Christianity

[henry quirk]

You and Big Mike are rope-a-dopin'.

If you think that I'm doing something inappropriate for a philosophy forum, then say so outright and I will consider stopping.

The rope-a-dope is a perfectly legit way of controllin' the fight, or conversation. You and Big Mike hug the ropes (offer no evidence of how unconscious particles produce consciousness) and make Harry punch & exhaust himself (answer question after question). As I say: it's perfectly acceptable strategy. I'm just remindin' Harry that he needs to get you and Big Mike back into the middle of the ring; that he doesn't have to let you or BM direct the fight.

[phyllo]

You and Big Mike are rope-a-dopin'.

If you think that I'm doing something inappropriate for a philosophy forum, then say so outright and I will consider stopping.

The “rope-a-dope” is a technique invented by boxer Mo Ali, in one of his famous fights. It involves sitting back on the ropes of the ring, with one’s hands up to protect vulnerable areas, and absorbing as much punching and punishment as the opponent can deal out, without fighting back, until the opponent wears himself out.

The danger, as happened with Ali, is that you’ll get punched viciously. You might win the fight eventually, but you’ll have absorbed so much damage that there might not be much left of you…just as Ali was brain-damaged by having been hit so often.

So it’s not “inappropriate.” But it is going to get you punched into oblivion. That’s what Henry is pointing out to you…that you’re not putting up a good fight, just asking others to keep hitting you, and hoping they’ll get tired.

"Punched into oblivion"?

Is that what happens in a philosophy forum?

Here I thought I was letting him present his ideas and being open to what he has to say. While trying to get him to address issues which I find particularly baffling.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think that I'm doing something inappropriate for a philosophy forum, then say so outright and I will consider stopping.

The “rope-a-dope” is a technique invented by boxer Mo Ali, in one of his famous fights. It involves sitting back on the ropes of the ring, with one’s hands up to protect vulnerable areas, and absorbing as much punching and punishment as the opponent can deal out, without fighting back, until the opponent wears himself out.

The danger, as happened with Ali, is that you’ll get punched viciously. You might win the fight eventually, but you’ll have absorbed so much damage that there might not be much left of you…just as Ali was brain-damaged by having been hit so often.

So it’s not “inappropriate.” But it is going to get you punched into oblivion. That’s what Henry is pointing out to you…that you’re not putting up a good fight, just asking others to keep hitting you, and hoping they’ll get tired.

"Punched into oblivion"?

Is that what happens in a philosophy forum?

Do you know what a “metaphor” is?

[phyllo]

The “rope-a-dope” is a technique invented by boxer Mo Ali, in one of his famous fights. It involves sitting back on the ropes of the ring, with one’s hands up to protect vulnerable areas, and absorbing as much punching and punishment as the opponent can deal out, without fighting back, until the opponent wears himself out.

The danger, as happened with Ali, is that you’ll get punched viciously. You might win the fight eventually, but you’ll have absorbed so much damage that there might not be much left of you…just as Ali was brain-damaged by having been hit so often.

So it’s not “inappropriate.” But it is going to get you punched into oblivion. That’s what Henry is pointing out to you…that you’re not putting up a good fight, just asking others to keep hitting you, and hoping they’ll get tired.

"Punched into oblivion"?

Is that what happens in a philosophy forum?

Do you know what a “metaphor” is?

You think it's a fight and I don't.

You think it's an appropriate metaphor and I don't.

[henry quirk]

While trying to get him to address issues which I find particularly baffling.

That's how rope-a-dope works: you offer nuthin' in the way of an answer to how unconscious particles make consciousness while Harry exhausts himself answerin' questions.

Ultimately, the hope is he'll contradict himself at some point and you or BM will declare victory.

[henry quirk]

Again: it's all perfectly legit. Again: I just urged Harry to take control.

[phyllo]

You have the same sort of ideas as IC about philosophy discussions.

Those are not my ideas.

[henry quirk]

You have the same sort of ideas as IC about philosophy discussions.

Those are not my ideas.

Whatever your ideas are about discussion/debate: your strategy is clear as glass.

Understand: I'm not accusing you of bein' underhanded. You've done nuthin' wrong. But let's not pretend strategy (conscious & unconscious) isn't part of the mix.

Anyway: enough of this.

Back to what is, for me, the question: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, come together to make consciousness?

Anyone?

[phyllo]

You have the same sort of ideas as IC about philosophy discussions.

Those are not my ideas.

Whatever your ideas are about discussion/debate: your strategy is clear as glass.

Understand: I'm not accusing you of bein' underhanded. You've done nuthin' wrong. But let's not pretend strategy (conscious & unconscious) isn't part of the mix.

You're going to interpret this as a conflict no matter what I say. Right?

[henry quirk]

As I say just above in my edit...

Anyway: enough of this.

Back to what is, for me, the question: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, come together to make consciousness?

Anyone?

[BigMike]

As I say just above in my edit...

Anyway: enough of this.

Back to what is, for me, the question: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, come together to make consciousness?

Anyone?

By logic.

[henry quirk]

As I say just above in my edit...

Anyway: enough of this.

Back to what is, for me, the question: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, come together to make consciousness?

Anyone?

By logic.

In other words: electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, must come together to make consciousness cuz there ain't no other explanation.

Promissory materialism.

Epic Fail.

[BigMike]

As I say just above in my edit...

Anyway: enough of this.

Back to what is, for me, the question: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, come together to make consciousness?

Anyone?

By logic.

In other words: electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, must come together to make consciousness cuz there ain't no other explanation.

Promissory materialism.

Epic Fail.

Sharon McGrayne, an American science writer, wrote in 2011 that this conversation happened at a reception in Josephine Bonaparte's rose garden at the Chateau de Malmaison in 1802. At the time, Napoleon was trying to make peace with the papacy, so religious questions were asked:

Napoleon: “Who is the author of all this?”
Laplace: “A chain of natural causes would account for the construction and preservation of the celestial system.”

Napoleon: “Newton spoke of God in his book. I have perused yours but failed to find his name even once. Why?”
Laplace: “I have no need of that hypothesis”

Laplace: “The true object of the physical sciences is not the search for primary causes [i.e. God] but the search for laws according to which phenomenon are produced.”

[Harry Baird]

Again: it's all perfectly legit. Again: I just urged Harry to take control.

That’s what Henry is pointing out to you…that you’re not putting up a good fight, just asking others to keep hitting you, and hoping they’ll get tired.

IC and hq, you guys offer good food for thought. Thanks for your input.

You are right: the tactics of our opponents seem aimed at gaining control of the exchange via laying back on the ropes and absorbing our blows. Rhetorically, this is a legitimate tactic, but, rationally, it is the opposite of truth-seeking.

That said, I think that BigMike is more culpable of this than phyllo, whom I find fairly reasonable in asking questions which (I presume) legitimately concern him (or her? I don't want to presume).

I (and we) have raised so many arguments and so much evidence to which our interlocutors respond simply by raising their fists in defence and leaning back on the ropes, whispering, "Is that the best you've got?", and thereby encouraging us to throw yet more devastating blows whilst doing effectively nothing in response, thus tiring us out and pretending to have won.

I (and, in some cases, we) have offered the following, none of which has been effectively, if at all, responded to, let alone refuted:

1. No matter how many non-conscious particles with no comprehension of meaning are arranged in no matter how complex a structure, they will not become conscious and comprehending of meaning - yet consciousness and meaning clearly exist.
2. "Mind from matter" is as incoherent as "an edible meal from Lego bricks" or "drowning in a fire".
3. Epiphenomenalism, which is the mind-body philosophical position implied by "mind from matter", is anyway analytically false, per the paper to which I previously linked, Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge.
4. Veridical near-death-experiences as described in the book The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences demonstrate the existence of a non-material self which persists after the death of the material body-brain.
5. This non-material self interacts with the material body-brain so as to effect its will in the material plane (by implication of the above).
6. This non-material self, when detached from the material body-brain, replicates - but better - the material self's senses (see the above, again).
7. The material effects of this non-material self beyond its immediate effect on its material body-brain have been studied extensively by parapsychologists (members of the AAAS since 1969), as documented in the Psi Encyclopaedia article on Psychokinesis Research to which I already linked earlier.
8. That we know of four forces of physics does not and cannot rule out these mind-over-matter effects, because (1) these mind-over-matter effects indubitably occur, and (2) there is no reason to assume that physics, which largely ignores consciousness, completely describes (material) reality anyway.
9. Plus, probably more that's not coming to mind right now.

So, go ahead, those who reject my (and hq's and IC's) perspective - I'll stand back and let you off the ropes, so long as you, in turn, make an effort to strike some meaningful blows of your own against one or more of the many evidential/argumentative points reiterated above. Otherwise... well...

[Harry Baird]

As I say just above in my edit...

Anyway: enough of this.

Back to what is, for me, the question: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, come together to make consciousness?

Anyone?

By logic.

Kindly describe that logic. Thanks.