Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its sounds bad, but the fact remains we are all not created equally.
I agree we are not all created equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Illusions, buddhas narvarnia, spiritual awaking, feeling the woo, lucid dreaming, are all tricks of a mind trying to fool itself that its something else with more control than it has.
I'll take your blatantly obvious bait. You love to talk about lucid dreaming when you have zero knowledge of it. In fact you love to talk about a lot of things that you have huge missing holes on the subject. Why do you do this? What's the motivation that drives this behavior? Do you think behaving in this manner makes you appear to have superior intelligence?
An intelligent person would not call the ability to lucid dream an illusion. An intelligent person would learn how to achieve lucid dreaming. A boxed mind simply throws it's hands in the air and called things they can't understand or achieve illusions.
So "More capable of understanding abstract thought" equals "better?" Well, yes, better at grasping concepts like the idea that education in and facility for a particular subject gives more complete and accurate information. (You know, the point being made by the part of the quote that you dimmed}
sure, a cell biologist knows about cell biology.
it's when they claim that their knowledge of cell biology makes them an expert in theology, that is the problem.
when they want their expertise acknowledged, but they refuse to accept subject matter expertise in other areas, that is the problem.
so yes I agree that "education in and facility for a particular subject gives more complete and accurate information" in that subject. The problem with arrogance is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
...i am also pointing out that while they [= generic, those exhibiting arrogant attitudes and behavior] insist on their own expertise being recognized, they routinely do not recognize other people's expertise. for instance expertise in the area of Chinese medicine is dismissed as "vacuous" or "nonsense" or "woo" or "superstition." Professional expertise by subject matter experts in the field of mental health such as counselors, therapists, addiction recovery, and psychology are likewise dismissed. Theological views that differ are belittled constantly. One person posting came right out and said "there is no such thing as expertise in theology it does not exist."
that is another signpost for recognizing the behavior and attitude of arrogance. insistence on their own "superiority" and "better than" and yet unwillingness to credit others for subject matter expertise in areas that they are not familiar with, or do not understand, or lack the knowledge base to comprehend.
it's when they claim that their knowledge of cell biology makes them an expert in theology, that is the problem.
when they want their expertise acknowledged, but they refuse to accept subject matter expertise in other areas, that is the problem.
I don't think this is accurate.
People who are well trained in science are trained skeptics. If you are going to present something to a scientist you had better ensure that it can pass the skeptic test. We don't just blindly accept what others say and we know right off the bat when a Theist makes a claim about the world we live in that goes against the well established facts/knowledge or scientific Laws.
OMG...Transponder: I think I might finally have a way to bridge the gap between us. I'm flabbergasted that I have not already tried this. I'm going to assume that you are perfectly comfortable with the above reference. This is very old news, of course. But what I want to focus on is the "dual-aspect" nature of mass and energy. Mass and energy are distinctly different "intrinsic ways of being understood" for the fundamental "stuff" that, according to physicalism, constitutes the essence of Reality. In philosophical terms, one could think of this approach as a "neutral monism" - with the "monism" in this case referring to "the fundamental nature of physical stuff" and the "neutral" referring to the fundamentally different aspects of this "stuff" that is neither "just" energy, for "just" mass. It is, rather, one stuff with both aspects. You can approach this same "dual-aspect" idea with the "particle/wave" duality of QM. My proposal simply implies an additional "dual-aspect" - namely "objective" and "subjective", which has to do with the epistemological "laws" of reality - more specifically, the "point-of-view" or "perspectival" nature of conscious awareness. To put a few meat on these conceptual bones, I'd like to offer a neuroscience journal article (linked below) as "Exhibit A".
I'm going to predict that, if I were to remove just one sentence from this article, you could read the whole thing carefully and find nothing to complain about in relation to the debate that has been on-going between us. I suspect you would find this to be a fine example of a perfectly materialist article. And, indeed, I would say the same thing. But I would point out that the underlying epistemological assumption is dual-aspect physicalism - just exactly the sort of thing that I've been trying to explain in these threads. My point here is not so much to say "you're wrong" but, rather, to say that you are basically right when you say that you, as a materialist, your see "nothing to fear" from my epistemological claim that qualia cannot, even in principle, be fully reduced to the quantitative terms of current physics. I still think that you don't quite "get" what I'm saying or why I'm saying it, but with the help of this article, I going to see if I can show why my views on qualia don't have to pose any real threat to your "materialist" view (at least insofar as you care about it).
The article is a bit long and technical compared to C-D posts, but you don't really have to read the whole thing. I will highlight a few of the key points:
The title is: Information and the Origin of Qualia
And here are a handful of key quotes:
The article argues that an input pattern of firing is identified by a network as an information message, and that the output pattern of firing generated is a representation of that message.
...there is no theoretical account that shows a direct mechanism whereby certain neural activities should lead to a phenomenal outcome. This article is one attempt to link the purely physical with the phenomenal...
...this article tries to more directly explore the relationships between purely physical information and semantic information that is at the heart of qualia. It aims to show that, in certain circumstances, the processing of information in local cortical networks should lead to qualia.
Semantic information is the meaning associated with physical information. It is the message that is embodied in, and communicated by, the physical information.
How does the physical information of neuronal firings relate to the semantic information of the meanings of our inner world?
There are two clear transformations. The first of these is that information structures, in some way, represent information messages.
In order to examine the way that qualia are generated, one key task is an analysis of this representational process.
The second relationship between information structures and messages is that messages result from the recognition and identification of information structures.
The input information is a structure. If the network recognizes and identifies that input structure then it will generate an output information structure. That output structure represents the information message, the identity, of the input structure to the network. So within a basic cortical network, it is possible to define more closely the relationship between information structures and information messages. The output structure represents the message obtained when the network identifies its input structure. There is a transformation from structure to message to structure again.
Earlier I mentioned that "if I were to remove just one sentence from the article, you would see the whole article as perfectly inline with you view. Here is that sentence:
Chalmers (1996) in his seminal book proposed the fundamental principle that information has both a physical and a phenomenal aspect.
In other words, an underlying assumption of this article is the sort of dual-aspect physicalism I've been advocating. This is not a "woo" article, it is just basic neuroscience. If you are ok with the approach of this article, then you are, by default, actually ok with my dual-aspect approach, even though you might still not entirely get (or care about) the subtle epistemological point that I keep trying to make about epistemological asymmetry and the need for a non-reductive form of physicalism.
We probably still have to wrestle over the role of physics and "intrinsic potentiality" in my theory, but I'm wondering if this article might highlight a bit of common ground between us.
Yes, that all looks fine. In fact fine even without removing a sentence from it.
But, honoured master, what I miss is something like "what materialist physicalism has to do in order to turn dualism into monism is to find a nuts and bolts link between the input information (presented as a structure by the brain as a recognisable information code by another part of the brain) and the phenominational output which, (it is theorised) is itself a form of structure by the brain".
Hypothetically the concept of an interaction between the two bundles of stuff responding to a mental input structure with a mental output structure is so obvious that i in my turn, Len old chum, I wonder why you are missing it and going of into the byways of flawed and irrelevant mind experiments to try to validate some mysterious never -to -be -reconciled difference that is almost supernatural in concept.
Let me try an analogy of my own. The brain is like a machine, and various buttons, levers, whistles and buzzers input signals to a complicated system of levers cogs rods and wheels. Because of what signals activate what rods and cogs, a reciprocal system of connected cogs and rods react in response and output information to the screws, propellers, jets or turbo charged whatever to obtain a result.
Analogy, input sensory info, presentation as a mental code, response to that code and output signals to nerves and muscles.
You may ask 'where is the perception? Where is Qualia?. But the analogy says that the recognition and response of output to input is just there and no problem.
The only problem is to say how this in terms of mental particles in a complex structure could amount to the effect of perception. This is where my Inkled proto -hypothesis comes in.
What this means is that there is no really hard problem, just the easy one (substance dualism) which isn't much of a problem either. The problem is explaining how this could work.
We don't want to get dragged down Woo lane where Life is some magical quality that materialism can't account for, or wetness is some God given supernatural sensation not found in the atoms, no matter how much you may search for it, not yet the meaning of human life, music or morality apart from what nature or human put there.
Even if materialism can't explain it yet, it does not mean that it never can.
Now you have aid that you (unlike a number of others) do not claim that it can't, and as you say, we agree. That said, I cannot identify this supposed irreconcilable divide between input mechanism and output other than we can't explain it -yet, which you say you don't reject.
I might further repeat that it bothers me that the video you posted to supposedly identify this supposed divide that I am missing came up with two flawed mind experiments a flat wrong argument and a dubious claim that even he had to admit was not accepted by materialists and he accepted they might be right.
I'm looking not even to see whether I agree this non -substance dualism, but just to get what it is, and when I look where it ought to be, I can't see it it. Is it because I'm blinkered? is it because I don't know what to look for? I begin to suspect there isn't actually anything there.
''''''
P.s 'The worse cause appear the better' is from Aristophanes the clouds, which is my favourite, though it talks utter rubbish about Socrates' (whom he frankly regarded as an atheist and blasphemer) and his reasoning methods.
it is apparent when someone lacks knowledge, information, and subject matter expertise in theology. Either theology in general, or related to a specific religion.
I disagree. It's not rocket science and in fact I find more non-theists who understand theology much better then the theists does. There is nothing deep or mysterious about theology.
I disagree. It's not rocket science and in fact I find more non-theists who understand theology much better then the theists does. There is nothing deep or mysterious about theology.
so if someone said to you "there is nothing complex about rocket science. I find non scientists understand rocket science much better than rocket scientists do " what would your response be? what would you think of the person making such a statement?
so if someone said to you "there is nothing complex about rocket science. I find non scientists understand rocket science much better than rocket scientists do " what would your response be? what would you think of the person making such a statement?
I would point them to the statistics that show this is false as well as have them explain to how they came up with such a claim. In other words...show me the evidence!
I would point them to the statistics that show this is false as well as have them explain to how they came up with such a claim. In other words...show me the evidence!
We have already established (nate's post earlier #3540) that those with more knowledge and education and practical application in an area, have more subject matter expertise in that area. Someone who denies that God exists lacks subject matter expertise in theology. Someone who claims all religions are cults lacks subject matter expertise in theology. Someone who loathes humankind lacks subject matter expertise in theology.
Trans is an example of someone who is not religious but has an incredible amount of knowledge and information and subject matter expertise on the Crstn book NT, and also historical context of a whole bunch of stuff. He knows a ton of stuff and it is reflected in his posts.
Also there is a big difference between "studying something" and actually putting it into practice. Being able to spell the word "dance" or define the word "dance" or list the different types of "dance" or post a link to diagrams of dance steps, or post a video of watching someone dance, is just a lot of information. A "scholar" can accumulate that information. However it does not mean they are a dancer or know how to dance.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-06-2018 at 01:35 PM..
We have already established (nate's post earlier) that those with more knowledge and education in an area, have more subject matter expertise in that area.
So you have a degree in Theology? I highly doubt it with the odd things you say about your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Someone who denies that God exists lacks subject matter expertise in theology.
I know you want this to be your argument but it's lame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Someone who claims all religions are cults lacks subject matter expertise in theology.
Wrong again. A person who views religion no different from a cult is a person who understands the tactics religious use to capture their prey. In fact religion wrote the book on cult tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Someone who loathes humankind lacks subject matter expertise in theology.
Huh? Isn't it religion that teaches you how fallible humans are, that we are all born sinners, that other animal species are lower than humans, that those who don't believe in your god should be murdered or shunned? Talk about loathing the human race...religion wrote the book on that too! Religion was invented to control the beasts that need it.
as i said, what a person posts reveals, well, what they have to offer in terms of rational discourse.
and the level to which they marinate in loathing.
Yes you've summed yourself up quite nicely.
You offer no rational discourse when challenged. You pullout the name calling and try to marginalize those who give straight up honest and factual answers.
This reveals much about you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
