Pure Consciousness?

[Greylorn Ell]

Here are some alternative ideas for your consideration.

You have bundled every mental experience except sensory perception into your concept of consciousness, as do most thinkers on the subject. This is correct if the human brain is the sole source of consciousness, but not correct if Descartes is remotely correct in identifying soul as mind, or if my Beon Theory, which proposes that consciousness depends upon a physical and non-material entity separate from, but connected to a normal brain, is valid.

No. You misunderstand me. My thoughts to not preclude you and Descartes from being essentially correct. I gathered, not bundled, all of the aspects of consciousness together in order to compare them. The reason that I wanted to consider them all is because I found that too many others had created false dichotomies regarding the different aspects. Science likes to consider only the brain and thought while treating emotion like it is an extra, and has no idea of what awareness is; religion likes to consider emotion, "God", and magic, and has no concept of cause and effect; and philosophy is just as bad in it's biases. I studied the entire chapter on Consciousness in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and noted that they do not even consider emotion. If you type the word, emotion, into the search feature of the SEP, you will get Stoicism, some articles on Feminism, and a wealth of information from Eastern Religions on how to control emotion. It is my opinion that philosophy ignores emotion with regard to consciousness, as emotion leads back to religion.

So I think that most people do not consider all of the aspects of consciousness. They pick and choose the ones that suit their theories, and ignore the others. If you can't explain all of them, they you are not explaining consciousness.

Gee,

When I "gather" up an armload of firewood I then "bundle" it for transportation. The distinction between bundle and gather as you and I have used them is an irrelevant quibble, an unnecessary distraction from more relevant conceptual issues.

I pretty much agree with and appreciate your perspectives. I'm coming to think that a prerequisite for any Ph.D in philosophy should be a degree in law, followed up by a minimum of ten years in courtroom trenches. The problem is, I think that a degree and experience in physics should also be a prerequisite. Those two would seriously limit the number of certified philosophers, but would not restrict the quantity of certifiable philosophers.

Religions do believe in cause and effect, in much the same way that quantum physicists do. Pray, and God will listen-- but he might not answer your particular prayer. In QM this translates to: Perform an experiment involving the behavior of atomic particles (such as electrons) and calculate the probability of any particular outcome. You cannot predict the behavior of a single electron in, for example, a double-slit experiment. You can only predict the statistically averaged behavior of large numbers of electrons.

I love your last (above) paragraph. I'll count on you to stand by it in our ongoing conversations.

According to Beon Theory, imaginative thought, conceptual understanding, and conceptual memory are properties of a non-created entity (beon) that has the potential to acquire self-awareness. The brain can learn logic, and does most of what passes for the category of reasoning most commonly employed by humans, rationalization. The brain retains detailed knowledge, such as the words and grammars of languages, navigation skills, and all memories relating to experience, but the human brain is naturally no more conscious than the brains of any critter. Instinct is entirely a brain-level property, but it is sometimes confused with retained conceptual memory at the beon level. Emotions are almost entirely a function of the brain, but are also easily confused as a property of consciousness because beon often learns to emulate this brain function so as to go along for the ride.

Well, I see things a little differently. I don't think that I have a problem with "imaginative thought, conceptual understanding, and conceptual memory are properties of a non-created entity (beon) that has the potential to acquire self-awareness", as this works for me.

I do have a problem with your ideas regarding instinct. How does a specie have instincts when they do not have a brain if instincts are a "brain-level property"? All species have a survival instinct, and trees know to grow their roots toward water and turn their leaves to the sun in order to survive.

Consider the possibility that bacteria, leaves, and critters are the result of a deliberate engineering process. An omnipotent God does not exist and is not involved, but sentient and conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. Anyone with an understanding of physics can build machines that operate without computers (e.g. leaves turning to face their energy source, or your home's thermostat that uses a temperature-sensitive bimetallic spring to flip a switch that turns on a heater or A/C unit). Leaves and thermostats operate from engineered structures, not from instincts.

Put simply, place a white china plate next to a black china plate in the summer sun for 15 minutes, then try to pick them up. The black plate will be too hot to touch with bare hands, but not so with the white plate. The plates have no instincts, but absorb and reflect energy according to the principles of thermodynamics and radiation transfer.

Instincts require a brain. Spiders are born knowing how to construct complex webs and knowing how to capture and eat bugs that fall into them. They have little brains. It looks as though their brains and nervous systems are completely integrated, whereas our primary brain, the cortex, is connected to our nervous system indirectly-- a second level of integration.

Instincts are properties of all brains, just as programs are properties of all computers. (That is not precisely true-- but a computer without a program is just an expensive boat-anchor.) Instincts are analogous to the programs that determine the behavior of your computer, and the protocols we use on this forum.

I think that you seriously underestimate emotion, as it is the driving force that makes everything happen. I suspect that it is essential in the formation of mind, and maybe soul. It is also the only aspect of consciousness that is obviously external to the body.

Someone who has been thrice married and other times in love, who has done jail time and been in nasty fights, who loves to dance and has been 86'd from two bars and banned from several forums could only underestimate the power of emotions if he/she/it was brain-dead.

I believe that as you clarify your understanding of consciousness, you will invert the sense of your last sentence.

I accept your sense of the importance of emotions, but I see emotion as a motivational mechanism. I'd love to discuss this in other contexts.

Beon theory is only remotely Cartesian, and makes a point of assigning specific mechanisms to particular cognitive functions. You will find it much easier to understand consciousness from its unique perspective.

Well, I do that too, in my simplified sort of way. Matter holds knowledge and memory, grey matter holds knowledge, memory, and processes them for thinking. Hormones and pheromones work instincts. Chemistry works emotion, feeling, and probably awareness.

I think that your way of understanding consciousness is derived from conventional opinions, and is more complex than Beon Theory. We'll see, perhaps. Not important now, since your thoughts are, IMO, a fair overview of reality that will suffice until we get into details.

The notion of "pure mind" cannot apply to a human being, because our mind is a composite entity, beon integrated with brain. Any beon that is not physically attached to a brain and has learned to sustain consciousness can be regarded as a pure mind, despite its limitations.

Greylorn

I don't like the notion of "pure mind" anymore than I like the notion of "pure consciousness". I have some thoughts on "mind" that I would like to share with you, but not now. You wrote too many posts that I have to respond to, and I am moving slow lately.

G

Yes, we have a conversation going. We will both need to maintain the physiological machines that facilitate the conversation. Among the things I've learned are some simple healing techniques that might alleviate your condition. If you were next door, I could fix you; but you are a few thousand miles distant, and skeptical of my claim.

We can't remove the distance, but you could shift your skepticism to curiosity. Finding a competent Reiki practitioner should not be difficult if you live in a metropolitan area. (I live in the boonies, and have one just a quarter-mile up a dirt road.) There are other healing modalities that do not involve pills or surgeries or even bone manipulation. I've watched them work under my own fingers without understanding why they work. To the best of my experiential knowledge the success of all these techniques depends upon the mind of the recipient, which may be skeptical about the methodology but must be open to life and enhanced consciousness. PM if you want details.

I enjoy this conversation and pray (my style) that you carry on your end of it in full health and good spirits.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Gee,

The endospore is analogous to a plant seed, or a fungal spore. It is a biological machine that is engineered with built-in sensors that activate different behaviors as a function of environmental circumstances.

Yes, you could compare it to a seed, but it is not a very good comparison. A seed is a normal part of a life cycle, an endospore is not. A seed will try to open when put in water, an endospore will not. You are not thinking here.

Aren't you conflating the word "normal" with "observable?" We've only recently studied the internal mechanisms of seeds, and do not understand how they work. The sprouting of a seed in response to environmental conditions is observable, but what is "normal" for a seed? Some seeds will survive for decades or centuries and sprout when the circumstances are right. Others will lose potency within two years of dormancy.

Suppose that you want to sprout a seed from a Saguaro Cactus. You can put it in some sand and water it until it rots, but it will not sprout until it is exposed to light refracted through water droplets.

Unless you have completely decoded and understood the genome of a bacterium that has the potential to become an endospore, you are unqualified to state what is normal for that bacterium.

By way of example, I once wrote a program to run on a particular in-house supercomputer. Some astronomers at Utrecht University requested a copy. The request came not to me, but to a supervisor. He sent them a copy of my software with the caveat that it would not work properly on their computer, because theirs was bigger and faster and had a different way of handling certain instructions. They tried it anyway and it worked fine. They asked why he said it would fail.

So the supervisor studied my code, found that I had anticipated the characteristics of their computer without ever having written code for it.

If you adopt the conventional assumption that bacteria (and other life forms) actually come into existence according to Darwinist theories, you will run into many more conundrums (if you investigate) than the endospore problem. No random process can prepare a simple bacterium to hibernate for a few thousand years in a hostile environment.

However, a gene programmer who anticipated the hostile environment could program a bacterium to survive it. You might want to consider endospores as evidence of intelligent engineering. Yep, scary! But consistent with the available information.

Notice that your curiosity about endospores is the result of your beliefs in current, conventional scientific opinion. (e.g. Darwinism-- random mutations) You'd have made a superb maverick scientist, but would have needed a day job.

Moreover, thanks to the scientifically consistent and logical paradigms that comprise Beon Theory, you do not have to go to church and sing hosannas to an omnipotent God who created the endospore programming in one of his six cosmic fingersnaps at the beginning of the universe, 6000-odd years ago, in order to justify your new understanding of endospores.

There are bacteria that can go through thousands of life cycles without ever turning into endospore, so it is not part of the life cycle -- it is a reaction to an unsuitable environment. This part makes sense, and yes, it could be mechanical. But after turning into an endospore, it has a coating that is impervious to extreme changes in temperature, differences in moisture, and even harsh chemicals. When it turns back into bacteria, it seems to be an internal change that causes this, so how does it know to change? How does it discern the now suitable environment through that impervious coat? Because it will not turn back on because of temperature, or because of water, or because of suitable food -- it must have all three -- so how does it know?[/quote}

I cannot pretend to have answers to these extremely technical questions. I do not understand the entirety of genomic coding. Nonetheless I am confident that the code exists.

Back when I programmed my little telescope I found that the instrument developed a habit of shutting itself down late on weekend nights, around 10pm to midnight, as if it thought that the sun was rising. After discussing this problem with fellow engineers, someone guessed that teenagers necking in the parking lot of our remote observatory had found that if they shone their car lights on a peculiar looking shed with a tube poking out of it some 40 yards away, the tube would duck into the shed and the shed's roof would close with considerable noise and clatter, effectively covering the telescope with a protective shell. They told their friends. So I reprogrammed the instrument to distinguish between daylight and dipshits.

I expect that a gene programmer who knew what he was doing would be able to prepare bacteria for survival in a hostile environment, including, as I did, suitable wake-up mechanisms that were activated with the environment returned to favorability.

Years ago I wrote some computer code to control a telescope that could execute an observing program all on its own without human interference, for several successive days. During daylight hours it would do nothing, although the computer that controlled it was constantly running.

OK So if I unplugged the computer that supervises this telescope and left it for one hundred thousand years, then it would go back to work at the end of that time all by itself?

Yes, assuming that the environment was insufficiently hostile to have destroyed the mechanisms. However, after that period of time the instrument would not have been able to find the stars in its observing program. Earth's rotational period will have changed slightly, but enough to render the instrument's siderial clock inaccurate. Precession of earth's axis will have changed the relative positions of the planets. The instrument would try to work but would spend its working hours seeking stars in all the wrong places.

However, had I been charged with programming an instrument that could function effectively after 100,000 years (and given a larger computer) I could have programmed it so that it could have done its job after a long period of hibernation.

Endospore can exist for hundreds of thousands of years with no discernible metabolism, and then turn back on by themselves. This looks impossible to me, but it happens. The cause and effect gal wants to know how it happens.

If she really wants to know how it happens, she needs to study physics, EE, microbiology, etc.

Life forms are not miracles or magic. They represent the result of some heavy-duty, imaginative engineering. This can be learned.

Suppose you really wanted to know how my little telescope worked? I could send you a roll of the punched paper tape that encoded its instructions, and you could stare at it for a thousand years without a clue as to how the holes in that strip of paper got a telescope to observe stars without human intervention. The same strip of paper tape would make no more sense to the chief programmer of the Mars Rover program, except that she might say, "Hmmm-- maybe this is code for a program of some sort. But it could be garbage, and without knowledge of the computer it was supposed to run on and the devices it was designed to control, I can't figure it out either."

This exemplifies a set of distinctions that many thinkers ignore, thereby confusing an organism's awareness of its circumstances with awareness of self, i.e. consciousness.

This has nothing to do with awareness of circumstances or self, it has to do with cause and effect.

G

Of course. So, the next task becomes that of determining the causes, and understanding any intermediate mechanisms that might produce the effect.

Unless you propose that consciousness is an effect without cause. I cannot imagine you doing so.

Perhaps you are looking at cause-effect relationships from too simplistic a perspective. You can step on the accelerator pedal of your car (cause) and the car will go faster (effect) without knowing squat about linkages, the car's computer, or how fuel injectors (or carburetors) work. The pressure of your foot on a pedal does not, by itself, cause the car to do anything. If one of the intermediate mechanisms that are a function of pedal position were to fail, your "cause" would not produce the anticipated effect.

I'm guessing that you are seeking a more interesting level of understanding. And hoping.

Greylorn

[Blaggard]

However, a gene programmer who anticipated the hostile environment could program a bacterium to survive it. You might want to consider endospores as evidence of intelligent engineering. Yep, scary! But consistent with the available information.

Or you could just say that bacteria that exhibited this behaviour were more likely to adapt to hazardous conditions and hence the trait would be more likely to accumulate in bacteria over time. Which is somewhat less scary and fits with all available evidence. There's no reason to think any creator had to do anything because such a situation would of arisen by sheer asexual fitness in bacteria, heredity of such phenotypes is hardly then some mystical event that could of only happened by the hand of an engineer. The blind watchmaker makes his watches randomly by mutation some watches don't work some work far better than others and these the watchmaker keeps and these in turn are improved upon. There's no mystery to genetics. The formation of both endospores and exospores seems a natural process that already existed ie the replication of self with a mutation which inhibited certain enzyme formation, it seems pretty clear you could easily see how such a state of affairs could happen by little more than selection pressure in the environment and DNA mutation.

Your ideas about intelligent design are not very well reasoned, you seem to run with the idea that not understanding things means God slides in or a designer, when there are as many viable scientific hypothesis and in fact theories (this area of research is hardly baron of study) somehow an intelligent designer is the only clear winner? Which is an example of selective reasoning, ie only picking the lines of reasoning that support your case and ignoring the vast swathes of research on bacteria that explain this mechanism in far more depth than you probably care for and don't seem to have to resort to magic to reason its existence.

Why do people insist on such biased and clearly unscientific methodology as if its some logical paradigm that has shifted the evolution of reason by some unfathomable degree, when really it's just evidence of cognitive dissonance a lack of study of the science itself and god of the gaps style argument.

There are dozens of theories about how life got started how it evolved, why it evolved out there, why pick one that requires some magic bearded guy on a sky cloud over all the other viable alternatives? What is the motivation to ignore all other rational explanations because you want to believe someone designed us? Clearly your hypothesis is just one of several hundred not to distinguish itself in any meaningful way so until it does then surely the current theory is fine. Why do we need an engineer at all?

Biogenesis of RNA has been demonstrated in labs, poly aromatic hydrocarbons have been found in asteroids, as have simple enzymes formed from chains of hydrocarbons. the flagellum of a cell has been explained in detail to the satisfaction of all science if not the ID community, and at the current time their still exist gaps in understanding, for example but evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. It took a billion years for simple bacteria to develop and archea which do not require oxygen to survive only hydrothermal energy, I'm pretty sure that makes the process complicated as it wends its way up to man kind, but not irreducibly so.

[HexHammer]

Why do people insist on such biased and clearly unscientific methodology as if its some logical paradigm that has shifted the evolution of reason by some unfathomable degree, when really it's just evidence of cognitive dissonance a lack of study of the science itself and god of the gaps style argument.

Becase some people are very naive and selfdelusional, why demagogues has an easy time to manipulate the masses.

[Blaggard]

Why do people insist on such biased and clearly unscientific methodology as if its some logical paradigm that has shifted the evolution of reason by some unfathomable degree, when really it's just evidence of cognitive dissonance a lack of study of the science itself and god of the gaps style argument.

Becase some people are very naive and selfdelusional, why demagogues has an easy time to manipulate the masses.

It also means the demagogue has to be pretty self delusional too, which is probably why the sheep are attracted to arm waving in lieu of reason. If ID proponents were remotely interested in science enough to learn the subject to a level where they are qualified to comment, we'd not be having this discussion, but since their god of the gaps style arguments require only rudimentary perusal of scientific material and concerns voiced by science itself, they don't, and then stubbornly refuse to do the minimum amount of research that would overturn their confirmation bias. Hence a prophet is born, without a viable prophecy who thinks his wisdom visionary when it is really just blinkered. End of the story 1067 people ingest cyanide whilst waiting for the mothership to take them all to paradise.

Whining about establishment not taking them seriously because they are brainwashed, is another symptom, if the establishment is wrong then clearly the best way of proving them wrong is to do some research that proves them wrong get a Phd in biology or psychology or neuropsychology or physics or whatever become a research fellow then do some ground breaking research in x, hell you can even get phD's in parapsychology for that matter and do research into paranormal phenomena; it seems hence clear it's probably best not to run around hypothesising ideas based on ideals that you haven't researched enough to comment on, that is not a sensible way to gain information, to gain bias: sure: it's a great way to cherry pick your way through facts.

[marjoramblues]

GE: The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I."

M: In your opinion, how were the chapters misused ?

GE: Miedaner used both chapters to present strong beliefs of the sort that would normally be associated with an atheistic position, and that is how Hofstadter employed them. However, he knew better.

M: The excerpts are found in 'Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul' -Part II.
Entitled 'Soul Searching' this deals with a view of consciousness - from the outside, observing others.
It asks the question 'What is it that reveals the presence of other minds, other souls, to the searcher' (Introduction, p15).

As such, Hofstadter reflects on the plausibility of the scenarios presented by Miedaner. He concludes that whatever the realism of excerpt 'The soul of Martha, a Beast' - many moral and philosophical issues are well posed.
Some examples of H's : 'Is degree of intellect a true indicator of degree of soul?
Do retarded or senile people have 'smaller souls' than normal people?... Who will provide the soul meter?' (Reflections pp106- 108).

GE: "...Anna Klane" was presenting a theory that, while certainly not a Christian perspective, was decidedly not atheistic. It used those chapters to show an alternative viewpoint, ultimately employing them to support its unique perspective about the relationship between soul and brain.

M: Next excerpt - 'The soul of the Mark III Beast' was apparently selected to reflect on a character's remark: ' But it isn't always easy to know who or what has feelings'.
Hofstadter shows how Miedaner manipulates the reader's emotions and thoughts by provocative images to convince the readers that 'there can be mechanical, metallic feelings'.
The soul, here, is seen as emerging not as a function of an inner state, but of our own ability to project(Reflections, pp 113 -115)

GE: Had Hofstadter been philosophically honest he would have mentioned as much within his discussion of those chapters.

M: No, this was not the purpose of the 'Mind's I'. The chapters were not misused. In fact, they were used very well to provoke more thought and insight.

[Blaggard]

Gee,

Thank you!

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn notes that empirical evidence which does not fit into the current explanatory paradigm is always dismissed by those who have vested their time and maybe career in the current paradigm. It will not be accepted as valid evidence until someone devises a different theoretical paradigm into which it fits.

The new paradigm itself will not be accepted until the preponderance of those who have bought into it die off.

My theories provide a paradigm into which all paranormal phenomena fit. They also incorporate the recently discovered phenomenon known as "dark energy," which has been labeled "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." And I'm about to die off.

Greylorn

I find this especially specious given the revolutions in science that happened in last two centuries where very quickly existing paradigms were demolished in a day just by the publishing of a viable and testable hypothesis, such as the quantum revolution and the evolution of species which stood in the face of the more belief based ideas of creationism, and other types of speciation at the time. The existing paradigms are not waiting for everyone to die before suddenly ID becomes accepted, because it can't happen, science really does have nothing to do with God. If you are looking for a battle on the existence of a designer you seem to be attacking the wrong target, philosophy is the place best suited to existence questions. Science must remain mute on things for which there is no evidence. Dawkins when he is talking about the selfish gene is talking science, but when he's talking about The God Delusion that is philosophy, sure it can be based on some form of science, but at the end of the day they people who are most likely to provide a viable defence are philosophers like Dennett et al.

[marjoramblues]

Elsewhere, GE:

My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness

Oh, so it seems you are Terrel Miedaner, author of 'The Soul of Anna Klane' - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.

Are you, really ?
So - please, tell me - how were the chapters misused?
And how have they been used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when ?

Thanks for answering the question re alleged misuse. I have replied - disagreeing with your position.

However, I remain curious as to how the novel was used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when. Perhaps too long ago to remember...?

[HexHammer]

It also means the demagogue has to be pretty self delusional too, which is probably why the sheep are attracted to arm waving in lieu of reason. If ID proponents were remotely interested in science enough to learn the subject to a level where they are qualified to comment, we'd not be having this discussion

No, the demagogue can manipulte the naive to tie their own ends, needest I say 9/11 and oil consessions?

No, some people can't relate to what they know, and only preform parrot speeches, thus they can be selfcontradicting, that's when one has zero rationallity in their logical area.

[Ginkgo]

Gee,

Thank you!

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn notes that empirical evidence which does not fit into the current explanatory paradigm is always dismissed by those who have vested their time and maybe career in the current paradigm. It will not be accepted as valid evidence until someone devises a different theoretical paradigm into which it fits.

The new paradigm itself will not be accepted until the preponderance of those who have bought into it die off.

My theories provide a paradigm into which all paranormal phenomena fit. They also incorporate the recently discovered phenomenon known as "dark energy," which has been labeled "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." And I'm about to die off.

Greylorn

I find this especially specious given the revolutions in science that happened in last two centuries where very quickly existing paradigms were demolished in a day just by the publishing of a viable and testable hypothesis, such as the quantum revolution and the evolution of species which stood in the face of the more belief based ideas of creationism, and other types of speciation at the time. The existing paradigms are not waiting for everyone to die before suddenly ID becomes accepted, because it can't happen, science really does have nothing to do with God. If you are looking for a battle on the existence of a designer you seem to be attacking the wrong target, philosophy is the place best suited to existence questions. Science must remain mute on things for which there is no evidence. Dawkins when he is talking about the selfish gene is talking science, but when he's talking about The God Delusion that is philosophy, sure it can be based on some form of science, but at the end of the day they people who are most likely to provide a viable defence are philosophers like Dennett et al.

Blags,

Yes I agree with this and it is important. On occasions I find myself 'crossing the boundary', so to speak. I don't have a problem with it, but I do make it clear that I am now not talking science.

The problem is that some people don't make this distinction and believe they can talk about an intelligent designer and still be doing science. The short answer is they can't.

[Blaggard]

However, a gene programmer who anticipated the hostile environment could program a bacterium to survive it. You might want to consider endospores as evidence of intelligent engineering. Yep, scary! But consistent with the available information.

Yet you still justify this as a legitimate argument? I mean philosophically or scientifically its a pretty dubious proposition to be fair.

[Gee]

Members;

Well this is interesting. I woke up to discover that an entire page had been written in this thread. The problem is that the only posts that are on topic were written by Greylorn, as all the rest of it is garbage. I know that people like to see their words in print, but consider that the people reading this thread have the silly idea that they will be reading about Pure Consciousness. Consciousness is an extremely complex issue that involves almost every other aspect of life, science, religion, and philosophy, so it is easy to take it off topic while following an idea. Disciplining our thoughts is required.

HexHammer,

You do not seem to have a lot to say about consciousness, but you also do not write long posts, so you are not really an irritant.

Marjoramblues,

You also do not have much to say about consciousness, but seem interested in debate practices. In debate, a person looks for a weakness in their opponent's position and then attacks it, which makes for long detailed posts that take the thread off topic. Please note that after 1,000 years of this style of debate, we have learned little about consciousness, and have succeeded in reducing this concept to a war between science and religion, Monism v Dualism. This style of debate does not give us answers and reduces the discussion to anger, frustration, non-cooperation, and useless posturing. If you want to fight with someone, go find the neighborhood bully, and have a go at him.

Blaggard,

You also seem very interested in debate practices, but my biggest issue with you is that you do not seem to know that this is a philosophy forum -- not a science forum. There is a difference! Please stop telling us what science does not know, or what science guesses, because we already have that information. If you really do not understand the differences between philosophy and science, then send me a PM. I will be happy to enlighten you.


If the members can not keep this as a civil on-topic discussion without attacks, then I will simply invite Greylorn to return our discussion to the PM system, or maybe we will exchange e-mail addresses and cut all of you out of the conversation. We may invite Ginkgo to join us.

G

[Blaggard]

You also seem very interested in debate practices, but my biggest issue with you is that you do not seem to know that this is a philosophy forum -- not a science forum. There is a difference! Please stop telling us what science does not know, or what science guesses, because we already have that information. If you really do not understand the differences between philosophy and science, then send me a PM. I will be happy to enlighten you.


If the members can not keep this as a civil on-topic discussion without attacks, then I will simply invite Greylorn to return our discussion to the PM system, or maybe we will exchange e-mail addresses and cut all of you out of the conversation. We may invite Ginkgo to join us.

G

Lol I am well aware this is a philosophy forum and I am not having a go, my intent is only to challenge concerns which are philosophy of science or science, these seem to be something that most philosophers claim to be wise on but when you dig a little deeper are actually quite ignorant, lacking even rudimentary knowledge of biology and physics or neurology and simply arguing out of date issues like they are somehow Keanu Reaves gliding through the matrix. I am not trying to be a science big head, but some of the sheer crap that is claimed in the name of either philosophy of science, or science is pretty damned old and pretty damned redundant.

So no I don't think you can dictate how debate progresses, and I don't think it is fair to expect people to have sloppy psuedo scientific prose passed off as either philosophy or science. So yes by all means if you just want a dialogue take it to pm, if you want a discussion I am pretty sure that is what forums are for, no?

In ten years about half of what was true in science is no longer the case especially in medicine, it behooves people to keep up with current knopwledge, then. If they don't then why should I stand by and watch people mangle science and the philosophy of it therein? It's sophistry if you don't know what you are talking about, then don't make sloppy statements that defy all reason scientific or otherwise. It's quite simple, and I don't think I have done anything wrong by updating some outmoded ideas that were debunked 20 years ago. So take your self important we just want to have a dialogue to pm if you must, but if you do burden the general forum goers with old nonsense, I think it is not unfair to expect that you be challenged on it.

In other words cry me o' river.

If the members can not keep this as a civil on-topic discussion without attacks, then I will simply invite Greylorn to return our discussion to the PM system, or maybe we will exchange e-mail addresses and cut all of you out of the conversation. We may invite Ginkgo to join us.

G

You do that, go retreat into your cave and talk amongst the oligarchy, it's of course your prerogative, but please and I want to make this very clear don't wax lyrical on things that you seem to know almost nothing about as if you do, it's little more than vacuous arm waving and it does not enlighten or enliven the philosophical medium one bit.

And if you see anything I have done as a personal attack not an attack on the arguments, you are of course quite free to report me to the moderator who will of course take action. I don't see the point of pandering to people who clearly haven't done their research, and I don't think I should be victimised for pointing out the flaws in their arguments either. If you want to take this further, pm me, or report my posts, I am pretty sure of anything I have said being neither ad hominem or breaching any laws of civil discourse, but you are of course welcome to make debate all about you and not reality by silencing any argument that is not your own, humanity have been doing it for thousands of years, why stop now..?

[marjoramblues]

Marjoramblues,

You also do not have much to say about consciousness, but seem interested in debate practices. In debate, a person looks for a weakness in their opponent's position and then attacks it, which makes for long detailed posts that take the thread off topic. Please note that after 1,000 years of this style of debate, we have learned little about consciousness, and have succeeded in reducing this concept to a war between science and religion, Monism v Dualism. This style of debate does not give us answers and reduces the discussion to anger, frustration, non-cooperation, and useless posturing. If you want to fight with someone, go find the neighborhood bully, and have a go at him.

I am not interested in debate practices, nor looking to attack anyone.

Merely responding to GE's points/positions, following on from the concept of 'beon'.

There is no need to be so rude about interested people following different threads of thought; in my case wishing clarification about references to old novels, philosophy books - dealing with different aspects of consciousness.

If the members can not keep this as a civil on-topic discussion without attacks, then I will simply invite Greylorn to return our discussion to the PM system, or maybe we will exchange e-mail addresses and cut all of you out of the conversation. We may invite Ginkgo to join us.

Go for it !!

Remember, if you decide to talk to other PN members, that there is a civilised way to remove posts you consider attacks or irrelevant.

Perhaps, there is simply too much to discuss in this one thread.
The books referred to by GE are fascinating; however, I agree - perhaps better discussed elsewhere.

[Blaggard]

It also means the demagogue has to be pretty self delusional too, which is probably why the sheep are attracted to arm waving in lieu of reason. If ID proponents were remotely interested in science enough to learn the subject to a level where they are qualified to comment, we'd not be having this discussion

No, the demagogue can manipulte the naive to tie their own ends, needest I say 9/11 and oil consessions?

No, some people can't relate to what they know, and only preform parrot speeches, thus they can be selfcontradicting, that's when one has zero rationallity in their logical area.

Yeah they also seem pretty good at whining about debate/discussion too. Logic well I am not sure it is logical to dismiss valid criticism because you want to explore your specious ideas in peace, but hey whatever floats the respective boats of the respective users, it is of course a concern only if they want to make it so. Go forth in peace and good faith and have your discussion free of criticism I am sure that "circle jerk" will be very enlightening to you at least.

Honestly I don't get why people don't like people saying no you are just wrong it's like this. You for example were able to say ok the second law of thermodynamics can apply to non closed systems but more usually doesn't. Where's the beef? It's just knowledge, it's not like I am forcing people to understand current thinking, believe what you want, but don't slag me off because it is at odds with reality. Doesn't seem fair to me.

And the people who nay say dogma are the bad guys.