[split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2017, 05:06 AM
Bug RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 04:15 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Well I at least think you are quite obviously a New Mysterian, though I was interested in seeing if I could get you to admit to it.

That's funny!

On this thread I've been called a theist, a Cartesian, and now a New Mysterian. Wrong, absolutely not, and wrong.

I think I mentioned before, but I don't know what consciousness is. None of the theories has persuaded me. So hard as it is to believe, I am not hiding some passionate conviction which I surreptitiously wish to introduce. I do not know. I'm looking into it.

I sort of doubt we'll ever get a good complete answer. Chances are the human race will not survive this century.

(27-10-2017 04:15 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  You are far too coy and sensitive for me

I don't know why you think I'm coy. I have been entirely honest and clear.

As for sensitive, I guess so.

I did my teacher training at the Royal Society of London in 1988. It was a life-changing experience. The instructors there were so good at their jobs that I never thought of teaching the same way again. It wasn't at all aristocratic, of course, but there was a strong sense of mutual respect among all of us.

Since then I've met hundreds of teachers and thousands of students. Every once in a while you come across somebody who wants to start off rude or vulgar. (There was a Dutch guy in Nanjing -- I thought the Chinese host was going to cry.) Sometimes they even know their field fairly well. But in every case there is something else going on -- something they have to prove, other than a love of the truth. So I have found that nothing is lost by walking away.

But maybe times have changed. It's the Age of Trump, so any debate will include unfounded accusations and mind-reading about a person's secret motives. That's the end of the search for truth, right there.

(27-10-2017 04:15 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  , so I put you on ignore.

That's probably best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2017, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2017 06:21 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 02:12 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Now that organised religion is crumbling away though people are turning to other ways of convincing themselves that there is more to life than the reality that we can perceive. So we see the rise of New age woo. Believing that consciousness is more than the collective workings of a bunch of neurons is a way of continuing to believe in a soul which leaves open the hope that something created souls or there is some purpose to them.

I was like that from the ages of 20 to 45.

I turned to science and logic rather late in life, and I'm now repelled by any mystical/philosophical approach to "important questions" because they wasted so much of my time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
28-10-2017, 06:35 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 06:14 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I was like that from the ages of 20 to 45.

I turned to science and logic rather late in life, and I'm now repelled by any mystical/philosophical approach to "important questions" because they wasted so much of my time.

Sucks doesn't it. I was brought up in a house where most of the family believed in ghosts, reincarnation, spiritualism and faith healing because of my grandmother. Then during my degree I met a girl who was into New age mysticism and I was distracted from my degree by learning about a whole new world of bullshit. It was only my science based MSc that made me re-evaluate everything. My older brother though is now an evangelical christian who believes in faith healing. We both went to strict christian schools when we were young even though our family weren't strictly religious. So I can really see how a person's upbringing as a child can shape their beliefs as an adult. My mother is in her 60's and has now really started to shed a lot of the beliefs that I was raised with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
28-10-2017, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2017 07:50 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 06:35 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Sucks doesn't it.

Such diversions are a tremendous waste of human potential. It's sad in a way, but I sometimes imagine how different my life would have been if I had started out as an atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
28-10-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 05:06 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  On this thread I've been called a theist, a Cartesian, and now a New Mysterian. Wrong, absolutely not, and wrong.

But you are a supremely thin-skinned cunt.

So, you know, there is that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
28-10-2017, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2017 10:46 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 08:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-10-2017 05:06 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  On this thread I've been called a theist, a Cartesian, and now a New Mysterian. Wrong, absolutely not, and wrong.

But you are a supremely thin-skinned....

So, you know, there is that.

Thus the reason for asking where he stood. Every possible position has a title. Are we to assume he is unaware of the name for his position? We state our positions, and he says they are insufficient. Well, then what is his alternative? You can't say our positions are insufficient without explaining why in the context of some school of thought on the subject.

From Wikipedia: "Some 'mysterians' state their case uncompromisingly (Colin McGinn has said that consciousness is 'a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel'); others believe merely that consciousness is not within the grasp of present human understanding, but may be comprehensible to future advances of science and technology."

If the shoe fits....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
28-10-2017, 10:25 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 05:06 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  On this thread I've been called a theist, a Cartesian, and now a New Mysterian. Wrong, absolutely not, and wrong.

How about a dick? Have you been called a dick yet? You're a dick.

Oh and those 3 peer-reviewed papers you're proud enough to post about in some unspecified field (which at this point I can only assume is completely unrelated to any of your points - typography, it's typography isn't it.), I've had to write 3 peer-reviewed conference or journal papers a year just to be minimally successful at my job for the last 30 years.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
28-10-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 04:32 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  The big question now is whether something of one ontological category can arise naturally from something of a different category. I'll work on this.

The problem with ontological categories is that the method used to establish those categories isn't based on physical evidence, it's based on a purely metaphysical analysis. This means that our ontological categorisation might be completly false and irrelevent should it have been based on a too fragmental understanding of the subject being categorised. Since it's not exactly easy to explain, I will try to provide and example to illustrate it better.

So far, you seem to have placed consciousness and the electrochemical interractions of the brain in different ontological categories; they seem to be two different things in your worldview as far as I understand it. This is a mistake in categorisation according to the theory that states that consciousness is an emergent propriety of the brain. In such a framework, consciousness and the electrochemical interractions of the brain are one and the same; they belong to the same ontological category and more than that, they are fundamentally the same thing; consciousness is simply the side effect and end product of the electrochemical interractions of the brain.

Your last question: ''How can something of one ontological category arise naturally from something of a different category?''. For people, like me, who believe that consciousness is an emergent propriety of the electrochemical interractions of the brain, this is a false question since it wrongfully assume a form of dualism that isn't there in the first place. In other words, you will never find a satisfactory answer because you haven't challenged properly your way to assess the problem in the first place. You are searching an answer that makes sense within a form dualism while it's dualism itself that is in error.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like epronovost's post
28-10-2017, 11:44 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
I'm wondering whether either Belaqua has an ego of Trumpian proportions, or whether he might be a sock of Eagle who seems to have disappeared. And I can't thinking that they are both trying to pretend to be scientists / academics so that we accept them, listen to their doubts and think the christianity is more plausible.

It would explain why Belaqua put both EK and myself on ignore. It would mean that he would not have to respond to our posts. It would explain comments like ""When people grow up without religion as a moral guide they may feel challenged to consider moral issues". It would also explain why he finds the idea of consciousness as a property of the brain so abhorrent.

Both Belaqua and Eagle have very strong theistic thought processes and don't understand the scientific method.

I might be wrong though, it's just a suspicion though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
28-10-2017, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2017 04:02 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(28-10-2017 11:44 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  I might be wrong though, it's just a suspicion though.

Belaqua is an atheist, as he stated in another discussion. I mistook him for a theist at first, and had to reread his posts to clarify where he stood. However, he's still too difficult to talk with, at least for me, because he doesn't engage in discussions the way I expect. I expect people to defend their own perspectives better, but I guess he's become defensive because of the harsh language of regular posters.

He's presently in the position of "damned if you do and damned if you don't." But he also brought it on himself, at least to some extent, since he ignored what people wrote to him on multiple occasions. I guess it's hard not to become distracted in these discussions, especially with multiple people answering what you wrote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: