Of course it is clear that what you attempt to justify as being scientific while using terms like “..a reasonable guess…” associated with SE’s projection into the future (“The brain is being mapped and it won't be very many more decades before all the 'mystery' removed….” – SE ) is neither science nor observation. Merely using weasel wording (a fallacy itself) alone is beneath my experience of your previously demonstrated intelligence and normal standards Chris. However, I won't use the appeal to the people (a fallacy) of calling your post ‘desperate’.
Doing the analysis, since clearly the assumption that the future will bring “all the ‘mystery’ removed” is NOT based on evidence and, in this case, unless your time machine is better than mine, countering evidence of such unseen things is difficult, we are left with what to me is clearly SEs hope for (faith in) a result. (Yes, I am aware that you often associate the notion of having faith in the sun coming up tomorrow with this type of argumentation. In this case, it is not the same. The former has happened, the latter has not.) So, unless you can show evidence today that at some point in the future not only the brain will be entirely mapped AND there is no ‘mystery’ at all left surrounding consciousness…(which doesn’t even equate to the brain!), we are all just left with hope…which is fine too. Oh, it is also telling and within the context of the discussion to appeal to the (false) authority of a magician. However, when you say that “Penn Gillette explores the topic very well …”, you have not only infused your argument with non sequitur, you have shifted the argument (changing the subject), a fallacy. They did not explore our topic. Perhaps they did say something you like and embrace. That is fine. Just please do not attempt to use it as an argument. Further, as entertaining as Penn & Teller are, they are no more philosophers nor authorities on our topic than Dennett is either. Dennett even used the fallacy of division. So, an argument ad nauseam with a dash of half truth is still not valid. Never has been and (I would guess…perhaps even have faith in) never will. Lastly, I know I could have shortened this rebuttal to your argument by simply saying that argument to the future is a fallacy. I see little else that can be used in this case to support the argument that one knows what will occur sometime in the future. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future On Sep 5, 10:23 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted > > > text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
