‹ First  < 11 12 13
 
   
 

It’s just you.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
30 August 2021 12:53
 

On the first, your differentiation is arbitrary.  If Jesus is real, than your exclusion of that report is invalid.  So, unless you can demonstrably prove Jesus isn’t real, you cannot invalidate that report.  I agree that cultural influence on experiences is problematic, but unless you can prove the experience is invalid, it isn’t strong enough evidence to exclude it.  Which has been part of my argument for pages, your inclusion and exclusion of experiences has been entirely arbitrary.

Second, you haven’t demonstrated that there is no “I” in this state.  All we know is that the person “feels” like there is no I.  I’m going to point out the most incredible inconsistency in this basic reporting…. who’s telling us who had the experience?  The person for whom an “I” does exist.  We have no evidence of this from… whatever you want to call it… that is not “I”.  We only have reports from entities that are “I”, who report a sensation of not “I”.  We have reports from identities that they for a moment felt like they had no identity.  But we do not have the report from anything that is not an identity.

This means there are two possible explanations:
1) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt in our physical brain.
2) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt by something that is not our physical brain.

As presented so far, these two scenarios are indistinguishable.  Some of your most recent evidence has been to apply human hubris and declare that since we seem different from animals, therefore that means it is the second.  Except, even with that line of thinking, the first scenario is still entirely plausible (and of course, that line of thinking is prone to all the problems that all pre-Copernican models of the universe proposed).

Any conclusions about the nature of reality are indeterminate.  You can say whatever you like, but just because you say it and like it… doesn’t mean it is true.  Just because some other supposedly smart person said a thousand years ago… doesn’t mean it is true.

You can cry about empiricism all you like, but all of your claims are just your personal preference.  If you WANT it to be true… fine.  That’s your choice.  As long as you know that it doesn’t mean that it is actually true.  Just like my preference for or against it is also irrelevant.  There’s no reason anyone should be convinced that your claim is true, but people are free to make up their minds however they like.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
30 August 2021 15:50
 
weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

On the first, your differentiation is arbitrary.  If Jesus is real, than your exclusion of that report is invalid.  So, unless you can demonstrably prove Jesus isn’t real, you cannot invalidate that report.  I agree that cultural influence on experiences is problematic, but unless you can prove the experience is invalid, it isn’t strong enough evidence to exclude it.  Which has been part of my argument for pages, your inclusion and exclusion of experiences has been entirely arbitrary.


Whether or not I believe Jesus is real, I can exclude that report because it is given in culture-laden terms. You ignored my second gloss of the same report in more neutral terms. That is dishonest. And you have not, in this entire thread, understood the difference between experience and a report of experience. Either that, or you are playing intentional ignorance. So even in the first case, while I exclude the report, I have no reason to deny the validity of the idea that there was an experience that was interpreted in a certain way. If you were not so intent on winning an argument you might at least come to a degree of understanding of this distinction.

weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

Second, you haven’t demonstrated that there is no “I” in this state.  All we know is that the person “feels” like there is no I.  I’m going to point out the most incredible inconsistency in this basic reporting…. who’s telling us who had the experience?  The person for whom an “I” does exist.  We have no evidence of this from… whatever you want to call it… that is not “I”.  We only have reports from entities that are “I”, who report a sensation of not “I”.  We have reports from identities that they for a moment felt like they had no identity.  But we do not have the report from anything that is not an identity.


I can easily report an experience of that nature, the absence of an “I” doesn’t mean that there is no awareness involved in the experience. This is why I have doubts about your claim to have had this particular experience. Either you are just arguing for the sake of argument, or faking it.

weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

This means there are two possible explanations:
1) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt in our physical brain.
2) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt by something that is not our physical brain.

That is a false dichotomy. An experience may simply present itself.

weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

As presented so far, these two scenarios are indistinguishable.  Some of your most recent evidence has been to apply human hubris and declare that since we seem different from animals, therefore that means it is the second.  Except, even with that line of thinking, the first scenario is still entirely plausible (and of course, that line of thinking is prone to all the problems that all pre-Copernican models of the universe proposed).

If you do not understand that the capacity to reflect on our own existence and ask the sort of questions that we do about the universe indicates a categorical distinction between us and other animals (at least on the Earth), well, I’m perfectly happy if you think of yourself as just another animal.

weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

Any conclusions about the nature of reality are indeterminate.  You can say whatever you like, but just because you say it and like it… doesn’t mean it is true.  Just because some other supposedly smart person said a thousand years ago… doesn’t mean it is true.

You can cry about empiricism all you like, but all of your claims are just your personal preference.  If you WANT it to be true… fine.  That’s your choice.  As long as you know that it doesn’t mean that it is actually true.  Just like my preference for or against it is also irrelevant.  There’s no reason anyone should be convinced that your claim is true, but people are free to make up their minds however they like.

Lovely attempt to appear impartial, but I suggest going back over this thread and examining the way that you have responded to my statements. You strike me as being a bit evangelical about scientism and you do tend to get overly emotional when I push buttons, as if you had something to defend. And, since we now seem to be going around in circles and you seem unwilling to discuss the failure of current science to deal with morality we really don’t have much more to say.

[ Edited: 30 August 2021 15:52 by burt]
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
30 August 2021 16:08
 
burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM

Whether or not I believe Jesus is real, I can exclude that report because it is given in culture-laden terms.

All reports of consciousness separate form the “I” are also given in culture-laden terms.  YOU HAVE NOT SOLVED THIS PROBLEM WITH YOUR REPORTS.

burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM

And you have not, in this entire thread, understood the difference between experience and a report of experience.

You have not presented evidence of an experience, YOU HAVE ONLY PRESENTED REPORTS OF EXPERIENCES.

burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM
weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

This means there are two possible explanations:
1) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt in our physical brain.
2) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt by something that is not our physical brain.

That is a false dichotomy. An experience may simply present itself.

My dichotomy literally fits the definition of a dichotomy.  A dichotomy is a statement and it’s negation.  It must be one of those.  Either something is a product of our physical brain, or it is not the product of our physical brain.  There is no third options.  All options that are not our physical brain are wholly contained within the second option… why?  Because I framed my statement as a true dichotomy.  I was very careful and explicit in my phrasing in order to ensure it was a true dichotomy.  So.. if you want to argue that it isn’t a dichotomy, that’s fine, but it means you are using some non-standard definition of the word “dichotomy” that is NOT accepted in the broader community of English speakers who use dichotomies in their work.

Either:
1) X=A
2) X=/=A
The third option would be for X=A and X=/=A simultaneously, but this would defy the law of noncontradiction.  A thing cannot be both itself and not itself.  This is something that MUST be true for anything in the universe to make sense at all.  If this law isn’t true (and I admit, I can’t prove it true), it means we literally know nothing… at which point any claim you make MUST ALSO BE FALSE, since if things both equal themselves and not themselves, then your claim is both true and false.  And we’re back to talking nonsense, and no one should give a fuck what you say.

Honestly, the more you do this… the more convinced I am that you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.  Your arguments keep getting worse.

[ Edited: 30 August 2021 16:25 by weird buffalo]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
30 August 2021 18:40
 
weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 04:08 PM
burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM

Whether or not I believe Jesus is real, I can exclude that report because it is given in culture-laden terms.

All reports of consciousness separate form the “I” are also given in culture-laden terms.  YOU HAVE NOT SOLVED THIS PROBLEM WITH YOUR REPORTS.

burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM

And you have not, in this entire thread, understood the difference between experience and a report of experience.

You have not presented evidence of an experience, YOU HAVE ONLY PRESENTED REPORTS OF EXPERIENCES.

burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM
weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

This means there are two possible explanations:
1) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt in our physical brain.
2) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt by something that is not our physical brain.

That is a false dichotomy. An experience may simply present itself.

My dichotomy literally fits the definition of a dichotomy.  A dichotomy is a statement and it’s negation.  It must be one of those.  Either something is a product of our physical brain, or it is not the product of our physical brain.  There is no third options.  All options that are not our physical brain are wholly contained within the second option… why?  Because I framed my statement as a true dichotomy.  I was very careful and explicit in my phrasing in order to ensure it was a true dichotomy.  So.. if you want to argue that it isn’t a dichotomy, that’s fine, but it means you are using some non-standard definition of the word “dichotomy” that is NOT accepted in the broader community of English speakers who use dichotomies in their work.

Either:
1) X=A
2) X=/=A
The third option would be for X=A and X=/=A simultaneously, but this would defy the law of noncontradiction.  A thing cannot be both itself and not itself.  This is something that MUST be true for anything in the universe to make sense at all.  If this law isn’t true (and I admit, I can’t prove it true), it means we literally know nothing… at which point any claim you make MUST ALSO BE FALSE, since if things both equal themselves and not themselves, then your claim is both true and false.  And we’re back to talking nonsense, and no one should give a fuck what you say.

Honestly, the more you do this… the more convinced I am that you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.  Your arguments keep getting worse.

At this point you are just trolling. This conversation is, as I said, over and I will not reply to any further of your rants.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
31 August 2021 02:28
 
burt - 30 August 2021 06:40 PM
weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 04:08 PM
burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM

Whether or not I believe Jesus is real, I can exclude that report because it is given in culture-laden terms.

All reports of consciousness separate form the “I” are also given in culture-laden terms.  YOU HAVE NOT SOLVED THIS PROBLEM WITH YOUR REPORTS.

burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM

And you have not, in this entire thread, understood the difference between experience and a report of experience.

You have not presented evidence of an experience, YOU HAVE ONLY PRESENTED REPORTS OF EXPERIENCES.

burt - 30 August 2021 03:50 PM
weird buffalo - 30 August 2021 12:53 PM

This means there are two possible explanations:
1) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt in our physical brain.
2) The lack of identity in that moment was a sensation felt by something that is not our physical brain.

That is a false dichotomy. An experience may simply present itself.

My dichotomy literally fits the definition of a dichotomy.  A dichotomy is a statement and it’s negation.  It must be one of those.  Either something is a product of our physical brain, or it is not the product of our physical brain.  There is no third options.  All options that are not our physical brain are wholly contained within the second option… why?  Because I framed my statement as a true dichotomy.  I was very careful and explicit in my phrasing in order to ensure it was a true dichotomy.  So.. if you want to argue that it isn’t a dichotomy, that’s fine, but it means you are using some non-standard definition of the word “dichotomy” that is NOT accepted in the broader community of English speakers who use dichotomies in their work.

Either:
1) X=A
2) X=/=A
The third option would be for X=A and X=/=A simultaneously, but this would defy the law of noncontradiction.  A thing cannot be both itself and not itself.  This is something that MUST be true for anything in the universe to make sense at all.  If this law isn’t true (and I admit, I can’t prove it true), it means we literally know nothing… at which point any claim you make MUST ALSO BE FALSE, since if things both equal themselves and not themselves, then your claim is both true and false.  And we’re back to talking nonsense, and no one should give a fuck what you say.

Honestly, the more you do this… the more convinced I am that you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.  Your arguments keep getting worse.

At this point you are just trolling. This conversation is, as I said, over and I will not reply to any further of your rants.

If you’re going to argue that:
X=A
X=/=A
Is not a dichotomy, then you have nothing of value to say about a discussion involving truth and reality.  I don’t give a shit how many years you taught physics.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1939
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
01 September 2021 18:12
 

I’m wondering what Burt or weird think about Panpsychism. I’m especially interested in what Burt thinks, since I just read that he taught physics, which is something I did not know before.

It seems most of the pages here have been talking about it without naming it. I’m referring to the modern version of Panpsychism.

I’ve read several articles, some written by physicists, some by philosophers, which theorize about it. 

An internet search of “Physics and Panpsychism” will bring up many articles.

I find the theory very alluring — it solves the “hard problem,” but it might be impossible to prove scientifically.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
01 September 2021 18:42
 
Cheshire Cat - 01 September 2021 06:12 PM

I’m wondering what Burt or weird think about Panpsychism. I’m especially interested in what Burt thinks, since I just read that he taught physics, which is something I did not know before.

It seems most of the pages here have been talking about it without naming it. I’m referring to the modern version of Panpsychism.

I’ve read several articles, some written by physicists, some by philosophers, which theorize about it. 

An internet search of “Physics and Panpsychism” will bring up many articles.

I find the theory very alluring — it solves the “hard problem,” but it might be impossible to prove scientifically.

My degrees are in physics, but I taught math. My basic position is pretty panpsychists since it is that consciousness in an intrinsic aspect of reality. Getting down to details, however, is the question. And probably cannot be demonstrated within the current confines of required for scientific validity.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9952
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
02 September 2021 10:33
 
burt - 01 September 2021 06:42 PM
Cheshire Cat - 01 September 2021 06:12 PM

I’m wondering what Burt or weird think about Panpsychism. I’m especially interested in what Burt thinks, since I just read that he taught physics, which is something I did not know before.

It seems most of the pages here have been talking about it without naming it. I’m referring to the modern version of Panpsychism.

I’ve read several articles, some written by physicists, some by philosophers, which theorize about it. 

An internet search of “Physics and Panpsychism” will bring up many articles.

I find the theory very alluring — it solves the “hard problem,” but it might be impossible to prove scientifically.

My degrees are in physics, but I taught math. My basic position is pretty panpsychists since it is that consciousness in an intrinsic aspect of reality. Getting down to details, however, is the question. And probably cannot be demonstrated within the current confines of required for scientific validity.

In the Epilogue of his 2004 book, ‘THE END OF FAITH - Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason’, Sam Harris concludes:

“This universe is shot through with mystery.  The very fact of its being, and of our own, is a mystery absolute, and the only miracle worthy of the name.  The consciousness that animates us is itself central to this mystery and the ground for any experience we might wish to call “spiritual.”  No myths need be embraced for us to commune with the profundity of our circumstance.  No personal God need be worshiped for us to live in awe at the beauty and immensity of creation.  No tribal fictions need be rehearsed for us to realize, one fine day, that we do in fact, love our neighbors, that our happiness is inextricable from their own, and that our interdependence demands that people everywhere be given the opportunity to flourish.  The days of our religious identities are clearly numbered.  Whether the days of civilization itself are numbered would seem to depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize this.”

 

[ Edited: 02 September 2021 10:36 by unsmoked]
 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4114
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
03 September 2021 06:17
 

Witnessing aggressive and territorial posturing while being told it’s enlightenment is like watching a silverback gorilla pounding his chest while telling us all to read Shakespeare.  It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
03 September 2021 08:47
 

I’d find a gorilla quoting Shakespeare pretty impressive, unlike some of the mental gymnastics on display here.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4114
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
04 September 2021 06:38
 

There’s an escalating addiction to entitlement.  It makes folks believe just about anything and become hostile towards anyone who disagrees.  Whatever it takes to keep those juices flowing.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1977
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
04 September 2021 06:59
 
LadyJane - 04 September 2021 06:38 AM

There’s an escalating addiction to entitlement.  It makes folks believe just about anything and become hostile towards anyone who disagrees.  Whatever it takes to keep those juices flowing.

The Future of Reasoning

One of the theories on reasoning is that we engage in the task in order to share and convince others of our ideas.  It’s a social function to aid and improve group cooperation on complicated tasks.  One of the problems with how the internet can silo people into groups with similar beliefs is that we are no longer required to constantly justify our decisions, which reduces our capacity to reason.  He even goes into one of the most common flaws in our reasoning, confirmation bias, and how this is actually a positive and useful function in the social dynamic of reasoning.  Reasoning through everything is an expensive process, both in terms of brain power, but also time spent making a decision in a social setting.  If each side of an argument reasons through all aspects of both sides of an issue, decisions are slow and costly.  If instead, each side focuses on the benefits and confirmation of their argument, it reduces how much time and energy is spent on the decision making process, and this will tend to be far more efficient.

I think the theory he presents is somewhat compelling, and he argues it well.  That said, I still think that science and logic are extremely valuable in knowing what is true, but he’s very right in the scope of the problems we face as a species on this planet.  I won’t say it’s the first time I’ve heard of the concept of a lottocracy, but it was by far the most compelling argument for it.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4114
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
04 September 2021 13:09
 
weird buffalo - 04 September 2021 06:59 AM

One of the theories on reasoning is that we engage in the task in order to share and convince others of our ideas. It’s a social function to aid and improve group cooperation on complicated tasks.

And it’s a good theory.  It assumes that those engaging in the task are interested in the ideas being shared as much as the ideas they’re sharing.  As attention spans weaken the complicated task becomes less about reasoning and more about focusing.  Real cooperation can only occur when we yield to the words of another.  At least as long as to the end of a page or post.  The more a poster veers from the point the less cooperative they become.  And I remain unconvinced of their ability.

One of the problems with how the internet can silo people into groups with similar beliefs is that we are no longer required to constantly justify our decisions, which reduces our capacity to reason.

The moment one patron gives another patron an out they’re able to escape accountability and we never get the chance to challenge the steps of their reasoning.  It’s very frustrating to watch and they walk away feeling a sense of accomplishment despite the trail of empty boxes.  Which hurts them the most.  A lot of nonsense has evaded the proper scrutiny over the years.  And no one is any the wiser.  Literally.  Posting never has to get any more thoughtful than it is when it’s constantly showered with unwarranted praise.  Or misdirected hostility.  Allowing others to carry yer water risks the possibility of losing yer thirst.  And you end up with a parade of saturated mannequins.

He even goes into one of the most common flaws in our reasoning, confirmation bias, and how this is actually a positive and useful function in the social dynamic of reasoning.

Once we know that it’s there it’s easier to spot.  If something feels too easy or runs too smooth it’s best to double back.  It’s a useful function as long as we don’t become dependent on hearing what we want to hear.  It turns into an addiction.  Hence the q-anon rabbit holes to nowhere.  Empathy is the most useful tool at our disposal.  And hands down the most painful.

Reasoning through everything is an expensive process, both in terms of brain power, but also time spent making a decision in a social setting. If each side of an argument reasons through all aspects of both sides of an issue, decisions are slow and costly.

Politics used to be a fun thing to talk about.  Especially where you find a divergence of opinion This is why coming to the table with something to offer is highly underrated and greatly appreciated.  The starting point can already be three steps ahead rather than starting over from scratch every time.  Investing instead in the worthwhile process of deliberation.  Fast and Cheap.  The difference between coming equipped with table manners versus pulling up a chair and using utensils for the first time.  Then claiming you invented the fork. 

If instead, each side focuses on the benefits and confirmation of their argument, it reduces how much time and energy is spent on the decision making process, and this will tend to be far more efficient.

The more we examine the evidence–the more prepared we are for the discussion and the more prepared we are for the discussion–the more decisions end up making themselves.  Spitting out the first thought that crosses our mind upon hearing a news story is the opposite of efficient.  And the more this occurs the more time is wasted entertaining thoughts others failed to think through.  And any push back quickly makes you the bad guy.  When the onus lies with those runaway voices.  Counting on the sympathy from friends and allies who share in the embarrassment and cover it up.  Regret doesn’t make an argument have merit.  But it does make it easy to know who to trust.

I think the theory he presents is somewhat compelling, and he argues it well. That said, I still think that science and logic are extremely valuable in knowing what is true, but he’s very right in the scope of the problems we face as a species on this planet.

It’s tempting to slide back into the comfort of our traditional ways.  The reason to reason and buck the traditions is as inspiring as it is necessary.  I think it’s a favour to be reminded to give our heads a shake and realize the temporary agitation of working through a puzzle often yields more accurate results.  It keeps us honest enough to wait for the right answers instead of jamming in pieces coz we want them to fit.  Repetition forces the brain to make associations and this is how gurus establish a following.  Folks who stop thinking to rest on their laurels enjoy the traditions that are working for them.  There’s no need for magic and there’s plenty of awe.  I’ll wait. 

I won’t say it’s the first time I’ve heard of the concept of a lottocracy, but it was by far the most compelling argument for it.

Anything that serves to make a more just and democratic society is worth exploring.  Viva La Revolucion Siempre!

 
 
‹ First  < 11 12 13