Posted: May 19, 2012 1:17 am
The particle accelerator of discourse sees the appearance of more fail bosons ... let's take a look at this shall we?
What "logic" is this, may I ask? Only last time I checked, blind assertions erected with the intention that they be treated uncritically and unquestioningly as true, regardless of what reality has to say on the matter, do not equal "logic".
Oh dear. Looks like some elementary education is needed here.
First of all, the evidence that we have for the processes we label "consciousness", involves those processes being underpinned by testable natural mechanisms. We have ZERO evidence for anything else. Now, since those testable natural mechanisms, at bottom, operate in a repeatably reliable fashion, to the point where they can be made subject to empirical test, the minor idiosyncrasies of a particular instance of those processes, do not constitute the fatal weakness for reliable perception of observational reality, that you seem to think that they do. Most human beings possessed of normal trichromatic vision, will associate light in the 450-490 nanometre wavelength range entering their eyes and triggering their rhodopsins, with the word 'blue', for example, and the idea that this is somehow fatally compromised by individual idiosyncrasies with respect to abstract thought, is a complete non-starter that will have comptetent neuroscientists pointing and laughing. The idea that 450-490 nanometre wavelength light is "subjective" is a fantasy.
Incidentally, if you dispute the repeatable reliability of some of the underlying testable natural processes, then please, kindly explain to us all why organic chemists have been able to develop their branch of science in a rigorous manner over 200 years, if this repeatable reliability of organic reactions did not exist. I'll have fun wating for the apologetic fabrications you erect to try and sell this fantasy.
I haven't made any appeal to such gibberish above. What I do recognise, based upon empirical evidence gathered over decades by relevant scientists, is that the underlying processes, the vast numbers of neurons involved, and the large number of possibilities for interconnections thereof, allow those underlying processes to underpin a fairly wide and flexible range of high-level behaviours. However, I emphasise here that it is high-level behaviours that are flexible, not the sort of processes that involve precisely quantified physical phenomena interacting at a low level. Working out that a brick has just fallen on to your foot isn't "subjective" when the brick in question has just moved along the relevant trajectory under the influence of gravity, and any suggestion that this is so is plain nonsense.
First of all, I haven't erected any such argument. See above. Second, if you bother to check the neuroscience literature, you'll find that some surprising results have been demonstrated empirically, that impacts upon our view of consciousness. I'll let you have fun finding some of these out, and in the process, you'll learn that some of your own assertions on the subject are hopelessly naive.
First of all, I'm one of those people who dispenses with 'belief' altogether, when it comes to the matter of obtaining substantive knowledge. Which is why I don't regard mythological assertions as anything other than bad fairy tales. Second, I regard consciousness to be flexible within the range of parameters permitted by the underlying testable natural processes, which is an entirely different matter.
While we're at it, you might like to ask yourself why, back in 1991, when I was in hospital with meningitis, and enjoying the dubious delights of having my cerebral cortex subjected to a body temperature of 104°F, I perceived the nurse taking my temperature to be a six foot cockroach. Fortunately, thanks to my having spent a fair amount of my adult life with a passion for entomology, this weird hallucination didn't result in me having the screaming heebie-jeebies, an effect that it might have upon many others - instead, despite my less than happy state, I decided to put this interesting hallucination to some use, and see if I could determine which species of cockroach I was hallucinating. Now, I don't even need to be an entomologist, or have knowledge of insect physiology, to know that six foot cockroaches don't exist (indeed there are sound reasons why, in the present, they are an impossibility), but during that episode in hospital, my brain cooked up this nice little visison whilst it was being cooked itself. Which means that under certain conditions, consciousness can be altered by a range of external influences, both physical and chemical. My body temperature was probably only one contributing factor in this instance - the effect of meningococcal antigens probably had a hand in this too.
I don't have to resort to "subject dependence" to deal with these issues, I simply have to take note of the fact that consciousness is a complex phenomenon with a fairly wide range of physically permitted flexibility, and that is the case even under purportedly "normal" operating parameters. The issue starts to become interesting when you factor in abnormal operating parameters such as the ones I've described above.
What "argument" did you have to begin with? All I saw was the usual attempt to assert your magic man into existence. Which I dealt with by recourse to relevant evidence refuting some of those assertions. To which you responded with yet another blind assertion, to the effect that I was erecting canards, an assertion I have yet to see backed with evidence, and in the light of which, many here will regard your above assertion as blatant evasion on your part.
This in itself is a statement many here will regard as disingenuous.
Your opinion is not reflected by reality. I don't believe in supernatural magic entities full stop, and indeed, regard belief itself as worthless, not least because supernaturalists keep demonstrating this every time they post yet more apologetic fabrications.
Translation: "I will commit whatever discoursive abuse I want in order to propagandise for my doctrinal assertions, but if you dare complain about this, I will stop playing and take my ball home".
Oh, as opposed to blindly asserting that a detailed refutation of your assertions consists of "canards", without bothering once to trouble yourself with supplying evidence to support this summary dismissal? Talk about pot, kettle, black.
Speaking of which, you asserted back on page three of this thread that I was "peddling canards", yet here we are, on page 10, and despite me asking you to back this assertion with some substance soon after you erected it, you have failed to do so. So please, don't try and fob others off with blithe assertions that their posts are somehow beneath your notice, when you have manifestly failed to apply due diligence to answering a pertinent question in this vein yourself.
amkerman wrote:There is simply no reason to attempt to dumb down the argument any further. It is clear. People talking about "my consciousness" are completely disregarding the logic to suit their own wishes.
What "logic" is this, may I ask? Only last time I checked, blind assertions erected with the intention that they be treated uncritically and unquestioningly as true, regardless of what reality has to say on the matter, do not equal "logic".
amkerman wrote:If it is "your consciousness" (as in a consciousness that is dependent upon your perception of it, or the workings of your brain) then you could not possibly be referencing an objectI've reality through it, you could only reference a completely subjective reality.
Oh dear. Looks like some elementary education is needed here.
First of all, the evidence that we have for the processes we label "consciousness", involves those processes being underpinned by testable natural mechanisms. We have ZERO evidence for anything else. Now, since those testable natural mechanisms, at bottom, operate in a repeatably reliable fashion, to the point where they can be made subject to empirical test, the minor idiosyncrasies of a particular instance of those processes, do not constitute the fatal weakness for reliable perception of observational reality, that you seem to think that they do. Most human beings possessed of normal trichromatic vision, will associate light in the 450-490 nanometre wavelength range entering their eyes and triggering their rhodopsins, with the word 'blue', for example, and the idea that this is somehow fatally compromised by individual idiosyncrasies with respect to abstract thought, is a complete non-starter that will have comptetent neuroscientists pointing and laughing. The idea that 450-490 nanometre wavelength light is "subjective" is a fantasy.
Incidentally, if you dispute the repeatable reliability of some of the underlying testable natural processes, then please, kindly explain to us all why organic chemists have been able to develop their branch of science in a rigorous manner over 200 years, if this repeatable reliability of organic reactions did not exist. I'll have fun wating for the apologetic fabrications you erect to try and sell this fantasy.
amkerman wrote:It is solipsism to think that consciousness is subject dependent. It is irrational. To save this view from irrationality many add the caveat that "yes but everyone (every human at least) has it and we all (for the most part) experience the same subjective reality through it.
I haven't made any appeal to such gibberish above. What I do recognise, based upon empirical evidence gathered over decades by relevant scientists, is that the underlying processes, the vast numbers of neurons involved, and the large number of possibilities for interconnections thereof, allow those underlying processes to underpin a fairly wide and flexible range of high-level behaviours. However, I emphasise here that it is high-level behaviours that are flexible, not the sort of processes that involve precisely quantified physical phenomena interacting at a low level. Working out that a brick has just fallen on to your foot isn't "subjective" when the brick in question has just moved along the relevant trajectory under the influence of gravity, and any suggestion that this is so is plain nonsense.
amkerman wrote:This is deeply flawed reasoning. If consciousness is subject dependent then one would have absolutely no grounds to think that there were actually other people at all, as reality would be completely dependent on "your" perception (at least as far as you could ever possibly conclude).
First of all, I haven't erected any such argument. See above. Second, if you bother to check the neuroscience literature, you'll find that some surprising results have been demonstrated empirically, that impacts upon our view of consciousness. I'll let you have fun finding some of these out, and in the process, you'll learn that some of your own assertions on the subject are hopelessly naive.
amkerman wrote:Once you start believing that reality is objective it NECESSARILY follows that you believe consciousness to be subject independent.
First of all, I'm one of those people who dispenses with 'belief' altogether, when it comes to the matter of obtaining substantive knowledge. Which is why I don't regard mythological assertions as anything other than bad fairy tales. Second, I regard consciousness to be flexible within the range of parameters permitted by the underlying testable natural processes, which is an entirely different matter.
While we're at it, you might like to ask yourself why, back in 1991, when I was in hospital with meningitis, and enjoying the dubious delights of having my cerebral cortex subjected to a body temperature of 104°F, I perceived the nurse taking my temperature to be a six foot cockroach. Fortunately, thanks to my having spent a fair amount of my adult life with a passion for entomology, this weird hallucination didn't result in me having the screaming heebie-jeebies, an effect that it might have upon many others - instead, despite my less than happy state, I decided to put this interesting hallucination to some use, and see if I could determine which species of cockroach I was hallucinating. Now, I don't even need to be an entomologist, or have knowledge of insect physiology, to know that six foot cockroaches don't exist (indeed there are sound reasons why, in the present, they are an impossibility), but during that episode in hospital, my brain cooked up this nice little visison whilst it was being cooked itself. Which means that under certain conditions, consciousness can be altered by a range of external influences, both physical and chemical. My body temperature was probably only one contributing factor in this instance - the effect of meningococcal antigens probably had a hand in this too.
amkerman wrote:People can say that I am "baiting and switching" or "trying to convince myself" or "disingenuous" or whatever, but until one can explain how, and more importantly how subject dependent consciousness is capable of referencing any sort of "reality" external to the subject, let alone a reality that is objective, all your "criticisms" seem to me at best a simple failure to understand the argument and at worst willful ignorance.
I don't have to resort to "subject dependence" to deal with these issues, I simply have to take note of the fact that consciousness is a complex phenomenon with a fairly wide range of physically permitted flexibility, and that is the case even under purportedly "normal" operating parameters. The issue starts to become interesting when you factor in abnormal operating parameters such as the ones I've described above.
amkerman wrote:If I am not responding to many of you it's because I don't believe that your criticisms are robust enough concerning the argument to warrant a response
What "argument" did you have to begin with? All I saw was the usual attempt to assert your magic man into existence. Which I dealt with by recourse to relevant evidence refuting some of those assertions. To which you responded with yet another blind assertion, to the effect that I was erecting canards, an assertion I have yet to see backed with evidence, and in the light of which, many here will regard your above assertion as blatant evasion on your part.
amkerman wrote:or they seem to me to be off topic. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything
This in itself is a statement many here will regard as disingenuous.
amkerman wrote:as a theistic innatist I am of the honest opinion that all people, atheists included, believe in God, whether they realize it or not
Your opinion is not reflected by reality. I don't believe in supernatural magic entities full stop, and indeed, regard belief itself as worthless, not least because supernaturalists keep demonstrating this every time they post yet more apologetic fabrications.
amkerman wrote:Comments directed at my posting style, life, personality, or rhetoric about the vacuousness of my arguments, simply will not be responded to by me.
Translation: "I will commit whatever discoursive abuse I want in order to propagandise for my doctrinal assertions, but if you dare complain about this, I will stop playing and take my ball home".
amkerman wrote:Feel free to talk amongst yourselves and if you actually would like to address the content of the argument in a mature and civilized fashion without and snide remarks about why it's wrong I'm more than happy.
Oh, as opposed to blindly asserting that a detailed refutation of your assertions consists of "canards", without bothering once to trouble yourself with supplying evidence to support this summary dismissal? Talk about pot, kettle, black.
Speaking of which, you asserted back on page three of this thread that I was "peddling canards", yet here we are, on page 10, and despite me asking you to back this assertion with some substance soon after you erected it, you have failed to do so. So please, don't try and fob others off with blithe assertions that their posts are somehow beneath your notice, when you have manifestly failed to apply due diligence to answering a pertinent question in this vein yourself.