tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post3131936402561219608..comments2024-03-28T08:35:59.048-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Let's play 20 questions only it;s 25 by Jeff LowderJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48864643466262137772017-05-27T01:42:59.694-07:002017-05-27T01:42:59.694-07:00sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a...sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a contest too see who knows the most science<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br /><b>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,</b><br /><br />You judge his knowledge of science by weather or not he agrees with your ideology.<br /><br /><br />- I don't look at things the way you do. I can usually distinguish what is scientific from what is not.<br /><br /><b>where's the data?quote the studies,where is the source? all you have done is to assert your opinion,</b><br /><br />You are trying to suggest worthiness based upon agreement with your brain washing<br /><br />- As I said, I don't look at things the way you do.<br /><br /><b>Obviously but I don't just assert my opinion i quote data or logic,</b><br /><br />none of these books are very important to the consciousness issue<br /><br />- Oh, really? And how do you know this? Don' try to tell me you've read them.<br /><br /><b>because I'm smarter than you, this is such a childish ploy,you are wasting time with amature antics and stuppd opinions,<br /><br />don't come back<br />the thread os clsoed</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73227437509604073052017-05-26T10:31:22.900-07:002017-05-26T10:31:22.900-07:00sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a...<i>sorry Skep not the way logic works, it's not a contest too see who knows the most science</i><br />- 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.<br /><br /><i>You judge his knowledge of science by weather or not he agrees with your ideology.</i><br />- I don't look at things the way you do. I can usually distinguish what is scientific from what is not.<br /><br /><i>You are trying to suggest worthiness based upon agreement with your brain washing</i><br />- As I said, I don't look at things the way you do.<br /><br /><i>none of these books are very important to the consciousness issue</i><br />- Oh, really? And how do you know this? Don' try to tell me you've read them.<br /><br /><i>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><br />- "science for liberal arts majors". That says it all.<br /><br /><i>I've read all of those soi am aeworthy becasue ny head has the sacred knowledge</i><br />- Bullshit.<br /><br /><i>you do you do not understand what is a qualified source</i><br />- 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.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40231706239047435202017-05-26T01:21:56.365-07:002017-05-26T01:21:56.365-07:00[1] Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Do...<br />[1] Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Does not Reduce to the Brain.” On line resource, blog, 2/4/12<br />URL: http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-mind-does-not-reduce-to-the-brain/ visited 5/3/12<br /><br />[4]Schore, A. N. Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1994).<br />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).<br /><br />[7] K. Gergen, The accultured brain. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), (2010). 795-816.<br />[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<br /><br />[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<br /><br />[16] Mary Anne Meyers, “Top Down Causation, an Integrating Theme…” Templeton Foundation Symposium, Op cit. (no page number listed).<br />[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.<br /><br /><br /><br />Engle, Fries, Singer cited in Pub Med: See comment in PubMed Commons below<br />Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Oct;2(10):704-16.<br /><br /><br />1Cellular Neurobiology Group, Institute for Medicine, Research Centre Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany. a.k.engel@fz-juelich.de<br />Abstract<br /><br />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.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14613943599530567062017-05-26T01:21:41.949-07:002017-05-26T01:21:41.949-07:00here are sources I've read on consciousnesses....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<br /><br /><br />[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.<br />[2] Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained. Back Bay Books, second edition, 1992.<br />[3] Lantz Miller. “The Hard Sell of Human Consciousness part 1. (no 3, Winter 1998)<br />_______________________________________________part II, (no 4, Spring 2002)<br />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.<br /><br />[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.<br />Korb is at School of Computer Science and Software Engineering Monash University Clayton, Victoria 3168 Australia<br /><br />[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<br />[11] Vitzthum, ibid.<br />[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)<br />[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<br /><br />[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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18520752052222541942017-05-26T01:11:14.231-07:002017-05-26T01:11:14.231-07:00oe, Here's a list of books I've read in th...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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Lakoff/Johnson: Philosophy in the flesh<br />Sebastian Seung: Connectome<br />Patricia Churchland: touching a nerve<br />David Eagleman: Incognito<br />Daniel Dennett: Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking<br />Sean Carroll: The big picture<br /><br /><b>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,<br /><br />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.</b><br /><br />Why don't you tell me what science books you've read? <br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><br />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?<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />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,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8001103459450568412017-05-25T23:57:33.071-07:002017-05-25T23:57:33.071-07:00Why don't you tell me what science books you&#...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?<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78455573166535995992017-05-25T14:50:46.683-07:002017-05-25T14:50:46.683-07:00Again I ask, what have you actually read by Nagel ...<i>Again I ask, what have you actually read by Nagel and what, specifically, you object to in what you've read.</i><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78506370631698364562017-05-25T13:01:02.179-07:002017-05-25T13:01:02.179-07:00Again I ask, what have you actually read by Nagel ...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. 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-26830037946551157892017-05-25T07:59:13.410-07:002017-05-25T07:59:13.410-07:00Skep posted a link in his comment that is worth re...Skep posted a link in his comment that is worth reading. From what I've read, Nagel's case falls flat scientifically, but <i>just in case</i> that's not enough, this review details the philosophical and logical problems with it:<br /><br />http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/02/07/evolution-is-rigged-a-review-of-thomas-nagels-mind-and-cosmos/<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Lakoff/Johnson: Philosophy in the flesh<br />Sebastian Seung: Connectome<br />Patricia Churchland: touching a nerve<br />David Eagleman: Incognito<br />Daniel Dennett: Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking<br />Sean Carroll: The big picture<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5697103962964771142017-05-25T07:32:30.603-07:002017-05-25T07:32:30.603-07:00You know, Joe, I remember being sharply criticized...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.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72056313550046079352017-05-25T07:22:11.726-07:002017-05-25T07:22:11.726-07:00Talking to yourself, Joe?Talking to yourself, Joe?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40204530495107227632017-05-24T22:03:33.133-07:002017-05-24T22:03:33.133-07:00I am curious; what have you read by Nagel? And wha...I am curious; what have you read by Nagel? And what specifically are your objections to what you've read?<br /><br />>>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.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49567675595721604432017-05-24T14:48:32.861-07:002017-05-24T14:48:32.861-07:00Read the article that I pointed out. Here.Read the article that I pointed out. <a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2015/01/nagel-darling-of-theists-i-cant-tell.html" rel="nofollow">Here.</a>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58477240166424073342017-05-24T13:36:25.702-07:002017-05-24T13:36:25.702-07:00Perkins is not a "bible college"; it'...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.<br /><br />I am curious; what have you read by Nagel? And what specifically are your objections to what you've read? 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-720275605620826252017-05-24T12:11:18.639-07:002017-05-24T12:11:18.639-07:00you don/t listen,I scream about the atheist use of...<i>you don/t listen,I scream about the atheist use of science which is not science,you are too busy regurgitating ideology to listen</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46495322913134203492017-05-24T00:33:01.727-07:002017-05-24T00:33:01.727-07:00im-skeptical said...
worshiping science is not sci...im-skeptical said...<br />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.<br /><br />Let's get something straight. You're the one doing the worshiping here, not me. Science works. <br /><br /><b>Working is not an alternative to worship. I worship God and worshiping God works, </b><br /><br /><br />You show me a better way of getting explanations for how things work in our world, and I'll go with that. <br /><br /><b>Depends upon what you seek to explaimn, Explainable is not the reason for belief in <br />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.<br /><br />Science can't explain the why of things,only how.It can't explain right from wrong, it can; explain how to live,</b><br /><br /><br />That's not worship, it's not ideological, and there's nothing knee-jerk about it <br /><br /><b>it clearly is, science for you is a tantalizing ideology that encompasses all aspects of reliability and nothing not be science,</b><br /><br />- it's pragmatism. Science works. <br /><br /><b>Belief in <br />God works that's what the studies on mystical experience prove.</b><br /><br />That's it. And you're the one who sees the world as a struggle between science and religion.<br /><br /><b>if I did i would never have studied history of science for my Ph.D. work</b><br /><br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /><b>you don/t listen,I scream about the atheist use of science which is not science,you are too busy regurgitating ideology to listen,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90752185860381677122017-05-23T14:32:14.230-07:002017-05-23T14:32:14.230-07:00worshiping science is not scientific,ideological k...<i>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.</i><br /><br />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-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28623858313464616932017-05-23T11:26:36.645-07:002017-05-23T11:26:36.645-07:00worshiping science is not scientific,ideological k...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.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86926807265957589762017-05-23T11:07:48.979-07:002017-05-23T11:07:48.979-07:00im-skeptical said...
cognitive science is based up...im-skeptical said...<br />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.<br /><br />- Religious conceptions of mind are ideologically-based and lack any evidence whatsoever. The evidence is quite clear - and that is the basis of science.<br /><br /><br /><b>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,</b><br /><br /><br />They collapse the hard problem into their brain function out look then pretend that's all there is.<br /><br />- 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. <br /><br /><b>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,</b><br /><br />That is a hard problem FOR YOU. Fortunately, science isn't confined by your ideological straight-jacket.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><br />Science is a method not a belief system or a set of philosophical ideas.<br /><br />- So we agree on that.<br /><br /><b>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,</b><br /><br /> But religion IS ideology, and that's what prevents YOU from seeing objectively. Everything is filtered through your ideology.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><br />you have no evidence for that that pertains to non biological minds<br /><br />- Correct. And neither do you. So why can't you follow the evidence?<br /><br /><b>yes I do</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59799993325383799882017-05-23T07:30:42.446-07:002017-05-23T07:30:42.446-07:00cognitive science is based upon the bait and switc...<i>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.</i><br />- Religious conceptions of mind are ideologically-based and lack any evidence whatsoever. The evidence is quite clear - and that is the basis of science.<br /><br /><br /><i>They collapse the hard problem into their brain function out look then pretend that's all there is.</i><br />- 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.<br /><br /><br /><i>Science is a method not a belief system or a set of philosophical ideas.</i><br />- So we agree on that. But religion IS ideology, and that's what prevents YOU from seeing objectively. Everything is filtered through your ideology.<br /><br /><br /><i>you have no evidence for that that pertains to non biological minds</i><br />- Correct. And neither do you. So why can't you follow the evidence?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57833286975066534372017-05-22T22:06:52.229-07:002017-05-22T22:06:52.229-07:00m-skeptical said...
Hes said Dennettis "full ...m-skeptical said...<br />Hes said Dennettis "full of shit,"that's what he said.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /><b>all allusions to "woo" are beaten by eeoo ah, kokit up</b><br /><br />there is no technical science that disproves consciousness<br /><br />- Science seeks to explain the phenomenon we call mind, not to deny that it exists.<br /><br /><b>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.<br /><br />They gain mystique of "science" (the priesthood of knowledge) because they have the only facts but only after losing the phenomena.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /> Empirical evidence leaves no doubt about this: no functioning brain, no mind.<br /><br /><b>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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25575132634759261182017-05-22T10:20:27.839-07:002017-05-22T10:20:27.839-07:00Hes said Dennettis "full of shit,"that&#...<i>Hes said Dennettis "full of shit,"that's what he said.</i><br />- 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.<br /><br /><br /><i>there is no technical science that disproves consciousness</i><br />- 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.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63639625209387846852017-05-22T08:33:51.799-07:002017-05-22T08:33:51.799-07:00there is no technical science that disproves consc...there is no technical science that disproves consciousness. you don't understad the bait and switch argument.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58102765938493047712017-05-22T08:28:52.811-07:002017-05-22T08:28:52.811-07:00m-skeptical said...
Great. Theistic philosophers l...m-skeptical said...<br />Great. Theistic philosophers love Nagel.<br /><br /><b>atheistic one's too,</b><br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81453700039276623692017-05-22T07:59:19.763-07:002017-05-22T07:59:19.763-07:00Great. Theistic philosophers love Nagel. But we ...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.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com