Author Topic: Hi  (Read 2450 times)

Offline trdsf

Re: Hi
« Reply #345 on: January 16, 2019, 07:45:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does this means that you can transfer to a child that has never experienced physical-mental love what the love between you and your lover is all about? (1)
Can you? (2)
So if you can not how on earth are you expecting that a materialist that is billions of light years far away from any from of spirituality be able to understand what God is all about? (3)
Fallacy.  I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.
  • You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1.  What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
  • Non sequitur.  Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3.  They are unrelated statements
  • In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1) Consciousness is there even when the cells that make up your body die and new pop up.
From here you can work out that consciousness is not physical in nature otherwise she also would die when all the rest die and a new consciousness would pop up but that is not the case.
Deeply and profoundly wrong.  Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons.  The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
2) As far as ...........we do not know how consciousness works............
that is a defective response because through the art of intuitional science is possible to know how the consciousness works.
There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'.  Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it".  If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea.  "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence.  Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future?  If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Them's the rules?
What?
Yup.  If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules.  If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself.  You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.

If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that.  If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.

If you can't do that, then the hell with you.  You're not worth wasting any more time on.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Re: Hi
« Reply #346 on: Today at 09:39:32 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fallacy.  I've numbered your comments above for clarity below.
  • You are confusing subjective feelings with objective data in statement 1.  What feelings I can explain have nothing whatsoever to do with what data I can demonstrate.
  • Non sequitur.  Neither the truth nor falsity of statements 1 and 2 lead to 3.  They are unrelated statements
  • In statement 3, you cannot appeal to a god as an answer, or even as a datum, without first demonstrating the existence of one.
You turn something very very simple into something very very complicate, intellectual and philosophical that is not really needed in  this case.
The point was all about providing evidence about something that is not physical.
Atheists expect to see physical evidence of something that is not physical which obviously is not possible and my simple example explained how this doesn't make sense.


Quote
Deeply and profoundly wrong.  Consciousness is dependent upon the electrochemistry of the brain, not on individual atoms or even individual neurons.  The fact that through electroencephalography we can show which parts of the brain handle language, math, vision, and other conscious and unconscious functions -- and the fact that physical damage to the brain in these areas affects these functions -- is evidence in favor of a material basis for consciousness.


That is a lot of garbage Mister.
Although is true that the consciousness is dependent on the brain to function as long as we are alive that doesn't mean that the consciousness is created or is a product of the brain.
There is no evidence of whatsoever that this is the case.
Yours is just your guessing and some scientists guessing which has zero to do with evidence.



Quote
There is no such thing as 'intuitional science'.  Science is based on data and observation, not "I like this idea so I'll believe it".  If you want to put forward a theory of consciousness, you have to provide the concrete data to support that idea.  "Yeah, but you can't explain it!" is not evidence.  Or are you going to claim that you know more about how the brain works than not only anyone who has already studied the problem of consciousness, but also anyone who ever will in the future?  If so, you need to have a deep think about your arrogance.


Oh, well then it means that all the people that in the last seven thousand years or so practice intuitional science were a bunch of idiots.
How can you dismiss something that you never practice?
Here we go back to my previous point in which it is impossible to give evidence about something personal such as love.
Everybody knows that it exist but at the same time it is personal between two entity and not transferable.



Quote
Yup.  If you want to put forth a theory and have it taken seriously, them's the rules.  If you don't like them or don't think they apply to you, feel free to go fuck yourself.  You came to us to put forth your drivel and nonsense -- I am obliged to question your intelligence and rationality if you genuinely thought coming here among the rationalists and materialists you could offer a proposition explicitly based on woo and magical "thinking" and be taken seriously.


Oh, well there is a little big problem with materialists because for them only matter exist.
But the consciousness is not made of matter.
Nobody can touch, smell, see, or taste it and this consciousness keep on living even when body cells die.
That should indicate that matter is not all it exist and that consciousness is superior to matter.



Quote
If you want to re-label what you've suggested about consciousness as your opinion or your belief, I will have no argument with that.  If you want to suggest it's anything more than that, you have the responsibility to provide the concrete evidence and repeatable observations and independent data to support that proposition.

If you can't do that, then the hell with you.  You're not worth wasting any more time on.



The fact that consciousness is not made of matter is not only my belief.
Even a demented idiot knows that consciousness is not made of matter.



[/list]
« Last Edit: Today at 09:44:59 AM by Arik »
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Re: Hi
« Reply #347 on: Today at 10:01:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well that's totally wrong (and partially incoherent)

The correct answer has to do with the process of systematizing knowledge.  Basically, the exact opposite of the mysticism you espouse.


Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person considering that you know everything about something that you never practiced.
Congratulation Hydra.







When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you’re the one smiling and everyone around you is crying. Tulsi Das

Online Hydra009

Re: Hi
« Reply #348 on: Today at 11:34:34 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Gee, you must be a super super bright-brilliant-smart person
Only in comparison.

Offline Baruch

Re: Hi
« Reply #349 on: Today at 12:58:57 PM »
There were philosophers who thought that thought was a very fine powder or gaseous substance.  Early materialism.  This is before modern physics and chemistry created ... physicalism.  When we say materialism today, we mean physicalism, not that primitive materialism of Democritus.

With physicalism, even though light is a quantum mechanical mess ... it can be counted as physical, even if not material.  It is the prime example of something physical, that is non-material, that can interact with something that is both physical and material.  And that is exactly where quantum mechanics steps in, because that interaction in detail, is non-classical.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:12:14 PM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk