15 of 16
15
Illusion of Freedom
Posted: 23 November 2012 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 211 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Gosh, I wonder why. It couldn’t have anything to do with you. Right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 212 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
GenerousGeorge - 23 November 2012 06:17 PM

Gosh, I wonder why. It couldn’t have anything to do with you. Right?

I don’t see how it could have anything to do with me. What have I done? I haven’t cussed. I haven’t been hostile. I haven’t used sarcasm. I don’t evade people’s questions and criticism. So what did I do to cause other people to have negative emotions?

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 07:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 213 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Pray about it. Maybe. Seriously you seem kinda “slippery” in youranswers sometimes, not exactly strawman, but a close relative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 214 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
GenerousGeorge - 23 November 2012 07:11 PM

Pray about it. Maybe. Seriously you seem kinda “slippery” in youranswers sometimes, not exactly strawman, but a close relative.

So you’re saying my answers are vague? Then why don’t you ask me questions for clarification? How am I supposed to know if you think my answers are vague until you point it out to me? Am I supposed to read your mind? I’m not that good of a debater.

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 215 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

I don’t know Rami. I have to think about it. Some of your answers seem to want to change the subject a little. Also, you seeem to answer a lot of questions with questions. Maybe others can give more insight. Don’t try so hard to be right and try to understand the other posters more.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 216 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2012-09-10
GenerousGeorge - 23 November 2012 07:20 PM

I don’t know Rami. I have to think about it. Some of your answers seem to want to change the subject a little. Also, you seeem to answer a lot of questions with questions. Maybe others can give more insight. Don’t try so hard to be right and try to understand the other posters more.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.


The point of this forum is to discuss ideas and find the truth. Truth-seeking. How do we do that? By posting our ideas and criticizing them, and then criticizing the criticisms. Thats what we are doing.


This works best when each person looks for substantive flaws in the other person’s ideas and his own ideas (i.e criticism). And we guess new ideas too (i.e creativity).

 Signature 

—Rami Rustom

If you agree with my ideas, you’d enjoy these:

http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
http://fallibleideas.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously/subscribe
http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/subscribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autonomy-Respecting-Relationships/messages

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 217 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Not sure Rami. Just trying to be helpful.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 09:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 218 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29
Rami Rustom - 22 November 2012 02:27 PM

. . . According to wikipedia : Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1]


Einstein did not create his theory of gravity “only or primarily from sensory experience”.

But don’t forget that Einstein’s hypotheses needed to be verified by sensory means before they were classed as knowledge.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2012 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 219 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

There is a big difference between “verify” and “create” knowledge Rami. That kind of answer is the type I think some were referring to earlier that bothered them about some of your replies.  “For what it is worth”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2012 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 220 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Rami Rustom - 22 November 2012 02:27 PM

What are you saying conflicts with evolution?

Evolution is about simple things getting more complex over time. So if we go back on the evolutonary timeline, we will find that our brains have simpler ancestors, and this goes all the way back to the first organism, and beyond. Now take the idea that consciousness only exists in brains. This implies that it has no simpler version that existed before brains, that it has no evolutionary ancestor. So as the brain gets simpler and simpler as we go back in time, we are told that consciousness gets simpler to a degree, and then completely vanishes.

[ Edited: 24 November 2012 12:57 PM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2012 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 221 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Rami I lean toward agreeing with your statement.


My one reservation is that evolution may have created a better channel or receiving device.


I’m not sure what your comment has to do with previous coments however.


The whole subject does not lend itself to statements of 100% certitude.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2012 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 222 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
Rami Rustom - 22 November 2012 02:37 PM

No. The configuration of elementary particles that makes an atom is not the same configuration of elementary particles that makes consciousness. So I don’t see why you think that my argument implies that an atom is conscious. Why do you think that?

We already agreed that the difference between any two configurations is only ever quantitative. So if brains are conscious (which they are), and the difference between brains and non-brains is only quantitative, then non-brains should also have a quantity of consciousness.

Agreed. Lets be more specific though. An object that collects data from its environment, process it, then responds by reacting to that environment, is conscious. Agreed?

If you are talking about a physical object: all physical objects ever do is that their elementary particles interact according to the fundamental forces in space and time. That is true for any computer also. So while you may talk about a computer as if it “processes”, “collects data”, etc., in reality they do not do that anymore than rocks and atoms do. Both rocks and computers are merely collections of particles that interact.

[ Edited: 24 November 2012 01:05 PM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2012 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 223 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22

The empiricism thing is just a sidenote. I did not want to argue anything about the empiricism vs rationalism stuff. Personally, i would consider all of rationalism a part of empiricism also, because empiricism means “to experience” and thoughts are experiences also. The division between sensory and other type of experiences is arbitrary.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2012 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 224 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  109
Joined  2012-09-22

Some might think thoughts are not experiences in the usual sense.

Your use of this “questionable comparision” technique is what some object to in your posts.

[ Edited: 24 November 2012 01:30 PM by GenerousGeorge]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2012 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 225 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  122
Joined  2011-05-10
GenerousGeorge - 24 November 2012 01:06 PM

Some might think thoughts are not experiences in the usual sense.

An experience is not a state of consciousness? It definitely is. Unconscious experience appears to be a contradiction in terms. You must be conscious in order to experience anything.

 Signature 

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.

Profile
 
 
   
15 of 16
15
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed