's reasonable to do that, but it was entirely peripheral, the fact is it's what you've done. Do you think it's reasonable to not state your expectations at the start and then spend the entire thread demanding that everyone follow them?

 

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Later you have indicated almost as ambiguously that the issue you wish to debate is whether introspection is a necessary exercise in the study of consciousness. It is fair debate, then, for anyone to attack the premises of Wallace's argument to that effect, right? That is, providing what you want is to debate Wallace's conclusion of introspection being necessary, then you should probably be prepared to defend his premises as well, or if not provide alternative premises that beget the same resolution.

What is not fair is to attack an individual's argument without giving it a fair hearing! Basic debate etiquette demands that you at least listen to the argument before you attack it.

You can listen to an entire argument after disagreeing with a premise on which it's based if you want, but what's the point of that? Argument progresses through agreement. Agreeing with a persons argument means you agree with both their conclusion and how they got there, and as such when someone defies the method or means by which a conclusion is reached it does not imply necessarily that they didn't listen to the whole argument, it does, on the other hand, imply that they were not given cause to listen to the whole argument, so you can't very well fault them if they didn't.

 

And besides all of this, nearly everyone here has now listened to every word of the video and told you as much ~ for the record I have too ~  basic debate etiquette demands that you answer their objections wherever they lie; if you intend to defend the conclusion.

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Don't you think?

What I actually think is that your attitude leaves something very much to be desired.

Irrelevant.

Since you have stated that you had no specific expectations regarding what points in the video would be discussed/debated/objected in this thread there's nothing more to say. That was all I asked.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I'll call and

Paisley wrote:

I'll call and raise you on that "correction." I'm afraid you have already conceded the point earlier in your post when you said that "mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical."

Quote mining doesn't work on forums. You should know this. Here is what I said:

I wrote:

Lets say we concede that mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena are non-physical, how does this imply that our emotions and experiences are non-physical?

I started that off with 'lets say...." I did not concede that point, I merely said that lets say you are correct on that matter, so what? Don't quote mine me. There is little that I will take offense to, but grossly misrepresenting my views in unacceptable. Only by posting that fragment of a sentance from me were you able to distort what I said into seeming like I conceded that point.

 

Paisley wrote:

You have failed to established that the so-called physical is actually, well, physical. Quite the opposite. It is unintelligible to speak of mathematical abstractions existing independently of a mind that abstracts.

Yes, like I said: the mind that conceives of it is processing information encoded in neurons. There are no non-physical concepts in your mind. There is only information processing performed by your neurons. All those abstract ideas are only chemicals and dendrites in your head. Your brain can not contain non-physical things within it, it only has those dentrites connecting neurons that allow chemicals and currents to travel around. Don't pretend as though abstract concepts are anything more than chemical interactions in your head when you think of them.

 

Paisley wrote:

In a sense, you actually do believe in the concept of phlogiston. You believe that mass/energy is a material substance when it's really not a substance at all.

In no sense to I beleive in phlogiston. I think you are playing fast and loose with the word 'substance' here in order to confuse the matter. Obvious energy is not a substance in the way that water is a substance (unless you take into account that the water's mass could be converted into energy or that energy can be converted into matter, in which case matter and energy aren't a whole lot different than one another). But energy is still physical. It is not a 'substance' in some senses of the word, but energy is physical all the same.

So lets see here: in just one post you attempted quote mining and a linguistic trick in order to grossly misrepresent my views. Well play, sir. This is the equivalent of the nut shot for debating.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I'm simply

Paisley wrote:

I'm simply calling a spade a spade. You're not a free-thinker. You're just a closed-minded slave to the dogma of materialism, who doesn't have the basic deceny to listen to a man's argument before going into attack mode.

[...]

Of course, we came to an impasse because you were too dense to see that the only possible causal role that consciousness could have was the exercising of free will. 

Was that textbook projection, or merely a a fairly clear illustration of projection? I'm torn.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
wait... Pasty still comes

wait... Pasty still comes here? and i'm missing all the fun?!?

 

You bastards should have said something!

What Would Kharn Do?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eloise

Paisley wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Paisley, it's a long video, perhaps you should muster up the energy to sum up exactly what it is you're intending to debate here.

The intent here is to have participants watch the video and discuss it.  This is not a complicated proposition. And, if you're not willing to watch the video, then you should not be participate in this thread.

Eloise wrote:
The thread title is a rather ambiguous statement about the philosophy of materialism possessing some flaw, it's supported by a link (uncommented), which, if I am not mistaken, is a form of posting subject to specific forum policy - you may not be aware of - that, I'm pretty sure, was written with the intent of deterring forumers from linking other material as essentially their whole post; basically what you've done in the OP.

Puhlease! If you truly feel that I have violated some kind of forum policy, then file a complaint with a moderator. 

Eloise wrote:
Later you have indicated almost as ambiguously that the issue you wish to debate is whether introspection is a necessary exercise in the study of consciousness. It is fair debate, then, for anyone to attack the premises of Wallace's argument to that effect, right? That is, providing what you want is to debate Wallace's conclusion of introspection being necessary, then you should probably be prepared to defend his premises as well, or if not provide alternative premises that beget the same resolution.

What is not fair is to attack an individual's argument without giving it a fair hearing! Basic debate etiquette demands that you at least listen to the argument before you attack it.

Eloise wrote:
Don't you think?

What I actually think is that your attitude leaves something very much to be desired.

In other words, Paisley hasn't watched the damn thing either and couldn't write a decent summary to save his/her/its life.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
It seems like Paisley can't

It seems like Paisley can't last more than a few posts without some ad hominem party.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Har har har so clever

Quote:
Har har har so clever har har har

 

I'm not in the 'clever' kind of mood lately. Honestly: how stupid are the suggestions of magical conjuration / external consciousness?

 

So stupid as to be beyond deserving any serious argument at the least.

 

 

I mean, do tell Alison: if this is a topic particularly worthy of wasting time on (there's no point in 'debating' Paisley, who only comes here to flaunt his 'years ahead of science!' intellect and solidify his framing of the world through social martyrdom by inviting continued defeats in argument), what are it's mechanisms and predictions, and what applications do we see emerging from it's study?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:It seems

butterbattle wrote:

It seems like Paisley can't last more than a few posts without some ad hominem party.

I think it's just the frustration that we haven't converted to ... something. Magic, maybe? I don't think I've seen a positive assertion, just the criticism of a point of view that we all agree is outdated (old-school materialism). Maybe he's just jerking our collective chain -- I haven't been able to figure it out, truthfully.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Here, just to throw the OP a

Here, just to throw the OP a bit of a bone:

 

When it comes down to the brass tacks, science is about the applications. It's about knowledge that we can use to, as the saying goes, 'make it all go'. So, for Paisley, Alison, Eloise and any other theist who insists that theism is and should be respected as a scientfic pursuit - if you were to be sat down together in proper facilities, given a grant for $500,000.00 (with future increases after demonstrable results and/or proof of concept tests) and handed a dozen or so undergrad techs, what is it that you'd be able to produce for us with your research into 'digital physics' or 'dualism' or any other non-materialistic field? What new technologies would we likely see emerging from your work and our tax dollars? Could you give us a realistic timetable on how many years you'd need in order to make noticeable progress in your field of study?

 

You might note, Paisley, the number of applications yielded by Wallace's research. Namely, zero.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

I mean, do tell Alison: if this is a topic particularly worthy of wasting time on (there's no point in 'debating' Paisley, who only comes here to flaunt his 'years ahead of science!' intellect and solidify his framing of the world through social martyrdom by inviting continued defeats in argument), what are it's mechanisms and predictions, and what applications do we see emerging from it's study?

 

It doesn't have to have applications to be true, ever hear of pure mathematics?

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...So, in your opinion,

...So, in your opinion, mathematics has zero applications?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...So,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...So, in your opinion, mathematics has zero applications?

 

That's not what I said. It's called applied mathematics.

 

I said pure mathematics as in math for the sake of math.

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Except that math is an

EDIT: I think this response is more appropriate:

 

Oh, so math does have applications. We just don't use it in applications every time we invoke it.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:EDIT: I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

EDIT: I think this response is more appropriate:

 

Oh, so math does have applications. We just don't use it in applications every time we invoke it.

 

/facepalm

 

So what doesn't have applications in math isn't true?

 

 

 

Oh and to not derail Hamby's thread

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Well, actually, I've always thought of you as one of those hyper-negative and obnoxious girls (well, initially a guy, to get technical) who ranks a good 7-9 or so on the Goodyear scale.

 

Hamby tends to be pretty insistent that this isn't the case - but, to be fair, I'm not sure he's as familiar with loafer deadbeats from Eastern Canada as I am. Smiling

 

 

And what applications do you see from me being a hyper-negative obnoxious girl?

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
I don't recall stating my

I don't recall stating my guess at your persona as a scientific field of study.

 

In any case, since apparently you can neither admit that mathematics is something that was formulated for practical use in making accurate measurements nor think of a single application that theistic 'science' might yield, I'll be leaving this discussion for now, as I feel I've demonstrated my point.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Why is

RatDog wrote:
Why is consciousness not causally efficacious?  You have never given this argument, and without this argument non of your other arguments make much sense to me. Are you saying that consciousness in a materialistic world view can not be causally efficacious because in is not physical?  If so then your argument is based on circular reasoning.

Yes, I have given the reason (in another thread) why it is not causally-efficacious. It's called "sufficient causation." If the mental can be sufficiently explained in physical terms, then there's nothing left for the mental to do. And, if you take issue with this, then please explain what active role consciousness could possibly play other than free will. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:So, for

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So, for Paisley, Alison, Eloise and any other theist who insists that theism is and should be respected as a scientfic pursuit -

Er... I do what now? Sorry Kevin, you've been mistaken if you think that I would like Theism to be respected as a scientific pursuit. Theology is already studied quite extensively, with varied outcomes, am I'm not inclined to believe that it needs more objective attention than it already does get; it certainly needs a lttle less biased attention, that's for sure. In any case, That's not really how I feel about theism - how I feel is that if you want to believe and investigate the claims of theology go ahead, I'm not asking for people to be granted more allowances to do so, they aren't needed. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

if you were to be sat down together in proper facilities, given a grant for $500,000.00 (with future increases after demonstrable results and/or proof of concept tests) and handed a dozen or so undergrad techs, what is it that you'd be able to produce for us with your research into 'digital physics' or 'dualism' or any other non-materialistic field?

Um... digital physics isn't exactly non-material BTW, but good question.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What new technologies would we likely see emerging from your work and our tax dollars?

Actually, I predict there may be applications to space exploration in the study I have chosen to undertake, for one. That said, no one's given me a large grant and a swag of fellows as of yet, and I wouldn't be able to tell you if they might because I'm not exactly ready to ask for that, either.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Could you give us a realistic timetable on how many years you'd need in order to make noticeable progress in your field of study?

I've been reduced to part time efforts for a while now, for a number of reasons, but my circumstances have changed recently so I am likely to be making bigger strides in this year. Beyond that I have given myself 10 years to get it off the ground. See me in five or six for an update. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Really? Why is

Eloise wrote:
Really? Why is it you're claiming to have started a debate then. It would appear you haven't, moreover, that you never intended to deal exclusively with any one specific subject introduced in the video. In that case, anyone posting relevant to any point raised in the video is participating within your stated expectations ~ so I don't see what possible objection you can have to the majority of the posts here.

 

I'm not going to quibble over the terms "discuss" and "debate." Now, unless you have actually watched the video and wish to DISCUSS it or DEBATE it, then quit wasting my precious time. I have little patience for your mother hen nonsense.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Yes, like

Jormungander wrote:
Yes, like I said: the mind that conceives of it is processing information encoded in neurons. There are no non-physical concepts in your mind. There is only information processing performed by your neurons. All those abstract ideas are only chemicals and dendrites in your head. Your brain can not contain non-physical things within it, it only has those dentrites connecting neurons that allow chemicals and currents to travel around. Don't pretend as though abstract concepts are anything more than chemical interactions in your head when you think of them.

Okay, have it your way. Mathematical abstractions are nothing more than chemical interactions happening in the brain. However, all chemical elements reduce to subatomic particles which reduce to probability waves and/or geometrical points (mathematical abstractions). So all these chemical interactions taking place in the brain are actually mathematical abstractions interacting with each other.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I think

HisWillness wrote:
I think it's just the frustration that we haven't converted to ... something. Magic, maybe? I don't think I've seen a positive assertion, just the criticism of a point of view that we all agree is outdated (old-school materialism). Maybe he's just jerking our collective chain -- I haven't been able to figure it out, truthfully.

What I find frustrating is the deliberate attempt to hijack my threads by trolls.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Okay, have it

Paisley wrote:

Okay, have it your way. Mathematical abstractions are nothing more than chemical interactions happening in the brain. However, all chemical elements reduce to subatomic particles which reduce to probability waves and/or geometrical points (mathematical abstractions). So all these chemical interactions taking place in the brain are actually mathematical abstractions interacting with each other.

The probability waves and geometric points are mathematical models, not physical things that reside within atoms. The Schrodinger equation is a model that accurately describes systems, it is not the system itself. Math is the language that we use to describe these things, but math is not the things themselves. So no, the chemical interactions are not mathematical abstactions interacting with each other; though if you wanted to model their interactions you would use math as your tool for describing their properties. I can not imagine how someone could beleive that.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India