Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams debate religion this week
Discussion
pork911 said:
asking politely, please answer -
pork911 said:
what is consciousness without the immaterial?
Consciousness.It's an emergent property of the dynamic electro-chemical state of the physical brain.
pork911 said:
is a live human only material?
Yes.It's energetic material and its state is dynamic but it's material.
pork911 said:
is a live human's ability to see merely a complex camera or is there something qualitatively different about it?
The human visual system is cool and froody, its resolution far exceeds that of the eye...The senses add data to the mental model and the mental model extrapolates as necessary - win, win!
pork911 said:
how do the material processes of being able to see, hear, taste, touch, smell and think fully encapsulate and with as much technology as you wish explain the experience of see-ing, hear-ing, tast-ing, smell-ing and thin-ing only on material terms?
Input stimuli are processed by the brain and experienced as experience...pork911 said:
is the material world an assumption?
Reasonable presumption mostly. pork911 said:
never suggested everything was pretend, merely that the material world is an assumption
you appear unwilling to concede that, then criticse the idea of the immaterial - intellectually hypocritical
asking politely, please answer -
what is consciousness without the immaterial?
is a live human only material?
is a live human's ability to see merely a complex camera or is there something qualitatively different about it?
how do the material processes of being able to see, hear, taste, touch, smell and think fully encapsulate and with as much technology as you wish explain the experience of see-ing, hear-ing, tast-ing, smell-ing and thin-ing only on material terms?
is the material world an assumption?
No, 911, many times I have conceded the point in order to frame a question. I even said that I cannot say that it is not true, even so much as using the fairy analogy to frame it, but alas you misunderstood that as well. Instead after asking a simple question off we go on the philosophical carousel without actually getting any further. Where have I criticised the idea of the immaterial? You seem to take any talking about this immaterial idea and its apparent weakness as hypocritical. It seems that whilst I may be a staunch 'immaterialism', you are a staunch .materialist'. Either way, my points from earlier stand, and my questions to you remain unanswered, so maybe you cling to your idea but seem unwilling to answer what should be simple questions? you appear unwilling to concede that, then criticse the idea of the immaterial - intellectually hypocritical
asking politely, please answer -
what is consciousness without the immaterial?
is a live human only material?
is a live human's ability to see merely a complex camera or is there something qualitatively different about it?
how do the material processes of being able to see, hear, taste, touch, smell and think fully encapsulate and with as much technology as you wish explain the experience of see-ing, hear-ing, tast-ing, smell-ing and thin-ing only on material terms?
is the material world an assumption?
What is consciousness without the immaterial? - What are referring to as the immaterial? Ideas, or the 'mind' itself? As you have not bothered to answer what makes me 'me', I am unsure what you mean by consciousness. Still, I will attempt an answer as beat I can. Consciousness without the immaterial, (in this case what you seem to consider the immaterial mind), remains consciousness. It is the result of what the brain does on a day to day basis, thinking, questioning, making decisions, watching a TV show, and so on. I have yet to see any evidence at all that any consciousness remains after the meat has been killed. That is what I have to work with, and any assumptions to the contrary seem like simple guesses with no suggestion or basis of truth. This is why I said earlier that the immaterial argument simply leaves the door open to any idea, no matter how absurd, or daft. All of them are equally as based on evidence, so they are all a moot point. It also goes back to the stuff I was saying about inputs, be they simulated, genuine material inputs, or complete fabrications of your mind.
So, define consciousness, and while you are at it, define 'me' while you are there.
Is a live human only material? - The physical parts, yes. The physical parts that create what is essentially 'notation', such as the electrical impulses, maybe not. By maybe immaterial, i mean the i formation, just as a book itself is material, (the pages, ink, etc), but the actual information itself, is that material of immaterial? We don't know enough about the brain to say either way I suppose. Is software on a computer immaterial? It could be said that the 0's and 1's as stored on physical media is material, but that is simply notation for an idea... I don't know about that.
Is a humans ability to see...? - It is merely a camera evolved to give us an advantage survival wise. There is nothing special about the human eye, or remarkable, certainly not when compared to other eyes in other species. Is there something qualitatively different about a dead persons eye?
Stuff about senses - As I have previously said, the only input I have ever received is that of my senses. Regardless of whether they are material, or immaterial, there is nothing else giving me information, (be that information real or not). Therefore it would be daft of me, would it not, to dismiss these things because the alternative is simply to have no information at all. To me it is a moot point. What you propose to be just as valid, and seemingly on an equal footing, is that no information at all is the same as information. I very much doubt you have jumped off the top of a very high building because you felt your senses were in no way telling you what you perceive as reality. Why is this? Why does it make sense to make an assumption based on what is basically telling you that everything to are receiving as input is either false, pretend, made up, or even someone else's experiences? The whole matrix style argument seems predicated on the need to dismiss your own inputs, but in exchange for what? What is the benefit of playing these philosophical games that actually results in nothing gained knowledge wise? I frankly don't understand the need to cling to it. Fine for some philosophical mental masturbation, but to hold it as a serious proposition apart from that? Odd, in my opinion.
Is the material world an assumption? - Possibly, but only as far as the assumption that fairies do not exist.
Can you answer my questions please, after all, I have been asking it to you for some time, and not been given a very good answer at all.
PS, I have been polite.
Ozzie Osmond said:
pork911 said:
the existence of others is just another assumption based on perception
By the time you get to that sort of nonsense you can make up anything you like and claim it's true. Doesn't take the discussion anywhere.HTH.
There is only one sure test: can you move it about a bit with a stick?
If you can, then it exists: a fact. If you can't then it doesn't: any suggestion is does exist is self-indulgent.
To those who perhaps are not happy with subtle, the test is, in reality, does it react. If not then it doesn't matter.
If you can, then it exists: a fact. If you can't then it doesn't: any suggestion is does exist is self-indulgent.
To those who perhaps are not happy with subtle, the test is, in reality, does it react. If not then it doesn't matter.
Derek Smith said:
There is only one sure test: can you move it about a bit with a stick?
If you can, then it exists: a fact. If you can't then it doesn't: any suggestion is does exist is self-indulgent.
To those who perhaps are not happy with subtle, the test is, in reality, does it react. If not then it doesn't matter.
Interesting. I wonder if the people who think that only they exist, and all others are an illusion, are in fact spending their time arguing with themselves on this thread? If you can, then it exists: a fact. If you can't then it doesn't: any suggestion is does exist is self-indulgent.
To those who perhaps are not happy with subtle, the test is, in reality, does it react. If not then it doesn't matter.
ChrisGB said:
Child abuse: Yes, some behaved terribly, the vast majority impeccably. This is not a catholic issue - look at the paedophilia-chic in political circles in the states in the 70s and 80s,
Putting aside the other arguments for now about God's existence or lack thereof, am I the only person who finds this comment disturbing and distasteful?Chris, usually you present yourself fairly well, are rarely rude and take a lot of abuse on the chin, even if you are are repellently condescending sometimes. But, even if I personally disagree with what you believe, I thought you were at least intelligent and thoughtful and genuinely believed what you trotted out.
But I really struggle when you, more than once, make the above comment. "Paedophilia chic"? Are you seriously suggesting that at any point in the 70s or 80s, ANYONE sexually abused children because they believed it was somehow fashionable and would make them look like someone who had their finger on the button?
Perhaps you think that somehow, by extension, Catholic Priests then saw these hipsters walking around in their t-shirts with nude children on and thought "Oh, having sex with children! That should help me expand my flock and help establish respect amongst my community"?!
Let's face it, many catholic priests became so because they were paedos and becoming a priest gave them an advantage when trying to gain access to children to fiddle, when they otherwise would not have been able to. I mean, it's kind of good for you in a way, isn't it? Because they probably aren't true Christians; they didn't receive a calling, they just joined the club to fiddle with kiddy diddles.
But please.... paedophile chic? Poor form from you, fella.
robsa said:
Putting aside the other arguments for now about God's existence or lack thereof, am I the only person who finds this comment disturbing and distasteful?
Chris, usually you present yourself fairly well, are rarely rude and take a lot of abuse on the chin, even if you are are repellently condescending sometimes. But, even if I personally disagree with what you believe, I thought you were at least intelligent and thoughtful and genuinely believed what you trotted out.
But I really struggle when you, more than once, make the above comment. "Paedophilia chic"? Are you seriously suggesting that at any point in the 70s or 80s, ANYONE sexually abused children because they believed it was somehow fashionable and would make them look like someone who had their finger on the button?
Perhaps you think that somehow, by extension, Catholic Priests then saw these hipsters walking around in their t-shirts with nude children on and thought "Oh, having sex with children! That should help me expand my flock and help establish respect amongst my community"?!
Let's face it, many catholic priests became so because they were paedos and becoming a priest gave them an advantage when trying to gain access to children to fiddle, when they otherwise would not have been able to. I mean, it's kind of good for you in a way, isn't it? Because they probably aren't true Christians; they didn't receive a calling, they just joined the club to fiddle with kiddy diddles.
But please.... paedophile chic? Poor form from you, fella.
I was given some interesting pamphlets about 15 years ago by some vague think tank cum pressure group, who were in staunch defence of 'the family'. They published some alarming stuff that drew together the Paedophile Information Exchange (look it up) and some 'trendy' sociologist types who were pushing the boundaries of societal interaction in the 1970's and 1980's (until the PIE was banned).Chris, usually you present yourself fairly well, are rarely rude and take a lot of abuse on the chin, even if you are are repellently condescending sometimes. But, even if I personally disagree with what you believe, I thought you were at least intelligent and thoughtful and genuinely believed what you trotted out.
But I really struggle when you, more than once, make the above comment. "Paedophilia chic"? Are you seriously suggesting that at any point in the 70s or 80s, ANYONE sexually abused children because they believed it was somehow fashionable and would make them look like someone who had their finger on the button?
Perhaps you think that somehow, by extension, Catholic Priests then saw these hipsters walking around in their t-shirts with nude children on and thought "Oh, having sex with children! That should help me expand my flock and help establish respect amongst my community"?!
Let's face it, many catholic priests became so because they were paedos and becoming a priest gave them an advantage when trying to gain access to children to fiddle, when they otherwise would not have been able to. I mean, it's kind of good for you in a way, isn't it? Because they probably aren't true Christians; they didn't receive a calling, they just joined the club to fiddle with kiddy diddles.
But please.... paedophile chic? Poor form from you, fella.
Although I cannot put the documents in front of you today, I well remember the quotations they had with much positive comment along the lines of 'children are naturally inquisitive and we should join them in their search for identity' including sexual identity at well below the legally regarded minimum.
These people discussed this behaviour openly and were able to call on much support from certain 'progressive' types.
Whether Chris GB was alluding to this I know not. But it was a form of chic at that time.
The Don of Croy said:
robsa said:
Putting aside the other arguments for now about God's existence or lack thereof, am I the only person who finds this comment disturbing and distasteful?
Chris, usually you present yourself fairly well, are rarely rude and take a lot of abuse on the chin, even if you are are repellently condescending sometimes. But, even if I personally disagree with what you believe, I thought you were at least intelligent and thoughtful and genuinely believed what you trotted out.
But I really struggle when you, more than once, make the above comment. "Paedophilia chic"? Are you seriously suggesting that at any point in the 70s or 80s, ANYONE sexually abused children because they believed it was somehow fashionable and would make them look like someone who had their finger on the button?
Perhaps you think that somehow, by extension, Catholic Priests then saw these hipsters walking around in their t-shirts with nude children on and thought "Oh, having sex with children! That should help me expand my flock and help establish respect amongst my community"?!
Let's face it, many catholic priests became so because they were paedos and becoming a priest gave them an advantage when trying to gain access to children to fiddle, when they otherwise would not have been able to. I mean, it's kind of good for you in a way, isn't it? Because they probably aren't true Christians; they didn't receive a calling, they just joined the club to fiddle with kiddy diddles.
But please.... paedophile chic? Poor form from you, fella.
I was given some interesting pamphlets about 15 years ago by some vague think tank cum pressure group, who were in staunch defence of 'the family'. They published some alarming stuff that drew together the Paedophile Information Exchange (look it up) and some 'trendy' sociologist types who were pushing the boundaries of societal interaction in the 1970's and 1980's (until the PIE was banned).Chris, usually you present yourself fairly well, are rarely rude and take a lot of abuse on the chin, even if you are are repellently condescending sometimes. But, even if I personally disagree with what you believe, I thought you were at least intelligent and thoughtful and genuinely believed what you trotted out.
But I really struggle when you, more than once, make the above comment. "Paedophilia chic"? Are you seriously suggesting that at any point in the 70s or 80s, ANYONE sexually abused children because they believed it was somehow fashionable and would make them look like someone who had their finger on the button?
Perhaps you think that somehow, by extension, Catholic Priests then saw these hipsters walking around in their t-shirts with nude children on and thought "Oh, having sex with children! That should help me expand my flock and help establish respect amongst my community"?!
Let's face it, many catholic priests became so because they were paedos and becoming a priest gave them an advantage when trying to gain access to children to fiddle, when they otherwise would not have been able to. I mean, it's kind of good for you in a way, isn't it? Because they probably aren't true Christians; they didn't receive a calling, they just joined the club to fiddle with kiddy diddles.
But please.... paedophile chic? Poor form from you, fella.
Although I cannot put the documents in front of you today, I well remember the quotations they had with much positive comment along the lines of 'children are naturally inquisitive and we should join them in their search for identity' including sexual identity at well below the legally regarded minimum.
These people discussed this behaviour openly and were able to call on much support from certain 'progressive' types.
Whether Chris GB was alluding to this I know not. But it was a form of chic at that time.
robsa said:
ChrisGB said:
Child abuse: Yes, some behaved terribly, the vast majority impeccably. This is not a catholic issue - look at the paedophilia-chic in political circles in the states in the 70s and 80s,
Putting aside the other arguments for now about God's existence or lack thereof, am I the only person who finds this comment disturbing and distasteful?It is, quite obviously, a catholic issue. Abuse was systemised, it was hidden by those in authority and, just as importantly, those in the church lied when confronted by victims. If this had been a corporation then there would have been hell to pay. But the church, in a position of trust, in a position of control, in a position where, if challenged, they could threaten their believers, has behaved in a much worse way than any corporation could.
Further, the church has behaved in a similar manner with regards to children throughout recent history, certainly in Ireland and, it would appear, in this country as well.
The BBC cannot use the excuse with regards to Savile, that Stoke Mandeville was even worse. There were special considerations with regards the corporation. It is the same, but much, much worse for the church.
Washing of hands never gets stains off.
Derek Smith said:
There is only one sure test: can you move it about a bit with a stick?
If you can, then it exists: a fact. If you can't then it doesn't: any suggestion is does exist is self-indulgent.
To those who perhaps are not happy with subtle, the test is, in reality, does it react. If not then it doesn't matter.
That's dark matter...If you can, then it exists: a fact. If you can't then it doesn't: any suggestion is does exist is self-indulgent.
To those who perhaps are not happy with subtle, the test is, in reality, does it react. If not then it doesn't matter.
This immaterial mind which some people seem to think we have, which isn't a property of the meat we call a brain. Mine seems to be in the same part of my body as my brain, as that's where I experience my thoughts. Where does everyone else experience their thoughts? I expect that, if the mind is immaterial, it doesn't have to float around in a head, it could just as easily be in that Ford Transit van passing my office window, or perhaps your own arse. Which would be handy for some people on this thread, as that's where most of their verbage comes from also.
VoziKaoFangio said:
This immaterial mind which some people seem to think we have, which isn't a property of the meat we call a brain. Mine seems to be in the same part of my body as my brain, as that's where I experience my thoughts. Where does everyone else experience their thoughts? I expect that, if the mind is immaterial, it doesn't have to float around in a head, it could just as easily be in that Ford Transit van passing my office window, or perhaps your own arse. Which would be handy for some people on this thread, as that's where most of their verbage comes from also.
Previously, quite recently actually, people did not realise the role and purpose of the brain and believed that human thought and intelligence was contained in blood and the heart was the organ in the body which did all the "thinking". Octupusses (octupii) have many brains, do you think they know which brain is having a thought when they think it? What about animals with swarm intelligence? Are they aware of the centraliseation of their thoughts and actions?I'm not sure you are entirely convinced that you know from whence you thoughts arise even with the aid of an MRI we can see which areas of the brain are stimulated by thought, this doesn't equate to the thought originating from there.
mattnunn said:
Previously, quite recently actually, people did not realise the role and purpose of the brain and believed that human thought and intelligence was contained in blood and the heart was the organ in the body which did all the "thinking". Octupusses (octupii) have many brains, do you think they know which brain is having a thought when they think it? What about animals with swarm intelligence? Are they aware of the centraliseation of their thoughts and actions?
I'm not sure you are entirely convinced that you know from whence you thoughts arise even with the aid of an MRI we can see which areas of the brain are stimulated by thought, this doesn't equate to the thought originating from there.
Based on what? There is evidence of, I believe, 'thoughts' originating before the person 'thiks them', but that is detected via the meat bit. Either was, material or immaterial, I'll take the following statement to cover the issue...I'm not sure you are entirely convinced that you know from whence you thoughts arise even with the aid of an MRI we can see which areas of the brain are stimulated by thought, this doesn't equate to the thought originating from there.
"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"
We are no closer to answering any questions when we talk about the mind being apart from brain.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Link seems to be blank....
I had hoped for a grand exposee that Pope Frank is actually Mr R Dawkins having adopted a cunning disguise!
Works for me. I had hoped for a grand exposee that Pope Frank is actually Mr R Dawkins having adopted a cunning disguise!
I'll recopy it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=b...
pork911 said:
TheHeretic said:
pork911 said:
that's just stimulus, which of course has an affect on thought and which we might then describe to one another as similar
technology can advance as far as you want and we can exhaust all tests to make what is observable entirely predictable but we cannot break the shell to get inside the experience that is apparently being observed
or on a related point get out of our own shells
That may not be true now, but we already know a fair amount about the brain, as well as very little. The future, however, who knows? If you 'mess' with the physical brain, the 'mind' can certainly be altered. technology can advance as far as you want and we can exhaust all tests to make what is observable entirely predictable but we cannot break the shell to get inside the experience that is apparently being observed
or on a related point get out of our own shells
you can only ever have your own experience and can never step inside another's
- no matter how sure you are the two are similar
observation will only ever be of signs, from that we can predict more signs and manipulate some more
we could know all that there was to know of the brain but it will never find or prove the mind
as observation cannot cross the interface into the mind - similar to how you cannot see a smell
that is not a criticism of science or an argument for a god or whatever - its an acceptance of what science is predicated on
description isn't experiencing
Nagel develops this in his famous article What is it Like to be a Bat? available by googling.
For him, the consequences of this inseparable gulf between subject and object are that naturalism / materialism / "matter is all there is" cannot in principle be true.
He has come to espouse a variety of final cause / teleology as a better explanation of things, but rejects theism.
Why does he reject theism? In a famous quote of his, he says he just doesn't "want the world to be like that" (i.e. created by God).
He is though that rare atheist who follows the evidence wherever it leads.
Wow, even when talking about material/immaterial, you still manage to mention atheism. Tell you what, give us evidence of 'mind' being separate from matter, and we can continue. Until then it is merely unfounded speculation which essentially round up to 'splurge, therefore wibble'.
Tell you what, give us evidence of 'mind' being separate from matter, and we can continue. Until then it is merely unfounded speculation which essentially round up to 'splurge, therefore wibble'.Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 15th March 20:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff