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.
Acupuncture is used now in hospitals and by the medical profession because it is supported by evidence based research.
So regarding your statement "until an explanation of how is made and validated in which case it becomes science and a law of nature" , well that has occurred, and those criteria have been met.
Therefore it is not "unexplained." It is explained and it is documented in evidence based research.
When you say you disapprove you are saying you reject that evidence. You reject and deny the evidence-based research that is now widely accepted by the medical profession.
So for all the talk of of course we will change our minds when there is evidence......thats not really the case is it for you personally ? You say that "hospitals have been prevailed upon" but what hospitals have done is change their minds and accept something when the evidence is presented. They have done this. You have not.
If someone asked you "why do you disapprove" of a medical practice that is widely used and accepted by the mainstream medical profession, and supported by evidence based research, what would you answer?
Wrong. You continue to remain confused about what is and what is not an "explanation" versus an observation. The HOW of acupuncture has NOT been established by science but the efficacy of it has been documented. It is a set of techniques heuristically (trial and error) developed over centuries of observation and adjustment. The "theory" used is largely hokum but since it works who cares.
grey, you have not addressed the point that your being does move. you claimed it does not.
For one thing, "motion" is relative and, for another, we are dealing with abstracts in this context. Look again, carefully, at what I was saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
BTW: The word 'perspective' can be somewhat misleading. In common use, the word 'perspective' seemingly implies the idea that we can "move around" to see an object from multiple viewpoints. You and I can generally share a perspective even if, strictly speaking, we can't be in exactly the same place at exactly the same time. But when the word 'perspective' is applied to subjectivity in the manner I'm discussing, this notion of "moving around" to get different perspectives doesn't apply. There are old sayings that capture this idea to some extent: "Wherever you go, there you are!" and "You can't run away from yourself!" etc. And there also the paradoxes of self-reference that touch on the same territory. When a certain "perspective" depends on being a certain body, there is no "moving around" or sharing. If X moves around, its identity "moves with it" - so to speak. (Technically, "identity" - as such - is not the sort of thing that "moves".) If I move over to stand where you were just standing I do not then have access to your thoughts just because I am standing where you stood when you thought them. With being, there is no "moving around" - there is just being.
Notice: If X moves around, its identity "moves with it" ... So even if "identity" moved, it would move in sync with the self, which is to say, it would not "move" at all, relative to the self. And since, in this context, the self is the only thing, relative to which, movement would matter, the identity does not "move."
And then I add: (Technically, "identity" - as such - is not the sort of thing that "moves".) That is because, in this context, 'identity' is being treated more or less like a property - aka, a universal. All triangles have the property of "having 3 sides." Suppose I cut out 2 paper triangles and place them on my desk. I move one of them around on the desk, but leave the other one alone. The property "having 3 sides" is shared by both triangles. So, in this case, does the property "having 3 sides" move, or not? The answer could be "neither and both" or, better yet, the question is misguided. The property "having 3 sides" is not a "thing" of the sort that can "move." It neither moves, nor does it not-move. The concept of "move" just doesn't apply here.
Each of us is identical to ourself. I am identical to me; you are identical to you. If I move and you do not, does "identity" move? I say it is an ill-conceived question. But if, for some weird reason, we really wanted to insist on applying the concept of motion, then I've have to say that my identity "moves with me." It's not the sort of thing I can loose in my couch cushions, or swap with another person like Pokémon trading cards. That is why I was referencing these aphorisms: "Wherever you go, there you are!" and "You can't run away from yourself!" etc.
In the final sentence I mention "being" - which I was using essentially like "identity" in this case. I guess if we really wanted to, we could get into a discussion of Heidegger's distinction between "Being" and "beings" and his claim that Being is not a being. But a word of warning: Don't make me have to go there.
And just so the central point is not entirely lost: The reason this little detour came up in the first place is that it plays a role in the larger context of me claiming that current science cannot explain the subjective qualitative aspects of consciousness because current science depends on abstract/quantitative/objective concepts, whereas the subjective qualitative aspect of consciousness are not abstract or merely quantitative. I'm not absolutely insisting that no future science can ever make any progress on this; I'm simply saying that, in order to make some progress on this front, we will need at least one paradigm shift concerning what counts as "scientific" data. To me this seems like a fairly safe, conservative bet.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-12-2018 at 12:36 PM..
This is an example of quote-mining. In the context of my overall approach, it would be far better to highlight differently:
My personal approach is to simply accept the feelings - accept the "faith" that there is "someone" listening, despite the seemingly irrational nature of such belief, if considered from the point of view of current science.
You can barely see it, but notice I've put the scare quotes in bold. Scare quotes are meant to be red flags - i.e., don't take these words too literally. So the correct translation, which takes into account the scare quotes and the overall context, would be something more like this:
= agnostic about the existence of God/Goddess, although my belief in the fundamentally qualitative and holistic nature of Reality could be interpreted by some people as "belief in God" (this seems to be what you and MPhD and some others do, and that is fine with me).
You interpret my belief in the fundamentally qualitative/holistic nature of Reality as "belief in God" but I, myself, do not interpret my own feelings in that way. For one thing, for me, the term "God" is simply too entrenched in history and carries too much "baggage" and, as far as I'm concerned, even using its most liberal conception, the word 'God' ought to at least refer to some sort of "Cosmic Mind" with a conscious "God's-Eye view." And that is something I am most definitely agnostic about.
I'm not interpreting your beliefs at all.
I'm just noticing what you share in your posts including that you pray to the Goddess and find it effective and that you accept thefeelings - accept the "faith" that there is "someone" listening
then you said don't take your words literally, even though you have said the same thing consistently over many threads over many months.
your posts speak very clearly for themselves.
and then you get really uncomfortable with that and you backpedal and squirm.
you say you are an agnostic.
and you refer to "the ultimate logical mystery as Goddess"
and you pray to the Goddess and find it effective.
I am pointing out that is hilarious.
How many agnostics are there out there who pray to the Goddess and find it effective?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-12-2018 at 12:51 PM..
It has nothing to do with "having anything to do with..." or with being "average" but, rather, with simply not wanting to be misunderstood. My concept of "the Goddess" is mostly metaphor and it is rooted in the concept of Existential Absurdity. Generally speaking, when someone declares their "faith in God" they do not mean metaphorically, and they are not rooting their concept of God in Existentialist Absurdity. So if I simply said "I have faith in God" without further explanation, I would - for all practical purposes - be deceiving people. Unfortunately, the "further explanation" is not easy stuff to convey in a quick "elevator speech." Or, at least, I don't know how to do that. And, in any case, I really do believe, in my heart of hearts, that agnostic is, ultimately, the best self-description for me. If you can't see that, then you really have not understood much of anything I've said. In which case, I'm sorry that my explanations have failed. I'm doing the best I can here.
you can define words however you want.
I am simply stating a simple truth that you yourself have shared. That's all.
you pray to the Goddess and you find it effective.
period.
full stop.
no interpretations.
no definitions.
there is no need for any rationalization, justification, defense, explanation.
none. at all.
Wrong. You continue to remain confused about what is and what is not an "explanation" versus an observation. The HOW of acupuncture has NOT been established by science but the efficacy of it has been documented. It is a set of techniques heuristically (trial and error) developed over centuries of observation and adjustment. The "theory" used is largely hokum but since it works who cares.
Yes, the how of acupuncture has been established.
You reject the how of it.
What kind of martial arts do you claim to have practiced anyway?
It is your choice to reject areas of knowledge and limit the scope of your understanding.
However your rejection of knowledge does not change the fact that the knowledge exists, nor does it change the laws of nature which includes how acupuncture works.
And then you excrete the usual pejorative to indicate a demonstrated a lack of ability to engage in rational discourse as a civil human being.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-12-2018 at 01:39 PM..
you can define words however you want.
I am simply stating a simple truth that you yourself have shared. That's all.
you pray to the Goddess and you find it effective.
True, so long as "Goddess" is understood as a combination of metaphor and personification, and the phrase "find it effective" is understood with the qualification that the "effectiveness" is mostly psychological and, to the extent that it has any objective measurability, it is far too small of a sample size to be statistically significant, so I have no idea if the objective "effectiveness" is really due to anything other that sheer random luck. But, in any case, I am deeply grateful for many aspects of my life and if, in fact, there is any reason other than random luck, I'd like to give credit where credit is due. It's just that, being agnostic, I'm not sure where, if anywhere, the credit is due (other than to myself, and to the physically embodied human beings who have helped me along the way).
From my point of view, part of the problem is that you always think I'm offering the "mind experiments" as arguments for my position. The point of Mary and the Zombies, etc., is not to defend my premise, but rather, the goal is to try to explain what my premise is. You seem to think that you understand my premise but, based on your responses, I don't think you do. By immediately going into defense mode, you miss the point that the thought experiment is meant to convey. And, just to be clear, the point is not abstract or mystical, even though all attempts to put it into words end up sounding abstract and mystical.
The core premise is that the concrete/qualitative nature of experience will never be explained by using the abstract/quantitative concepts of current physics, or chemistry, or biology. Current science can only do 3rd-person explanations, and logic can explain why subjective feelings cannot be fully explained by 3rd-person concepts (i.e., why Mary cannot - even in principle - fully comprehend the meaning of red by studying other peoples' experiences of red). This isn't mysticism. It's just logic (although I would say that logic, itself, points to the unavoidability of some level of mysticism insofar as Gödel's proof shows that logic, itself, can never be fully self-supporting. Some "brute-fact fundamentals" are always needed).
As I have argued, analogies to explain in simpler terms of true thing that is hard to understand, are fair enough, but when used to validate what is being argued (which I am not quite clear about, but is obviously related to what a zombie does not have if you take it's feelings away), then it becomes, nevertheless a mind -experiment trying to prove that the 'thing missing' is an argument to be credited.
It is the same with the 'Mary' argument. the thing that Mary does not have inside the room that she has when she goes outside and sees red for the first time is trying to prove what is missing. What is missing is new information, but the Qualia is the same that she had inside the room, for however red appears (green, say) on the radar -screen) or the grey of the room. This why I argue that Mary not being able to feel what red is like is not the experience itself, which is (I am suggesting) material, but is new information, which is not feelings, but material (light particles of a particular wavelength) and is as much Qualia as green and therefore (i argue) material or explainable in time materially, and as something separate is a concept to describe 'red is not green' as the left angle is not the right, and none of those exist other than as identification -labels.
Bit are mind experiments trying to validate a claim for the qualia of re as something she lacks. It is like saying that knowing about the right angle of the triangle is different from the left. Only because of the identifying conventions we have. They are all the same triangle and the separate angles do not exist as entities apart from it, and the qualia of red does not exist as a Thing outside the room. The information in the form of the wavelength does, but as you said about the zombie at the waterfall, information does not a feeling make.
And the suggestion that not accepting a claim that seems to be problematic is 'defense - mode' is rather reminiscent of the frustrated accusation of closed -minded bias we get from those who believe something that is claimed when it starts to look vulnerable under scrutiny. You see that you are saying I "Hate" the Mary mind -experiment when I am rather contestin your proof from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
For one thing, "motion" is relative and, for another, we are dealing with abstracts in this context. Look again, carefully, at what I was saying:
Notice: If X moves around, its identity "moves with it" ... So even if "identity" moved, it would move in sync with the self, which is to say, it would not "move" at all, relative to the self. And since, in this context, the self is the only thing, relative to which, movement would matter, the identity does not "move."
And then I add: (Technically, "identity" - as such - is not the sort of thing that "moves".) That is because, in this context, 'identity' is being treated more or less like a property - aka, a universal. All triangles have the property of "having 3 sides." Suppose I cut out 2 paper triangles and place them on my desk. I move one of them around on the desk, but leave the other one alone. The property "having 3 sides" is shared by both triangles. So, in this case, does the property "having 3 sides" move, or not? The answer could be "neither and both" or, better yet, the question is misguided. The property "having 3 sides" is not a "thing" of the sort that can "move." It neither moves, nor does it not-move. The concept of "move" just doesn't apply here.
Each of us is identical to ourself. I am identical to me; you are identical to you. If I move and you do not, does "identity" move? I say it is an ill-conceived question. But if, for some weird reason, we really wanted to insist on applying the concept of motion, then I've have to say that my identity "moves with me." It's not the sort of thing I can loose in my couch cushions, or swap with another person like Pokémon trading cards. That is why I was referencing these aphorisms: "Wherever you go, there you are!" and "You can't run away from yourself!" etc.
In the final sentence I mention "being" - which I was using essentially like "identity" in this case. I guess if we really wanted to, we could get into a discussion of Heidegger's distinction between "Being" and "beings" and his claim that Being is not a being. But a word of warning: Don't make me have to go there.
And just so the central point is not entirely lost: The reason this little detour came up in the first place is that it plays a role in the larger context of me claiming that current science cannot explain the subjective qualitative aspects of consciousness because current science depends on abstract/quantitative/objective concepts, whereas the subjective qualitative aspect of consciousness are not abstract or merely quantitative. I'm not absolutely insisting that no future science can ever make any progress on this; I'm simply saying that, in order to make some progress on this front, we will need at least one paradigm shift concerning what counts as "scientific" data. To me this seems like a fairly safe, conservative bet.
That is the 'angles - abstract' argument, Identity or Id is the same. The feeling of identity it it real or not? The angles are real - and move - if we think of it as effect or property of the triangle, and moves when the triangle does (if it is an object, or even a drawn triangle), and our Id moves when we do. But does the thing we feel exist apart from the feeling we have about it? No more than the angles exist if we take the triangle away. The feeling we have, and I postulate this is something to do with an evolved feeling of identity within the tribe or community, Is the the Id, as the angles are the triangle and do not (by all reason) exist without it.
This means that the Id is a material feeling (illusion if you like) of a real thing within us. A Soul some say. Or some real thing apart from us thinking of it. But I again suggest that the mechanism of experiencing the feeling of identity, Is the identity and if the feelings are biomechanical in their presentation, as of memory of visual images, that is all they are.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-12-2018 at 02:23 PM..
Yes, the how of acupuncture has been established.
You reject the how of it.
What kind of martial arts do you claim to have practiced anyway?
It is your choice to reject areas of knowledge and limit the scope of your understanding.
However your rejection of knowledge does not change the fact that the knowledge exists, nor does it change the laws of nature which includes how acupuncture works.
And then you excrete the usual pejorative to indicate a demonstrated a lack of ability to engage in rational discourse as a civil human being.
Why must you always refer back to me instead of my views? I practiced martial arts and Buddhism many years before my experience. I had tested and rejected most of the hocus pocus and bunkum that accompanied those practices while appreciating the discipline and effectiveness of the practices themselves. Once I had my experience, everything changed. My quest to explain to my intellect how God could exist using science removed more and more of the magic and hokum from my views. I do not write off the accumulated wisdom of eastern practices simply because their explanations are not based on science. They are still effective and that trumps any explanations. Now that I know your perspective as a Chasidic, I respect your discipline and zeal for God. I will still condemn any and all barbaric practices and non-loving actions or treatment of others for ANY reason, but I respect your dedication to God.
Acupuncture is used now in hospitals and by the medical profession because it is supported by evidence based research.
So regarding your statement "until an explanation of how is made and validated in which case it becomes science and a law of nature" , well that has occurred, and those criteria have been met.
Therefore it is not "unexplained." It is explained and it is documented in evidence based research.
When you say you disapprove you are saying you reject that evidence. You reject and deny the evidence-based research that is now widely accepted by the medical profession.
So for all the talk of of course we will change our minds when there is evidence......that's not really the case is it for you personally ? You say that "hospitals have been prevailed upon" but what hospitals have done is change their minds and accept something when the evidence is presented. They have done this. You have not.
If someone asked you "why do you disapprove" of a medical practice that is widely used and accepted by the mainstream medical profession, and supported by evidence based research, what would you answer?
If indeed acupuncture or any other procedure is validates, that I will accept it. I am willing to be convinced by the research and validation as new information. it has then become medical science. It still leaves other claims unvalidated. It is a fallacy (the 'they rejected powered flight' fallacy) to use something that was doubted but has been validated to argue for acceptance for what has not been validated. Doubt is the logically correct and scientifically valid approach, which is why the material default exits and appeal to unknowns is invalid.
cue dismissal of this entry as Biased materialists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Wrong. You continue to remain confused about what is and what is not an "explanation" versus an observation. The HOW of acupuncture has NOT been established by science but the efficacy of it has been documented. It is a set of techniques heuristically (trial and error) developed over centuries of observation and adjustment. The "theory" used is largely hokum but since it works who cares.
True, but Tzaph has a point in that placebos, for example work (either in hospitals or in medical research) but (as far as i am aware) why they work is not known or fully understood or proven. Therefore if Acupuncture, for example (prayer for another) was accepted as working, it would be effectively science fact, though not having a science explanation. After all, optics, gliding and chemistry was used as reliably working even when the explanations of it had not been made.
Tsaph and I would agree on that, I think, but might not agree on what has in fact been accepted as working as distinct from a lot of people believing it works and offering it as a traditional cure and taken up (amid controversy) by some hospitals.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-12-2018 at 03:18 PM..
True, so long as "Goddess" is understood as a combination of metaphor and personification, and the phrase "find it effective" is understood with the qualification that the "effectiveness" is mostly psychological and, to the extent that it has any objective measurability, it is far too small of a sample size to be statistically significant, so I have no idea if the objective "effectiveness" is really due to anything other that sheer random luck. But, in any case, I am deeply grateful for many aspects of my life and if, in fact, there is any reason other than random luck, I'd like to give credit where credit is due. It's just that, being agnostic, I'm not sure where, if anywhere, the credit is due (other than to myself, and to the physically embodied human beings who have helped me along the way).
Do you see why I disappprove of the use of "God" by physicists to describe the way (natural, so far as they know) the universe works. The fingernails I have worn down contesting the Theists using this to argue that Physicists all believe in God would serve to equip a Spinosaur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I'm not certain that the logic of subjectivity necessarily implies ontological commitment to the existence of a "subject". Maybe it does, and if so, then you are right. I'm being agnostic about something that, logically, I should be agnostic about. Qualia are always "perspectival" and they are always "of"/"about" something - which could be characterized as "directed outward" in some sense (even if, as in introspection, they aim "inward" at "themselves", there is the logical problem of self-reference wherein the center-of-perspective shifts so that the target, in some deep sense, still ends up "out there" away from the center of perspective).
It seems reasonable to assume there is "someone" at the center of perspective who is "doing" the looking, but I can't help but be a bit fascinated by the fact that this is always an assumption. Logically, any object that I can grasp as the target of observation cannot be - at that moment - the observer, per se. If, somehow, the observer can self-observe, then that which is observed is the observer-as-observed.
I think the key to getting out of this tangle might be to borrow an idea from the phenomenologists, and process philosophers, and many Buddhists. This is the idea that consciousness is not a "container." Consciousness is not an entity that contains things, or produces things, or observes things. Rather, it is more like a "center of gravity" - a "vortex" a "nothingness" around which experiences "swirl" (so to speak). It's a "distributed" ontology with a "hole" at the "center" rather than a "diamond at the center" type of approach. I frankly don't know which way to go with this, so it all becomes part of my agnosticism. I'm simply not convinced of a "correct way" to conceive, so I "bracket" the options and simply discuss them without any deep feelings of faith or commitment to this or that conception.
The three of us seem to represent (in reverse order) materialism, agnosticism and faith in "Something More".
I take the same view of consciousness as i do of cosmic origins or abiogenesis. There are hypotheses (the mind) and indirect evidence (research into the mind) and I think it all points to a 'natural' origin, even without the materialist default.
You seem to prefer 'I don't know'. I don't know either, but the argument here is where the evidence points. Mystic knows what consciousness is, on Faith.
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.
Do you see why I disappprove of the use of "God" by physicists to describe the way (natural, so far as they know) the universe works. The fingernails I have worn down contesting the Theists using this to argue that Physicists all believe in God would serve to equip a Spinosaur.