Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 4:17 AM
20 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   More than flesh and blood?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 46 of 62 (459884)
03-10-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hill Billy
03-10-2008 2:13 PM


Double post.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hill Billy, posted 03-10-2008 2:13 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 47 of 62 (459885)
03-10-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hill Billy
03-10-2008 2:13 PM


Re: More less?
Hill Billy writes:

You would know.


I've been watching you for quite some time now. I'm especially interested in the source of your tendency to make smart-ass/wise-guy comments. What say you about the source of your wise-guy attitude?

Edited by True Believer, : Added siggy


Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hill Billy, posted 03-10-2008 2:13 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Hill Billy, posted 03-10-2008 4:13 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 48 of 62 (459890)
03-10-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hill Billy
03-10-2008 2:13 PM


Re: More less?
Dude, you have only said that my points were opinion and belief and faith. This is an unsupported assertion.

That's what creos say about evolution.

What is this great issue about verifiying thoughts you have?

Why is it a problem for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hill Billy, posted 03-10-2008 2:13 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hill Billy, posted 03-10-2008 4:02 PM Larni has responded

    
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3464 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 49 of 62 (459895)
03-10-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Larni
03-10-2008 3:03 PM


Re: More less?
Larni.

You said:

The activity is the thought and the thought is the activity.
I responded with:

I understand that you BELIEVE this to be true, however it remains un-verifiable.

How do you independently verify that the thought and the activity are the same thing and the only thing? We can't even independently verify what the thought was.

Dude, you have only said that my points were opinion and belief and faith.

Yes, it seems I did.

This is an unsupported assertion.
Mmm, I think I supported it. If you can't independently verify the data yet still believe the conclusion is true than that's faith, with a capitol opinion.

That's what creos say about evolution.

That's nice.

What is this great issue about verifiying thoughts you have?

It's not really such a big issue for me. That may be cause I don't actually believe that the thought and the activity are the same thing and the only thing. Of course because your thoughts remain your own ( Ok, for now.) and mine are still mine I really have no way of definitively verifying if I am correct.

Just like you.

Why is it a problem for you?

As I said, it don't really cause me much trouble but it can make a position difficult to support if that position requires independently verifiable data.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 03-10-2008 3:03 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 03-10-2008 5:51 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3464 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 50 of 62 (459896)
03-10-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taz
03-10-2008 2:42 PM


More of this less?
I've been watching you for quite some time now. I'm especially interested in the source of your tendency to make smart-ass/wise-guy comments.

Don't take much to entertain you, does it?

If you have been following so closely you would know I have already answered this question.

What say you about the source of your wise-guy attitude?

More than once.

Keep yer stick on the ice.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 03-10-2008 2:42 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 51 of 62 (459902)
03-10-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hill Billy
03-10-2008 4:02 PM


Re: More less?
Hill Billy writes:

How do you independently verify that the thought and the activity are the same thing and the only thing?

Why do you think I posted the links? You think 'up' and the machine responds one way, think 'down' and it responds the other way.

What's not verified?

Hill Billy writes:

We can't even independently verify what the thought was.

What is wrong with asking the person having the thought? I do that every day and people seem pretty clued up about what they are thinking; it's their thought, after all. If they say 'I wished him dead', and neural activity was recorded where's the beef.

Hill Billy writes:

If you can't independently verify the data yet still believe the conclusion is true than that's faith, with a capitol opinion.

Read this:

http://simplyted.blogspot.com/2007/11/as-speech-recognition-software-morphs.html

If the person telling you what their thoughts are or a machine that can do the same thing aren't verification, what the hell is?

Hill Billy writes:

That may be cause I don't actually believe that the thought and the activity are the same thing and the only thing.

What would make you think such a bizarre thought?

What reason do you have for thinking that out thoughts and brain activity are different?

I also note that you have forgotten your stance on emotion: do you now concur to my stance on emotion? If not, same question as with thought.

Hill Billy writes:

.....it can make a position difficult to support if that position requires independently verifiable data.

There is no reason to believe thoughts are not simply that which we can measure.

Unless you have some pursuasive reason to suggest otherwise?

The meaning of thoughts (as in meaning of words) is different from the physical manifestation of the thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hill Billy, posted 03-10-2008 4:02 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Grizz, posted 03-10-2008 6:24 PM Larni has responded

    
Grizz
Member (Idle past 3581 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 52 of 62 (459904)
03-10-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Larni
03-10-2008 5:51 PM


Re: More less?
There is another aspect to the Philosophy of Mind here that is relevant to this discussion and that is the notion of 'Qualia' - the subjective experience of mental states that are not included in any amount of physical information. On the surface, the idea seems redundant or simply arbitrary, but arguments put forth for the existence of Qualia have posed a bit of a challenge for Physicalism.

What does it mean to experience or 'feel' pain or pleasure or see the color blue?. These are the Qualia -- 'blueness','pain','pleasure'. Those who argue for the existence of Qualia assert that although their appearance can theoretically be reduced to a physical chain of causation, the experience of the qualia themselves by definition is non-physical and entirely subjective.

In this view, there is an obvious distinction between the experience of a thought and the contents or physical origins of the thought itself. In other words, there is no such thing as a physical sensation -- conscious experiences are neither physical nor mental but simply are another manifestation of the natural world. This is not a claim for the existence of the soul or an appeal to supernatural agencies but simply an assertion that there must be something other than 'physical'(at least as we define it here.)

Just some more food for thought and discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 03-10-2008 5:51 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 03-11-2008 9:20 AM Grizz has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 53 of 62 (459941)
03-11-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Grizz
03-10-2008 6:24 PM


Re: More less?
The big problem I have with Qualia is how do you tell a qualia zombie from someone whom can experience qualia?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Grizz, posted 03-10-2008 6:24 PM Grizz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Grizz, posted 03-11-2008 7:16 PM Larni has responded

    
Recon3rd
Member (Idle past 3952 days)
Posts: 35
Joined: 03-01-2008


Message 54 of 62 (459974)
03-11-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taz
03-09-2008 1:42 PM


TB-

Muahahahahahahahaha!

Like I said before. Not everyone is as ignorant as people like you. You remind me of Kent Hovind, which once claimed that sonar was part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I've always wondered if christians who know better than this feel embarrassed for their brethrens.e

I see you didn't enlighten us on your knowledge of how a radio works but instead you felt better to insult. Good job.

That's called "trust", not faith. The light has consistently turned on, so you trust that the next time you flip the switch it will turn on.

Go to a dictionary and look up both words.

Can you say the same thing about miracles? I have an aunt that needed spinal surgery. For years, she refused to go through with the surgery because she was convinced god was going to heal her. It wasn't until she lost feelings of both her legs did she agree to visit the surgeon. The surgeon said if she didn't have the surgery then she could become paralized from waist down anytime. She still had second thoughts because she still thought god was going to heal her. It took her entire family to convince her to go through with it.

That's called faith. I can't believe you people are comparing that to switching on and off the light.

Was she trusting in God to heal her? If so where did her trust come from? Could it be that her faith permitted her to trust in God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 03-09-2008 1:42 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taz, posted 03-11-2008 8:50 PM Recon3rd has responded

    
Grizz
Member (Idle past 3581 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 55 of 62 (459979)
03-11-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Larni
03-11-2008 9:20 AM


Re: More less?
The big problem I have with Qualia is how do you tell a qualia zombie from someone whom can experience qualia?

Hi,

Assuming a zombie could in fact exist, you could not differentiate 'real' from 'artificial' for the same reason a subjective experience is not open to objective scrutiny. The reality of Qualia is not a scientific question but a metaphysical one. Such things by definition would be non-physical and subjective, and therefore not open to the direct type of experimental scrutiny employed in science. Their existence can only be inferred and not demonstrated objectively.

Science is not concerned with absolute truths or metaphysical speculations but is strictly a utilitarian tool to explain, predict, and model phenomenon directly or indirectly available to the senses. The goal of science is to gather data through observations and then proceed from there to construct a working theory that is useful in modeling and predicting future observations or infer prior or future states in an arbitrary system.

On Philosophical grounds, the ongoing epistemological challenge when discussing the neurosciences is how to recognize when one has fallen prey to the fallacy of association. Through observation and experiment we can certainly associate the subjective appearance of mental states and conscious sensations with the activity of the neurosystem; however, (If A then B) does not mean (A=B). Certainly, the activity and patterns of neurons within the brain equates to the manifestation of an experience, it does not however equate to Qualia being equal to a neuron or pattern of neurons. Just as we can easily observe that the behavior and existence of neurons produce a Qualia,,we can easily observe that gravity produces acceleration. In a Newtonian sense, it would be incorrect, however, to say acceleration=gravity. In this view, neuronal activity is simply the Modus Operandi of the manifestation of Qualia.

I tend to view Consciousness and Qualia as emergent phenomenon that are as fundamental to nature as is the phenomenon of gravity or electromagnetism. Of course, how well one accepts the arguments for or against the existence of Qualia depends on one's philosophical preferences. The subject is much more complex than it appears at first glance and delves deeply into the nature of Causation, Causal Necessity, Law, the definition of Subjective and Objective, and our theories of knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 03-11-2008 9:20 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 03-12-2008 9:21 AM Grizz has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 56 of 62 (459998)
03-11-2008 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Recon3rd
03-11-2008 5:59 PM


Recon3rd writes:

I see you didn't enlighten us on your knowledge of how a radio works but instead you felt better to insult. Good job.


I don't believe I've actually insulted you. It's not an insult to point out your ignorance.

Radio waves are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. This includes visible light, microwave, x-ray, radio waves, etc. Unlike sound waves, which are longitudinal waves, radio waves are transverse waves. (Hint, look up these words if you don't understand them... I'm not going to waste my time explaining every detail.)

Like all EM waves, a radio wave is actually made of electric and magnetic fields that reinforce each other. By changing the amplitudes of these coupled waves, we can send information through space. It's like sending smoke signals.

Why use radio waves to convey information rather than other forms of EM waves? Because radio waves have the lowest frequencies and therefore easiest to use back in the good old days. Communication devices like cell phones nowadays technically use microwaves for the same purpose.

In short, you don't need faith in order to understand how these things work.

Go to a dictionary and look up both words.

From dictionary reference:

trust

–noun
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
6. the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.
7. charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone's trust.
8. something committed or entrusted to one's care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.
9. Law.
a. a fiduciary relationship in which one person (the trustee) holds the title to property (the trust estate or trust property) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary).
b. the property or funds so held.
10. Commerce.
a. an illegal combination of industrial or commercial companies in which the stock of the constituent companies is controlled by a central board of trustees, thus making it possible to manage the companies so as to minimize production costs, control prices, eliminate competition, etc.
b. any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity or service.

(Emphasis mine)

faith

–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I interpret all those definitions to mean that TRUST is earned while FAITH is not earned and does not require evidence.

Was she trusting in God to heal her? If so where did her trust come from? Could it be that her faith permitted her to trust in God?

How on earth could she have trusted god when god never healed her before in her life? She even admitted that she had never experienced a miracle in her entire life. She continued to hope for god to heal her out of faith (unsupported belief) rather than trust.


Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Recon3rd, posted 03-11-2008 5:59 PM Recon3rd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Hill Billy, posted 03-11-2008 11:11 PM Taz has responded
 Message 59 by Recon3rd, posted 03-12-2008 6:25 AM Taz has responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3464 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 57 of 62 (460012)
03-11-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taz
03-11-2008 8:50 PM


Definitions
I don't believe I've actually insulted you.

Dude! You referenced him to Kent Hovind. How do you define insult?

Speaking of definitions....

I interpret all those definitions to mean that TRUST is earned while FAITH is not earned and does not require evidence.

trust

–noun

2. confident expectation of something; hope.

How the *%$! do you earn hope?

4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.

Oh, I get it, your kidding.

Right?


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taz, posted 03-11-2008 8:50 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taz, posted 03-11-2008 11:18 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 03-12-2008 9:25 AM Hill Billy has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1402 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 58 of 62 (460016)
03-11-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hill Billy
03-11-2008 11:11 PM


Re: Definitions
Hill Billy writes:

Dude! You referenced him to Kent Hovind. How do you define insult?


Shouldn't you people be honored, since you guys think him some kind of demi-god?

How the *%$! do you earn hope?

In case you haven't noticed, there is no such thing as the one true definition of a word in a language such as English. All the dictionary does is offer a group of descriptions and let the reader make up his own damn mind. In other words, you're suppose to read all the definitions provided and not just one or two.

But forget all of that. Are you trying to tell me that you don't think the word "trust" is commonly used by people to mean earned respect? Are you trying to tell me that you don't think the word "faith" is commonly used by people to mean unsupported belief?

Even in the christian sense, the whole basis of christian doctrine is faith based, meaning christians don't have to have seen or heard god or his influence to believe in him. That's what faith is. Unless you're disputing this fact, you're playing your role of the smart-ass wise-guy again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hill Billy, posted 03-11-2008 11:11 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

  
Recon3rd
Member (Idle past 3952 days)
Posts: 35
Joined: 03-01-2008


Message 59 of 62 (460025)
03-12-2008 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taz
03-11-2008 8:50 PM



Radio waves are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. This includes visible light, microwave, x-ray, radio waves, etc. Unlike sound waves, which are longitudinal waves, radio waves are transverse waves. (Hint, look up these words if you don't understand them... I'm not going to waste my time explaining every detail.)

Like all EM waves, a radio wave is actually made of electric and magnetic fields that reinforce each other. By changing the amplitudes of these coupled waves, we can send information through space. It's like sending smoke signals.

Why use radio waves to convey information rather than other forms of EM waves? Because radio waves have the lowest frequencies and therefore easiest to use back in the good old days. Communication devices like cell phones nowadays technically use microwaves for the same purpose.

In short, you don't need faith in order to understand how these things work.

Yes, I know that and you know that but take a radio, a couple cell phones, portable tv..... into....lets say the rain forest, deep into the rain forest. Now you're in a place where they more than likely haven't seen the workings of modern society. Think you could tell them that there are pictures, moving pictures all around right in front of them or theres music all around them without wiping out a device to collect the signal? BTW- that smoke signal reference doesn't even fit into the conversation since smoke signals can be seen with the eye itself without any devise. The signals we're talking about can not be seen by the eye itself but need a device to bring it into our realm so that we may see and hear them.

I think the rest of your stuff was answered by someone a bit wiser than yourself.

Peace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taz, posted 03-11-2008 8:50 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 03-12-2008 11:42 AM Recon3rd has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 60 of 62 (460038)
03-12-2008 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Grizz
03-11-2008 7:16 PM


Re: More less?
Grizz writes:

Through observation and experiment we can certainly associate the subjective appearance of mental states and conscious sensations with the activity of the neurosystem; however, (If A then B) does not mean (A=B). Certainly, the activity and patterns of neurons within the brain equates to the manifestation of an experience, it does not however equate to Qualia being equal to a neuron or pattern of neurons.

My bold.

The thing is you assume a priori that qualia are real. Until you can back up that assertion I see no fallacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Grizz, posted 03-11-2008 7:16 PM Grizz has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019