I note that you focused on the second statement in your rebuttal. Good call, given that it was the only one with some "wiggle room", which I duely commented on. And regarding the length of your rebuttal, no please, I do prefer it...it provides more grist for the mill, so to speak. The rest of my comments are interspersed below.
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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’. > *laughing* This is a genius paragraph, Orn. First, it disallows the entire concept of hypothesis within the scientific process. As noted in my initial response, the only flaw in his statement was a position of strong authority...which I interpret to be merely semantical. Opinions may vary. Second, by disclaiming it as a fallacy, you sidestep the actual positional point of why I noted that this line of argumentation seems desperate, namely, that it continues to equate 'Faith', the same word/concept used to describe belief in something for which there is no scientific evidence, with the process by which science builds empirical foundations, and then creates extrapolations from those foundations in order to progress. They are two different things, and no matter how many times one can say "but you BELIEVE in Gravity!", it does not make them the same. Until I am held down by the hand of god, there is no empirical evidence to support the presence of such. > > 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. > Here, you disregard correlative thinking. Yes, his statement made liberal use of rhetoric, a form of speech you are also intimately familiar with, and a dash of hyperbole. However, we DO fully understand the heart, the lungs, the kidneys, the mechanical workings of of our skeletal structure, and have made HUGE strides in fully understanding the functionality of the brain. We understand how each sensory organ contributes data to the brain, how that data presents the world and "reality" to us, how the various interplay of chemicals and neuro-electric processes change that perception, and have even created machines which can "read your mind" in a rudimentary fashion. Therefore, it is not in any way wild speculation to say that all the mystery surrounding the function of the brain will be removed at some point, and by extension consciousness. Aha! You say, I've got him! Consciousness is not understood fully, and therefore, it would be wildly presumptive to assume that a full knowledge of the brain equals full understanding of consciousness. This is true...for those who feel the need to have faith that our consciousness is something other than what it appears to be...the sum totality of our perceptions received as data, organized in our brain, and analyzed by the same. Interesting thoughts indeed, to connect in some invisible, unprovable, unmeasurable, unsensable way our individuality to some greater "thing". I rather enjoy those thought experiments. This does not affect science in any way, does not disclaim scientific process or procedure, and does not disallow hypothesis. Oh, and just because we DO have a full understanding of something doesn't mean that some people will perpetuate the mystery...so you have that point as well. There are people who still argue that accupuncture works by affecting Chi flow. > > 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. > Penn explored the topic of faith, what faith really is, in a way that was clear and articulate. He even clarified rational thought does not seek to disprove the disprovable. These are both directly apropos to the conversation at hand. It was not an appeal to authority, however, as I made no statement of his authority, don't consider him such, and didn't attempt to bring out his credentials (which go beyond stage magician, but nice subtle ad hom to downplay his message) in order to bolster my arguments. I simply quoted him with attribution in the simplest way possible, by directly linking to his quotes. You are quite wrong to say that Penn is no philosopher, however. He's a well renowned skeptic philosopher, and his talks on the topic are articulate and well formed, if a bit edgey. > > 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. > I must say, I do enjoy your more formal approaches to these arguments now. While I respectfully disagree with your conclusions regarding any fallacies present in my position, you're certainly speaking my language. :^D > > 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 > > > Yes, and SE's position of authority made his statement poorly formed...but that doesn't at all make it a statement of faith, and most certainly doesn't add any substantive weight to the supposition that science is based on faith...a TRUE ad nauseum argument which has been well disclaimed at this point for everyone except those with faith. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
