I like the term bull fighting better than tolerance.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I like the term bull fighting better than tolerance.

Perhaps you can explain what Cito is wittering on about, I cant see any connection between his ramblings and the matter of this thread.

SpeedOfSound wrote: Materialism is not a metaphysical position, it's an accumulation of facts, each tested and found either true or false.

What exactly can the materialists tell us to be true or false about the nature of consciousness?

Your claim that materialism is not a metaphysical position is laughable to anyone with intelligence.

ughaibu wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I like the term bull fighting better than tolerance.

Perhaps you can explain what Cito is wittering on about, I cant see any connection between his ramblings and the matter of this thread.

Well try this on, then: Semantically, the term 'supernatural' lives by feeding off the term 'natural'. It's parasitic on 'natural', because it requires you to add something to 'natural' in order to obtain it. It's what we call a construction on the natural. Once you embark on that enterprise, you can write a book about your construction methodology.

Destroyer wrote:
What exactly can the materialists tell us to be true or false about the nature of consciousness?

Pretty much the same thing the dualists and idealists can tell us about the non-material aspect (or supernature) of consciousness. It gets you into a tautology between 'material' and 'natural'.

Cito di Pense wrote:[

Destroyer wrote:
What exactly can the materialists tell us to be true or false about the nature of consciousness?

Pretty much the same thing the dualists and idealists can tell us about the non-material aspect (or supernature) of consciousness. It gets you into a tautology between 'material' and 'natural'.

I think that this confirms my point; don't you?: ALL of them are metaphysical positions!!

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote: Materialism is not a metaphysical position, it's an accumulation of facts, each tested and found either true or false.

What exactly can the materialists tell us to be true or false about the nature of consciousness?

Your claim that materialism is not a metaphysical position is laughable to anyone with intelligence.

Sure. You offer up your little consciousness nugget. It is considered in some circles that to even attempt to explain the mind and SE is metaphysics or even pseudoscience. Those are opinions of the clueless and do not impress.

We are studying a thing we call the brain and a number systems are starting to emerge that look so much like our precious little wibble stone that it is getting very difficult to keep up the level of worship we have given in the past.

Now what is your point here? That we should not dare tread on such serious religious matters as whether the earth is the center of the universe? The charge of blasphemy replaced with the charge of doing metaphysics?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote: Materialism is not a metaphysical position, it's an accumulation of facts, each tested and found either true or false.

What exactly can the materialists tell us to be true or false about the nature of consciousness?

Your claim that materialism is not a metaphysical position is laughable to anyone with intelligence.

Sure. You offer up your little consciousness nugget. It is considered in some circles that to even attempt to explain the mind and SE is metaphysics or even pseudoscience. Those are opinions of the clueless and do not impress.

We are studying a thing we call the brain and a number systems are starting to emerge that look so much like our precious little wibble stone that it is getting very difficult to keep up the level of worship we have given in the past.

Now what is your point here? That we should not dare tread on such serious religious matters as whether the earth is the center of the universe? The charge of blasphemy replaced with the charge of doing metaphysics?

What the hell does any of this have to do with human beings holding positions that are not entirely based upon empiricism?!

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
What exactly can the materialists tell us to be true or false about the nature of consciousness?

Your claim that materialism is not a metaphysical position is laughable to anyone with intelligence.

Sure. You offer up your little consciousness nugget. It is considered in some circles that to even attempt to explain the mind and SE is metaphysics or even pseudoscience. Those are opinions of the clueless and do not impress.

We are studying a thing we call the brain and a number systems are starting to emerge that look so much like our precious little wibble stone that it is getting very difficult to keep up the level of worship we have given in the past.

Now what is your point here? That we should not dare tread on such serious religious matters as whether the earth is the center of the universe? The charge of blasphemy replaced with the charge of doing metaphysics?

What the hell does any of this have to do with human beings holding positions that are not entirely based upon empiricism?!

Plenty. Lots of little facts, and if those little facts start to add up to an explanation for one of your big mysteries it doesn't mean that we are doing metaphysics it simply means that another metaphysical piece of shit idea is about to go under the wheels of the locomotive.

ughaibu wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I like the term bull fighting better than tolerance.

Perhaps you can explain what Cito is wittering on about, I cant see any connection between his ramblings and the matter of this thread.

I am not going to get between the two of you. Your styles are similar and it will give me my RDA of irony to see y'all lock horns.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Sure. You offer up your little consciousness nugget. It is considered in some circles that to even attempt to explain the mind and SE is metaphysics or even pseudoscience. Those are opinions of the clueless and do not impress.

We are studying a thing we call the brain and a number systems are starting to emerge that look so much like our precious little wibble stone that it is getting very difficult to keep up the level of worship we have given in the past.

Now what is your point here? That we should not dare tread on such serious religious matters as whether the earth is the center of the universe? The charge of blasphemy replaced with the charge of doing metaphysics?

What the hell does any of this have to do with human beings holding positions that are not entirely based upon empiricism?!

Plenty. Lots of little facts, and if those little facts start to add up to an explanation for one of your big mysteries it doesn't mean that we are doing metaphysics it simply means that another metaphysical piece of shit idea is about to go under the wheels of the locomotive.

I am not surprised that UE no longer wastes his time engaging you in these discussions... I, too, know when it is time to call it a day with the blinkered, on any given topic.

Destroyer wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
What the hell does any of this have to do with human beings holding positions that are not entirely based upon empiricism?!

Plenty. Lots of little facts, and if those little facts start to add up to an explanation for one of your big mysteries it doesn't mean that we are doing metaphysics it simply means that another metaphysical piece of shit idea is about to go under the wheels of the locomotive.

I am not surprised that UE no longer wastes his time engaging you in these discussions... I, too, know when it is time to call it a day with the blinkered, on any given topic.

Yeah sure. UE never offered anything other than the usual cliche tripe about the subject so I don't wast my time on him either.

The point is that you are trying to figure it out from the POV of metaphysics. I am not. I study the science. The science gave me a clear understanding of consciousness which I have tried to convey in thousands of posts. You either get it or you don't I guess.

C is your one last link to god and if that isn't blinkered I don't know what is.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The point is that you are trying to figure it out from the POV of metaphysics. I am not. I study the science. The science gave me a clear understanding of consciousness which I have tried to convey in thousands of posts. You either get it or you don't I guess.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here, to the effect that there is nothing non-metaphysical anyone can say about consciousness that does not require an explanation in terms of brain activity. You may not recognise this as a tautology, but I do. I know my tautology entails a lot of negation, but there you have it. It's not fun (easy) to make positive claims about consciousness that do not include a lot of wibble, but you seem more than willing to do so.

The problem arises that people will believe metaphysics is legitimate as long as discoursing metaphysically gets a serious response.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The point is that you are trying to figure it out from the POV of metaphysics. I am not. I study the science. The science gave me a clear understanding of consciousness which I have tried to convey in thousands of posts. You either get it or you don't I guess.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here, to the effect that there is nothing non-metaphysical anyone can say about consciousness that does not require an explanation in terms of brain activity. I know that's a lot of negation, but there you have it. It's not fun to make positive claims about consciousness, but you seem eager to do so.

I think my emotions get in the way. I keep hearing the same old tired platitudes about 'science can't' and I kind of see red and then start typing. My bad.

My favorite is 'Consciousness is a logical problem for physicalism'.

Grrrrr!!!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The point is that you are trying to figure it out from the POV of metaphysics. I am not. I study the science. The science gave me a clear understanding of consciousness which I have tried to convey in thousands of posts. You either get it or you don't I guess.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here, to the effect that there is nothing non-metaphysical anyone can say about consciousness that does not require an explanation in terms of brain activity. I know that's a lot of negation, but there you have it. It's not fun to make positive claims about consciousness, but you seem eager to do so.

I think my emotions get in the way. I keep hearing the same old tired platitudes about 'science can't' and I kind of see red and then start typing. My bad.

People desire that science not intrude on certain matters. You should start reading Lacan on desire and obsession. I think it will serve as a nice complement to your study of neuroscience. When I say there is no woo, I don't mean to indicate that people do not have heads full of woo. When you see woo, you apply neuroscience. I have no problem with that. I think that for the nonce, Lacanian psychoanalysis will take you farther, at least in internet discussions with metaphysicians.

Do you have a book that you recommend?

SpeedOfSound wrote:Do you have a book that you recommend?

A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique by Bruce Fink. As good a place to start as any. Don't start out by trying to read Lacan himself. The point is not to become a Lacan scholar but to try to understand the way people talk about 'consciousnessness' and whether or not science can do this or that.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The point is that you are trying to figure it out from the POV of metaphysics. I am not. I study the science. The science gave me a clear understanding of consciousness which I have tried to convey in thousands of posts. You either get it or you don't I guess.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here, to the effect that there is nothing non-metaphysical anyone can say about consciousness that does not require an explanation in terms of brain activity. You may not recognise this as a tautology, but I do. I know my tautology entails a lot of negation, but there you have it. It's not fun (easy) to make positive claims about consciousness that do not include a lot of wibble, but you seem more than willing to do so.

The problem arises that people will believe metaphysics is legitimate as long as discoursing metaphysically gets a serious response.

My bold.

Who knows; maybe one day someone will come along.

Done and three more. Two how two books and ecrits.