Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

jamest · **#121** by **jamest** » Nov 07, 2018 1:55 am

gobshite wrote:Well there are such thing as neural correlates, so to discount science in the study of such would be about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Look, I'm trying my best to do this without hurting your arsehole, but you're being very difficult. The FACT is that ANY theory which posits an agency/cause which transcends observation/experience thus transcends the field of science, since science can ONLY report narratives pertaining to the field of observation/experience. Science cannot tell us about any order which exists beyond that which is observed/experienced, which hence necessarily prohibits it from supporting/promoting such an (outside) order.

Macdoc · **#122** by **Macdoc** » Nov 07, 2018 2:02 am

Don't strain your brane James. :coffee:

jamest · **#123** by **jamest** » Nov 07, 2018 2:25 am

Macdoc wrote:Don't strain your brane James.

If only I had loved motorbikes and cameras, squire. Then I could have trundled through life pretending to be as happy as yourself.

This isn't a judgement about you Sir, but a metaphor for what's ultimately worthwhile. You're a good chap, no doubt about it.

Macdoc · **#124** by **Macdoc** » Nov 07, 2018 2:50 am

do you even comprehend what i said j ? :roll:

gobshite · **#125** by **gobshite** » Nov 07, 2018 3:05 am

jamest wrote:
gobshite wrote:Well there are such thing as neural correlates, so to discount science in the study of such would be about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Look, I'm trying my best to do this without hurting your arsehole, but you're being very difficult. The FACT is that ANY theory which posits an agency/cause which transcends observation/experience thus transcends the field of science, since science can ONLY report narratives pertaining to the field of observation/experience. Science cannot tell us about any order which exists beyond that which is observed/experienced, which hence necessarily prohibits it from supporting/promoting such an (outside) order.

Have you settled on a place to plant those goalposts yet?

Animavore · **#126** by **Animavore** » Nov 07, 2018 9:19 am

jamest wrote:
Animavore wrote:I think you misunderstand what is being asked. The plausibility or not of any imagined as yet discovered scientific theory is not in question. Only the importance, or not, of such a finding.

I cannot help you with your ignorance except to repeat that a "materialistic theory of mind" is a metaphysical/philosophical theory by logical default.

This is a fun 'what if' thread.

Fun followed by retarded/biased conditional disclaimers? My arse. Fuck off.

The conditions aren't biased. I left room for people to state why they think a scientific immaterial theory of mind is the next big thing. The only thing being ruled out is turning this thread into an argument over consciousness because it's off topic and beyond the scope of this thread. This thread is about general impacts and consequences of imagined scientific discoveries on society. Not on whether they have merit. If someone made a case for the intergalactic benefits of faster than light travel they would be on topic. If someone came along and argued that that's impossible due to Einstein's theory they would be off topic. If, however, they made a case against the hypothesized benefits they would be on topic.

That's why those on here arguing whether immorality is good or bad for society are on topic, but someone coming along to tell us about the biological implausibility would be off.

You're off topic.

Do you need it explained any more ways?

Hermit · **#127** by **Hermit** » Nov 07, 2018 10:55 am

jamest wrote:My confidence rests entirely upon the surety of being subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

surreptitious57 · **#128** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 08, 2018 2:23 am

gobshite wrote:
And while thinking is physical thoughts are not . They are immaterial . This is
the whole reason why the problem is so difficult to solve let alone formulate

Thoughts are physical because they are electrochemical signals within the brain

gobshite · **#129** by **gobshite** » Nov 08, 2018 3:12 am

Imagine a tree. That's a thought. That tree isn't physical. So again, thinking is physical, but thoughts aren't.

Macdoc · **#130** by **Macdoc** » Nov 08, 2018 4:37 am

Slippery slope....if you can transmit a thought to another person .....or share thoughts with another person ....

https://www.sciencealert.com/two-human- ... s-thinking

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/m_feature ... thers-eyes

gobshite · **#131** by **gobshite** » Nov 08, 2018 5:23 am

It's a messy issue, no doubt. If we consider consciousness an emergent process out of the physical/chemical brain activity, we've still got to explain how we experience that emergent process, I think. Some explain it as a sort of self referential feedback loop, but I find that doesn't do much to reduce the mystery of the whole thing. I've long ago accepted that my brain isn't capable of understanding consciousness.

surreptitious57 · **#132** by **surreptitious57** » Nov 08, 2018 5:32 am

We can explain brain activity from a hard scientific perspective but much less so why
we actually have subjective experience [ the famous hard problem of consciousness ]

Cito di Pense · **#133** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 08, 2018 5:40 am

surreptitious57 wrote:We can explain brain activity from a hard scientific perspective but much less so why
we actually have subjective experience [ the famous hard problem of consciousness ]

It's not a hard problem at all. The only information we get (or give) about subjective experience comes in the form of anecdotes, and we don't trust those, do we? This is at least obvious to jamest, who concludes that consciousness is all there is. The real issue is that of consciousnessness, and consciousnessnessness. If you want, you can call these "Nessie" for short. It's a shadow on the door of a cottage by the shore of a dark Scottish lake.

jamest · **#134** by **jamest** » Nov 10, 2018 12:31 am

gobshite wrote:
jamest wrote:
gobshite wrote:Well there are such thing as neural correlates, so to discount science in the study of such would be about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Look, I'm trying my best to do this without hurting your arsehole, but you're being very difficult. The FACT is that ANY theory which posits an agency/cause which transcends observation/experience thus transcends the field of science, since science can ONLY report narratives pertaining to the field of observation/experience. Science cannot tell us about any order which exists beyond that which is observed/experienced, which hence necessarily prohibits it from supporting/promoting such an (outside) order.

Have you settled on a place to plant those goalposts yet?

I was wondering whether up your nostrils might suffice to shut you the fuck up, but I've yet to decide.

jamest · **#135** by **jamest** » Nov 10, 2018 12:42 am

I need a better audience, for sure. I need some cunt here to put aside their (contemporary medieval) bias and/or self-confessed invalidities and meet me for a duel. I'm getting a bit bored, to be honest. I know that there's smart cunts here, but they all seem afraid and/or full of shit.

When one of you has the balls and sincerity to meet me on the field, alone, we'll talk business.

OlivierK · **#136** by **OlivierK** » Nov 10, 2018 1:05 am

There are some smart cunts here who won't give you time of day, eh?

What does that tell you?

It tells me that smart cunts have worked out that debating against the purveyor of an incoherent, half-baked philosophy is not a smart use of said smart cunts' time.

SafeAsMilk · **#137** by **SafeAsMilk** » Nov 10, 2018 1:50 am

jamest wrote:I need a better audience, for sure.

Yes, it must be everyone else, it couldn't possibly be that the things you say that are the problem. You couldn't possibly be wrong, and you couldn't possibly be doing a poor job of making your case.

I need some cunt here to put aside their (contemporary medieval) bias and/or self-confessed invalidities and meet me for a duel.

You need to stop tripping over your own shoelaces first, if you want anyone to have the sense that your challenge is worth the pixels its printed on. Any old twit can talk themselves up on the internet. The challenge is giving people the sense that it's anything more than vapid puffery.

I'm getting a bit bored, to be honest. I know that there's smart cunts here, but they all seem afraid and/or full of shit.

20 years of running yourself in circles, and now you're getting a bit bored? Have you considered the possibility that you're not on the same level as the smart cunts, and so your view that they're afraid or full of shit is just a projection of your own failure to convince anyone of anything ever?

When one of you has the balls and sincerity to meet me on the field, alone, we'll talk business.

If you had a fraction of the knowledge to match the egotistical swagger in your posts, you wouldn't find yourself making asinine ultimatums like this. That might be a creatively worded fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.

jamest · **#138** by **jamest** » Nov 10, 2018 1:52 am

OlivierK wrote:There are some smart cunts here who won't give you time of day, eh?

What does that tell you?

It tells me that smart cunts have worked out that debating against the purveyor of an incoherent, half-baked philosophy is not a smart use of said smart cunts' time.

I don't give a fuck about that, just as (as a metaphor) Democrats don't like Trump.

Is there a fucking point here where you'll realise that EVEN ALONE I won't crumble to your tribal bullshit. Even after two decades?

If so, speak amongst yourselves and find someone actually worthy of my time. Then, and only then, will I deliver the coup de grace.

Macdoc · **#139** by **Macdoc** » Nov 10, 2018 2:22 am

obdurate comes to mind :coffee:

SafeAsMilk · **#140** by **SafeAsMilk** » Nov 10, 2018 2:33 am

jamest wrote:
OlivierK wrote:There are some smart cunts here who won't give you time of day, eh?

What does that tell you?

It tells me that smart cunts have worked out that debating against the purveyor of an incoherent, half-baked philosophy is not a smart use of said smart cunts' time.

I don't give a fuck about that, just as (as a metaphor) Democrats don't like Trump.

You probably should, because that's how the things you say come across. Sincerely.

Is there a fucking point here where you'll realise that EVEN ALONE I won't crumble to your tribal bullshit. Even after two decades?

I'm pretty sure everyone reading is certain that you will never change the way you interact with people on this forum. It's been pretty well realized. It just isn't really any sort of concern to...well, anybody at all besides yourself.

If so, speak amongst yourselves and find someone actually worthy of my time. Then, and only then, will I deliver the coup de grace.

You are not for real.

Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Re: Which undiscovered scientific theory do you look forward to?

Who is online