4 of 4
4
All this spiritual stuff
Posted: 11 April 2007 05:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  2007-04-03

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]
Yes, but what I am protesting is the scope of your claims.

I’m not the one making grandiose claims of “consciousness” according to the ‘dancing wu li masters’ that the brain might be a sort of radio. Consider that the quantity of data available to support such a hypothesis is zilch. If there were experimental results of this nature, people would be all over each other to reproduce them. There would be a copious literature in peer-reviewed scientific journals that simply dealt with reporting those results.

Go ahead. Make a claim or two yourself - about somebody’s ‘consciousness’ other than your own. Then demonstrate their validity, with me present in the room. I think you can do it, but I think the gradiosity of the claims you opt to demonstrate will be somewhat diminished in scope.

My opinion of Sam Harris’ “wanderings’ is not relevant.

You’ve got me there! Ideas like the brain as a receiver are fun to think about, IMO, but they do not constitute anything close to belief for me. I just like to use such ideas as analogies for how things might work. The radio analogy is a way of thinking about how consciousness is interdependent (only among other humans as far as I know).

Once we start stating things as facts, you are absolutly right to demand repeatable peer reviewed results.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2007 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“mentor”][quote author=“Salt Creek”]
Yes, but what I am protesting is the scope of your claims.

I’m not the one making grandiose claims of “consciousness” according to the ‘dancing wu li masters’ that the brain might be a sort of radio. Consider that the quantity of data available to support such a hypothesis is zilch. If there were experimental results of this nature, people would be all over each other to reproduce them. There would be a copious literature in peer-reviewed scientific journals that simply dealt with reporting those results.

Go ahead. Make a claim or two yourself - about somebody’s ‘consciousness’ other than your own. Then demonstrate their validity, with me present in the room. I think you can do it, but I think the gradiosity of the claims you opt to demonstrate will be somewhat diminished in scope.

My opinion of Sam Harris’ “wanderings’ is not relevant.

You’ve got me there! Ideas like the brain as a receiver are fun to think about, IMO, but they do not constitute anything close to belief for me. I just like to use such ideas as analogies for how things might work. The radio analogy is a way of thinking about how consciousness is interdependent (only among other humans as far as I know).

Once we start stating things as facts, you are absolutly right to demand repeatable peer reviewed results.

Exactly, as far as a science of consciousness is concerned we are at the very beginning stages.  We’ve got to have some speculative theories before we even know what sort of facts to look for.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed