Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2016, 06:27 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Which is why it is important to look at all the available evidence to see if your conjecture is supported. In the case of biocentrism, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it unless you ignore the stuff you don't want to see.

Under biocentrism, please explain how we only see consciousness when brains develop, how we see it affected by physical injuries and illness, and how we don't see signs of it after the brain dies. It all makes perfect sense if consciousness is a property of the brain and makes little or no sense if it is imposed externally.

We don't see consciousness. We see the effects of consciousness, just like we don't see happiness we see the effects of happiness.

Is it at least possible that consciousness and the brain are not identical? That consciousness operates through the brain. We can see the effects of consciousness through the brain much like any instrument, let's say a phone for instance. I'm talking to you on the phone. I hang up the phone and you cease to exist as far as I can tell, but that is only an appearance. Similarly, if you destroy parts of the phone, then parts or all of the voice transmission fails. This doesn't mean I on the other end disappeared or ceased to exist.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 06:44 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

More word salad.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 06:54 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 05:50 AM)xear Wrote:  That's what I meant by empirical and I'm surprised it's not considered, that's all.

It has been pointed out, by several posters, that while the word "empirical" was not used, the words we did use equate to the same thing.

If you continue to assert that we are not considering empirical evidence, you will be deliberately and knowingly lying.

(08-09-2016 05:50 AM)xear Wrote:  As far as beliefs go, I just mentioned a caution about all beliefs mine included.

You post these "cautions" yet admit in your own posts that you do not follow them. You claim to support empirical evidence yet admit that your beliefs fly in the face of such evidence.

Quote:I could say "I had a vivid dream that told me there is a giant dragon on the planet Pluto and I will meet him when I die. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it." No real intelligent further discussion on it gets anywhere. You say I'm silly for believing such a thing, I say, it makes sense to me and makes me happy.

You cannot tout empirical evidence while saying things like this.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-09-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 06:27 AM)xear Wrote:  We don't see consciousness. We see the effects of consciousness, just like we don't see happiness we see the effects of happiness.

"Consciousness" is a label we use for a set of cognitive abilities that we can observe. It is not a physical thing that we can see and touch.

Quote:Is it at least possible that consciousness and the brain are not identical? That consciousness operates through the brain. We can see the effects of consciousness through the brain much like any instrument, let's say a phone for instance. I'm talking to you on the phone. I hang up the phone and you cease to exist as far as I can tell, but that is only an appearance. Similarly, if you destroy parts of the phone, then parts or all of the voice transmission fails. This doesn't mean I on the other end disappeared or ceased to exist.

We have evidence that people actually exist as discrete entities. We have evidence that they continue to exist after disconnecting a phone. We understand the mechanism of the phone and how it is used to connect two individuals and that it doesn't create the conversations but simply carries them.

We have evidence that consciousness only appears as brains develop. We have no evidence that it continues in any manner after the brain dies. We have evidence that it is affected when the brain is impaired. That provides, at least to me, reason to conclude that consciousness is intimately connected to the brain and is, in fact, a product of a living brain.

You claim that it might exist in some manner that we can't detect and only make itself apparent through living brains. I see no evidence that supports that idea. As I said before, it explains nothing that the standard model does not explain and offers no way to test the conjecture.

Speculation is a valuable tool but only when it leads you to investigate to learn if it is actually true or not. There are many speculations that I might like to believe but if there is no evidence then they have to remain only speculation. If you want me to believe that consciousness is external to brains then figure out a way to test that. Repeating that it might be true and that we can't disprove it will not get you any traction at all. Many things might be true but if I believe things because I like them I'd end up believing a lot of things that are just false.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
08-09-2016, 07:02 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 06:27 AM)xear Wrote:  We don't see consciousness. We see the effects of consciousness, just like we don't see happiness we see the effects of happiness.

Consciousness or "awareness of self" is a byproduct of the chemical reactions in our brain. We are essentially wet, sloppy piles of chemicals, sloshing about in fragile sacks of tissue. Enjoy that mental image.

Our brains can be damaged in a variety of ways, including age-deterioration, physical damage, disease, mental illness (chemical imbalance), drug use/abuse.

Your personality, memories, intelligence, everything that makes you YOU, all can be changed from internal and external sources.

If the consciousness existed outside the brain, this would not be the case.

(08-09-2016 06:27 AM)xear Wrote:  Is it at least possible that consciousness and the brain are not identical? That consciousness operates through the brain.

Not within the framework of our current knowledge. If you have any scientific studies or sources that indicate otherwise, feel free to cite them.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 07:14 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 06:27 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Which is why it is important to look at all the available evidence to see if your conjecture is supported. In the case of biocentrism, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it unless you ignore the stuff you don't want to see.

Under biocentrism, please explain how we only see consciousness when brains develop, how we see it affected by physical injuries and illness, and how we don't see signs of it after the brain dies. It all makes perfect sense if consciousness is a property of the brain and makes little or no sense if it is imposed externally.

We don't see consciousness. We see the effects of consciousness, just like we don't see happiness we see the effects of happiness.

Is it at least possible that consciousness and the brain are not identical? That consciousness operates through the brain. We can see the effects of consciousness through the brain much like any instrument, let's say a phone for instance. I'm talking to you on the phone. I hang up the phone and you cease to exist as far as I can tell, but that is only an appearance. Similarly, if you destroy parts of the phone, then parts or all of the voice transmission fails. This doesn't mean I on the other end disappeared or ceased to exist.

.

I think it's important to identify any idea that multiplies assumptions and this identification can act as an easy filter for an idea that doesn't hold merit.

Consciousness that is only the result of a physical brain doesn't require anything else to support it, if the brain stops functioning, you stop functioning.

To posit that the brain is a transmitter has added an unnecessary layer of complexity that raises more questions instead of answering questions.

Who is transmitting through the brain? How do you determine the difference between normal biological functions of the brain and supernatural transmission?

Why not make the brain an independently functioning unit with an ancillary function of supernatural transmission? This design makes no sense.

After you die, and your consciousness survives, wouldn't any transmission from these alleged supernatural sources cease since that was the function of the brain?

All we have are a greater number of questions if we accept this assertion. Questions which aren't falsifiable.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
08-09-2016, 07:40 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 06:56 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 06:27 AM)xear Wrote:  We don't see consciousness. We see the effects of consciousness, just like we don't see happiness we see the effects of happiness.

"Consciousness" is a label we use for a set of cognitive abilities that we can observe. It is not a physical thing that we can see and touch.

Quote:Is it at least possible that consciousness and the brain are not identical? That consciousness operates through the brain. We can see the effects of consciousness through the brain much like any instrument, let's say a phone for instance. I'm talking to you on the phone. I hang up the phone and you cease to exist as far as I can tell, but that is only an appearance. Similarly, if you destroy parts of the phone, then parts or all of the voice transmission fails. This doesn't mean I on the other end disappeared or ceased to exist.

We have evidence that people actually exist as discrete entities. We have evidence that they continue to exist after disconnecting a phone. We understand the mechanism of the phone and how it is used to connect two individuals and that it doesn't create the conversations but simply carries them.

We have evidence that consciousness only appears as brains develop. We have no evidence that it continues in any manner after the brain dies. We have evidence that it is affected when the brain is impaired. That provides, at least to me, reason to conclude that consciousness is intimately connected to the brain and is, in fact, a product of a living brain.

You claim that it might exist in some manner that we can't detect and only make itself apparent through living brains. I see no evidence that supports that idea. As I said before, it explains nothing that the standard model does not explain and offers no way to test the conjecture.

Speculation is a valuable tool but only when it leads you to investigate to learn if it is actually true or not. There are many speculations that I might like to believe but if there is no evidence then they have to remain only speculation. If you want me to believe that consciousness is external to brains then figure out a way to test that. Repeating that it might be true and that we can't disprove it will not get you any traction at all. Many things might be true but if I believe things because I like them I'd end up believing a lot of things that are just false.


If you were a primitive man who had no experience of telephones, you would have to conclude that if you smashed the phone then you would have fully ended whatever voice it produced. You would also have to conclude that anyone who brought in a phone also brought in the voice coming from it at the same time. You would certainly have to believe that the voice that came from the phone was started when the phone was built. No one could prove to you, in your Papua New Guinea hut, that the phone and voice are possibly separable. There would be no contrary evidence and you would be "right" in saying they are co-emergent.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At work.

More barely coherant word salad reply.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 07:40 AM)xear Wrote:  If you were a primitive man who had no experience of telephones, you would have to conclude that if you smashed the phone then you would have fully ended whatever voice it produced. You would also have to conclude that anyone who brought in a phone also brought in the voice coming from it at the same time. You would certainly have to believe that the voice that came from the phone was started when the phone was built.

Based on the evidence available that might very well be the most reasonable belief. You keep making these attempts at analogies and you are still missing the main point. The issue is not whether he is right or wrong when you have full knowledge of the situation, the issue is what is reasonable to believe given the evidence available.

You can't rationally claim that it is reasonable to believe something because it might be true. It is reasonable to believe something when the evidence supports it.

Quote:No one could prove to you, in your Papua New Guinea hut, that the phone and voice are possibly separable. There would be no contrary evidence and you would be "right" in saying they are co-emergent.

Yes, somebody could prove it in the Papua New Guinea hut. They could demonstrate how phones work and explain the science behind it. It might take time but even just showing how that it works would provide evidence that the phone just transferred the voice and did not originate it. Please stop conflating situations of imperfect knowledge with ones of superior knowledge. You don't have that superior knowledge to support the claims of biocentrism so your analogies fail.

When you can demonstrate how the brain acts as a conduit for consciousness rather than the source then you might have something. When you can define what consciousness is and how it operates under your model then you might have something. When you can provide a method for testing for the existence of this disembodied consciousness you might have something.

The time to believe a claim is likely to be true is when you have good evidence for the specific claim. Claiming that there is some ineffable thing that manifests through brains but exists apart from them when you have no way to explain or even define what you are talking about does not rise to that level. It might make a good sci-fi storyline but simply is not believable.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
08-09-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 04:58 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Damnit, EK, stop typing faster than me! Tongue

[Image: 4325542efc908b89776b320f49474ad2.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: