A challenge to the modern scientific view of the self.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How in the world is that the cause of meat walking and talking.

It's not. You daddy fucking your mummy is the cause of meat talking stupid. Maybe that helps?

You mean: stardust mingling with stardust.

Sure.



Stardust is the cause ... !

No I mean shit mixing with shit gets you double shit.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How in the world is that the cause of meat walking and talking.

How is the big bang the cause of these properties in your view:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ysu4Tlyu4p8/U ... ico+12.jpg

Or do you not believe that the structures depicted in that photograph are material?

Everything is physical. The image is generated by the material of my computer screen.

[Walker]

Skipping fantasy and SciFi, please explain the Big Bang.

Given that I'm assuming that something like this wouldn't do it for you:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies . . .

You're going to have to tell me what counts as an explanation in your view. I need to know the criteria you're expecting to be met for something to count as an explanation.

Recalling the context which is this thread, how does this relate to self?

[Walker]

It's not. You daddy fucking your mummy is the cause of meat talking stupid. Maybe that helps?

You mean: stardust mingling with stardust.

Sure.



Stardust is the cause ... !

No I mean shit mixing with shit gets you double shit.

Well Hobbes as you know, this is because you are a moron and the rest is repetition.

A bang is a percussive sound that requires a medium through which sound waves can move. What was the medium in which this bang occurred that pre-existed all else?

Also, sound requires both a transmitter and a receiver of energy frequencies to be defined as sound or else the energy frequency is simply like unreflected light. It is invisible and thus for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

Are you suggesting that the medium required for Banging preceded that which caused the Big Bang? If so, then what did cause the bang? Of course these observations and questions are beyond the scope of the term Big Bang, because as noted, that term is a misnomer. No ears in the forest, no sound receptors, no sound of tree falling, no reflection, no Bang. Savvy?

[Terrapin Station]

Skipping fantasy and SciFi, please explain the Big Bang.

Given that I'm assuming that something like this wouldn't do it for you:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies . . .

You're going to have to tell me what counts as an explanation in your view. I need to know the criteria you're expecting to be met for something to count as an explanation.

Recalling the context which is this thread, how does this relate to self?

Your request was to explain the Big Bang. Why would you be asking about the Big Bang in connection with the self?

[Walker]

Given that I'm assuming that something like this wouldn't do it for you:You're going to have to tell me what counts as an explanation in your view. I need to know the criteria you're expecting to be met for something to count as an explanation.

Recalling the context which is this thread, how does this relate to self?

Your request was to explain the Big Bang. Why would you be asking about the Big Bang in connection with the self?

Because that’s the topic. If you’re going to ramble on about the Big Bang, you really should make it relevant to the thread topic. Feel free to speak of stardust, or you could speak in the tedious Hobbe's fantasy venacular. Or, you could translate English for English speakers.

Thus the relevance of every “thing” accessing the ubiquitous subtle energy called “consciousness,” according to the capacity of that thing.

As previously mentioned:

Stepping outside the generator paradigm:

Consider that consciousness is a subtle ambient energy, everywhere and nowhere in particular until received, or tuned. The brain functions as a receiver/tuner of that energy, like a radio receiver that can isolate frequencies which puts that receiver into a state of reception, or consciousness.

The radio is a receiver/conduit for frequencies of energy, but not all frequencies. The brain is also a receiver/conduit for frequencies of energy, but not all frequencies.

Different creatures are life support systems for their version of energy receiver/conduit brain. If you ask what is the source for this subtle, ubiquitous, ambient energy called consciousness that the brain receives, or tunes, then first inquire into the source of all energy.

Fantastically, the Big Bang is considered to be the source all energy. Thus, the relevance of my reference. You should also make your reference relevant to the thread, to be relevant yourself.

[Terrapin Station]

Because that’s the topic. If you’re going to ramble on about the Big Bang,

What?? You brought the Big Bang up. I commented on your "example" of consciousness aside from brains, and you came out of nowhere with "explain the Big Bang." Why did you bring up the Big Bang all of a sudden?

[Walker]

Because that’s the topic. If you’re going to ramble on about the Big Bang,

What?? You brought the Big Bang up. I commented on your "example" of consciousness aside from brains, and you came out of nowhere with "explain the Big Bang." Why did you bring up the Big Bang all of a sudden?

Really, that’s the direction of your attention. We can only speculate on how or why a cut and paste artist would need someone to explain the relevance of contemplating the inferred, theoretical origins of creation in relation to anything, let alone the existence of self. One can deny any attempt at consideration of what doesn’t fit into one’s box, and one can play quibbles with semantics, but for stardust to deny that stardust exists as self sounds downright nonsensical though not to some folks.

[Greta]

Maybe that's just a less sophisticated filter, giving simpler animals a more minimalist POV? Until we have a direct mechanism showing exactly how neuronal signals become a sense of experience, the claim that consciousness is generated by the brain is made on faith, as are other claims.

Yes, and there is a direct mechanism from which in the case of the brain-mind a sort of neuronal signal is absent, unlike in the case of, say, the elbow joint.

Here's an experiment.

A blind man consults his doctor. Doctor instructs "Bend your elbow". The blind man does so and doctor asks "How did you know you bent your elbow?"

"I was conscious of it, Doctor."

Doctor says "That's true. Now think of a bunny rabbit".(br)

Blind patient says "Okay I did it."

Doctor: "How do you know you thought of a bunny rabbit (br)?"

Blind patient "Because I remember imagining a bunny rabbit. It was hopping about in a pretty meadow."

(scenario ends)

The key difference between the doctor's two instructions is that the doctor has good reason to know that the man's elbow joint is supplied with feed-back neural connection to the man's brain-mind. The doctor also knows that the bunny rabbit network (br) inside the patient's head is not supplied with feed-back neurons which inform some non-existent uber part of the brain-mind that bunny rabbit (br) has been thought.

Of course, you can substitute any cognitive content for (br). The brain-mind is so amazingly flexible that it can conceptualise almost any number of ( )s

It could be said that a feedback mechanism exists for the imaginary rabbit, but separated by time.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that we cannot imagine something that is not simply a synthesis of, or extrapolation on, memories of prior prior observations; we cannot imagine something entirely novel. So a "Man-Universe", "Man-Earth" or "Man-Sun" combination (more or less the same for the ancients) becomes "Yahweh" - the man and his creation (of course the Abrahamics thought so little of women that imagining a female deity in our society and others based on those creeds would ironically be thought of as superstitious). It appears that the only way to create truly novel things is by direct manipulation of information, via math.

I'm not sure of this, of course, but that's my impression this morning :)

[Terrapin Station]

Because that’s the topic. If you’re going to ramble on about the Big Bang,

What?? You brought the Big Bang up. I commented on your "example" of consciousness aside from brains, and you came out of nowhere with "explain the Big Bang." Why did you bring up the Big Bang all of a sudden?

Really, that’s the direction of your attention. We can only speculate on how or why a cut and paste artist would need someone to explain the relevance of contemplating the inferred, theoretical origins of creation in relation to anything, let alone the existence of self. One can deny any attempt at consideration of what doesn’t fit into one’s box, and one can play quibbles with semantics, but for stardust to deny that stardust exists as self sounds downright nonsensical though not to some folks.

Again--what??? You brought up the Big Bang. Is it really so difficult to just straightforwardly answer why you brought it up?

[Walker]

What?? You brought the Big Bang up. I commented on your "example" of consciousness aside from brains, and you came out of nowhere with "explain the Big Bang." Why did you bring up the Big Bang all of a sudden?

Really, that’s the direction of your attention. We can only speculate on how or why a cut and paste artist would need someone to explain the relevance of contemplating the inferred, theoretical origins of creation in relation to anything, let alone the existence of self. One can deny any attempt at consideration of what doesn’t fit into one’s box, and one can play quibbles with semantics, but for stardust to deny that stardust exists as self sounds downright nonsensical though not to some folks.

Again--what??? You brought up the Big Bang. Is it really so difficult to just straightforwardly answer why you brought it up?

I've already answered your question.
Yet, you continue to ask the same question, seeking some other answer.
Here's one.

To observe your response.

Here's a question for you. What is your response.

Scientists looking for invisible dark matter can't find any
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists ... -dark.html

If scientists look for God and can't find God, does this mean that God does not exist?

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

could be said that a feedback mechanism exists for the imaginary rabbit, but separated by time.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that we cannot imagine something that is not simply a synthesis of, or extrapolation on, memories of prior prior observations; we cannot imagine something entirely novel. So a "Man-Universe", "Man-Earth" or "Man-Sun" combination (more or less the same for the ancients) becomes "Yahweh" - the man and his creation (of course the Abrahamics thought so little of women that imagining a female deity in our society and others based on those creeds would ironically be thought of as superstitious). It appears that the only way to create truly novel things is by direct manipulation of information, via math.

I'm not sure of this, of course, but that's my impression this morning

That's right Greta, and I am so glad you understand what I am talking about! Memory or time lapse is a critical consideration as you say. My experiment was not set up right, because the elbow bend was in real time and the bunny rabbit thought was a memory. I can't think of a proper experiment , and I have to refer only to the absence of immediate anatomical feed back structures from brain-mind event to brain-mind event, apart from memory.

It might be said that I remember hearing a little sound, say a bell ringing. The ringing sensation in present time is transferred to short term memory. The sensation-to-memory of brain-mind events is a sequence in time, whereas the elbow bending is immediately known about in the brain-mind which has a feeling of elbow at exactly the same time as the elbow is bending, or even twitching, and memory doesn't have to be involved in the elbow event.

[prothero]

He probably meant "example" in the sense of something for which there is evidence, not a SciFi possibility just in case we're imaginative and fantasy-oriented enough that we don't bother with the details of how it would work too much.

Well yes I was looking for something backed by some sort of evidence in science, in life or in ordinary experience.

I can provide tons of examples of the ways in which consciousness can be altered, impaired or eliminated by brain injury, drugs, chemical imbalances or brain tumors and of the specific mental operations which are localized in certain brain regions or pathways (from both neurology, neuro surgery and neuroscience). The- the mind is separate from the brain crowd- has little evidence to provide except for wild imaginative speculation.

Even the self is a mental construct changing from moment to moment, heavily reliant on memory and lost (at least in any meaningful sense) in the last stages of senile dementia, coma or Alzheimer's disease, i.e. (there is permanent self, no soul in the religious sense of immortality).

This is not to say that physical or empirical explanations are complete, adequate and satisfactory explanations of all mental experience. It is however to say that human consciousness is not found except in association with a functioning human brain.

[Terrapin Station]

Here's a question for you. What is your response.

Scientists looking for invisible dark matter can't find any
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists ... -dark.html

If scientists look for God and can't find God, does this mean that God does not exist?

First, you appear to be taking me for someone who would subscribe to scientism. ("Scientism" in the sense of basically treating science like a religion, where received views are accepted unquestionably as dogma, etc.)

That's probably because you're simply fitting me into an easy template relative to your past experience. A lot of atheists you've run into have followed scientism in that sense.

That's not me at all. I'm skeptical of a lot of the received views in the sciences, and of course I'm skeptical of a lot of things that are more tentative or speculative in the sciences.

What's dark matter? It's a way to try to account for why mathematical equations in a cosmological context aren't working the way they should if we're right about the rest of our model. It's a way to try to salvage the model for now without figuring we have to scrap the whole paradigm and basically start from scratch to try to figure out where we went wrong, exactly. When paradigms can be salvaged with a move like positing "dark matter," that's usually the approach taken. It's only when things start going WAY off the rails that we tend to scrap the present paradigm--partially because that's usually necessary to even start figuring out just where we went wrong in the previous paradigm anyway.

So does looking for empirical evidence of a God and not finding any imply that a God doesn't exist? I'd say rather that it underscores that there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of a God in the first place. There are other good reasons for that, too, such as the sheer absurdity/incoherence of a lot of the posits made about God.

[Walker]

Here's a question for you. What is your response.

Scientists looking for invisible dark matter can't find any
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists ... -dark.html

If scientists look for God and can't find God, does this mean that God does not exist?

First, you appear to be taking me for someone who would subscribe to scientism. ("Scientism" in the sense of basically treating science like a religion, where received views are accepted unquestionably as dogma, etc.)

That's probably because you're simply fitting me into an easy template relative to your past experience. A lot of atheists you've run into have followed scientism in that sense.

That's not me at all. I'm skeptical of a lot of the received views in the sciences, and of course I'm skeptical of a lot of things that are more tentative or speculative in the sciences.

What's dark matter? It's a way to try to account for why mathematical equations in a cosmological context aren't working the way they should if we're right about the rest of our model. It's a way to try to salvage the model for now without figuring we have to scrap the whole paradigm and basically start from scratch to try to figure out where we went wrong, exactly. When paradigms can be salvaged with a move like positing "dark matter," that's usually the approach taken. It's only when things start going WAY off the rails that we tend to scrap the present paradigm--partially because that's usually necessary to even start figuring out just where we went wrong in the previous paradigm anyway.

So does looking for empirical evidence of a God and not finding any imply that a God doesn't exist? I'd say rather that it underscores that there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of a God in the first place. There are other good reasons for that, too, such as the sheer absurdity/incoherence of a lot of the posits made about God.

Take you for someone? Hardly. You have me confused with crazy-ass folks who think about them.

“Galaxies in our universe seem to be achieving an impossible feat. They are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together; they should have torn themselves apart long ago. The same is true of galaxies in clusters, which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass, generating the extra gravity they need to stay intact. This strange and unknown matter was called “dark matter” since it is not visible.”
- source

“… achieving an impossible feat.”
“… something we cannot see is at work.”

Atheists demand empirical proof of God.

How’bout this as proof:

Since according to mans’ comprehension the existence of the universe is an impossibility (read the quote), then the empirical evidence of God is the impossible feat of an invisible power holding the universe together.

Or in place of that, we can get a little book learnin, call ourselves scientists and then devise some equations that lack supporting physical evidence just so we can make the universe fit into our understanding.

“Show me the matter!”