Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I might look at that.

No, I didn't make such a statement.

Eric, I know you didn't make a rhetorical statement. I was the one who said my statement was rhetorical. See?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, this is much more productive than the normal "we need"TM-banter. Now you simply have to define "good", "just", and "fair", so others can attempt to understand what you're talking about, and possibly attempt to operationalize such an intention[Note: This is rhetorical].

Maybe I should have said: This is a rhetorical statement on my part. My bad, I suppose.

Is this some kind of "I Art Thou"-game you're playing with me?

Originally Posted by Eric

I gave examples of what I thought the terms meant in actual conditions and policies. What more can I do?

I don't know, Eric. Maybe try starting with defining the opposite of those terms and see where that may lead you.

Originally Posted by Eric

But you are asking for an "operational" definition of what is "good, just and fair." Brian, for one, says these are values, and thus not subject to such operational tests. Others call them archetypal ethical principles or truths of value a la Plato. In any case I doubt there's an objective test for a definition of these terms. Maybe that's really your point.

Well, yes and no. Yes, they are difficult to define. People are certainly attempting to operationalize these words/values/concepts all the time. I believe coming to an agreement of what these words are not may help us to determine what they are. Then, maybe we can attempt to operationalize them by attempting to minimize the occurance of their opposites(ie: not good, not just, not fair).

Originally Posted by Eric

I would be violating your dear principle if I asked you to do something you really don't want to do.

What "dear" principle? If you ask me without an expectation of outcome, I have no issue in accomodating you, my empirical-friend. It's my choice.

Originally Posted by Eric

True to a degree; I do at least seek an accurate score, to see what the pattern of responses is. If I don't get a pretty good spread, it shows I need to revise the questions. I am pretty much long-since done with that stage though, but if people say the test is accurate, that is at least "anecdotal evidence." Most people do. I still like to see though, much like the Libertarians do with their political test. And it is also interesting to see where people of particular groups fall, such as this forum. It is quite rare for people here to come out where we are. Maybe I'll put your dot half way between Buddha and Christ, unless you can tell me which you were closer to. It would be entertaining to see how close you came out to me, since that is about where I am on my own test. You may be a little bit to the "philosophical right" of me, by a few points. My score tends to be about 51S 6E (barely above 50).

Enough already!

I'll retake the test(when I get a chance).

Q: How do you account for an individual's possible changing POV over time i/r/t responses?
[On a personal note: I've always had an aversion towards having my picture taken. I feel as if it sort of "traps me in time"(so to speak). I've heard that some American Indians felt the same. I do have a decent amount of Cherokee genes in me, so....whatever. Answering questionaires sorta feels that way to me.]

Originally Posted by Eric

Well then you have a "good-enough" definition of "the good."

No I don't. That's where I think Plato kinda screwed-up. By using the term "The Good", he obscures the definition of the larger concept(The Absolute) with the lesser components of "good and "bad"(The Relative). It's a common problem i/r/t understanding, IME.

Originally Posted by Eric

But we are talking about the realities that cast the shadows, at least according to the author of the cave.

Are we, Eric? How do you know?
[These are rhetorical questions on my part, Eric!]


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Vandal forgets the title of this thread, and should probably use the Materialism thread instead. Philosophy trumps science, because it clarifies the concepts and ideas that we bring with us to any scientific study. A world view is also basically a choice, a choice of which sorts of observations, experiences and concepts are to have priority. I regard certain worldviews as ethically and morally more advantageous than others. This is not a fallacy of disregarding truth because it violates your choice of values. You have already chosen which world view to adopt, based on which kinds of observation you are giving priority. And such a so-called "fallacy" also disregards the fact that values may also be regarded as truths, depending on your view of ethics (absolute or relative).

Folks like Vandal choose to disregard those kinds of observations that don't fit neatly into their little game. But these games are subject to analysis by philosophy, and a less-narrow philosophy will show them up as too limited.

My worldview is not essentially different from Brian's, in that I see freedom and creation as parts of the natural world, not imposed on it from outside. Seeing indeterminacy, he chooses to call it "a new kind of materialism." The only difference I see to my "spiritualism," is that he arbitrarily decides to close himself off from certain experiences of this world we live in, which there is no reason within his worldview to close off from except such an arbitrary choice. These include such experiences as life after death, spirit communication, and psychic experiences (but explained as psychic, rather than as some probability process according to his or Bob Butler's kind of theory). He also limits himself to sense experience, and yet admits other kinds of cognition (which makes no sense to me, since they provide data that the senses do not), and on the one hand disregards the evident fact that definitions and logic cannot be accurate (and yet accepts that mathematical concepts, which he accepts as valid and which are needed for quantitative statements in science, are cognitive rather than empirical), and so is more rationalist than me in ways compatible with materialism, but less rationalist than me in ways compatible with spiritualism (since I accept that archetypes, if grounded in experience, are relevant concepts to entertain).

So if I am a "creationist," as Odin claims, then it is creation as a natural part of our experience that I recognize. You could call it indeterminacy, and I also call it life. Spirit is an inherent part of the natural world, what earlier philosophers called the fifth element (the term "element" having been revised to "states of matter" in later physics, and "element" re-applied to atomic weights and numbers). A less-spiritualist label for it would be "space," but "space" seems according to modern physics to be filled with dark energy, which makes up the majority of the universe, and which is still a mystery. That mystery alone doesn't give me the right to call it "spirit," as a term of physics, but since that word accords more with my experience of my world, I use it.

More on matter, spirit, philosophy, and the big bang in my next post. Otherwise I am giving the materialists here (if they so choose) too much to chew up, grind to bits, and spit out all at once.

Though I am not a Positivist, and therefore I do not accept Wittgenstein's condemnation of all philosophy, I do think "philosophy" that cuts itself off from problems generated by other fields is a meaningless navel-gazing babble. There is no such thing as "pure" philosophy.

Originally Posted by Odin

Though I am not a Positivist, and therefore I do not accept Wittgenstein's condemnation of all philosophy, I do think "philosophy" that cuts itself off from problems generated by other fields is a meaningless navel-gazing babble. There is no such thing as "pure" philosophy.

Odin, I prefer the term: Omphaloskepsis. It's funnier!

Prince

PS: Are you sure you're not a Rand-ian?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Awareness? How is awareness measured? Is a simple stimulus response indicative of "awareness"?Me thinks we've got some more defining work to do. Substituting one poorly defined term for another doesn't get us any where. Ethologists have had to deal with these types of problems for a long time (mirror test). But of course Eric would hate their definitions. Even though they are measurable and testable, they wouldn't let him make ridiculous claims about different organisms.

By "consciousness" Brian is referring to the subjective aspect of awareness, AKA "Qualia", such as my subjective awareness of the color red. I consider the Qualia question (sometimes called the "Hard Problem of Consciousness") genuinely unanswerable simply because one can not get inside the brain of another person, though I do reject the notion of a "philosopher's zombie", a mythical creature that is the basis of a lot of really bad and idiotic thought experiments by those, like John Searle, who wish to deny the possibility of AIs that have subjective experience.

O.K., Eric. I took the test a number of times with rather conflicting results, so I averaged them.
Here you go:

60S /10E

Prince

PS: I beg of you, please don't ask me to take the test again!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bergson still was earlier. Hubble discovered the evidence and proposed the theory for it, not them.

I don't care how early Bergson was. He didn't propose anything even superficially similar to the Big Bang theory. Hubble DID NOT PROPOSE THE BIG BANG THEORY! That is an outright lie on your part. In fact, Hubble purposefully avoided implying that his observations supported either concept (eternal vs. dynamic). He clearly stated that he wished others would interpret the meaning of his discovery!

Sure there is. What explodes out of the big bang cools and condenses.

Nope. There is no explosion involved in the Big Bang. Only someone pretending to know about the topic would use the word explosion. It's a dead giveaway.

What's the difference? You're saying there is matter, energy and force. So where is "force" in Einstein's equation? How is "force" related to matter? I've never heard such a distinction from anyone else.

Matter is not distinctive from energy! Matter is just one form of energy. Which equation? Do really think Einstein only developed the one?

How does that explain just why "matter" changes its state at particular levels of heat, and why just these 5 states and no others exist?

Kinetic molecular theory explains what is happening at the atomic level for substances in the various phases. Thermodynamics explains how thermal energy (primarily kinetic motion of atoms/molecules) spreads throughout a substance over time. The resultant distribution of thermal energy results in the substances particles increasing their motion relative to each other. When the relative motion exceeds the electromagnetic attractions/repulsions from their neighbors, the substance can be said to be undergoing a phase shift. Are you sure that no other states exist? We are familiar with just a few states because the temperatures and pressures that we can biologically withstand fall within a relatively narrow band. There simply isn't enough energy or far too much energy in most of our experiences thusreventing our experiencing the "rare" states of matter.

That's what the string theorists said, according to the string theory website. (funny you are so arrogant, but you can't read what I wrote)

The string theory website? There's only one? Can you provide me a link to the apparently singular source of information about string theory on the entire Internet?

When you can learn to discuss these things respectfully, you will get better replies than this.

You first. Show some respect to the hard earned knowledge discovered through the life's work of thousands of scientists around the world. You could start by not misrepresenting, distorting or lying about what they dedicated their lives to figuring out. You could also show respect to other readers of the forum by not pretending to know things that you don't really know.

How long we have been around depends on how you define human. There was no reason to correct me. You have so much to learn, dude.

So your defense is to claim that you were using a purposely vague word? And I'm supposed to respect you for doing something that lazy and sloppy? Besides, there is every likelihood that your knowledge of paleoanthropology is as bad or worse than your knowledge of physics, cosmology, chemistry and botany.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

False. And a horoscope section in a newspaper does not provide the public with any ideas or beliefs.

Please provide a link to a local newspaper that has a science section but no horoscopes. Claiming that newspaper make believe is not up to the level of your favored make believe is hardly a convincing rejoinder.

It does not at all. They are just different fields of study.

Make believe is not "a field of stuffy". Creating a movie is not a field of study. Writing the great American novel is not a field of study. There are many non-scientific activities that can bring joy, pleasure and value to an individuals life. But, that doesn't make them fields do study.

Did you know that they correspond to hormone and nerve centers?

Did you know that pointing to things that already are known and understood is not evidence? Did you know that randomly pointing at the midline of any vertebrate's anatomy will put your finger in "close proximity" to some endocrine tissue and/or nerve clusters. Do you know what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is?

Other facts about chakras are, that anyone who is conscious of their own body (as well as clairvoyants seeing them in others), will see them; and descriptions of them have much in common across time and culture.

Those aren't facts. Those are agreed upon rules of your shared make believe play.Got a controlled, objective experiment to support these claims.

You assume and set up your own requirements for reality, and then if they don't meet them, declare they aren't real.Time wasted

Rationalizing why New Age claims repeatedly fail to pass properly controlled experiments. Instead of re-evaluating whether their claims might be faulty, New Agers just walk away and tell themselves it's all true despite the repeated failures.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I disagree because I include more in the natural world than you do.

Read: make believe is just as real as what can be demonstrated to exist.

You can keep your extremely narrow view of reality. It does not serve or interest me.

Typing out "it does not serve me" on an Internet connected digital device is the height of ignorance.

Maybe Odin will buy it.I just repeated what the physicists in the PBS documentary said.

Your claims about science are based on what you remember some scientists said in a documentary aimed at non-experts? You are pathetic.

I don't claim to be an expert on dark energy.

But you feel perfectly justified claiming that dark energy supports your make believe view of how the natural world works?

But then, since it is a mystery, who is?

The individuals who actually understand how the evidence is gathered, who understand the strengths and weaknesses of various tools for investigation, who are capable of incorporating various versions of what dark energy might be into our most current theoretical understandings of cosmology, who are capable of using various theoretical tools to make testable predictions of what we might find given new technological tools. In short cosmologists are the experts. At the very least they are far more of experts than a non-educated, pontificating, New Age pretender.

Originally Posted by Odin

By "consciousness" Brian is referring to the subjective aspect of awareness, AKA "Qualia", such as my subjective awareness of the color red. I consider the Qualia question (sometimes called the "Hard Problem of Consciousness") genuinely unanswerable simply because one can not get inside the brain of another person, though I do reject the notion of a "philosopher's zombie", a mythical creature that is the basis of a lot of really bad and idiotic thought experiments by those, like John Searle, who wish to deny the possibility of AIs that have subjective experience.

Yep. You've got to start with something objective. Definitions based on subjective opinions or concepts are useless for learning about the natural world.

Brian . . The biological automaton is an interesting concept. I'll have to cogitate some more. Your position is that science could never falsify the idea. Could it ever verify it? I.E. prove that there is definitely no such thing as consciousness as most people mean and care about? The myriad of ways that our brain already deceives us about what we are experiencing at any point in time could be expanded to include consciousness as illusionary as well? Not really sure, just kind of rambling on.Your requirements definitely make the task difficult. The additional requirement that it be an operational definition could be seen as an attempt to purposely make the task impossible. (Sagan's dragon in the garage)Is there the possibility of some sort of pattern in the responses from a battery of questions that would be defined as coming from a conscious entity? In the same vein that psychologists operationally define intelligence as particular response patterns on IQ tests?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Read: make believe is just as real as what can be demonstrated to exist.

What can be demonstrated to exist in your terms, is a very narrow slice of reality.

Typing out "it does not serve me" on an Internet connected digital device is the height of ignorance.

Your narrow world view does not serve me. My spiritual growth is infinitely more important to me than typing out these words on a computer in response to somebody who spouts nonsense.

Your claims about science are based on what you remember some scientists said in a documentary aimed at non-experts?

How you can leap to such conclusions about me is incredible. I was just quoting a PBS documentary. It is clear that you are no more an expert than I. Stop pretending.

But you feel perfectly justified claiming that dark energy supports your make believe view of how the natural world works?

All I said is to quote the scientists, and say space is filled with dark energy; that I am not justified in called it spirit as a term of physics, but that it does suggest that space as an "element" is more than we usually think it is.

non-educated, pontificating, New Age pretender.

Insults are not an enlightened discussion.

You first. Show some respect to the hard earned knowledge discovered through the life's work of thousands of scientists around the world. You could start by not misrepresenting, distorting or lying about what they dedicated their lives to figuring out. You could also show respect to other readers of the forum by not pretending to know things that you don't really know.

You like a few others here are expressing the really-screwed up opinion that because I am not an expert scientist, that I have no right to an opinion about it. Pooey on you. All you have done is to declare that, because you disagree with me, that I don't respect science, and don't know anything about it. No, you first.


Science can tell us something, but not everything, about anything.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Is this some kind of "I Art Thou"-game you're playing with me?

No.

I don't know, Eric. Maybe try starting with defining the opposite of those terms and see where that may lead you.

Well, yes and no. Yes, they are difficult to define. People are certainly attempting to operationalize these words/values/concepts all the time. I believe coming to an agreement of what these words are not may help us to determine what they are. Then, maybe we can attempt to operationalize them by attempting to minimize the occurance of their opposites(ie: not good, not just, not fair).

Since that's your approach, you would be the one best to pursue it. I'll need to check back and see what the original question was.

I said: "To me freedom means a decent opportunity to make a good life for one's self in society, because it's a reasonably just and fair society, under rules decided upon democratically or by consensus rather than mere power....I guess "good" is pretty much self-defined. But if most people find it increasingly hard to make enough money to make ends meet, that's not "good enough" in my book. That's what's been happening under tinkle-down's reign for the last 32 years, since you know who took over the reins. "Fair" could refer to progressive taxation, and compensation/working conditions that is adequate rather than excessively high or low, and "just" to equal justice under the law (sadly lacking for many ethics groups), but also to other similar matters like various forms of protection against abuse. The bottom line is that liberals are interested in these things, and conservatives just aren't at all. The latter are interested in what is good, fair and just for a small minority of wealthy folks, and that is all."

That is not an exhaustive list of what a "good" free society is, but it's a "good" start. A good life starts with having enough to do more than make a living. I admit partly this is a choice to pursue things you love instead of wealth alone. I don't think giving tax breaks to the rich in hope the benefits will trickle down from the job creaters is fair. Progressive taxation is eminently fair. If you lose your home because big banks gambled away your mortgage because of lax regulations, that is "not" fair.

Q: How do you account for an individual's possible changing POV over time i/r/t responses?
[On a personal note: I've always had an aversion towards having my picture taken. I feel as if it sort of "traps me in time"(so to speak). I've heard that some American Indians felt the same. I do have a decent amount of Cherokee genes in me, so....whatever. Answering questionaires sorta feels that way to me.]

I think you're right. You probably agreed with that "no-one steps in the same stream twice" question. The score is only a current score. Since I made up the test, I myself have barely moved at all. But before that, I had moved drastically in where I would have been. All the movement I made occurred during the 2T years. Others who have taken it (including Odin) had different scores at different times, though in the same quadrant. Many of us often do move and change our philosophy over time; some more than others, and at some times in our lives more than others.

No I don't. That's where I think Plato kinda screwed-up. By using the term "The Good", he obscures the definition of the larger concept(The Absolute) with the lesser components of "good and "bad"(The Relative). It's a common problem i/r/t understanding, IME.

I know that I studied him in depth, and one conclusion I came to is that "the good" for Plato is actually pursuing what we care about. In that way he agreed with a philosopher quite opposite to him, Martin Heidegger. But it is a big subject. I do tend to think that without an absolute good, there IS no relative good. But just WHAT that absolute is can't be fully defined in language or symbols; it can only be suggested. I think that The Good is an attribute of the Absolute, the Divine. I think Plato moved toward that idea too. The Good, with one "o" instead of two.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Brian . . The biological automaton is an interesting concept. I'll have to cogitate some more. Your position is that science could never falsify the idea. Could it ever verify it? I.E. prove that there is definitely no such thing as consciousness as most people mean and care about? The myriad of ways that our brain already deceives us about what we are experiencing at any point in time could be expanded to include consciousness as illusionary as well?

No. That's an absurd claim. It is literally impossible for us to doubt that we experience reality subjectively.

Now, that we have fallacious ideas about exactly who and what we are -- about what it is that is doing the experiencing -- that's different. Yes, we could well be (and I believe often are) mistaken about that. But that the experience is happening, no, we cannot be wrong about that.

The additional requirement that it be an operational definition could be seen as an attempt to purposely make the task impossible.

That is however a requirement for scientific treatment, wouldn't you agree? All scientific definitions are operational definitions.

Is there the possibility of some sort of pattern in the responses from a battery of questions that would be defined as coming from a conscious entity? In the same vein that psychologists operationally define intelligence as particular response patterns on IQ tests?

Intelligence and consciousness aren't the same thing, although they are often confused in ordinary thought. Intelligence has objective components. It can be described operationally as a response to stimuli indicating memory, cognition, and informed choice.

I don't believe there is any set of responses that could falsify the biological automaton, but I'm open to considering candidates.

Eric, the site was down earlier and I lost a rather long response to you. I'm not going to attempt another response at length. My apologies if my responses appear somewhat sterile.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No.

For future reference: When I put an Ultra-Smiley at the end of a question/statement, you can take it that I'm being rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Eric

Since that's your approach, you would be the one best to pursue it. I'll need to check back and see what the original question was.

I said: "To me freedom means a decent opportunity to make a good life for one's self in society, because it's a reasonably just and fair society, under rules decided upon democratically or by consensus rather than mere power....I guess "good" is pretty much self-defined. But if most people find it increasingly hard to make enough money to make ends meet, that's not "good enough" in my book. That's what's been happening under tinkle-down's reign for the last 32 years, since you know who took over the reins. "Fair" could refer to progressive taxation, and compensation/working conditions that is adequate rather than excessively high or low, and "just" to equal justice under the law (sadly lacking for many ethics groups), but also to other similar matters like various forms of protection against abuse. The bottom line is that liberals are interested in these things, and conservatives just aren't at all. The latter are interested in what is good, fair and just for a small minority of wealthy folks, and that is all."

That is not an exhaustive list of what a "good" free society is, but it's a "good" start. A good life starts with having enough to do more than make a living. I admit partly this is a choice to pursue things you love instead of wealth alone. I don't think giving tax breaks to the rich in hope the benefits will trickle down from the job creaters is fair. Progressive taxation is eminently fair. If you lose your home because big banks gambled away your mortgage because of lax regulations, that is "not" fair.

If the process that you use for determining definitions and operationalizing them is working for you, I would just stick with it. If in the future you find that process to be insufficient, know that there are other ways that may be more effective. Bottom Line: I'm not interested in changing your mind.

Originally Posted by Eric

I think you're right. You probably agreed with that "no-one steps in the same stream twice" question.

I believe the stream is simultaneously both the same and different depending on one's POV and definition of the environment.

Originally Posted by Eric

The score is only a current score. Since I made up the test, I myself have barely moved at all. But before that, I had moved drastically in where I would have been. All the movement I made occurred during the 2T years. Others who have taken it (including Odin) had different scores at different times, though in the same quadrant. Many of us often do move and change our philosophy over time; some more than others, and at some times in our lives more than others.

FWIW, your test achieved results that I believe successfully described my own opinion of my POV.

Originally Posted by Eric

I know that I studied him in depth, and one conclusion I came to is that "the good" for Plato is actually pursuing what we care about. In that way he agreed with a philosopher quite opposite to him, Martin Heidegger.

I'm generally of the same mind. When I was responding to your initial reference to the "Form of the Good", I was even thinking Plato might have labeled it something such as the "Form of the Desired".

Originally Posted by Eric

But it is a big subject. I do tend to think that without an absolute good, there IS no relative good. But just WHAT that absolute is can't be fully defined in language or symbols; it can only be suggested. I think that The Good is an attribute of the Absolute, the Divine. I think Plato moved toward that idea too. The Good, with one "o" instead of two.

Again, I believe we're generally in agreement. I would probably say that "The Absolute" has components of both "Pairs of Opposites", simultaneously(eg: good and bad). What is important to me is that "The Absolute" is defined as "The thing that has no Relation". Whether we call it Truth, God, Infinity, Nothingness, Eternal-ness, Love, Good, Whatever! makes no difference to me. It simply seems that people use the positive-sense of any of the "Pairs of Opposites" to describe the overall "Whole" because the necessary negative-sense is deemed undesirable(eg: "Good"=good and bad(not-good).


Take care, Prince

PS: Now, applying those concepts in one's life is an entirely different endeavor!

Just for fun, I retook Eric's test. Got the same answer I got before:

25-50S
25-50E
Awareness
Awe
Romanticism
Schopenhauer
James
Alan Watts
Jos.Campbell

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Just for fun, I retook Eric's test. Got the same answer I got before:

25-50S
25-50E
Awareness
Awe
Romanticism
Schopenhauer
James
Alan Watts
Jos.Campbell

~Chas'88

Hi Chas. That sounds about right for you, IMO. Do you feel the result is representative of your current POV?

Prince

PS:Remember, the esteemed empirical-scientist(ie: Eric) desires exactness in the results from his respondents(ie: specimens!).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Again, I believe we're generally in agreement. I would probably say that "The Absolute" has components of both "Pairs of Opposites", simultaneously(eg: good and bad). What is important to me is that "The Absolute" is defined as "The thing that has no Relation". Whether we call it Truth, God, Infinity, Nothingness, Eternal-ness, Love, Good, Whatever! makes no difference to me. It simply seems that people use the positive-sense of any of the "Pairs of Opposites" to describe the overall "Whole" because the necessary negative-sense is deemed undesirable(eg: "Good"=good and bad(not-good).

Yes I agree. One way I like to look at it, is to remember what Jesus said, when someone addressed him as "good teacher": "why call me good? there is no good but God." And this is Platonic too. "The Good" applies to "God" or the Absolute, but to say any particular thing is "good" or "bad" is a judgement, and not really accurate, strictly speaking. We do it anyway. But the attribute that we call "Good" that belongs to "God," will transcend our usual idea of good and bad things and the difference between them.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Just for fun, I retook Eric's test. Got the same answer I got before:

25-50S
25-50E
Awareness
Awe
Romanticism
Schopenhauer
James
Alan Watts
Jos.Campbell

~Chas'88

I don't get why Eric puts William James there. I would think that he was right around 0 M/S.

Ditto with Jung being way up-high, I would put Jung close to the middle of the chart with a lean towards E. He showed a kind of principled agnosticism with regards to the mind-body issue and treated the archetypes as correlates of physiological instincts, without saying which causes which. He made a big deal about emphasizing his empiricism (he was an ISTP).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What can be demonstrated to exist in your terms, is a very narrow slice of reality.

Reality in your view being made up of whatever nonsensical imaginings you feel like including at any time. not the least bit useful.

Your narrow world view does not serve me. My spiritual growth is infinitely more important to me than typing out these words on a computer in response to somebody who spouts nonsense.

You didn't stipulate a level of serving in your original statement. This is called moving the goalpost. Pathetic.

How you can leap to such conclusions about me is incredible. I was just quoting a PBS documentary. It is clear that you are no more an expert than I. Stop pretending.

Since you haven't been able to demonstrate you really understand any of the scientific concepts involved so far, I'm not inclined to trust that you accurately quoted the scientists themselves. Additionally, having some basic knowledge of the topic I am aware of typical misunderstandings that occur when lay people quote scientists. Finally, is a single quote in a documentary aimed at "dumbing down" the complexities of the research for uneducated viewers really a legitimate source that you claim could explain the whole of reality?

All I said is to quote the scientists, and say space is filled with dark energy; that I am not justified in called it spirit as a term of physics, but that it does suggest that space as an "element" is more than we usually think it is.

I'm well aware of how complicated "space" is compared to most peole's conception of it. However, your conception of it is not in the least bit accurate. BTW: I'm not really clear about what you mean by "element" in this context. If you are implying that it is somehow related to the ancient conceptions of earth, air, water, etc. then you are really, really off base.

Insults are not an enlightened discussion.

Nearly every statement you make about science is an insult to the hard work and dedicated lives of the thousands of scientists who've struggled to gain and subsequently share new knowledge with the rest of humanity. Proceed with some modicum of respect and I shall refrain from insulting you.

You like a few others here are expressing the really-screwed up opinion that because I am not an expert scientist, that I have no right to an opinion about it. Pooey on you. All you have done is to declare that, because you disagree with me, that I don't respect science, and don't know anything about it. No, you first.

No. I've repeatedly pointed out that your opinions are uninformed, misrepresentative and often pure fabrications. You've got the cause and effect completely backwards. I disagree with you because you clearly don't know what you are talking about and your statements about the topics I find to be disrespectful of the scientists involved. How else am I to feel when you blatantly lie about Hubble's role in the early development of big bang theory? Not only that, but when your lie is pointed out and I provide some clarifying material showing your deception your response was to simply repeat the lie.

Science can tell us something, but not everything, about anything.

Pithy. If only you could at least demonstrate understanding of the things that science has told us. You just want to ignore the parts of science that flatly contradict your fantasy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No. That's an absurd claim. It is literally impossible for us to doubt that we experience reality subjectively.

Not sure I agree with the absurdity claim. Many, many experiences that humans undergo have already been shown to be illusionary. This is the basis of visual and auditory illusions. I simply ask if those cognitive functions can deceive, is it not merely possible, however unlikely, that consciousness could be another deceptive perception?

Now, that we have fallacious ideas about exactly who and what we are -- about what it is that is doing the experiencing -- that's different. Yes, we could well be (and I believe often are) mistaken about that. But that the experience is happening, no, we cannot be wrong about that.

But why can we not be wrong about that. What particular evidence rules out such a possibility? Note: I'm primarily engaged in some devil's advocacy at this point. It sounds like this may be a path that you've been through enough times already and if you don't wish to pursue it, I would not take it amiss.

That is however a requirement for scientific treatment, wouldn't you agree? All scientific definitions are operational definitions.

Not necessarily. Science being a process that we must engage in, within the real world, theoretical definitions may at times serve useful purposes. Operational definitions for everything may be an ideal goal but not a requirement.

Intelligence and consciousness aren't the same thing, although they are often confused in ordinary thought. Intelligence has objective components. It can be described operationally as a response to stimuli indicating memory, cognition, and informed choice.

I agree. I did not mean to imply that they were interchangeable. I wish simply to inquire if there is some sort of evidence that indicates that a similar style metric for determining consciousness is impossible? Or is the failure to develop one being substituted for that evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't believe there is any set of responses that could falsify the biological automaton, but I'm open to considering candidates.

As am I. I in no way claim to be up to the task of developing such a metric but I'm reluctant to conclude it is impossible.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Proceed with some modicum of respect and I shall refrain from insulting you.

Well, as Brian used to say, on the ignore list you go. You are truly the worst troll I've ever encountered on this forum in 15 years. And we've had a few bad ones lately.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Not sure I agree with the absurdity claim. Many, many experiences that humans undergo have already been shown to be illusionary. This is the basis of visual and auditory illusions. I simply ask if those cognitive functions can deceive, is it not merely possible, however unlikely, that consciousness could be another deceptive perception?

Consider an optical illusion. One sees something that appears to be one thing, but is really another. One is not, however, mistaken that one is seeing. One is merely making an error of judgment about the nature of what one is seeing. All such errors are errors of judgment about perceptions -- removed one step from primary experience itself.

To be wrong about being conscious, we would have to not merely misunderstand or misjudge the nature of what we are experiencing, but be wrong that we are experiencing anything. If that were the case, there would be no illusion -- there would be no anything.

We can easily be, and often are, wrong about what we are experiencing. We can never, ever be wrong that we are experiencing. That's in an entirely different epistemic category, and it is literally impossible to make that mistake.

But why can we not be wrong about that. What particular evidence rules out such a possibility?

It has nothing to do with evidence. Evidence applies to judgments about what we are perceiving. That we are experiencing does not have to be judged and requires no evidence. We simply know it, and everything else we know we judge from experience. We can be wrong about many things, but not that.

Suppose that you bump your head on a cabinet door that someone left open. If you want to accuse someone of having done this, you may reasonably ask yourself to prove that they did, and that you didn't leave it open yourself, or that it didn't swing open of its own accord, or even that you didn't bump your head on something else entirely. But you will not ask yourself to prove that your head hurts. That, you know, and cannot be wrong about. See the distinction?

Not necessarily. Science being a process that we must engage in, within the real world, theoretical definitions may at times serve useful purposes. Operational definitions for everything may be an ideal goal but not a requirement.

Can you share with us a scientific definition that's not operational? Bear in mind that "operational" and "theoretical" are not conflicting terms, and that it isn't necessary that we be able to perform the defining operation as a practical matter.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Can you share with us a scientific definition that's not operational? Bear in mind that "operational" and "theoretical" are not conflicting terms, and that it isn't necessary that we be able to perform the defining operation as a practical matter.

Can I? No. Does that make it impossible? No.

http://fcmconference.org/img/Cambrid...sciousness.pdf

The researchers admit how very difficult it is to do. But, they have not simply thrown up their arms and declared it impossible.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, as Brian used to say, on the ignore list you go. You are truly the worst troll I've ever encountered on this forum in 15 years. And we've had a few bad ones lately.

Typical response of woo-pushers when faced by someone who doesn't simply take their word for everything . . . run away.

BTW: I'm well aware that Eric won't read this response but the point still deserves to be made.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Can I? No. Does that make it impossible? No.

http://fcmconference.org/img/Cambrid...sciousness.pdf

The researchers admit how very difficult it is to do. But, they have not simply thrown up their arms and declared it impossible.

The Cambridge researchers were not approaching the question I asked you, which was not about consciousness (I understand the confusion since our conversation overall was about consciousness, but this particular matter wasn't). Rather, it was about scientific methodology. I stated that all scientific definitions must be operational; you responded that they could be "theoretical" instead.

My point is that in science all terms must be understood operationally, that is, in ways that lend themselves to observational or experimental testing (whether or not, as a practical matter, any such test could actually be performed given our current technology and circumstantial limitations). If no test can be performed as a practical matter, any discussion about the term will remain speculative, but if no test can even be conceived or described, then no scientific discussion can take place at all -- not even speculation.

When I ask you what test could be performed to determine whether a human being (other than oneself) is conscious, I don't mean to require that this test could be done as a practical matter. If it can't, but we can at least conceive of the test, then consciousness will become a scientific concept, even if it must remain a speculative one for the moment.

Regarding the Cambridge declaration, the key phrase is found in the first paragraph: "the neurobiological substrates of conscious
experience and related behaviors in human and non-human animals." It's possible to study those "neurobiological substrates," certainly, but in doing so we must assume -- without evidence -- that they actually are substrates, i.e. that they actually are the cause of consciousness. There is also no evidence whatever justifying the phrase "related behaviors," as we have no way to tell objectively whether a given behavior is related to consciousness or not -- or even whether consciousness is present. Of course, any such behaviors can themselves be studied, as can any behaviors whatever.

The paper goes on to discuss "neural substrates of emotions," and here they are on more solid ground, since "emotions" can be defined operationally and objectively (in behavioral terms emotion is known as "affect" and that would have been a better term to use). What we call "emotion" is a subjectively-experienced feeling. We also observe in ourselves certain behaviors associated with emotions that we feel. We observe the same behaviors in others in circumstances in which we would feel certain things. We reasonably (in terms of common sense) assume that the person behaving the same way in the same circumstances is feeling the same thing that we would feel, or something close to it -- we assume (again reasonably in terms of common sense) that the other person is feeling anything. But we cannot prove this, ever. All we can show objectively is that stimuli give rise to neural responses which give rise to behaviors.

What's more, all of this work that these scientists are doing can be done and described without any reference to consciousness at all, and it would lose nothing in the way of objective, measurable, scientifically valid results. The idea of consciousness adds nothing substantive to what they are doing here and in fact pollutes it with non-scientific elements -- and a non-scientific element corrupting science deserves the label "unscientific," which is a pejorative.

Any idea we have about consciousness itself, as opposed to its neural and behavioral accompaniments, must always be non-scientific in character; it must be philosophical or mystical or religious. This isn't "throwing up our hands in despair." It's simply recognizing that that which can't be observed is outside the realm of science, a tool of thought ideally suited to determining factual truths about observable reality but useless for any other purpose.