Knight plays chess with Death, from Ingmar
Bergman's great film The Seventh Seal
Jeff Lowder at the Secular Outpost has 25 questions for theists They are not intended to be tricks or rhetorical but to drive home his point about his probability argument,
Lowder says of his questions:
Many people incorrectly assumed that the list was supposed to function as a list of “gotcha!” questions. Even our own Keith Parsons commented, “Any Bible-believing Christian could easily answer these.” Sure enough, many did. It’s easy to invent “just-so,” ad hoc explanations for why, if God exists, God allowed some fact F to obtain. But that is of very little philosophical interest. (More on that in a moment.) But even more important, it misses the point....Lowder's major point is a huge probability argument in which he shows over and over again in a variety of ways that reality is more easily explained by naturalism and thus it is more probable as an explanation.I contend that the argumemt, like the questions primarily reflect what Tillich calls the "surface level" being thus of course they reflect naturalism because he's not examining areas where supernature is an issue, Hopefully this will be seen in the answers I give. I will only do half the questions this time.
Each question is a specific instance of a more generic ‘meta-question’: “Which explanatory hypothesis, naturalism or theism, is the best explanation?” For details, see “Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments.” That page lays out the schema for all of my evidential arguments.
Question:
1. The question “Why is there something rather than nothing” presupposes “nothing” as being the normal state of affairs. Why believe that? Why can’t we flip the question on its head? In other words, why can’t it be the case that the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness itself would be weird? (HT: Thy Kingdom Come (Undone))
Answer:
No it does not, the question does not assume nothing is normal it assumes it's the only alternative to being. I do not mean to offend you,I respect you as a thinker but that strikes me as suggesting you need to read Heidegger. Thet question was made famous by him it has a huge palemcest that is firmly rooted in Heideggerian fermentation. It is not intended to evoke God, Heidegger was an atheist. In fact he says Christians can't answer it because they have a ready jade answer, so the question is really like an ink blot,it just spurs thinking. Tillich moves on from Heidegger and expropriates the questions as a starting point but only in light of the Heiderrian history of the question. Modern apologists know nothing of these things most of the time,l thin k They should.
Q
2. Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time.
A
Time is based upon the rate of change in physical conditions,any physical condition constitutes a universe so you can't have time running prior to having something to change, thus a universe. I don't think that contradicts reactivity,I know matter warps space and creates time but that still makes time a function of space, or the universe. Thus time and matter must begin together. In relativity the four coordinates, time and three physical dimensions are all one thing they can't be separated thus space/time. Nothing in that formulation makes God less probable.
3. Why is so much of our universe intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency? Why does the history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones?
This is really two separate question. Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN. Don't forget my understanding of that term is different from yours. It has nothing to do with magic and does not necessarily involve miracles. It is synonymous with God consciousness.4. Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?
That's explained by FT argument. Evolution needs space. That question requires only knowledge of the surface so it's not necessarily a theist's question. Evolution includes the stars,m the universe as a whole, thus it needs lots of room.5. If you believe that visual beauty is evidence of God, why isn’t the universe saturated with auditory, tactile, or other non-visual types of sensory beauty?
I don't know that I do believe that. But it is saturated with auditory and other kinds of beauty but you don't notice it unless you are blind. If you want to know the valid logical best version of the aesthetic argument read Has Urs Von Balthasar.6. If you believe the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, why isn’t our universe teeming with life, including life much more impressive than human life?
Who says it's not? we have insufficient data for that assumption.
7. Why would God use biological evolution as a method for creation? Do you have any answer that is independent of the scientific evidence for evolution?
You are making an anthropomorphic assumption that God is so much like us that has to rationcentenate the decisions to create in such a way that we would appreciate it. How about he just chose evolution because it's the default from naturalistic creation. You are assuming God doesn't work like a principle but has to say "I am God I shall create stuff." Canadian theologian John Macquarrie has a phrase "being let's be" to describe God's creative process that more of a manager for creative principles. I think God actively engages with consciousness but since he's working on a higher level of consciousness we would not understand it.
We might theorize a reason we can understand. It would deal with my view my theory I call "soeteriological drama." God wants a neutral world where his existence is not a dead giveaway so we have to seek truth and thus internalize the values of the good, Read more.
8. Why would God desire to create embodied moral agents, as opposed to unembodied minds (such as souls, spirits, or ghosts)? Why is the human mind dependent on the physical brain?
That is also answered by the link above to bacteriological drama, If we were pure spirit beings (pure mind) we would have no doubt of God and we woudl not seek truth and thus internalize the values of the good.
The answers are hiding in plain sight, We can find them but we have to look,We have to want them, That may sound like a game of cat and mouse but I don't it ism, i think it's necessary to internalize values of the good.
This question makes me think of one of my favorite Twilight Zone's. The most philosophical of the show. A solider, a clown ,some others are trapped in a room with no doors or windows, They have no memory of being who they are. Turns out they are toys in a toy box at Christmas. We find ourselves here in this life we have no idea why we are here they answer could be so radically different we can't know it, in that metaphor the answer is determinism,9. Did Australopithecus have a soul? What about homo habilis? Homo erectus? Neanderthals? Why or why not? (HT: Keith Parsons)
Yes. "The only Hebrew word traditionally translated "soul" (nephesh) in English language Bibles refers to a living, breathing conscious body, rather than to an immortal soul." Soul is not necessary the thing that lives on but a symbol for life, by extension the relationship of the living being to God Thus saved souls or lost souls. The thing that survives death is spirit,although in translation these can be synonymous.
Soul in the Bible - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible
10. How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t know?” (HT: Keith Parsons)
The term soul is most often used of the physical life of the person so it;s interaction is obvious. Now you will ask about spirit the same question plug in spirit. Spirit = mind. How do minds interact with physical matter? By perceiving and interpreting it.
11. If you believe humans have free will, why would humans have free will if God exists? Why are we able to exercise free will in some situations but not others?
Question is backward. If God did not exist we should expect biological organisms to be deterministic. It's only with humans made in God's image we should expect reason and free will.
12. Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random? Is there some greater good that logically requires (or logically requires risking) that suffering be used to motivate animals to pursue the biological goal of self-preservation? Does some moral end make it desirable for suffering to continue even when it serves no biological purpose? For example, why do sentient beings, including animals which are not moral agents, experience pain or pleasure that we do not know to be biologically useful?
You are only thinking in terms of physical pleasure that is a function physical existence. You can't explaimn having a physical body and yetalso finding higher forms of pleasure especially when it requires higher forms of consciousness.
13. Why do only a fraction of living things, including the majority of sentient beings, thrive? In other words, why do very few living things have an adequate supply of food and water, are able to reproduce, avoid predators, and remain healthy? Why would God create a world in which all sentient beings savagely compete with one another for survival? Why do an even smaller fraction of organisms thrive for most of their lives? Why do almost no organisms thrive for all of their lives?
We do have physical existence, that's not doubted by any. Most organisms are not made in Gods image and wont share in eternal life so they are just accouterments of physical existence. Their well being is tied entirely to the physical realm. The higher up the scale of mental activity we go the closer we come to spirit, So we might find animals like dogs with spiritual qualities, since they have emotions they might find some pleasure in spiritual basics like emotion.You can talk about the physical workings of the empirical end of the universe forever and not mention God because it's created to run on it's own. Then of course you can play the games of reductionist designed to keep God hidden.
That doesn't mean you can leave God out if you want to go beyond the surface. Science doesn't go beyond the surface (not it's job) so of course science appears not to need God. The universe is made to look neutral.
I'll do the rest next week
72 comments:
Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN. Don't forget my understanding of that term is different from yours. It has nothing to do with magic and does not necessarily involve miracles. It is synonymous with God consciousness.
You have raised this point several times lately. "Depth of Being". What it is saying is that God is revealed by looking beyond the surface level. And by implication, atheists always fail to look beyond the surface. So it seems to be a slap in the face of anyone who doesn't agree with your theistic beliefs. You are telling them essentially that their thinking is shallow, and yours isn't. Well, I suppose that's one way to answer the question.
It's interesting that you bring up Lowder. I just found info on a debate that he had recently with Christian apologist Frank Turek:
Proginosko: Some Thoughts on the Lowder-Turek Debate
YES I/ve seen Lowder's account of it but not the debate itself,
Because you are only looking at the bits that are on the surface, that's the natural it's empirical. This is what Tillich means when he links atheism with "surface level of being." You are only thinking of what you can see. If you want to deal with morality or meaning or anything below the surface then you do need SN. Don't forget my understanding of that term is different from yours. It has nothing to do with magic and does not necessarily involve miracles. It is synonymous with God consciousness.
You have raised this point several times lately. "Depth of Being". What it is saying is that God is revealed by looking beyond the surface level. And by implication, atheists always fail to look beyond the surface. So it seems to be a slap in the face of anyone who doesn't agree with your theistic beliefs. You are telling them essentially that their thinking is shallow, and yours isn't. Well, I suppose that's one way to answer the question.
I don't think that's what Tillich had in mind. But atheists do tend to stop with the surface with fact of things existing the empirical level.nothing beyond it, They can't introduce meaning or purpose given the accidental nature of the universe, it's not sayingare shallow thinkiers,
But atheists do tend to stop with the surface
- So you agree.
They can't introduce meaning or purpose
- That's what you say - given your limited understanding of how those things can (and do) arise in the natural world. If only you had that deeper understanding, you would realize that "God did it" doesn't explain anything at all.
m-skeptical said...
But atheists do tend to stop with the surface
- So you agree.
my original point
They can't introduce meaning or purpose
- That's what you say - given your limited understanding of how those things can (and do) arise in the natural world. If only you had that deeper understanding, you would realize that "God did it" doesn't explain anything at all.
3:11 PM Delete
so why are we here? don't tell me how it works tell me why,Ic yo say there;s no higher reasonthenI;mright,so waht's the resaon?
#4: You're really limiting god's power with this explanation. God could create a universe of any size, age, duration. He could have made it of any configuration of matter(quarks, atoms, molecules) and life in that universe made of any biochemistry, or even none at all.
my original point
- My point, too.
so why are we here? don't tell me how it works tell me why,Ic yo say there;s no higher reasonthenI;mright,so waht's the resaon?
- There's no cosmic reason. It just happened. What you fail to understand is that meaning and purpose are created by us. The fact that we came about by accident doesn't change that.
We have goals and intentions. That's just a byproduct of our genetic instinct to live and reproduce. And it translates directly to "purpose". Science explains it quite nicely, without any need for "God did it".
Similarly, meaning is a cognitive function. It's making sense of the things in our world by associating concepts together. Again the notion that meaning comes from God is just religious bullshit. The idea that there could meaning without a brain making associations is nonsense - just the kind of incoherent gobbledygook we get from religionists who love to throw around lofty-sounding words, but don't care about the fact that those words are devoid of meaningful content.
Jimmy S. M. said...
#4: You're really limiting god's power with this explanation. God could create a universe of any size, age, duration. He could have made it of any configuration of matter(quarks, atoms, molecules) and life in that universe made of any biochemistry, or even none at all.
I guess I wasn't clear, God used evolution because he wanted universe that looks neutral so we have to seek for truth.
I do believe that God can't violate logical necessity. He can't smell days of the week or make square circles, but it does leave a lot of lea way for different kinds of universe but he wanted one that is not a dead give away so we have to seek for truth. one thing He cam't do is force us to love him and have it be real love.
The very ad-hoc nature of that response is why a large evolving material universe is some evidence favoring naturalism over theism. I'm not even saying it's inconsistent with your particular theology(or anyone else who would give a different ad-hoc reason), just to recognize that the naturalist needs no additional premises to explain it.
6 AM Delete
Blogger Jimmy S. M. said...
The very ad-hoc nature of that response is why a large evolving material universe is some evidence favoring naturalism over theism. I'm not even saying it's inconsistent with your particular theology(or anyone else who would give a different ad-hoc reason), just to recognize that the naturalist needs no additional premises to explain it.
It's foolish to call it ad hoc. Our understanding of God evolves along with our understanding of the universe. Historically accident that God of Theism Came before evolution.Obviously the need of an additional premise is put on by the acceptance of Genesis,.I put Genesis in the category of literary insight via mythology so y answer is not ad hoc I'm not making up for Genesis, I'm moving on fmor it,
m-skeptical said...
my original point
- My point, too.
so why are we here? don't tell me how it works tell me why,Ic yo say there;s no higher reasonthenI;mright,so waht's the resaon?
- There's no cosmic reason. It just happened. What you fail to understand is that meaning and purpose are created by us. The fact that we came about by accident doesn't change that.
I have a cosmic reason so that means your thing is not capable of finding one. Meaning and purpose are not created by us. when you say"what you fail to see is just foolish.I was reading Jean-Paul Sartre before you were born,go read some and see what that means. He said we make our own meaning he;s famous for that it's called "existentialism."
We have goals and intentions. That's just a byproduct of our genetic instinct to live and reproduce. And it translates directly to "purpose". Science explains it quite nicely, without any need for "God did it".
There;'s another whole ice berg down there you can;t even see. It has nothing to do with our motivations. We are motivated by the reality of higher purpose, Higher purpose can be inferred in any number of ways.
Similarly, meaning is a cognitive function. It's making sense of the things in our world by associating concepts together. Again the notion that meaning comes from God is just religious bullshit. The idea that there could meaning without a brain making associations is nonsense - just the kind of incoherent gobbledygook we get from religionists who love to throw around lofty-sounding words, but don't care about the fact that those words are devoid of meaningful content.
where di I say there can be meaning apart from mind? Not brain but mind, brain is just so housing mind is the emergent property that is conscious.Naturalism asserts laws without a law giver. law-like regularity without meaning. It's a huge cop out to write 'god out based upon the need for brain in biological organism,God is not a biological organism.
Skep you predicated your argument upon the ability to supply cosmic level meaning you said it. that means a God like state, you d d not do it,push came to shove you did just what I said you would do. reduced meaning to relative localized meaninglessness,
There's really no where else to take this, the way to counter Jeff's f-inductive arguments is not to show that they are consistent with this or that theology, but to provide arguments and evidence that they are more expected or better explained by supernaturalism(source idealism). Your responses don't do that.
I have a cosmic reason.
- You have the illusion of a cosmic reason. Such a thing doesn't exist.
I was reading Jean-Paul Sartre before you were born,go read some and see what that means.
- You were not alive before I was born, sonny. And you have no idea what Sartre was talking about. The notion that we make our own meaning is not strictly existentialist - it is common to all materialists.
It has nothing to do with our motivations. We are motivated by the reality of higher purpose, Higher purpose can be inferred in any number of ways.
- That's all part of your God-illusion. It isn't real.
where di I say there can be meaning apart from mind? Not brain but mind
- Mind is a function of the brain. Without a brain, there is no mind. The brain is what makes those associations that we see as "meaning".
Skep you predicated your argument upon the ability to supply cosmic level meaning you said it. that means a God like state
- I said no such thing - nor would I ever say anything like that.
Jimmy S. M. said...
There's really no where else to take this, the way to counter Jeff's f-inductive arguments is not to show that they are consistent with this or that theology, but to provide arguments and evidence that they are more expected or better explained by supernaturalism(source idealism). Your responses don't do that.
first of all there is no such thing as supermauturalism, The assumption Lowderk is makimng in comprise SN to N in his questions is a total misconception as to the meaning of Christian idea of SN.
Secondly that's essentially what answers have done to show that provide arguments and evidence that they are more expected or better explained by th true conceptof eh supernatural
11 AM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
I have a cosmic reason.
- You have the illusion of a cosmic reason. Such a thing doesn't exist.
Nope, can't be illusion since it works; made my life better, nt an illusion ifit works it proven in study after study,
I was reading Jean-Paul Sartre before you were born,go read some and see what that means.
- You were not alive before I was born, sonny. And you have no idea what Sartre was talking about. The notion that we make our own meaning is not strictly existentialist - it is common to all materialists.
I'm 60 how old are you? soon be 61. I know Sartre much better than you do, have you even read him? in French?
It has nothing to do with our motivations. We are motivated by the reality of higher purpose, Higher purpose can be inferred in any number of ways.
- That's all part of your God-illusion. It isn't real.
again it works that's the bottom line for any philosophy of life,It emphatically demonstrated in study after study, you have no counter study not one,
where di I say there can be meaning apart from mind? Not brain but mind
- Mind is a function of the brain. Without a brain, there is no mind. The brain is what makes those associations that we see as "meaning".
fortunately i happen to have both, God does;t need body he's not biological,
Skep you predicated your argument upon the ability to supply cosmic level meaning you said it. that means a God like state
- I said no such thing - nor would I ever say anything like that.
maybe I misunderstood you but even so, you don't have it,
if you deny Sartre said we have to make up our own meaning you don't know anything about Sartre
if you deny Sartre said we have to make up our own meaning you don't know anything about Sartre
You need to read the article that I linked.
"total misconception as to the meaning of Christian idea of SN"
That's irrelevant, Christian theism is a sub-sub-subset of supernaturalism, which Lowder defines as source idealism- anything physical depends on something mental for its existence, i.e., the necessary "thing" that precedes anything else in existence, is a mind. That is consistent with all of Theism, and Islam, Judaism and Christianity, except perhaps Mormonism. Christianity may add on to that concept, but if it takes something away from it, I'd like to know what you think that is, because it couldn't be more simply defined.
Maybe this image will help:
http://i.imgur.com/cApZjpn.png
Skep I don;t see link, how old are you ?
The Butchering of Jean Paul Sartre.
Jimmy S. M. said...
"total misconception as to the meaning of Christian idea of SN"
That's irrelevant, Christian theism is a sub-sub-subset of supernaturalism, which Lowder defines as source idealism- anything physical depends on something mental for its existence, i.e.,
that is stupid. That's not supernatural, it's not irrelevant because I am not assupernatualiti;m a Christian, Christianity is not a subset because it's a wrong concept.
the necessary "thing" that precedes anything else in existence, is a mind. That is consistent with all of Theism, and Islam, Judaism and Christianity, except perhaps Mormonism. Christianity may add on to that concept, but if it takes something away from it, I'd like to know what you think that is, because it couldn't be more simply defined.
I agree that mind is the origin but that idea is not SN. SN is God's ower to raise our consciousness to a higher level and essentially it;s mystical experience,that is why Dionysius coined the term. Modern post enlightenment thinking created SN as a catch all category in which to lump all things not naturalistic. I wouldn't think mind is even in that category,
Modern post enlightenment thinking created SN as a catch all category in which to lump all things not naturalistic.
Joe, I know you want to think of "supernatural" in your own way, and that's fine within limited circles where people share that understanding, but there is a common meaning for the word that most of the world agrees upon. For the sake of effective communication, you could agree that when we speak about supernatural events, we are using the term in the manner that agrees with the commonly accepted dictionary definition. That way, we'd all be on the same page, and we wouldn't have to listen to your never-ending lectures about what supernatural really is.
Ok Joe, here you go, forget the term "supernatural".
http://i.imgur.com/avTDVsi.png
Jeff's questions(to the best of my understanding, I don't speak for him but generally agree with him) argue that the facts under discussion are better explained if source-physicalism is true, as contrasted with source-idealism(as previously defined). Each sub circle contained within a larger circle within source-idealism requires additional premises, and are therefore successively less intrinsically probable.
Jimmy S. M. said...
Ok Joe, here you go, forget the term "supernatural".
http://i.imgur.com/avTDVsi.png
Jeff's questions(to the best of my understanding, I don't speak for him but generally agree with him) argue that the facts under discussion are better explained if source-physicalism is true, as contrasted with source-idealism(as previously defined). Each sub circle contained within a larger circle within source-idealism requires additional premises, and are therefore successively less intrinsically probable.
He is careful to only deal with issues that involve surface level being rather than depth,so we don;t get the full picture. The depth stuff he just cuts off like most reductionists do. It doesn't eist becasuehe can't control it.
You should read Nagel's Mind and cosmos. He makes a good argument from an atheist perspective that mind is a whole aspect of realty modern atheist thought will not deal with and without it there is no real understanding of reality.
I just finished a book should be out next year God and the Deep Structures of Being I take up aNagel;s argumejt froma Chrikstian persectkive.
m-skeptical said...
Modern post enlightenment thinking created SN as a catch all category in which to lump all things not naturalistic.
Joe, I know you want to think of "supernatural" in your own way, and that's fine within limited circles where people share that understanding, but there is a common meaning for the word that most of the world agrees upon.
No that;s a bakitandswitch, here;s whatyo are reallysaying,
You:Christians are stupid to believe X
believer: We don;t believe X we bevel Y
You: No there's a common meaning we say he common meaning of Y and we say that is X so you really just believe X so you can be wrong.
Unfortunately a lot of Christian fall for it and go Hey we are supposed to believe X.
For the sake of effective communication, you could agree that when we speak about supernatural events, we are using the term in the manner that agrees with the commonly accepted dictionary definition. That way, we'd all be on the same page, and we wouldn't have to listen to your never-ending lectures about what supernatural really is.
If you speak of Christian belief if you are critiquing Christian belief you must deal with what Christians really believe. That means the true teaching of the chruch,not what you think t is.
If you speak of Christian belief if you are critiquing Christian belief you must deal with what Christians really believe. That means the true teaching of the chruch,not what you think t is.
So you speak for all Christians? You think they all believe the same thing you do? Here's the one and only thing that all Christians agree on, as far as I know: A dead guy got up and walked and talked. THAT's supernatural.
You should read Nagel's Mind and cosmos. He makes a good argument from an atheist perspective that mind is a whole aspect of realty modern atheist thought will not deal with and without it there is no real understanding of reality.
Nagel is a woo-meister who takes a decidedly unscientific view (which is why theists love him), and whose book has been harshly criticized by the whole scientific community.
By the way, Joe - did you read my article about your treatment of Sartre?
"Nagel is a woo-meister"
Mega woo
Sean Carroll:
"if you want to claim that what happens in our brain isn’t simply following the laws of physics, you have the duty to explain in exactly what way the electrons in our atoms fail to obey their equations of motion. "
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/mind-and-cosmos/
Joe, this is a lot like the Plantinga discussion on DI, I'm not terribly interested in what non-experts have to say about scientific disciplines.
"(which is why theists love him)"
Great article Skep!
m-skeptical said...
If you speak of Christian belief if you are critiquing Christian belief you must deal with what Christians really believe. That means the true teaching of the chruch,not what you think t is.
So you speak for all Christians?
Of course.I thought you knew that.
You think they all believe the same thing you do?
they just appear to believe different thins as per my instructions. It has completely fooled.
Here's the one and only thing that all Christians agree on, as far as I know: A dead guy got up and walked and talked. THAT's supernatural.
I didn't say any thing about what Christians think,I said what Christianity teaches. There is an official doctrine the church as an intuitions has received from it's magisteria over a thousands years ago. The fact that illiterate Americans dom't know that is of no consequence.
im-skeptical said...
You should read Nagel's Mind and cosmos. He makes a good argument from an atheist perspective that mind is a whole aspect of realty modern atheist thought will not deal with and without it there is no real understanding of reality.
Nagel is a woo-meister who takes a decidedly unscientific view (which is why theists love him), and whose book has been harshly criticized by the whole scientific community.
Your comment is ee oo ahh. since you have not read him you do not know if it is scientific or not you are just regurgitating what God hater Central tells you to think.
Since he argues that science has left out dealing with mind. Science has no understanding of mind. Being scientific is irrelevant. He is crotoiqquimg science.
By the way, Joe - did you read my article about your treatment of Sartre?
no i did't make a treatment of Sartre, i talked about one idea in a superficial way.I know more about Sartre than you do,I first began studying him in 1975. I have forgotten more about him than you will ever know.
HOW OLD ARE YOU? YOU NEVER SAID
Nagel's book was unfairly criticized by fools who worship science and hate God they labeled him as a creationist when he is an atheist has nothing to do with creationism. He was actually careful to argue against belief in God in the book
That is proof that their objections were ideological their little scinetism was offended. Because they go right for the labels and they label him in ways that are totally oppressed to what he's into but in line with their enemies.
Jimmy S. M. said...
"Nagel is a woo-meister"
Mega woo
you are mega ee ooo aaaa
Sean Carroll:
"if you want to claim that what happens in our brain isn’t simply following the laws of physics, you have the duty to explain in exactly what way the electrons in our atoms fail to obey their equations of motion. "
unless you've read Nagel you have no idea if that applies or not,it does not. Premise of the quote is chemical deteriorate is but it assumes emergent properties, Complexity of Brain chemistry produces consciousnesses as epi phenomena. If you buy that there;s nothing in that view that would oppose emergent priorities. So mind is not disproved by chemical determinism.
But Nagel says science assumes dead matter universe and seeks to mind less important although it doesn't disprove it. Bit om so doing it leaves out this huge area that might answer tons of questions and could explain a number of hings and they ruling it out because they hate God and it's too god-like to accept.Even though he turns around and argues Agassi God at that point.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/mind-and-cosmos/
Joe, this is a lot like the Plantinga discussion on DI, I'm not terribly interested in what non-experts have to say about scientific disciplines.
that's really stupid Neagel is acknowledged as one of the primary experts on the body body issue and on consciousness studies. "What's it like to be a bat is still regarded as seminal in field.
again your ee oo aa thing is mega sweebie,
I doubt you know any more about it than skept does you are just regurgitating God hater central tells you to say.
the little worshipers of science like the twilight zone the children you will brain wash will eat you for breakfast because you wont be robot lkike enough for them; you will say:we created you we taught you we made you they will say: obsolete! not scientific enough,
Monday I will post my essay on the brain.;mind issue, Skep's understanding is elementary,you are just regurgitating what the climate pinon tells you to think.
That nonsense is easily disproved. People like Ray Talis who are anesthetists tell us not to fall for the BS.
Joe, no matter how old Skep is, he is being far more mature for his age than you are for yours. You seem incapable of not insulting people by calling them "fools", "stupid", or saying what they claim is "bullshit" and a product of being a "god hater". Two threads were locked at the Secular Outpost this week because you couldn't talk like an adult. I'd suggest Skep cease talking to you until you can get on medication for whatever underlying issue you have.
typical atheist self coagulator inability to look at what they have done, Te guy writes a paragraph on how I'm like Donald Trump, that's ok he did do anything, they chose to close those things because of my stuff.
they could easy have kicked Kevein K off for the same reasons o worse,he launched personal vendetta against me no one cared.
not that anyone cares but the issue about I am skeptical's age was about the fact that I was reading Sartre before he was born. it was not an attack on his maturity.
Kevin Kevin has been warned. Everyone on that site has been warned not to make personal attacks. Unfortunately, you and others seem incapable of sticking to arguments. Even in your response to me you say "typical atheist" which is an obvious way to generalize with a negative connotation.
My advice is either follow Paul Grice's conversational Maxim's, or don't talk to people online. By following Grice's Maxim's, you must avoid anything which can hurt a conversation from being productive, so you would need to avoid personal insults, inaccurate language (generalizations when they are unfair), etc. I suspect you cannot be polite, possibly because you simply aren't a good person. In that event, you ought to avoid speaking to people online, but of course one cannot expect a bad person to fulfill their obligations.
My advice is either follow Paul Grice's conversational Maxim's, or don't talk to people online. By following Grice's Maxim's, you must avoid anything which can hurt a conversation from being productive, so you would need to avoid personal insults, inaccurate language (generalizations when they are unfair), etc. I suspect you cannot be polite, possibly because you simply aren't a good person. In that event, you ought to avoid speaking to people online, but of course one cannot expect a bad person to fulfill their obligations.
I thought that's what I was doing
that's really stupid Neagel is acknowledged as one of the primary experts on the body body issue and on consciousness studies. "What's it like to be a bat is still regarded as seminal in field.
Nagel is no scientist. He is a philosopher with no scientific training. He doesn't know anything about how the brain actually functions. "Seminal in field"? This is a prime example of the way philosophers sometimes step into a field of scientific endeavor without any subject matter expertise, and pretend that their philosophy should somehow inform the scientific understanding. People in the cognitive sciences don't pay any attention to his woo-laden theories, because they're completely divorced from science. He also believes that intelligent design is valid science, but it's just pseudo-science.
Try reading Sean Carroll's review of his book that Jimmy linked (which is also in my article on Nagel.
m-skeptical said...
Me (before):
that's really stupid Neagel is acknowledged as one of the primary experts on the body body issue and on consciousness studies. "What's it like to be a bat is still regarded as seminal in field.
Skepie:
Nagel is no scientist. He is a philosopher with no scientific training. He doesn't know anything about how the brain actually functions.
Neither do scientists. That's the bait and switch. Reductionist is a philosophical ideology not science, functionalists try to confuse brain function with consciousness.He doesn't talk about brain function. Negal is an expert in consciousness and he is recognized as such, his artificial is still very important to field. You don't have to be an expert in brain function to know that science ignores consciousness in studying cosmology.
"Seminal in field"? This is a prime example of the way philosophers sometimes step into a field of scientific endeavor without any subject matter expertise, and pretend that their philosophy should somehow inform the scientific understanding.
This is the way science junkies try to takeover reality we call it scientist. You are saying only science can know the subject of consciousness but we can all know what science does not tell us. Chalmer's is the top expert imn the field he is a philospher and Negelis highly respected,
People in the cognitive sciences don't pay any attention to his woo-laden theories, because they're completely divorced from science. He also believes that intelligent design is valid science, but it's just pseudo-science.
real thinkers don]t pay abstention to your ee oo ah bull shit.
Try reading Sean Carroll's review of his book that Jimmy linked (which is also in my article on Nagel.
Carroll is an ideologue, a soldier for atheism, he is not a thinker, he's not objective.
Carroll does not study consciousnesses,
Here is an Clarice (2 parts linked) showing one reason why I hold Carroll in such low esteem.
Part 1
Raymond Talis Reviews Nagel's book:
"But none of the main features of minds — which Nagel identifies as consciousness, cognition, and value — can be accommodated by this worldview’s identification of the mind with physical events in the brain, or by its assumption that human beings are no more than animal organisms whose behavior is fully explicable by evolutionary processes.
Because these gaps are found in the very starting principles of physical science, Nagel argues that the traditional mind-body problem “is not just a local problem, having to do with the relation between mind, brain, and behavior in living animal organisms, but ... it invades our understanding of the entire cosmos and its history.” It is not, in other words, a problem simply of how to account for the presence of minds within bodies, but of minds within the fabric of inert physical existence itself: the mind-body problem must be recast as the mind-universe problem.
It is hardly surprising that the mind seems to elude physical explanation because, as Nagel points out, “the great advances in the physical and biological sciences were made possible by excluding the mind from the physical world.” Anyone who still imagines that there is life to the theory that the mind can be understood in purely physical terms will be cured of this delusion by reading the philosophical literature. While there are some who stick stubbornly to the assumption that consciousness is identical with neural events in certain parts of the brain, their views do not withstand close examination by even the most open-minded philosophers, like Australian professor David Chalmers."
THE CHRONICLE REVIEW
Where Thomas Nagel Went Wrong
The philosopher's critique of evolution wasn't shocking. So why is he being raked over the coals?
Steve Brodner for The Chronicle Review
By Michael Chorost MAY 13, 2013
Thomas Nagel is a leading figure in philosophy, now enjoying the title of university professor at New York University, a testament to the scope and influence of his work. His 1974 essay "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" has been read by legions of undergraduates, with its argument that the inner experience of a brain is truly knowable only to that brain. Since then he has published 11 books, on philosophy of mind, ethics, and epistemology."
Great. Theistic philosophers love Nagel. But we already knew that. Daniel Dennett is also a philosopher of mind, but the big difference between him and Nagel is that he actually understands the science involved. Philosophy uninformed by science is just farting in the wind.
m-skeptical said...
Great. Theistic philosophers love Nagel.
atheistic one's too,
But we already knew that. Daniel Dennett is also a philosopher of mind, but the big difference between him and Nagel is that he actually understands the science involved. Philosophy uninformed by science is just farting in the wind.
No he doesn't. a friend of mine from MIT tore Demeter to pieces. That was in the journal i used to publish,I had to ind refers for tah article so I got the dean of the department where I went to graduate school,Hes said Dennettis "full of shit,"that's what he said.
there is no technical science that disproves consciousness. you don't understad the bait and switch argument.
Hes said Dennettis "full of shit,"that's what he said.
- There is no single theory of mind that enjoys universal acceptance. But Dennett's is consistent with cognitive science, and inconsistent with immaterialist woo, such as the bullshit that comes from Nagel.
there is no technical science that disproves consciousness
- Science seeks to explain the phenomenon we call mind, not to deny that it exists. On the other hand, if you think that mind is some entity that exists apart from the function of the brain (mind is a process - not a thing in its own right), you are taking an unscientific view of it. Empirical evidence leaves no doubt about this: no functioning brain, no mind.
m-skeptical said...
Hes said Dennettis "full of shit,"that's what he said.
- There is no single theory of mind that enjoys universal acceptance. But Dennett's is consistent with cognitive science, and inconsistent with immaterialist woo, such as the bullshit that comes from Nagel.
cognitive science is based upon the bait and switch, they just ignore concepts of mind and consciousness and reduce all of that to brain function. That's typical reductionist trick.It's no big deal that his view is consistent with his view after he loses the phenomena that counts agaisnt his view.
all allusions to "woo" are beaten by eeoo ah, kokit up
there is no technical science that disproves consciousness
- Science seeks to explain the phenomenon we call mind, not to deny that it exists.
but representatives of the ideology called reductionist seek to saw off from reality everything that contradicts their view then pretend they have all the facts. That's all they do with consciousness.They collapse the hard problem into their brain function out look then pretend that's all there is.
They gain mystique of "science" (the priesthood of knowledge) because they have the only facts but only after losing the phenomena.
On the other hand, if you think that mind is some entity that exists apart from the function of the brain (mind is a process - not a thing in its own right), you are taking an unscientific view of it.
Ideological twaddle. you are asserting functionalism as science because it's naturalistic, both functionalism and natural are not sickness they are ideology.Science is a method not a belief system or a set of philosophical ideas.
Empirical evidence leaves no doubt about this: no functioning brain, no mind.
you have no evidence for that that pertains to non biological minds; in terms of humans we have brains, our minds are emergent properties from the brains, but that doesn't mean they can't survive the brr akin,God is not biological.
cognitive science is based upon the bait and switch, they just ignore concepts of mind and consciousness and reduce all of that to brain function.
- Religious conceptions of mind are ideologically-based and lack any evidence whatsoever. The evidence is quite clear - and that is the basis of science.
They collapse the hard problem into their brain function out look then pretend that's all there is.
- You say it's a "hard problem" because you pretend that there's something more to it than the physical, but you can't substantiate that. That is a hard problem FOR YOU. Fortunately, science isn't confined by your ideological straight-jacket.
Science is a method not a belief system or a set of philosophical ideas.
- So we agree on that. But religion IS ideology, and that's what prevents YOU from seeing objectively. Everything is filtered through your ideology.
you have no evidence for that that pertains to non biological minds
- Correct. And neither do you. So why can't you follow the evidence?
im-skeptical said...
cognitive science is based upon the bait and switch, they just ignore concepts of mind and consciousness and reduce all of that to brain function.
- Religious conceptions of mind are ideologically-based and lack any evidence whatsoever. The evidence is quite clear - and that is the basis of science.
there is no religious conception of mind. you are brainwashed,you are not scientific you are in a cult that worship's science. there is no evidence to support the ideology that says there's no such such thing as mind, that is totally unscientific,
They collapse the hard problem into their brain function out look then pretend that's all there is.
- You say it's a "hard problem" because you pretend that there's something more to it than the physical, but you can't substantiate that.
Obviously there is, anyone can see there is a non physical aspect to consciousness,just take note your mental awareness, but you are brain washed to fear thinking for yourself,
That is a hard problem FOR YOU. Fortunately, science isn't confined by your ideological straight-jacket.
Hard problem for you becasue you can ;acknowledge the existence of the obvious.you don't listen when we talk you don't know the explanatory gap you can;t answer any argumnet,you are brain washed to ignore logic you ignore counter evidence, you are brain washed.
Science is a method not a belief system or a set of philosophical ideas.
- So we agree on that.
but you don't. like the way you equate anything a religious person says with religious ideas like saying my idea of midland is a religious idea of mind, you are not able to reason or analyze you just react OT buzz words you live in then vs us dichotomy where anyone not in the cult is the enemy,
But religion IS ideology, and that's what prevents YOU from seeing objectively. Everything is filtered through your ideology.
the them and us mentality,religions the enemy like a communist hates capitalism a racist thanes miniseries. every ideologue has a scape goat or enemy to chalk up all the stuff too.
you have no evidence for that that pertains to non biological minds
- Correct. And neither do you. So why can't you follow the evidence?
yes I do
worshiping science is not scientific,ideological knee jerk reaction against every thug that doesn't back atheism is not science. Looking at the world as a great struggle between science and religion is not scientific.
worshiping science is not scientific,ideological knee jerk reaction against every thug that doesn't back atheism is not science. Looking at the world as a great struggle between science and religion is not scientific.
Let's get something straight. You're the one doing the worshiping here, not me. Science works. You show me a better way of getting explanations for how things work in our world, and I'll go with that. That's not worship, it's not ideological, and there's nothing knee-jerk about it - it's pragmatism. Science works. That's it. And you're the one who sees the world as a struggle between science and religion. As far as I'm concerned, there's no contest. But you scream about science at every turn, because that's the way YOU see things.
im-skeptical said...
worshiping science is not scientific,ideological knee jerk reaction against every thug that doesn't back atheism is not science. Looking at the world as a great struggle between science and religion is not scientific.
Let's get something straight. You're the one doing the worshiping here, not me. Science works.
Working is not an alternative to worship. I worship God and worshiping God works,
You show me a better way of getting explanations for how things work in our world, and I'll go with that.
Depends upon what you seek to explaimn, Explainable is not the reason for belief in
God. These are not competing, they don't do the same thing, God exclains thing science can't explain but that's not the reason t believe.
Science can't explain the why of things,only how.It can't explain right from wrong, it can; explain how to live,
That's not worship, it's not ideological, and there's nothing knee-jerk about it
it clearly is, science for you is a tantalizing ideology that encompasses all aspects of reliability and nothing not be science,
- it's pragmatism. Science works.
Belief in
God works that's what the studies on mystical experience prove.
That's it. And you're the one who sees the world as a struggle between science and religion.
if I did i would never have studied history of science for my Ph.D. work
As far as I'm concerned, there's no contest. But you scream about science at every turn, because that's the way YOU see things.
you don/t listen,I scream about the atheist use of science which is not science,you are too busy regurgitating ideology to listen,
you don/t listen,I scream about the atheist use of science which is not science,you are too busy regurgitating ideology to listen
But Joe, you don't have any real idea of what science is. What you learned in bible college obviously gave you the wrong idea.
Perkins is not a "bible college"; it's one of the most highly respected theological seminaries in the country. Besides, Joe studied for the majority of his postgraduate career in a secular program at a secular institution. Your confidence seems to be in inverse proportion to how much you know, at least in this case.
I am curious; what have you read by Nagel? And what specifically are your objections to what you've read?
Read the article that I pointed out. Here.
I am curious; what have you read by Nagel? And what specifically are your objections to what you've read?
>>he has read nothing by Ngel, he doesn't need to, the echo chamber says it's unscientific and creationists like it so it's wrong,a priori. He hasn't even read anything you've have written.
Talking to yourself, Joe?
You know, Joe, I remember being sharply criticized by a Christian for saying something about Dante's "Inferno" without having read it. I told him I don't need to read it. There is plenty of review material and other information available, so I know what it's about, and I know that I don't buy a word of it. It's pure religious bullshit, and reading it isn't going to change my mind. The same thing is true about "The signature In the Cell", and a whole host of other bullshit books. I don't have to read them all to know they're bullshit. There are so many other things that are more useful for me to spend my time on - books that I can actually learn something worthwhile from.
Skep posted a link in his comment that is worth reading. From what I've read, Nagel's case falls flat scientifically, but just in case that's not enough, this review details the philosophical and logical problems with it:
http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/02/07/evolution-is-rigged-a-review-of-thomas-nagels-mind-and-cosmos/
Joe, Here's a list of books I've read in the last year or two that relate to mind/consciousness through the paradigm of methodological naturalism. By your standard, if you haven't read them completely, you have no business discussing let alone dismissing their contents.
Lakoff/Johnson: Philosophy in the flesh
Sebastian Seung: Connectome
Patricia Churchland: touching a nerve
David Eagleman: Incognito
Daniel Dennett: Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking
Sean Carroll: The big picture
Or maybe this "have you read the whole book" routine is unnecessary: People read what they're interested in, and a can rely on competent reviews for others.
Again I ask, what have you actually read by Nagel and what, specifically, you object to in what you've read. I'm not talking about who loves or who hates Nagel (guilt or innocence by association, a kind of argument from authority), and not a review by Sean Carroll or anyone else. Your argument so far, if you call it that, seems to be an elaborate exercise in question-begging. You assume the crucial point at issue.
Again I ask, what have you actually read by Nagel and what, specifically, you object to in what you've read.
Why don't you tell me what science books you've read? I'm not talking about scientifically uninformed philosophy like Nagel's. Have you read any popular books on science by Dennett? Carroll? Krauss? Stenger? Shermer? Dawkins? Coyne?
You don't have to tell me - you don't read that stuff (and it's painfully obvious) because it doesn't appeal to you. Don't give me a load of crap because I choose not to read your woo. I've read plenty of it, and I'm sure I'll read more. But I don't have to real all of it.
Why don't you tell me what science books you've read? I'm not talking about scientifically uninformed philosophy like Nagel's. Have you read any popular books on science by Dennett? Carroll? Krauss? Stenger? Shermer? Dawkins? Coyne?
sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a contest too see who knows the most science,you made the argument that Nagel is not worthy,I read Nagel,Jim read Nagel you have not,you don't know if he knows science or not. By the rules of debate in any format I've been part of you have lost.
You judge his knowledge of science by weather or not he agrees with your ideology, You admitted science is not a Belkin systole u obviously you really think it is, that's your only reason for dis liking Nagle he disagree with your belief system.
You don't have to tell me - you don't read that stuff (and it's painfully obvious) because it doesn't appeal to you. Don't give me a load of crap because I choose not to read your woo. I've read plenty of it, and I'm sure I'll read more. But I don't have to real all of it.
you are basing how much you think we have read on our lack of agreement with your conclusions, because your cult tells you there is one pinon possible you have to hold that pinon to know scientific knowledge.
You are trying to suggest worthiness based upon agreement with your brain washing, but the only thing that matters in argument is logic and facts,nothing more. you have presented neither.
oe, Here's a list of books I've read in the last year or two that relate to mind/consciousness through the paradigm of methodological naturalism. By your standard, if you haven't read them completely, you have no business discussing let alone dismissing their contents.
That i total bull shit. Your still going by worthiness, you are not worthy to be right because your head is not full enough of sacred knowledge, argument does not work that way.
Lakoff/Johnson: Philosophy in the flesh
Sebastian Seung: Connectome
Patricia Churchland: touching a nerve
David Eagleman: Incognito
Daniel Dennett: Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking
Sean Carroll: The big picture
none of these books are very important to the consciousness issue. I read consciousness explained and published an attack on that book in my journal by a guy from MIT so I know what is wrong with it. This book is jut a repeat of his same wrong headed tricks. Same with Churchaland and Carroll,I have read some of the Big picture,
7th knows more about tight topic than almost anyone I know. He's argued in public forums with scientists and philosophers. He's read a huge amount of the major literature.
Why don't you tell me what science books you've read?
Because I cam't remember them all,I have BA that required same about of science,I took for astronomy classes and a geo-morphology and a science for liberal arts majors i read all the material in those, several text books for each class, the one I remember the best from the liberal arts class was The money business by Niels Eldrige, I read thatin 1980.
I'm not talking about scientifically uninformed philosophy like Nagel's. Have you read any popular books on science by Dennett? Carroll? Krauss? Stenger? Shermer? Dawkins? Coyne?
you are quite ignorant,I've read all of those soi am aeworthy becasue ny head has the sacred knowledge, you are a very ignorant person you do not understand hteissue you do not argue logic.
and another thing you do you do not understand what is a qualified source,you go by who agrees with the received opinion not what people know or what their arguments say. Ray Talis is a big researcher on consciousness he agrees with my view you do not accept him as anauthirty because he doesn't accept the received opinion,
here are sources I've read on consciousnesses. I've read more than this but these are on my bib. I've taken out the ibids
[1] Richard C.Vitzchum, “Philosophical Mateirlism.” The Secular Web, On-line resource, URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html#F9 visited 4/12/2012 from lecture given to atheist students association, University of Maryland, College Park, Nov 14, 1996.
[2] Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained. Back Bay Books, second edition, 1992.
[3] Lantz Miller. “The Hard Sell of Human Consciousness part 1. (no 3, Winter 1998)
_______________________________________________part II, (no 4, Spring 2002)
this is only going to be found on line. go to this URL: http://negations.icaap.org/ see the menu on left side bar, click on winter of 1998, and scroll to the title "Hard Sell of Human Consciousness" by Lantz Miller, part one, then for part Two go to the 2002 issue and just scroll down until you see the title then sroll further to page number. It's well worth reading. If you really care about the top you must read this article.
[5] Kevin B. Korb. “Stage Effects in the Cartesian theater: A Review of Dennette’s Consciousness Explained.” Pdf file published online, URL: http://www.theassc.org/files/assc/2271.pdf visited 4/16/2012.
Korb is at School of Computer Science and Software Engineering Monash University Clayton, Victoria 3168 Australia
[10] Sam Harris quoted by Luke Muehlhauser, “Sam Harris, Argument Agaisnt the Afterlife,” blog, Common Sense Atheism, March 15, 2011 URL: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14919 the original quote is from a “You tube video” URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48xmvFgtKmc&feature=player_detailpage#t=92s
[11] Vitzthum, ibid.
[12] “Consciousness,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archives pages. Website URL: http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/sum2004/entries/consciousness/#8.1 visited 1/22/11. Robert Van Gulick ed. and Copyright. (2004)
[13] John Searle “Why I am not a Property Dualist” originally from online document: URL: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/PropertydualismFNL.doc. from the Google Html version, propertydualismFNL.doc. November17, 2002 visited 12/6/10. URL: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y4Fr7m7rItQJ:socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/PropertydualismFNL.doc+consciousness+is+not+reducible+to+brain+chemistry+but+is+a+basic+property+of+nature&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
[16] David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a theory. England, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 3-5.on line version: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16574382/David-Chalmers-The-Conscious-Mind-Philosophy Scribd, David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Theory of Conscious Experience, webstie Department of Philosophy, University of California at Santa Cruz, July 22 1995, visited 3/1/11 on line page numbers apply.
[1] Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Does not Reduce to the Brain.” On line resource, blog, 2/4/12
URL: http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-mind-does-not-reduce-to-the-brain/ visited 5/3/12
[4]Schore, A. N. Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1994).
See also: Siegel, D. J. The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York, NY: Guilford Press. (1999).
[7] K. Gergen, The accultured brain. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), (2010). 795-816.
[8] Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12
[12] Science Research Foundation, “Science at the horizon of life,” independent charitable organization in UK 2007-2012. On-line resource, UFL: http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=200 visisted 5/2/12
[16] Mary Anne Meyers, “Top Down Causation, an Integrating Theme…” Templeton Foundation Symposium, Op cit. (no page number listed).
[17] Edward F. Kelley and Emily Williams Kelley, et al, Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Boulder, New York, Toronto: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Inc, 2007/2010, 37.
Engle, Fries, Singer cited in Pub Med: See comment in PubMed Commons below
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Oct;2(10):704-16.
1Cellular Neurobiology Group, Institute for Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany. a.k.engel@fz-juelich.de
Abstract
Classical theories of sensory processing view the brain as a passive, stimulus-driven device. By contrast, more recent approaches emphasize the constructive nature of perception, viewing it as an active and highly selective process. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the processing of stimuli is controlled by top-down influences that strongly shape the intrinsic dynamics of thalamocortical networks and constantly create predictions about forthcoming sensory events. We discuss recent experiments indicating that such predictions might be embodied in the temporal structure of both stimulus-evoked and ongoing activity, and that synchronous oscillations are particularly important in this process. Coherence among subthreshold membrane potential fluctuations could be exploited to express selective functional relationships during states of expectancy or attention, and these dynamic patterns could allow the grouping and selection of distributed neuronal responses for further processing.
sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a contest too see who knows the most science
- I'm not in a contest. But this all started when you made a claim about Nagel's arguments, and I asserted that his arguments are not scientific. That's still true, whether I've read his book or not. How do I know? Because I know that Nagel is NOT a scientist, and I've heard how scientists have addressed his arguments. It really doesn't matter what YOU say about it. You're not well educated in science either. But I am. And when it comes to matters of science, you can't pull the wool over my eyes.
You judge his knowledge of science by weather or not he agrees with your ideology.
- I don't look at things the way you do. I can usually distinguish what is scientific from what is not.
You are trying to suggest worthiness based upon agreement with your brain washing
- As I said, I don't look at things the way you do.
none of these books are very important to the consciousness issue
- Oh, really? And how do you know this? Don' try to tell me you've read them.
I have BA that required same about of science,I took for astronomy classes and a geo-morphology and a science for liberal arts majors
- "science for liberal arts majors". That says it all.
I've read all of those soi am aeworthy becasue ny head has the sacred knowledge
- Bullshit.
you do you do not understand what is a qualified source
- Qualified source? You mean like the various web sites that you cite? Including blogs and your own on-line journal, Templeton Foundation, and other religious or supernatural crap? You've got to be kidding.
sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a contest too see who knows the most science
- I'm not in a contest. But this all started when you made a claim about Nagel's arguments, and I asserted that his arguments are not scientific. That's still true, whether I've read his book or not. How do I know? Because I know that Nagel is NOT a scientist, and I've heard how scientists have addressed his arguments. It really doesn't matter what YOU say about it. You're not well educated in science either. But I am. And when it comes to matters of science, you can't pull the wool over my eyes.
you have not advanced any actual argument about what he says,you can assert scientists answer him but you have not said how. Furthermore I argue there is no scientific disproof of mind you have no answer,your only answers are like saying "who-ray for my opinion" you are not arguing,there is no scientific data that disproves hard problem,
You judge his knowledge of science by weather or not he agrees with your ideology.
- I don't look at things the way you do. I can usually distinguish what is scientific from what is not.
where's the data?quote the studies,where is the source? all you have done is to assert your opinion,
You are trying to suggest worthiness based upon agreement with your brain washing
- As I said, I don't look at things the way you do.
Obviously but I don't just assert my opinion i quote data or logic,
none of these books are very important to the consciousness issue
- Oh, really? And how do you know this? Don' try to tell me you've read them.
because I'm smarter than you, this is such a childish ploy,you are wasting time with amature antics and stuppd opinions,
don't come back
the thread os clsoed
Post a Comment