Pure Consciousness?

[Gee]

Hi again Gee,

There is nothing in the SEP that I can see that disagree[s] with what I have said thus far in this thread.

And therein lies the problem. What you stated is true, but it is not the truth, which would be why I stated that it is wrong. Philosophy deals in truth, not selected pieces of truth. You stated that "consciousness 'resides' with in the brain". Now maybe I worked too long in law, but the word 'resides" implies "residence", and there can be only one residence. A person can have 15 homes, but only one can be a residence. So people think that consciousness comes from the brain -- from it's home/residence -- but this is not true.

You can think that I am being too particular, but consider how many people are actually surprised when I state that all life is sentient; therefore, all life is conscious. This means that trees and weeds are aware and therefore conscious. This is also true, but people don't believe it because they are convinced that consciousness 'resides' within the brain. There is a difference between the complex consciousness that emerges from the brain and simple awareness/consciousness. And it needs to be noted.

Consciousness is not one pure singular thing; it is complex and has levels and degrees. That is what this thread is all about. We need to stop thinking of consciousness as being magic or "God" and study what it actually is.

I think it is important to clear up at least one popular misconception in relation to science. Science only provides EVIDENCE that supports a theory. In other words, all science wants to say is that the observational evidence supports a theory FOR THE TIME BEING. Science doesn't deal in "proofs".

If science does not deal in "proofs", then what the hell is all of that testing about?

Science is always an open question and thus is always open to continual revision. Mathematics and logic deal in the type of proofs you refer to. I am getting the idea that you see "proof" as more definitive than "evidence".

Absolutely. Again, consider my work in law; we have "a preponderance of evidence", "clear and convincing evidence", and "beyond a reasonable doubt" as distinct levels of proof that are written into the laws. We also have Courts that are over other Courts for our "continual revision". These can offer proofs, but do not guarantee truth. One must always bear in mind that the Supreme Court is not the last Court because it is always right; it is always right because it is the last Court that you can Petition.

The ontological argument is proof that God exists.

This is great news. Tell me which "God" was found to exist, because if I decide to get religion, of course, I want to get the right one. (chuckle)

This may seem trivial and unrelated to your response--but it isn't. You are looking for something that cannot overcome the explanatory gap.

I disagree. I believe that the explanatory gap can and will be overcome.

G

[Gee]

Blaggard;

Please don't make me regret this post. After all of the insulting and rude lies that you have told about me regarding my supposed religious beliefs and duality with Greylorn, I am not sure that I should respond to any of your posts. But I did state that if you made an on-topic post that showed signs of "thinking", that I would respond. I like to keep my word, so here goes:

In his 1955 book Science and Christian Belief Charles Alfred Coulson (1910−1974) wrote:

There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking.[5]

and

Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all.

The phrase 'God of the gaps' denotes an understanding that 'God' keeps shrinking because as we learn more, we attribute less to 'God', but I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the problem. This understanding implies that once we know enough, the 'God idea' will simply disappear, and I don't see that as happening.

The truth is that every culture, every society, every nation, has had some kind of philosophical or religious understanding of the spiritual for as far back as we can determine. The Lionman statue is over 30,000 years old, well before recorded history, and it signifies a belief in the spiritual/supernatural. So this is definitely not a fad.

The 'God idea' crosses cultures, races, and classes of people universally. People believe that they have an intimate relationship with their 'God', whatever they conceive that to be. Psychiatry has studied this idea and concluded that we may need to have a 'God' in our lives and societies. So is religion necessary? Maybe so. The question is why do we seem to need this? What need does 'God' fulfill? What question does 'God' answer?

What is 'God'? Well there are a lot of interpretations, but the only conclusive thing that we know is that 'God' is supernatural. What do religions study? Well that would be the spiritual/supernatural. So the logical solution, in my mind, is to study the supernatural/paranormal and get some definitive answers. This is why I have included the supernatural/paranormal in my studies of consciousness. I am also studying the 'God idea'.

But getting people to talk about the paranormal is like getting them to talk about masturbation. Everyone knows about both of them; most people have experienced both of them; but no one talks about either of them, and will deny knowledge of them. Coincidentally, religion tends to frown on both of them.

I suspect that there is nothing 'super' about the supernatural and that it is a natural part of our reality that we simply don't understand. If we can learn what the supernatural/paranormal actually is, then we would not need religion to interpret it for us. It would not dispose of the 'God idea', but it could put some dampers on the religious problems.

Which is why incidentally greys idea is not even wrong, about the most greivous insult that can be levelled in science.

Well, I haven't read the book yet. I believe that Greylorn has some ideas right, but also suspect that he has some ideas wrong. This is based on comments that he has made in this forum. We will see.

One oft touted rebuke by IDiots is evolution is only a theory. Yeah and it's also a fact, but I do not think they should use that word...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You quoted the Princess Bride, which earns you 'brownie points'. The Theory of Evolution is far from inconceivable, but it is also not perfect. I have no doubt that evolution happened and is still happening, but have serious doubts about the mechanism for natural selection and I have questions regarding diversity.

G

[Blaggard]

Blaggard;

Please don't make me regret this post. After all of the insulting and rude lies that you have told about me regarding my supposed religious beliefs and duality with Greylorn, I am not sure that I should respond to any of your posts. But I did state that if you made an on-topic post that showed signs of "thinking", that I would respond. I like to keep my word, so here goes:

In his 1955 book Science and Christian Belief Charles Alfred Coulson (1910−1974) wrote:

There is no 'God of the gaps' to take over at those strategic places where science fails; and the reason is that gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking.[5]

and

Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He's not there at all.

The phrase 'God of the gaps' denotes an understanding that 'God' keeps shrinking because as we learn more, we attribute less to 'God', but I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the problem. This understanding implies that once we know enough, the 'God idea' will simply disappear, and I don't see that as happening.

The truth is that every culture, every society, every nation, has had some kind of philosophical or religious understanding of the spiritual for as far back as we can determine. The Lionman statue is over 30,000 years old, well before recorded history, and it signifies a belief in the spiritual/supernatural. So this is definitely not a fad.

The 'God idea' crosses cultures, races, and classes of people universally. People believe that they have an intimate relationship with their 'God', whatever they conceive that to be. Psychiatry has studied this idea and concluded that we may need to have a 'God' in our lives and societies. So is religion necessary? Maybe so. The question is why do we seem to need this? What need does 'God' fulfill? What question does 'God' answer?

What is 'God'? Well there are a lot of interpretations, but the only conclusive thing that we know is that 'God' is supernatural. What do religions study? Well that would be the spiritual/supernatural. So the logical solution, in my mind, is to study the supernatural/paranormal and get some definitive answers. This is why I have included the supernatural/paranormal in my studies of consciousness. I am also studying the 'God idea'.

But getting people to talk about the paranormal is like getting them to talk about masturbation. Everyone knows about both of them; most people have experienced both of them; but no one talks about either of them, and will deny knowledge of them. Coincidentally, religion tends to frown on both of them.

I suspect that there is nothing 'super' about the supernatural and that it is a natural part of our reality that we simply don't understand. If we can learn what the supernatural/paranormal actually is, then we would not need religion to interpret it for us. It would not dispose of the 'God idea', but it could put some dampers on the religious problems.

I don't see religion as ever going away either, and I am not opposed to spiritual beleifs, but if those beliefs make claims that are at odds with reality they need to be challenged.

Which is why incidentally greys idea is not even wrong, about the most greivous insult that can be levelled in science.

Well, I haven't read the book yet. I believe that Greylorn has some ideas right, but also suspect that he has some ideas wrong. This is based on comments that he has made in this forum. We will see.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

One oft touted rebuke by IDiots is evolution is only a theory. Yeah and it's also a fact, but I do not think they should use that word...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You quoted the Princess Bride, which earns you 'brownie points'. The Theory of Evolution is far from inconceivable, but it is also not perfect. I have no doubt that evolution happened and is still happening, but have serious doubts about the mechanism for natural selection and I have questions regarding diversity.

G

One of my favourite films of all time. Perhaps we should put the past behind us and start afresh hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father prepare to die.

I kid offering a hand out of recompense.

[Blaggard]

The truth is that every culture, every society, every nation, has had some kind of philosophical or religious understanding of the spiritual for as far back as we can determine. The Lionman statue is over 30,000 years old, well before recorded history, and it signifies a belief in the spiritual/supernatural. So this is definitely not a fad.

The Piranha don't a South American tribe who lack any sort of religious or spiritual belief, but that's beside the point in ancient times people believed the world was flat, a myth that had no basis in reason, Vikings believe thunder is Thors hammer Mjolnir striking the clouds and lightning is his mighty bolt of justice. Christians believe in many likewise miracles, no religion is above challenge. It's easy to see why in ignorance people looked to something above humans to explain the ineffable, this does not make religion, any religion either true or remotely based in fact.

The 'God idea' crosses cultures, races, and classes of people universally. People believe that they have an intimate relationship with their 'God', whatever they conceive that to be. Psychiatry has studied this idea and concluded that we may need to have a 'God' in our lives and societies. So is religion necessary? Maybe so. The question is why do we seem to need this? What need does 'God' fulfill? What question does 'God' answer?

What is 'God'? Well there are a lot of interpretations, but the only conclusive thing that we know is that 'God' is supernatural. What do religions study? Well that would be the spiritual/supernatural. So the logical solution, in my mind, is to study the supernatural/paranormal and get some definitive answers. This is why I have included the supernatural/paranormal in my studies of consciousness. I am also studying the 'God idea'.

But getting people to talk about the paranormal is like getting them to talk about masturbation. Everyone knows about both of them; most people have experienced both of them; but no one talks about either of them, and will deny knowledge of them. Coincidentally, religion tends to frown on both of them.

I suspect that there is nothing 'super' about the supernatural and that it is a natural part of our reality that we simply don't understand. If we can learn what the supernatural/paranormal actually is, then we would not need religion to interpret it for us. It would not dispose of the 'God idea', but it could put some dampers on the religious problems.

There is no supernatural only natural, if there is a supernatural it lies in religion and science has no basis to discuss it.

I don't see religion as ever going away either, and I am not opposed to spiritual beleifs, but if those beliefs make claims that are at odds with reality they need to be challenged.

"I don't believe god gave us the faculty of reason only to forgo its use."

Voltaire, some people like some meat with their vegetables.

It's a fact that there are far more religious people than scientists in the world, it's also a fact that hence far more Scientists are religious than are not. I don't see any contradiction between believing in a supreme deity or Buddha or whatever and a persons day job. Fundamentalists though have talked so much utter nonsense for so long to create an issue that needn't of existed. All people have every right to believe in whatever they will, be it a pink unicorn that is invisible or scientific method.

Which is why incidentally greys idea is not even wrong, about the most greivous insult that can be levelled in science.

Well, I haven't read the book yet. I believe that Greylorn has some ideas right, but also suspect that he has some ideas wrong. This is based on comments that he has made in this forum. We will see.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

One oft touted rebuke by IDiots is evolution is only a theory. Yeah and it's also a fact, but I do not think they should use that word...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You quoted the Princess Bride, which earns you 'brownie points'. The Theory of Evolution is far from inconceivable, but it is also not perfect. I have no doubt that evolution happened and is still happening, but have serious doubts about the mechanism for natural selection and I have questions regarding diversity.

G

One of my favourite films of all time. Perhaps we should put the past behind us and start afresh: hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father prepare to die.

I kid offering a hand out of recompense and compromise.

I am not a troll, I have never indulged in that sort of juvenile behaviour, and I hope I never will.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

That's not true about cats. Cats have as much variation in personality as humans. The cat I have now is anything but aloof. She looks into my eyes all the time and has many different expressions in them. Her eyes go very soft when she looks at me. Dogs have varying personalities, but they all have one thing in common; a need to please their human (pack leader). Cats have no such need. That doesn't mean they don't care what their human thinks, or feel remorse, or embarrassment, or grieve... Both cats and dogs can feel very deeply, probably even more so than humans. I've known cats that have pined to death over the loss of their human. The same is probably true of dogs. Humans can be very arrogant when it comes to assumptions about what other animals think or feel.

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn;

Thank you for sharing the information on the child, who was born deaf. It was interesting and informative.

I'd be ashamed to hold a Ph.D, for a doctorate in philosophy, amid a time in which physics knowledge is flourishing, is a declaration of intellectual futility.

But the above quote is BS. If you had a Ph.D in anything, it would be plastered all over your book to give it credibility. And don't even bother arguing this point. I climbed up the seven stories of Blarney Castle, hung over the edge like a lunatic, and kissed the Blarney Stone. I know blarney when I hear/read it.

G

Gee,

Your assesement is incorrect. I've already chosen to write under a pseudonym, despite the credentials available from having previously written a very successful novel under my real name. I would have needed to make the same kind of choice if I could legitimately add Ph.D after my real name, and pseudonyms don't get those kind of credentials.

I had the choice to get a Ph.D, and still do, by putting in the time and money. Thought about it. A good friend has so far made over a million dollars thanks to his $10,000 mail order doctorate, which he admits is totally bogus. While a bullshit degree might sell books, it would still be a bullshit degree. I don't need to sell books, having kept my day job and my personal integrity.

Not all authors with Ph.Ds display their credentials, Michael Behe and Richard Feynman are favorite examples. Almost forgot Stephen Hawking. My experience is that the object of a display name is to maximize the perceived book-value to a prospective reader. A good rule of thumb is that the more prominently "Ph.D" is displayed, the shittier the book. So far every book I've read by an unknown author with a displayed Ph.D has proven to be 95% garbage, with no redeeming insights in the residual 5%. I'd not put myself in that category of nits-with-doctorates, even if I had a legitimate right to do so.

I suspect that spending many, many evenings in Irish pubs listening to normal human conversation is more likely to convey the ability to detect bullshit than kissing a stone that others have previously slobbered on, which is more likely to convey a viral or parasitic infection.

Feel free to apologize for your mildly insulting assessment, unless the stone gave you the Blaggard-virus, in which case I am outgunned on this forum.

[Blaggard]

Oh for God's sake grey.

[Ginkgo]

And therein lies the problem. What you stated is true, but it is not the truth, which would be why I stated that it is wrong. Philosophy deals in truth, not selected pieces of truth. You stated that "consciousness 'resides' with in the brain". Now maybe I worked too long in law, but the word 'resides" implies "residence", and there can be only one residence. A person can have 15 homes, but only one can be a residence. So people think that consciousness comes from the brain -- from it's home/residence -- but this is not true.

That was probably my fault. In the beginning of the discussion "resides within the brain" was a term used by one of us (probably me). I took this up because I thought it was useful for an explanation. In hindsight it was a mistake. It is better to stick to definitions that convey the correct meaning. On this basis I should have said that consciousness from a scientific point of view necessitates a physicalist monistic explanation.

We can say that philosophy deals with truths, but as I have said many times before some of these truths and not provable.
Consider these dualistic philosophical theories of consciousness

(a) Double aspect theory ( parallelism)

(b)Substance dualism

(c) Property dualism

(d) Occasionalism

All four of these theories offers a solution to the problem of consciousness. The problem is that all four cannot be correct. Can you name the theory that is correct? No one can because there is no way of determining this. All exhibit a consistency in their own right.

Perhaps all are incorrect so, we might need to look at monism.

If science does not deal in "proofs", then what the hell is all of that testing about?

This appears to be a sticking point so I will try and explain. Science is not like the law when it comes to evidence and proof. A legal background probably leads you to use the word "proof" as a stronger version of the word "evidence". Science does not deal in proofs, it only deals in evidence.

Testing in science is all about finding evidence to support or reject a theory. For example, high tech testing has been carried out for a number of years in order to detect gravity waves. Just recently gravity waves were discovered for the first time. This was a breakthrough for scientists who supported the Big Bang theory and the inflation model. However, the detection of gravity waves DOES NOT PROVE the Big Bang theory. All that science says is that the discovery of gravity waves SUPPORTS the Big Bang theory.

[Gee]

Gee,

Your assessment is incorrect. I've already chosen to write under a pseudonym, despite the credentials available from having previously written a very successful novel under my real name. I would have needed to make the same kind of choice if I could legitimately add Ph.D after my real name, and pseudonyms don't get those kind of credentials.

Well, it happens. I could be wrong.

I suspect that spending many, many evenings in Irish pubs listening to normal human conversation is more likely to convey the ability to detect bullshit than kissing a stone that others have previously slobbered on, which is more likely to convey a viral or parasitic infection.

Actually the old Irishman, who holds your legs so you won't fall, has this long handled mop that he keeps in a bucket of some strong smelling antiseptic. He swabs the Stone between kissing fools and lunatics, so it is probably the cleanest stone on Blarney Castle.

I didn't spend a lot of time in pubs and probably honed my skills at home within my bullshitting family and friends.

Feel free to apologize for your mildly insulting assessment, unless the stone gave you the Blaggard-virus, in which case I am outgunned on this forum.

I will be happy to apologize for my "mildly insulting assessment" as soon at you apologize for your assessment from a previous post as stated below:

Interesting. Knowledge is well defined in information theory, cybernetics, and computer technology. Even I know what knowledge is. I have some, but compared to the available knowledge, a negligible portion. I know what knowledge is not, and find different forms of it that appear to confuse philosophers incapable of making distinctions between data, information, and conceptual understanding. How is it that philosophers have not gotten a handle on knowledge yet, after bullshitting about it for several millennia, unless they are utterly incompetent, and incapable of understanding that which they claim to teach?

Must make you proud.

I'd be ashamed to hold a Ph.D, for a doctorate in philosophy, amid a time in which physics knowledge is flourishing, is a declaration of intellectual futility.

Now, I don't want to shock you with this information, but I claim to be a philosopher, so the above italicized statement is directed at me. This is the second time that you have felt the need to insult philosophy, and the "bitch" does not like it.

Please note that you are in a philosophy forum talking to philosophers, so if you were not "outgunned" then something would be radically wrong. As to your question regarding "knowledge", you are considering a kindergartner's understanding of a college level problem.

G

[Blaggard]

Doctorate of Philosophy or Doctorate de Philosophe in the origin language is just a reference to pre scientific nomenclature when every subject was either philosophy of nature or philosophy of art which covered maths, law and anything not considered a science per se, notably the exception of theology having its own nomenclature. Hence BA, Bachelor of Arts, and not as you would probably suppose grey bulshit artist which I have no doubt you have an advanced degree in if not a doctorate or even some sort of emeritus position and tenure. Baccalaureus is literally the bay laurel to which a reference to the grecian laurel according the student with such a nomenclature denotes he is a graduate and has passed. Now a days BP is replaced by BSc or bachelor of science and with BA Bachelor of Arts and hence BPhil only existing in some of the older universities such as Oxbridge aka Oxford and Cambridge which keep the nomenclature so as to distinguish their view that there degrees are of a higher standard.

[Gee]

That was probably my fault. In the beginning of the discussion "resides within the brain" was a term used by one of us (probably me). I took this up because I thought it was useful for an explanation. In hindsight it was a mistake. It is better to stick to definitions that convey the correct meaning. On this basis I should have said that consciousness from a scientific point of view necessitates a physicalist monistic explanation.

No it is not your fault. If there is fault, it lies with religion and science not being able to communicate with each other, and philosophy not sticking strictly to philosophy. Why do you think they called the Higgs Boson the "God particle"? Because we all know that "God" is about consciousness. We also know that the brain is about consciousness. Life is about consciousness, and physics is learning that the universe may also be about consciousness. This is a language problem where each discipline uses their own interpretation without consideration of the other disciplines.

At one point I was so frustrated with this language problem that I stated: Religion and science will not even communicate enough to clarify what they think consciousness is, but will fight over who owns it, like two dogs fighting over an invisible bone.

We can say that philosophy deals with truths, but as I have said many times before some of these truths and not provable.

Many "truths" have been proven by logic, and been wrong. Many "truths" have been proven by physical evidence, and been wrong. I am not sure that we can prove truth absolutely. I think there is a reliability factor that must be considered when dealing with "truth", and that this reliability factor must include consideration of perspectives and time. If the "truth" considers all relevant perspectives and lasts through time, then I consider it proven.

Consider these dualistic philosophical theories of consciousness

(a) Double aspect theory ( parallelism)

(b)Substance dualism

(c) Property dualism

(d) Occasionalism

All four of these theories offers a solution to the problem of consciousness. The problem is that all four cannot be correct. Can you name the theory that is correct? No one can because there is no way of determining this. All exhibit a consistency in their own right.

Perhaps all are incorrect so, we might need to look at monism.

Well, I did not look up all of those theories, but I did state earlier in this thread that I think the dualists need to learn to count higher, and the monists need to stop getting their panties in a twist.

Tell me. Do any of these theories include consideration of religious interpretations, the paranormal, and science's contributions? Because if they don't, then they have not considered all perspectives, so by my understanding, it is unlikely that they have found more than a "piece" of the truth.

This is the reason why I want to learn more about Greylorn's theory, because at least he is looking at the entire problem of consciousness -- and I know that he has some things right.

If science does not deal in "proofs", then what the hell is all of that testing about?

This appears to be a sticking point so I will try and explain. Science is not like the law when it comes to evidence and proof. A legal background probably leads you to use the word "proof" as a stronger version of the word "evidence". Science does not deal in proofs, it only deals in evidence.

Testing in science is all about finding evidence to support or reject a theory.

Again we have a partial truth from the perspective of science. Science is not like anyone with regard to evidence and proof. They have their own rules. I do not begrudge them these rules because I know that science could not be what it is, or do what it does, without these rules.

Science does not prove theories, but it does prove evidence. That is what the testing is about, proving evidence. The good part about this is that it provides science with a very exacting discipline that we can trust; the bad part is that any "evidence" that can not be proven, is therefore not evidence. This is the reason that science can dismiss testimony, witnesses, the subjective mind, and religious interpretations, as not being evidence. Science must be able to reproduce or test the "evidence" in order to accept it, so their evidence ends up being mostly physical or mathematical.

This seriously undermines their study of consciousness because consciousness is subjective, which would be why consciousness is mostly studied by philosophy. Anyone who doubts me regarding the definition of evidence, just Wiki "evidence". There is physical evidence, the realm of science; and there is the evidence that the rest of the world uses.

G

[Gee]

Doctorate of Philosophy or Doctorate de Philosophe in the origin language is just a reference to pre scientific nomenclature when every subject was either philosophy of nature or philosophy of art. Hence BA, Bachelor of Arts, and not as you would probably suppose grey bulshit artist which I have no doubt you have an advanced degree in if not a doctorate or even some sort of emeritus position and tenure. Bacaclaureus is literally the bay laurel to which a reference to the grecian laurel according the student with such a nomenclature denotes he is a graduate and has passed. Now a days BP is replaced by BSc or bachelor of science and with BA Bachelor of Arts and hence BPhil only existing in some of the older universities such as Oxbridge aka Oxford and Cambridge which keep the nomenclature so as to distinguish their view that there degrees are of a higher standard.

I am not sure if Grey has a degree in bullshit, but I am pretty sure that I have a BA in Bullshit. Now where did I put that Certificate/Degree? It must be around here somewhere.

You have a degree in Bullshit too, don't you Blaggard?

G

[Blaggard]

Doctorate of Philosophy or Doctorate de Philosophe in the origin language is just a reference to pre scientific nomenclature when every subject was either philosophy of nature or philosophy of art. Hence BA, Bachelor of Arts, and not as you would probably suppose grey bulshit artist which I have no doubt you have an advanced degree in if not a doctorate or even some sort of emeritus position and tenure. Bacaclaureus is literally the bay laurel to which a reference to the grecian laurel according the student with such a nomenclature denotes he is a graduate and has passed. Now a days BP is replaced by BSc or bachelor of science and with BA Bachelor of Arts and hence BPhil only existing in some of the older universities such as Oxbridge aka Oxford and Cambridge which keep the nomenclature so as to distinguish their view that there degrees are of a higher standard.

I am not sure if Grey has a degree in bullshit, but I am pretty sure that I have a BA in Bullshit. Now where did I put that Certificate/Degree? It must be around here somewhere.

You have a degree in Bullshit too, don't you Blaggard?

G

I have a BA from the University of Life I have a fag packet with the words bollocks written in biro prominently aka my certificate of education, displayed on my mantlepiece so that visitors can see I am of the proper level to talk total and utter shit at them, with or without the aid of intoxicants. I have the right to use the name Blaggard BA or Blaggard BAuol

I also have a more academically rigorous degree but that's just more or less something to use as toilet paper in case I run out lets face it.

It should also be noted I have read Ulysses and once even understood some of it. I mean the post Homeric work.

[Blaggard]

Why do you think we call the Higg's Boson the "God particle"?

Because once someone jokingly referred to it as such to denote it's holy status in science, the press then took the witty aside and ran with it until the term had entered the zeitgeist.

Scientists do not use the term generally as it is clearly not very scientific a term, preferring to limit any academic work to observables and experimental terms that aren't some private joke induced parody.

Intelligent falling to parody intelligent design for example is another example of a private joke that has widely entered the memescape whereby it is God not gravity keeping everything down by pushing it.

The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? is a 1993 popular science book by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon M. Lederman and science writer Dick Teresi.

The book provides a brief history of particle physics, starting with the Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Democritus, and continuing through Isaac Newton, Roger J. Boscovich, Michael Faraday, and Ernest Rutherford and quantum physics in the 20th century.[1][2][3][4]

Lederman explains in the book why he gave the Higgs boson the nickname "The God Particle":

This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle. Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one...

[Greylorn Ell]

I will be happy to apologize for my "mildly insulting assessment" as soon at you apologize for your assessment from a previous post as stated below:

Interesting. Knowledge is well defined in information theory, cybernetics, and computer technology. Even I know what knowledge is. I have some, but compared to the available knowledge, a negligible portion. I know what knowledge is not, and find different forms of it that appear to confuse philosophers incapable of making distinctions between data, information, and conceptual understanding. How is it that philosophers have not gotten a handle on knowledge yet, after bullshitting about it for several millennia, unless they are utterly incompetent, and incapable of understanding that which they claim to teach?

Must make you proud.

I'd be ashamed to hold a Ph.D, for a doctorate in philosophy, amid a time in which physics knowledge is flourishing, is a declaration of intellectual futility.

Now, I don't want to shock you with this information, but I claim to be a philosopher, so the above italicized statement is directed at me. This is the second time that you have felt the need to insult philosophy, and the "bitch" does not like it.

Gee,
I apologize-- not for expressing my opinions about philosophy in general, but for failing to exclude you, and people like you from my complaint. Let me detail it.

The title "Ph.D" means Doctor of Philosophy. A friend of mine has a Ph.D in marketing, obtained via a mail order degree mill. He does not know how to market and admits that he chose that field because it seemed (and was) a trivial study. Still, he has his title and the wealth it brought him.

Our universities are full of stupid professors with Ph.D titles, poor teachers for the most part, who are incapable of contributing any useful knowledge or insights. With the exception of those few who actually studied philosophy, you know more about philosophy than they ever will. Yet they have the meaningless title, a piece of expensive paper displayed on a study wall that would be better used as bird-cage liner.

There are some who have actually earned a doctorate, but you cannot distinguish them from the glut of nincompoops by virtue of the Ph.D after their name, because that title has been rendered meaningless by diploma mills throughout the world, including the brick & mortar variety.

I am probably a philosopher, having written two philosophy books, one of which has been excerpted for use in several philosophy classes. You are most certainly a philosopher. You've offered several insights in this thread alone that are excellent, and which gave me an improved perspective. Now and then I encounter a genuine philosopher on forums, but most often those who post in such places are mindless defenders of the opinions they've been taught.

What's curious is why you perceived my complaint about Ph.Ds and philosophy in general as a personal insult, when, clearly, any insult to you must be shared by me?

Writing this has forced me to analyze my core complaints with philosophy, other than that the Ph.D title is commonly granted to nits who put in the time, and whose parents or government footed the bills. It is that philosophy, per se is a narrow, inbred field that is useless and irrelevant on its own. Like English, as a field of study by itself, is only relevant to itself.

Like any other language, English has purposes. It is used to write novels, essays, treatises, and textbooks that can explain not just the conventional style of writing English itself, but how to build a house, make a dress, take care of a newborn, extract a tumor from within a brain, or send men to the moon and bring them back alive. The formal study of English in its own right is the province of mostly useless pedants, who, judging from the sloppy use of it in media and forums, are not doing a good job maintaining its standards.

It is only when the knowledge of English (or Russian, or whatever) is combined with other knowledge that it can be put to good work. I use English every day, but my success in life comes only from using English in the context of other activities. So it is for most everyone.

Philosophy, likewise. When put to use, philosophy can be and has been a powerful guide for thought. But when the thought gets to be about philosophy itself, it becomes inbred and soft. Philosophy, like English, is useful only when it is applied.

The only impressive guys with Ph.Ds that I've encountered, in person and via papers and books, are those who applied their ideas to something. Perhaps some day a good university will come up with a Genuine philosophy degree, one that requires expertise in other fields. A good prerequisite for a Genuine Ph.D would be at least a B.S. in engineering, biology, biotech, chemistry, physics, architecture, medicine, cybernetics, even law. Part of the program must include mathematics and computer programming in place of conventional formal logic courses. Etc.

Enough already. You get the idea. Notice that your own interest in philosophy is shaped by other studies, and that your focus upon consciousness is perhaps the consequence of non-ordinary experiences. You are a philosopher, and an insightful one, because of cross-training. Kindly consider yourself outside my category of useless and unimaginative pedants, and thus non-insulted.

You do not need to apologize to me. I appreciate the "bitch." She's paying attention.

Please note that you are in a philosophy forum talking to philosophers, so if you were not "outgunned" then something would be radically wrong. As to your question regarding "knowledge", you are considering a kindergartner's understanding of a college level problem.
G

Once upon a time in Pulaski, Wisconsin, a man walked into a bar and ordered a beer. When the bartender served it, the guy said, "Hey, I just heard this great Polack joke! You'll love it. Three Pol--"

At that point the bartender cut him off. "Before you tell your joke, buddy, you ought to know that I am a son of proud Polish parents. That fellow sitting to your left, with the 18 inch biceps, is Polish. Look behind you. At the booth there, within earshot, are four gentlemen of Polish extraction, construction workers who turned your way when you said, 'Polack joke'."

The man said, "Well, thanks for the heads-up! I'll talk real slow."