Ah, the old "Science is Faith" argument...nope, even here, this is not the case, despite one of his two statements semantically suggesting such:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > > “…I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry….” – SE > No faith here whatsoever. In fact, this is the opposite of faith...this is a purely scientific perspective. Allow me to assist with a semantical translation that makes it clear. "I have not been presented with any evidence upon which to base an assumption/hypothesis/theory that consciousness rises from anything other than that which we have been able to measure in the brain." This is science. Period. A negative or passive statement does not indicate faith, and I'm surprised to see you, of all people, Orn, trying to hang that canard on his statement. > > “…The brain is being mapped and it won't be very > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE > This is a reasonable guess based on the progress made currently, and while the semantics of the statement might seem to indicate "faith" to those looking for it, it's a poor example to try and use in the SvF argument. We have achieved a scientific understanding of the vast majority of human physiology which nears "mystery-less-ness". SE's broad and open ended statement, despite using an authoritative tone, leaves enough room for error that it stands as a hypothesis, ready to be tested. Faith, as has been repeated ad nauseum, is a belief which remains in the face of either a lack of evidence, or countering evidence..."the essence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." It is most certainly not the same as logical deduction, and rational projections based on axiomatic progression, and this endless attempt to paint it as such just seems kind of desperate. Penn Gillette explores the topic very well in this episode of "Penn Says". He most clearly articulates the what most atheists like myself believe, although with a little extra of his special flair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU > > First, you have been taken off of moderation. Welcome to Mind’s Eye! > > Next, I applaud what appears to be a conflation of a scientific > attitude with faith…in this case, faith in the coming of a world > without ‘mystery’. While it is a common view, seldom is it presented > so succinctly! > > > On Sep 5, 8:10 am, sjewins <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not addressing Dennett. I am talking about experiments that can > > change consciousness. If a chemical can change consciousness then > > obviously chemicals are a great part of consciousness. Likewise for > > the application of electro-magnetic forces. > > > > Consciousness is essentially a closed loop. 80% of all conscious > > activity arises from within the brain, only 20% is from external > > sensory input. > > > > Neuro-transmitters are essentially, also simply chemical transfers > > launch by electrical energy. > > > > For example, LSD exclusively affects the temporal lobe. If you remove > > the temporal lobe the subject can consume buckets of LSD and it will > > have no effect on him/her at all.. > > > > Absolutely all psychotropic drugs alter consciousness via physical > > chemical influences, from god experiences to colour perception. > > Serotonin, as an example, is manipulated by large numbers of > > hallucinogenics as well as ant-depressants. > > > > I see no reason at all to assume that anything gives rise to > > consciousness beyond electricity and chemistry. > > > > This is not as big a mystery as the posts here seem to think. I would > > strongly recommend some, even cursory, study of current research in > > neuro-science and behavioural/cognitive experiments being done by > > Persinger and others. The brain is being mapped and it won't be very > > many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed. > > > > >No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and > > >what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning > > >what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed > > >phenomenological descriptions of experience. > > > > We already know the general area of the right side of the brain where > > our feelings of 'self' reside. In fact, if we stimulate that same area > > we create a feeling in the subject of 'another' self. A duality that > > is usually ultimately described by the subject as god-like. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
