Christianity

[bahman]

They do it by electrical repulsion and attraction, and to a much smaller degree gravitation.

Right, so, at a distance, with no need for "small hands". You absolute fool.

Correct, with no hands. I struggle to see how stating that fact makes me a fool.

Do you dispute the existence of the four fundamental interactions and assert that accepting them is hypocritical?

You're quite oblivious, aren't you? I don't dispute the forces known to physics, but you're the idiot asserting that those forces act at a distance, whereas any forces attributable to consciousness must act by "small hands" (i.e., direct contact). That's utter hypocrisy, you physicalist fool.

I never said consciousness must act by "small hands". I only questioned how, or by what means, consciousness can manipulate atoms, as you never provide an explanation for this claim, only insults.

You are right on the spot. Consciousness cannot manipulate matter. That is the duty of Mind.

[bahman]

They do it by electrical repulsion and attraction, and to a much smaller degree gravitation.

Right, so, at a distance, with no need for "small hands". You absolute fool.

Correct, with no hands. I struggle to see how stating that fact makes me a fool.

Do you dispute the existence of the four fundamental interactions and assert that accepting them is hypocritical?

You're quite oblivious, aren't you? I don't dispute the forces known to physics, but you're the idiot asserting that those forces act at a distance, whereas any forces attributable to consciousness must act by "small hands" (i.e., direct contact). That's utter hypocrisy, you physicalist fool.

I never said consciousness must act by "small hands". I only questioned how, or by what means, consciousness can manipulate atoms, as you never provide an explanation for this claim, only insults.

You are right on the spot. Consciousness cannot manipulate matter. That is the duty of Mind.

[Gary Childress]

Pay no attention to the vapid presumption of our insolent resident idealists, BigMike. You're doing fine.

I hope you're not talking about me above. I'm not an idealist unless you are equating anything short of eliminative materialism as "idealism".

[BigMike]

You are right on the spot. Consciousness cannot manipulate matter. That is the duty of Mind.

So how does the mind do it? Newton's first law states that an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. There are only four forces to choose from, so which one, from the list below, is it?

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. The strong nuclear force
4. The weak nuclear force

[BigMike]

I'm not an idealist unless you are equating anything short of eliminative materialism as "idealism".

Would you be willing to embrace the title "science skeptic"? Or would you go so far as to say "science denier"?

[Gary Childress]

I'm not an idealist unless you are equating anything short of eliminative materialism as "idealism".

Would you be willing to embrace the title "science skeptic"? Or would you go so far as to say "science denier"?

Neither. I don't think science has proven that eliminative materialism is the last word on consciousness. I don't think that puts me in opposition to science as it ought to be pursued.

[bahman]

You are right on the spot. Consciousness cannot manipulate matter. That is the duty of Mind.

So how does the mind do it? Newton's first law states that an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. There are only four forces to choose from, so which one, from the list below, is it?

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. The strong nuclear force
4. The weak nuclear force

Anything that coherently changes is contingent. By coherent, I mean that the change can be formulated as a set of laws, such as laws of physics. By contingent, I mean that the existence of the thing that coherently changes is due to something else that I call Mind. It can be shown that Mind is nessesary and changeless otherwise we are dealing with a regress (this I discuss in more detail here). It can also be shown that Mind has the ability to experience and cause Qualia. Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused (this is discussed in more detail here). Mind should have the ability to experience Qualia otherwise it cannot cause a coherent change in Qualia. Mind should have the ability to cause Qualia as well since Qualia vanishes when there is a coherent change (this is discussed in more detail in the first link).

[BigMike]

I'm not an idealist unless you are equating anything short of eliminative materialism as "idealism".

Would you be willing to embrace the title "science skeptic"? Or would you go so far as to say "science denier"?

Neither. I don't think science has proven that eliminative materialism is the last word on consciousness. I don't think that puts me in opposition to science as it ought to be pursued.

Do you believe that science should demonstrate that eliminative materialism is the final word on consciousness, or should science go where the evidence takes it?

[promethean75]

"I hope you're not talking about me above."

I would never say such things to hurt you, Gary.

You stuck up for me when Immanuel was bullying me and I'll never forget that.

[BigMike]

You are right on the spot. Consciousness cannot manipulate matter. That is the duty of Mind.

So how does the mind do it? Newton's first law states that an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. There are only four forces to choose from, so which one, from the list below, is it?

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. The strong nuclear force
4. The weak nuclear force

Anything that coherently changes is contingent. By coherent, I mean that the change can be formulated as a set of laws, such as laws of physics. By contingent, I mean that the existence of the thing that coherently changes is due to something else that I call Mind. It can be shown that Mind is nessesary and changeless otherwise we are dealing with a regress (this I discuss in more detail here). It can also be shown that Mind has the ability to experience and cause Qualia. Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused (this is discussed in more detail here). Mind should have the ability to experience Qualia otherwise it cannot cause a coherent change in Qualia. Mind should have the ability to cause Qualia as well since Qualia vanishes when there is a coherent change (this is discussed in more detail in the first link).

So you said it was what force? Just say the number that is next to the force in the list above.

[Gary Childress]

Would you be willing to embrace the title "science skeptic"? Or would you go so far as to say "science denier"?

Neither. I don't think science has proven that eliminative materialism is the last word on consciousness. I don't think that puts me in opposition to science as it ought to be pursued.

Do you believe that science should demonstrate that eliminative materialism is the final word on consciousness, or should science go where the evidence takes it?

Go where the evidence takes it.

[BigMike]

Neither. I don't think science has proven that eliminative materialism is the last word on consciousness. I don't think that puts me in opposition to science as it ought to be pursued.

Do you believe that science should demonstrate that eliminative materialism is the final word on consciousness, or should science go where the evidence takes it?

Go where the evidence takes it.

Do you know of any instances in which science deviated from what the data suggested?

[Gary Childress]

Do you believe that science should demonstrate that eliminative materialism is the final word on consciousness, or should science go where the evidence takes it?

Go where the evidence takes it.

Do you know of any instances in which science deviated from what the data suggested?

Yes. Eliminative materialism would be the most relevant instance.

[BigMike]

Go where the evidence takes it.

Do you know of any instances in which science deviated from what the data suggested?

Yes. Eliminative materialism would be the most relevant instance.

What is the scientific assertion, and what is the evidence against it?

[Gary Childress]

Do you know of any instances in which science deviated from what the data suggested?

Yes. Eliminative materialism would be the most relevant instance.

What is the scientific assertion, and what is the evidence against it?

The assertion is that there is no such thing as consciousness. The evidence against it (I would hope) is that the scientists themselves who make the assertion are conscious beings.