Sam Harris

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

GenerousGeorge - 23 November 2012 10:17 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?

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

GenerousGeorge - 23 November 2012 11:11 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.

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.

GenerousGeorge - 23 November 2012 11:20 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).

Not sure Rami. Just trying to be helpful.

Rami Rustom - 22 November 2012 06:27 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.

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”

Rami Rustom - 22 November 2012 06:27 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.

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.

Rami Rustom - 22 November 2012 06:37 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.

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.

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.

GenerousGeorge - 24 November 2012 05:06 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.