Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → Ringside seats → Comments on Hassan V debunker

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
April 23, 2024, 06:50 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 12:02 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
April 19, 2024, 04:40 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
April 19, 2024, 12:50 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 04:17 AM
What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM
New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM
Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM
Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM
Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Comments on Hassan V debunker

 (Read 73146 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #240 - January 29, 2010, 07:25 PM
    Quote
    You don't even get yourselves busy with these questions. All you're concerned about is to study the brain/nerves and their functions.


    How much time did you spend looking up current research in the field of neuroscience before you posted that?

    Quote
    it does exist, but you so easily dismissed it because it's recognized by philosophers.


    If the problem exists you should be able to find evidence of that from science, not philosophy.


    Quote
    Then you missed my conversation with Z10 when I repeatedly told him that his solution is as arbitrary an assumption as mine.


    Ah, there we have it.  That's what you should have said a page and a half ago when Tara asked you for evidence, instead of roaring at her in caps.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #241 - January 29, 2010, 07:26 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on January 29, 2010, 07:10 PM
    You really need to drop your homoerotic affair with z10 Wink  Its based on nothing other than the fact that he agrees with the first part of your theory.  

    But even Hazrat Z10 (pbuh) doesnt fill in the blanks with a soul, nor does he agree with us, so best leave him out of our discussions and leave him for you own private love affair with him.


    Well, I have to admit that I did fall in love with Z10 at first sight, but not in that way.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #242 - January 29, 2010, 07:28 PM
    @ Cheetah

    Quote
    How much time did you spend looking up current research in the field of neuroscience before you posted that?


    zero.

    Quote
    If the problem exists you should be able to find evidence of that from science, not philosophy.


    says you.

    Quote
    Ah, there we have it.  That's what you should have said a page and a half ago when Tara asked you for evidence, instead of roaring at her in caps.


    I "roared" after the fact.. (after my long conversation with Z10... I thought she read it).
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #243 - January 29, 2010, 07:38 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 07:07 PM
    Well, your question is a reformulation of Z10's question to me. He asked me how can I know matter is non-sentient?

    Well, there's obviously no proof for it... saying that matter is sentient is as arbitrary an assumption as assuming soul exists.


    I actually asked this question:

    What makes you think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #244 - January 29, 2010, 07:45 PM
    This is pathetic, it's turned into a debate about what who really said about what and how much who has read up about what.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #245 - January 29, 2010, 07:51 PM
    thats because there is no substance in soul Wink
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #246 - January 29, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on January 29, 2010, 07:38 PM
    I actually asked this question:

    What makes you think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical?


    Oh OK, now I read your question carefully. Ans: I do NOT think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical. Examples? Humans and animals are sentient physical beings. The problem is: how can they be sentient when they're made up of non-sentient matter?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #247 - January 29, 2010, 08:03 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 07:24 PM
    Come again?! Francis Collins is an evangilcal Christian? That's all he is? My answer to you was to the point.. you implied that a scientist shouldn't believe in religion, so I shown you a genius scientist who believes in religion.

    Lol! I never said anything like that. It's a free country you know, he can believe in anything he wants to.
    My argument was that Mr. Collins (or scientists in general) never uses beliefs when he is doing genetics; he relies on facts and empirical evidence only. Yet somehow it doesn't bother him basing ethical and moral aspects of his life on revelation based beliefs instead of on hard facts. It is this inconsistency that fascinates me when it comes to scientists who happen to be believers.

    Btw have you seen Religolous?
    Bill Maher interviewing Francis Collins:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWYpdCpF6M

    *This is actually not the whole interview, the best bits are missing; I tried posting the whole thing but Youtube is on strike. Will try and add the whole interview later.

  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #248 - January 29, 2010, 08:06 PM
    Notice how Francis retracts his "witnesses" comment when Maher calls him on it. And retracts once more. And then settles on a third change.

    Why did he do that?

    Why did he not start with the third statement? This coming from a genius scientist.

    NOTE:
    My argument comes from some youtube video, don't remember the guy, but a fantastic comment.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #249 - January 29, 2010, 08:12 PM
    @ Kenan

    yep, I watched Religlious.. it was fun. Speaking of interviewing Francis Collins, here's a 2 HOUR meeting with Francis Collins held at Univ of California, Berkeley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

    I don't exactly agree with every argument he used for God, but it was an excellent video to watch, overall.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #250 - January 29, 2010, 08:24 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 08:12 PM
    yep, I watched Religlious.. it was fun.

    A bit simplistic for my taste, but yeah, fun.

  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #251 - January 29, 2010, 08:46 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on January 29, 2010, 07:38 PM
    I actually asked this question:

    What makes you think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical?

    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Oh OK, now I read your question carefully. Ans: I do NOT think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical. Examples? Humans and animals are sentient physical beings. The problem is: how can they be sentient when they're made up of non-sentient physical matter?

    That wasnt the question.  Nice try, but I have corrected it for you  Roll Eyes
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #252 - January 29, 2010, 09:45 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on January 29, 2010, 06:33 PM
    You're merely repeating the same baseless assertion.  Where is your evidence? 

    With all due respect to T.H. Huxley, science has moved on alot since his day.  Can you please produce something peer reviewed from the current field of neuroscience to back up your assertion that there is a non-physical component to consciousness.  Thanx in advance.


    I think you are confusing the purpose of neuroscience. It is the study of neurology of the brain, it doesn't 'explain' anything because it's not trying to. The field of study that is interested in the question of consciousness is philosophy of mind. If you like I can provide you with 100+ peer reviewed papers and books by professional philosophers (both physicalists and non-physicalists) who acknowledge that consciousness is a problem that our current paradigm cannot account for.

    To give you an example, neuroscience may find that pain is correlated with the c-fibre neuron (this isn't true but for arguments sake), however,  this doesn't explain anything. What is the relationship between the c-fibre and pain? Is it one of reduction, supervenience or brute contingent law? Why is it that the firing of this neuron results in pain? Why doesn't the c-fibre just fire and my brain carry on its business, why do I, in short, have experience at all? I submit to you, that these are not scientific questions but rather questions of metaphysics/ ontology.

    It comes down to this: you can never put yourself in another person's shoes with absolute certainty. This is a matter of definition, everybody's experiences are subjective to themselves and so you cannot objectively define their experience (as science attempts to do, the scientific enterprise, in principle, breaks down when asked to consider subjective viewpoints which is good because it was never meant to).
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #253 - January 29, 2010, 09:48 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Oh OK, now I read your question carefully. Ans: I do NOT think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical. Examples? Humans and animals are sentient physical beings. The problem is: how can they be sentient when they're made up of non-sentient matter?


    Well you answered the question but not the question I had intended:

    What makes you think that sentience must be non-physical?

    Wait, scrap that.

    I see what you are trying to say. You're trying to say that a physical being could be "linked up" with sentience and thus we have a "sentient physical being". But strictly speaking, you don't believe in sentient physical beings, in the sense that a being's sentience is not caused by any of their physical parts. So let's not confuse ourselves. Otherwise, the bold above could be seen as contradictions. See what I mean?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #254 - January 29, 2010, 10:00 PM
    Quote from: z10 on January 29, 2010, 09:45 PM
    I think you are confusing the purpose of neuroscience. It is the study of neurology of the brain, it doesn't 'explain' anything because it's not trying to. The field of study that is interested in the question of consciousness is philosophy of mind. If you like I can provide you with 100+ peer reviewed papers and books by professional philosophers (both physicalists and non-physicalists) who acknowledge that consciousness is a problem that our current paradigm cannot account for.

    To give you an example, neuroscience may find that pain is correlated with the c-fibre neuron (this isn't true but for arguments sake), however,  this doesn't explain anything. What is the relationship between the c-fibre and pain? Is it one of reduction, supervenience or brute contingent law? Why is it that the firing of this neuron results in pain? Why doesn't the c-fibre just fire and my brain carry on its business, why do I, in short, have experience at all? I submit to you, that these are not scientific questions but rather questions of metaphysics/ ontology.

    It comes down to this: you can never put yourself in another person's shoes with absolute certainty. This is a matter of definition, everybody's experiences are subjective to themselves and so you cannot objectively define their experience (as science attempts to do, the scientific enterprise, in principle, breaks down when asked to consider subjective viewpoints which is good because it was never meant to).


    You have no good reason to think that experience is non-physical. You actually presume it. That must mean you think experience to be necessarily non-physical. But why? This is the reasoning that the dualist goes through:

    Premise 1: Everything that is physical is not sentient
    Conclusion: Everything that is sentient is non-physical.

    The conclusion is basically contained within the premise.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #255 - January 29, 2010, 10:04 PM
    j4m3z: whatever gave you the idea that I am a dualist? I am not a dualist, nor do I need to be to ask questions of reality.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #256 - January 29, 2010, 10:08 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 05:53 PM
    @ Tara

    This time I'm going to caps, maybe it will make a difference?

    CONSCIENCENESS IS NON-PHYSICAL AND THUS IT CANNOT BE *SOLELY* DEPENDENT ON THE PHYSICAL (BRAIN/BODY).


    Conscience or conciousness? They mean different things. If you are talking about consciousness (self awareness) then heres my post:
    My evidence: once your brain doesn't function, you lose consciousness. Theres no reason to suspect something non-physical when anesthetics, sedatives and hypnotics alter concsiousness by affecting different parts of your brain responsible for conciousness. How can you say it's not physical when physical things  like drugs or trauma can alter it?

    Quote
    Oh please don't mix up things, ok? The *eternity* of soul is a totally different subject and has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been discussing with you before Z10 joined in.
     

    I just said it was puzzling and makes no sense.

    Quote
    I know nothing about the soul except that it's the non-physical element which completes the picture.

    How can you claim that when you know nothing about the soul?

    Quote
    In this life, soul AND body are responsible for consciencness.


    More baseless claims..

    Quote
    What will happen after you die? Nothing, you will be forever dead. (I don't want to get into particular religious beliefs here, but as far as this world is concerned a non-physical element is needed to explain conscienceness -- religionists refer to this missing non-physical element as soul, people like Huxley likens it to magic, etc, but the point again is: the existence of body/brain, on its own, cannot explain conscienceness).


    Religionists only claim, they don't show any evidence. The biochemical basis of our awareness is quite evident and can be tested. Soul cannot be tested. Brain activity can be seen on an EEG. Soul cannot be seen.

    Quote
    This will be the last time I discuss this with you.

    regards.


     Cry
    If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #257 - January 29, 2010, 10:10 PM
    Quote from: z10 on January 29, 2010, 10:04 PM
    j4m3z: whatever gave you the idea that I am a dualist? I am not a dualist, nor do I need to be to ask questions of reality.




    So you accept that we do not need to propose the existence of a non-physical dimension in order to explain sentience? (Either that or you're an idealist)
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #258 - January 29, 2010, 10:14 PM
    J4, why the need to label me?

    No, I do not think there is anything non-physical about consciousness. (by physical here I mean natural.)

    This does not mean however, that I agree with the current physicalist paradigm.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #259 - January 29, 2010, 10:18 PM
    @ Z10

    That's OK Z10, J4 actually will need to read what you wrote and then perhaps come back to you and tell you you are a dualist.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #260 - January 29, 2010, 10:31 PM
    debunker, what do you mean? Anyway, what about that question I asked you?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #261 - January 29, 2010, 10:34 PM
    Quote from: z10 on January 29, 2010, 10:14 PM
    J4, why the need to label me?

    No, I do not think there is anything non-physical about consciousness. (by physical here I mean natural.)

    This does not mean however, that I agree with the current physicalist paradigm.


    No need to fear labels, they can be very helpful in understanding somebody else's position in a debate. Which is how I intended to use them.

    The benefits and limitations of the physicalist paradigm including what that even is can wait for another day, I want (and I think everybody here will also want) to get to the bottom of the dualist debate first.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #262 - January 29, 2010, 10:38 PM
    well, why is there this assumption that one must either be a dualist or a physicalist? I am neither because both positions are very weak.

    To get a handle on what exactly I mean by physicalism I ask you to look at the following link, this is written by a professional philosopher and is regularly cited in peer-review papers:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

    Section 13 gives a rough overview of why I feel physicalism is inadequate to account for consciousness.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #263 - January 29, 2010, 10:40 PM
    No, it wasn't me who assumed one had to be a physicalist or a dualist.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #264 - January 29, 2010, 10:46 PM
    And in response to the syllogism in section 13 I would be inclined to say that therefore Mary didn't know everything there was to know about the physical world. There's also the point that one can only know whatever could be known about the physical world at the current moment in time, thereby leaving open the possibility to learn more about the physical world as time goes on.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #265 - January 29, 2010, 10:50 PM
    @ Z10

    It *would* seem to me that in your argument for panpsychism, you started with the premise that conscious beings are entirely part of nature (incluing their conscienceness, which is already under question) which eventually led you to the conclusion that all matter is sentient.

    But in this case, this doesn't really solve the hard problem of conscienceness, does it?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #266 - January 29, 2010, 10:59 PM
    @ J4

    Quote
    I see what you are trying to say. You're trying to say that a physical being could be "linked up" with sentience and thus we have a "sentient physical being". But strictly speaking, you don't believe in sentient physical beings, in the sense that a being's sentience is not caused by any of their physical parts. So let's not confuse ourselves. Otherwise, the bold above could be seen as contradictions. See what I mean?


    That's exactly what I thought until Z10 came along and taught me a little something about panpsychism (which I'm not convinced in), this also led me to learn for the first time that the problem I was talking about is actually well-known by the name:

    *The hard problem of conscienceness*

    Now, questions:

    1- Do you believe in the validity of the hard problem of conscienceness? yes/no?
    2- How would you propose to solve it?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #267 - January 29, 2010, 11:00 PM
    I think panpsychism, especially process panexperientialism (a system of metaphysics written by Alfred Whitehead) does more to solve the mind-body problem than any other variation.

    You are correct that I am assuming that everything in nature is natural, to me this is a natural assumption, ha
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #268 - January 29, 2010, 11:06 PM
    Quote
    You are correct that I am assuming that everything in nature is natural, to me this is a natural assumption, ha


    but this already entails the assumption that conscienceness is is also part of nature! And that's what's being questioned anyway! So, how can we start with a premise that assumes an answer to our question?!
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #269 - January 29, 2010, 11:08 PM
    It's a natural assumption because my consciousness is subject to the laws of nature, I am in direct causal connection with all of nature, it would be incredibly difficult to argue that my consciousness is supernatural and yet in causal connection with nature esp since you run into the interaction problem again.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »