Biology has long discussed whether there is just the material code in DNA or a further set in an information world. My own view has long been, 'sod off, this doesn't help'. There is much I can never disprove and also consider as very likely irrelevant. Valiant squabbling is often irrelevant.
On 5 Sep, 22:08, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
