(August 18, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're going to need to get sound propositions from -something-, though, if you insist that we're having a rational discussion.  I use the word seem to allow for us being wrong, but the possibility that we might be is not a sufficient demonstration that -we are-.  Particularly in light of what you were responding to with those comments.

I don't think you can distinguish between "seems" and "fits into my world view." Let's start with how it seems there's an objective universe, how it seems some objects have mind as I do, how it seems that people experience as I do. But why does it seem that way? If I poke a person's brain with an electrode, he/she might say something like, "Hmmmmm, I smell smoke." This is our entire criteria for determining that we are studying a system with mind: that it makes a smiley face when we think it should smile, and a pouty face when we think it should be sad.

That's fine, if you are trying to determine if something is acceptably human enough to go bowling with. It's does not serve as very good evidence for what physical systems do/do not have anything like a mind.

Quote: 

Quote:Look, my response to the question at hand is honest and straightforward: we do not know what allows for qualia, and cannot therefore say whether it supervenes on the brain, or on more simple systems which need not be so organized as the brain.  Conflating X-ology with X-ogony is a pretty fundamental error in logic, but this is much how these arguments go: "We study the brain and the mind, and stuff happens, so the brain creates (or simply is) mind.  So far, that's how it seems to be."

This is a horrible misapplication of concept  of evidence.

Your question may be honest, but it's neither straightforward nor rational....and I'm not going to listen to someone who calls nuerology "brainwaving" lecture -anyone- about a misapplication of the concept of evidence.  The question of what allows for qualia, and the question of a full description of qualia...are simply not the same question.    The ability of matter to interact is sufficient to -allow- for qualia...even if our qualia is somehow created or expressed some other way.  Further...if there's some point at which you expect -anyone- to exceed what we do know and can infer...from evidence, and just start making shit up to satisfy you....or if you think that someones inability to satisfy you regarding the one is meaningful,  relevant to the other, or helps you to establish some position of your own....you've totally lost your shit.  

Stop saying I call neurology "brainwaving." I do not. Neurology is not the science of establishing the details of psychogony, and does not / cannot say at what level of organization the elements of mind supervene. I've already said that neuropsychology is very useful, and tells us a lot about how the brain is involved in our qualitative experiences.

What it does NOT do is say where mind comes from, why there is such a thing, why it supervenes somewhere/somehow in the brain. If I'm wrong about that, then go ahead to imright.com, and provide links or studies in which neuropsychologists attempt to answer philosophical questions using science. Otherwise, you are not only brainwaving but appealing to the authority of scientists whose studies don't address the issues of mind in the way you are pretending they do.

You talk about things seeming a certain way, about "best evidence" etc. etc. Fine. Explain why they seem that way. Produce your evidence.

See, right now, I'm agnostic. I consider IIT a perfectly valid theory, and panpsychism a perfectly valid theory, and I see the merits in both physical monism, idealistic monism, and even pluralism. But you are skewed toward a particular view of psychogony, and I do not think your evidence for that view is sufficient.

So where's God's dick, and how do I get over there so I can punch him in it?

God's everywhere supposedly. So I recommend you punch the air and giggle inanely at how you therefore must be punching His godly balls.

(August 18, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Interaction.  There must be some way to be conscious -of- something....for there to be consciousness in the first place.  The term, otherwise, has no meaning.

How is that interaction conveyed?

---

(August 18, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I kind of feel like an asshole for bringing up some basic shit...but has the thought ever occurred to you, Bennyboy, that if -some- of the things you say about mind and qualia and the various sub-branches of science that study it were valid objections or criticisms.....that there would -be- no branches of science that could or indeed were studying mind..let alone producing results - however unsatisfying they are or seem to you?  I do understand some of your objections regarding those bodies of knowledge - I even share some of them with you, but we're never going to get around to that unless we can tone down the hyperbole that consumes the vast majority of our communicative efforts.

@Ark

Quote:The EM force is part of God's law of universe order.

If you say so......but it seems to me like you might have skipped a step on that one. 

Polarity is a straight and narrow vertical path. Electromagentic return for electric action = as you sow, so shall you reap.

---

(August 18, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Alex K Wrote: What if the universe is a big mind that's actually thinking our thoughts, not we ourselves... man far out Duuuude.

How many radio broadcasts are passing through your body right now? How many do you hear?

---

(August 18, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Iroscato Wrote: So where's God's dick, and how do I get over there so I can punch him in it?

I hear anthropomorphication is all the rage...

(August 18, 2016 at 8:35 am)purplepurpose Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 8:09 am)fdesilva Wrote: Well spoken Sir/Madam  The question if God exist and rewards after life are important from an academic point of view. Sure it can become the basis driving once life. However what is of undisputable importance is that each of us discover the importance of Love. This is the one calling in life that we all share and take for granted. Yet so often neglect and in time loose completely. If we know Love then we know God

Why do you care so much about love?

Because  honesty and all other virtues are a by product of Love. Society will fall apart if we were to depend solely on legislation and policing.

(August 18, 2016 at 9:10 pm)fdesilva Wrote: Because  honesty and all other virtues are a by product of Love.

Bullshit! We lie to our friends and loved ones all the time. The only people we're really honest with our people we don't give a shit about.

(August 18, 2016 at 9:33 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 9:10 pm)fdesilva Wrote: Because  honesty and all other virtues are a by product of Love.

Bullshit! We lie to our friends and loved ones all the time. The only people we're really honest with our people we don't give a shit about.

That’s because they are forgiving (a by product of love)

---

(August 18, 2016 at 2:11 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Oh, my fucking goddess!

Grow the fuck up, already.

fdesilva, you are not in any way resembling intelligence.

working on it

---

(August 18, 2016 at 2:11 am)Rhythm Wrote: Wouldn;t that make your deepity a triviality?  OFC the universe isn't aware that god controls it, if god controls it...the universe is no more conscious than my hand is.

The hand can pray. It tells you when its tired

---

(August 18, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Iroscato Wrote: So where's God's dick, and how do I get over there so I can punch him in it?

If you got one, that's the one.

"Take time with a wounded hand, cause it likes to steal...."

(August 18, 2016 at 9:37 pm)fdesilva Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 2:11 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Oh, my fucking goddess!

Grow the fuck up, already.

fdesilva, you are not in any way resembling intelligence.

working on it

Work harder.

(August 18, 2016 at 2:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: I suspect that for as long as you breath, you will contend that there hasn't been.  

Why not debate with me and put an end to your suspicion?