IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th April 2022, 09:30 PM   #161
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,969
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You haven't yet made the connection between the GM System and Cognitive bias, other than assume this is what is occurring.
The many examples where elimination of the effect of cognitive biases showed that similar signals which people believed they thought in the noise were not actually there - astrology, homeopathy, dowsing etc etc - means that is the null hypothesis. So yes, in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary, everyone - including you - should assume that is occurring.

If, despite the 100% failure of claims like yours when objectively tested, you still have the arrogance to think you might be the first person in history to be right about one, by all means work out a way of objectively testing it and come back and post the results. If your test is rigorous and the result is positive I will personally help you submit an application to the CFI and claim their quarter of a million dollar prize.

https://cfiig.org/
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2022, 10:06 PM   #162
JimOfAllTrades
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Indeed - you yourself should know you are not alone in thinking this.
I do know that.

Quote:
It is related to Cognitive bias and that is why you are able to express your thinking in the way that you do.
Materialism does not tolerate the idea that the mind is anything other than an emergent property of brains.
You seem to know an awful lot about why other people do and think things and yet apply none of that expertise to yourself and your own ideas. I'm skeptical of your unsupported assertions.

Quote:
Whereas, one can simply identify similar acts of self awareness in biological forms, which most obviously do not have anything resembling brains.
I'm skeptical of your unsupported assertion. If you have evidence of self awareness in entities with no brain let's see it. I'm open to being convinced.

Quote:
Even so, as an obviously materialist idea, it falls short of explaining anything or clearing up the hard problem of consciousness.

Rather, as pointed out - it simply marginalizes consciousness, and does not explain how a material thing would create an immaterial thing or even how it could.
Consciousness is a hard problem, but progress has been made, and I see no reason why it won't be solved at some point.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 06:11 AM   #163
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,145
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
You haven't yet made the connection between the GM System and Cognitive bias, other than assume this is what is occurring.
You are consistently trying to reverse the burden of proof.
Cognitive bias can explain the output of your message generating system, in as much as you are sorting through the output to select what you find interesting. It is your claim, and hence your burden of proof to show that the output is NOT due to your selection.

Quote:
You are referring to physical reference. The mind is not physical and so such device is not made available by scientists since they can only deal with what is physically able to be probed.
Burden of proof shifting again: That the mind is not physical is YOUR claim, so YOU must provide evidence for that claim.

Quote:
Thus, any claim made re science and the mind, has to be backed up somehow, in order for it to be more than just anecdotal evidence, because otherwise they are insufficient to reach any reliable conclusions.
Science works with explaining the mind as a physical process. If you disagree, back up your claim.

Quote:
Material Science deals with and backs up materialism. The Mind is not material, and therefore - as you should be aware - The Mind remains a hard problem for any device of materialist science to probe and uncover and make known.
Highlighted: You are repeating your unsubstantiated claim.

Quote:
I have explained the way I achieve this. Because it is the realm of the mind, unless others actually objectively put that to the test, any hand-waving statements of opinion are inadequate and remain insufficient a device in which to reach reliable conclusions
It is your claim. You must provide evidence.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 06:17 AM   #164
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,145
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post

Whereas, one can simply identify similar acts of self awareness in biological forms, which most obviously do not have anything resembling brains.
Self awareness is not a well-defined thing, but any meaningful definition of self awarenes will not fit brainless entities.

Quote:
Even so, as an obviously materialist idea, it falls short of explaining anything or clearing up the hard problem of consciousness.

Rather, as pointed out - it simply marginalizes consciousness, and does not explain how a material thing would create an immaterial thing or even how it could.
Because the so-called hard problem of consciousness is only hard if you deny the emergent property of a brain and posit an immaterial mind. It is in reality, a circular argument.

Materialism does not have to solve it, because in materialism, it does not exist.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 07:43 AM   #165
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,980
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
This is most likely because you are a materialist and as such, make the mistake of marginalizing the role of the immaterial mind in relation to the material universe.
To say a materialist is "marginalizing the role of the immaterial mind" is a little like saying an atheist hates God.

You really need to come to grips with the basic ontological problem of what it means to say something exists or it does not. You cannot rationally discuss the attributes of a thing with someone who denies that the thing exists. A mistake there may be, but you have not located it or addressed it.

This is true even if you are right and the materialist wrong. You are free to expatiate to your heart's content on the properties of the immaterial mind. Write an essay, a poem, a sermon if you like. But to argue about those properties with someone who denies the existence of the thing in the first place is nonsensical.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 07:54 AM   #166
Carrot Flower King
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 2,861
Someone give me a nudge when we get beyond lyrics Jon Anderson rejected as being nonsensical and the whole "because I say so!" wibble?

Thank you.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 11:06 AM   #167
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
You haven't yet made the connection between the GM System and Cognitive bias, other than assume this is what is occurring.
Quote:
The many examples where elimination of the effect of cognitive biases showed that similar signals which people believed they thought in the noise were not actually there - astrology, homeopathy, dowsing etc etc - means that is the null hypothesis. So yes, in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary, everyone - including you - should assume that is occurring.
The assumption would be illogical, if continued use of a system showed itself to be support the opposite of the claim made that my use of the GMSystem does not work for me.

I cannot assume that the system would not work for others.

Quote:
If, despite the 100% failure of claims like yours when objectively tested, you still have the arrogance to think you might be the first person in history to be right about one, by all means work out a way of objectively testing it and come back and post the results. If your test is rigorous and the result is positive I will personally help you submit an application to the CFI and claim their quarter of a million dollar prize.
If you can show evidence to support your claim that my use of the GMSystem does not work for me I will no longer consider your statement to be personal opinion.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 11:09 AM   #168
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
Consciousness is a hard problem, but progress has been made, and I see no reason why it won't be solved at some point.
Well I am doing my bit to help that progress - understanding myself in relation to consciousness is part of the equation... it certainly helps in solving said problem...
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 11:24 AM   #169
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
You haven't yet made the connection between the GM System and Cognitive bias, other than assume this is what is occurring.
Quote:
You are consistently trying to reverse the burden of proof.
I am skeptical of the validity of this observation.
The claim under question was not made by me so the one who made the claim has the burden of proof.

Quote:
Cognitive bias can explain the output of your message generating system, in as much as you are sorting through the output to select what you find interesting
You are simply describing how data is sorted by the mind. You appear to disregard the manner in which the data is imputed.

Quote:
It is your claim, and hence your burden of proof to show that the output is NOT due to your selection.
You appear not to have a grasp on the GMSystem and are therefore making incorrect semi-conclusions.

Quote:
That the mind is not physical is YOUR claim, so YOU must provide evidence for that claim.
I have already done that. I have pointed out that one cannot place a mind on a table and examine it. If you think this is untrue, then please provide supporting evidence.

Otherwise, just accept it that the mind is immaterial.

Quote:
Science works with explaining the mind as a physical process. If you disagree, back up your claim.
Using sleight of words won't earn you any points other than perhaps imaginary ones.

Science explains everything as a physical process because that is what science is.
The reason consciousness is a hard problem for scientific processes is because the mind is not a physical object.

Quote:
You are repeating your unsubstantiated claim.
"The Mind is not material" is not so much a claim as it is an acknowledgement of a reality.
I am open to you showing me that a mind is material in nature - at the same time as I am sure that you will not be able to do so.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 11:34 AM   #170
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Self awareness is not a well-defined thing, but any meaningful definition of self awarenes will not fit brainless entities.
It is with me and my understanding of self - at least more 'well defined than most.

"Meaningful" is in the eye of the beholder.

In terms of survival, self awareness is just as meaningful to brainless entities as it is to non-brainless entities.

[Cosmologists may find that idea harder to grasp than biologists]

Quote:
Because the so-called hard problem of consciousness is only hard if you deny the emergent property of a brain and posit an immaterial mind. It is in reality, a circular argument.
Show me that emergent mind and I will bow to your higher intelligence.

Quote:
Materialism does not have to solve it, because in materialism, it does not exist.
Pretending that the mind doesn't exist just because one cannot place it on the table and show it as an object, does not make the hard problem vanish.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 11:36 AM   #171
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,969
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The assumption would be illogical, if continued use of a system showed itself to be support the opposite of the claim made that my use of the GMSystem does not work for me.
There is only one way you can discover whether your system actually works, or if you are just mistakenly perceiving that it works when it does not, and that is by finding a way of objectively testing it.

Quote:
I cannot assume that the system would not work for others.
There is only one way for others to discover whether your system actually works, or if they are just mistakenly perceiving that it works when it does not, and that is by finding a way of objectively testing it.

Quote:
If you can show evidence to support your claim that my use of the GMSystem does not work for me I will no longer consider your statement to be personal opinion
No, the burden of proof is on you to show objective evidence to support your claim that your use of the GMSystem does work. In the absence of such evidence the null hypothesis, that this is just the latest in many many examples of someone allowing their cognitive biases to fool them into believing something that isn't true, stands.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 11:46 AM   #172
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
To say a materialist is "marginalizing the role of the immaterial mind" is a little like saying an atheist hates God.
No. It is more like saying an atheist lacks belief in the existence of mind{s}.


Quote:
You cannot rationally discuss the attributes of a thing with someone who denies that the thing exists.
But I can offer input which might eventually lead to actual discussion...once the individual accepts the input and stops being in denial. It is a nut worth my time to see if I can crack it.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 12:04 PM   #173
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
There is only one way you can discover whether your system actually works, or if you are just mistakenly perceiving that it works when it does not, and that is by finding a way of objectively testing it.
Well an objective way to physically test the mind is to lay it on the table of examination and do so.

I think perhaps you are forgetting here Pixel that it is the mind which is questioning the existence of itself.

Physical science works with physical things because things are physical and thus objective to the subjective mind.

Even so, this has to be done through subjective means.

That is because the mind is involved and the mind is subjective and in relation to examining the mind it cannot be done objectively as one can perform an examination of a material object.

One cannot do so without the mind.

You want physical proof that the mind exists as an immaterial thing?

You just have to understand your self.

But if you think of your self as a 'brain"....?

If I were to take a mirror tile and say "This is the brain and represents who I am when I was squeezed out of my mothers birth canal."

Then I take the mirror and begin to etch symbols upon it and say "These symbols represent the data of experience I have which altogether add to "who I am" or "How I see my self as being"

Am I therefore the mirror or Am I the symbols etched on the mirror or neither or both?

The only thing which can answer that sufficiently for me - understandably - is not materialism.

Because materialism tends toward saying I am "nothing" of any consequence - a series of chemical reactions within a material object...
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

Last edited by Navigator; 8th April 2022 at 12:07 PM.
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 12:28 PM   #174
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,969
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
But I can offer input which might eventually lead to actual discussion...once the individual accepts the input and stops being in denial. It is a nut worth my time to see if I can crack it.
Would you describe a mature adult who is sceptical of the claim that Father Christmas is going to arrive on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer on Christmas Eve with presents for them as "in denial"?

Being sceptical of implausible claims until and unless they are supported by objective evidence is the only sensible position to take. It's those who insist on them despite being unable to support them who are in denial.

ETA: And you know perfectly well what constitutes objective evidence because it has been explained to you at length. Your latest post was just gibberish.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 8th April 2022 at 12:31 PM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 12:44 PM   #175
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Mirror = Brain
Etching on mirror = data
Data = abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789

Now suppose that the way the mind interprets the mirror-brain data in relation to self and the etched symbol for that is a closed loop...

The closed loop represents the [current] sum total of ones conscious self awareness. It represents all the alphabet symbols and number symbols already etched on the mirror-brain...not only as stand-alone symbols but more because of the way those symbols are arranged into a language which can then be used to 'explain' or 'understand' the 'self' = "how the individual sees their self as being".

The GM System represents something connected to that process, and the symbol for that is an open loop =

The symbol for this connected process would be etched on the mirror-brain as;
= Getting to know the true nature of ones self.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 12:51 PM   #176
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Pixel: Your latest post was just gibberish.

Also Pixel: You will have to leave your common sense at the door
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 01:14 PM   #177
JimOfAllTrades
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The assumption would be illogical, if continued use of a system showed itself to be support the opposite of the claim made that my use of the GMSystem does not work for me.
What a big if you've got, grandma.

Quote:
I cannot assume that the system would not work for others.
But you cannot assume that it will until the biases of the user (yourself or others) can be shown to not be influencing the outcomes. Until that time, because we know that such biases exist in all of us the null hypothesis is that it does not work.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 01:23 PM   #178
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
What a big if you've got, grandma.


But you cannot assume that it will until the biases of the user (yourself or others) can be shown to not be influencing the outcomes. Until that time, because we know that such biases exist in all of us the null hypothesis is that it does not work.


The hypothesis that a mind is the product of a brain - Produces a closed loop inside of a closed loop.

One is free to choose to see oneself as one sees oneself but that freedom does not extend to claiming others should see themselves in the same way.

Either way, bias is present in the output because the input is filtered through the individuate mind and that mind is influenced by how it sees itself.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 01:41 PM   #179
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,980
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
No. It is more like saying an atheist lacks belief in the existence of mind{s}.

But I can offer input which might eventually lead to actual discussion...once the individual accepts the input and stops being in denial. It is a nut worth my time to see if I can crack it.
You miss the point. A person who believes (rightly or wrongly) that a thing does not exist, is not "marginalizing" it, or discussing anything about its characteristics, its importance, or its placement in the scheme of things. The word "marginalize" has a meaning. It is a thing you do to things that exist.

You can try all you want to crack the nut, but if you want to discuss things whose very existence is in doubt, their existence is the thing that must be addressed, not their presumed attributes.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 01:52 PM   #180
xjx388
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,209
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Mirror = Brain
Etching on mirror = data
Data = abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789

Now suppose that the way the mind interprets the mirror-brain data in relation to self and the etched symbol for that is a closed loop...

The closed loop represents the [current] sum total of ones conscious self awareness. It represents all the alphabet symbols and number symbols already etched on the mirror-brain...not only as stand-alone symbols but more because of the way those symbols are arranged into a language which can then be used to 'explain' or 'understand' the 'self' = "how the individual sees their self as being".

The GM System represents something connected to that process, and the symbol for that is an open loop = https://i.imgur.com/Mcd1VeU.png?1

The symbol for this connected process would be etched on the mirror-brain as;
https://i.imgur.com/zr7j3J5.png?1 = Getting to know the true nature of ones self.

I’m sorry…what?

What is this supposed to illustrate/prove?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 02:02 PM   #181
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
You miss the point. A person who believes (rightly or wrongly) that a thing does not exist, is not "marginalizing" it, or discussing anything about its characteristics, its importance, or its placement in the scheme of things. The word "marginalize" has a meaning. It is a thing you do to things that exist.

You can try all you want to crack the nut, but if you want to discuss things whose very existence is in doubt, their existence is the thing that must be addressed, not their presumed attributes.
If you are claiming that the mind does not exist, and that you require evidence to support that the mind does exist before you will change your mind, then yes - that nut will remain uncracked and no amount of mindful evidence will induce enough pressure to cause cracks...

It is the same with faith-based beliefs. They are simply not up for debate.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 02:05 PM   #182
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Quote:
I’m sorry…what?

What is this supposed to illustrate/prove?
That symbols are a big part of how one choses to see ones subjective self in relation to ones objective reality and communicate ideas and other language-based expressions.

Without mind and symbols, this process cannot be achieved.

Symbols on their own, would be useless.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 02:15 PM   #183
xjx388
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,209
No.

The existence of “the mind” is not in doubt…maybe “the mind,” is a bit too loosely-goosey of a term but we know what you are referring to.

The existence of the “Cosmic Mind,” however, is very much in doubt. Your claim is, in a nutshell, that your “Generated Messages,” are a communication from this supposed “Cosmic Mind.”

You have several hurdles to clear:

1)Proving the cosmic mind exists.
2)Proving the CM is connected to our individual minds.
3)Proving the nature of that connection.
4)Proving that the CM wishes to communicate with us.
5)Proving that the CM has a means to communicate with us.
6)Proving that your GM system is such a means to communicate.
7) Proving that GMs ARE such a communication.

I’m probably skipping a few hurdles. But essentially we are stuck at hurdle #1. You’d like to skip to 6 & 7 by asserting that the others are axiomatic. You can’t do that.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 02:53 PM   #184
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
No.

The existence of “the mind” is not in doubt…maybe “the mind,” is a bit too loosely-goosey of a term but we know what you are referring to.

The existence of the “Cosmic Mind,” however, is very much in doubt. Your claim is, in a nutshell, that your “Generated Messages,” are a communication from this supposed “Cosmic Mind.”
The GMSystem presents the individuate 'drop' of consciousness within the human instrument with a largely non-understood aspect of the mind. That aspect tells the individual drop that it is part of a larger mind - a puddle.

As the puddle is understood by the drop, the drop understands that the puddle is also what the drop is.
The more the drop understands that it is actually the puddle, the more the puddle understands that it is actually the stream, and the stream the river and the river the sea and the sea the planet and the planet the galaxy and the galaxy the universe.
_________________________________________________

That 'drop' represents the self conscious aspect of the mind - that which identifies as self and to which you acknowledge is actually does exist, even that it is not physical in nature but is created by nature [what is physical].

The mind is thus able to understand through reverse engineering that the physical didn't 'create' the mind and the mind did not 'create' the physical, but that in reality both the material and non-material are manifestations of the one thing,- not two 'separate' things.

They are both real, even that one of them is non-material.
_______________________________________________

So 'Does a Cosmic Mind actually exist?" iow "is the material universe self aware?"

The drop does not know either way, but the clues the drop uncovers do point to that being the logical conclusion to make, since there is indeed evidence that physical things have "minds" and one can see the planet Earth as also having a mind, since it would require a mind to create the lifeforms we know exist in relation to the planet.

Whether the drop wants to be a conscious part of that or remain aloof, is up to the drop.

But however the drop thinks itself to be in relation to the ocean - it is still part of the ocean anyway. It just prefers not to want to know that it is...
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 03:29 PM   #185
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Directly above the center of the Earth
Posts: 2,538
I notice that you didn't address anything.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 04:36 PM   #186
xjx388
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,209
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
The GMSystem presents the individuate 'drop' of consciousness within the human instrument with a largely non-understood aspect of the mind. That aspect tells the individual drop that it is part of a larger mind - a puddle.
I read this as: The GM system is a way for the conscious mind to access the subconscious mind and realize that they are really part of the same mind. Which, honestly, is a little mystical-Freudian for my tastes and doesn’t really comport with current understanding of consciousness.

I interpret your “puddle” to mean “a complete representation of the human mind.”

Quote:
As the puddle is understood by the drop, the drop understands that the puddle is also what the drop is.
The more the drop understands that it is actually the puddle, the more the puddle understands that it is actually the stream, and the stream the river and the river the sea and the sea the planet and the planet the galaxy and the galaxy the universe.
. Now here I am completely lost. What is the stream, river, sea, planet, etc in this analogy?

An individual human mind (however many “pieces” you might conceptualize it into) is one entity -a puddle in your analogy. How do you make the leap to a “stream,” and what even is the “stream?”

Quote:
_________________________________________________

That 'drop' represents the self conscious aspect of the mind - that which identifies as self and to which you acknowledge is actually does exist, even that it is not physical in nature but is created by nature [what is physical].

The mind is thus able to understand through reverse engineering that the physical didn't 'create' the mind and the mind did not 'create' the physical, but that in reality both the material and non-material are manifestations of the one thing,- not two 'separate' things.

They are both real, even that one of them is non-material.
_______________________________________________

So 'Does a Cosmic Mind actually exist?" iow "is the material universe self aware?"

The drop does not know either way, but the clues the drop uncovers do point to that being the logical conclusion to make, since there is indeed evidence that physical things have "minds" and one can see the planet Earth as also having a mind, since it would require a mind to create the lifeforms we know exist in relation to the planet.

Whether the drop wants to be a conscious part of that or remain aloof, is up to the drop.

But however the drop thinks itself to be in relation to the ocean - it is still part of the ocean anyway. It just prefers not to want to know that it is...

All of this, unfortunately, I am only able to see as gibberish.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 04:58 PM   #187
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I read this as: The GM system is a way for the conscious mind to access the subconscious mind and realize that they are really part of the same mind. Which, honestly, is a little mystical-Freudian for my tastes and doesn’t really comport with current understanding of consciousness.

I interpret your “puddle” to mean “a complete representation of the human mind.”

. Now here I am completely lost. What is the stream, river, sea, planet, etc in this analogy?

An individual human mind (however many “pieces” you might conceptualize it into) is one entity -a puddle in your analogy. How do you make the leap to a “stream,” and what even is the “stream?”




All of this, unfortunately, I am only able to see as gibberish.
Water.

Whether it is a drop or an ocean [an individuate mind or a universal mind] it is still "Mind".
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 05:55 PM   #188
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,980
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
If you are claiming that the mind does not exist, and that you require evidence to support that the mind does exist before you will change your mind, then yes - that nut will remain uncracked and no amount of mindful evidence will induce enough pressure to cause cracks...

It is the same with faith-based beliefs. They are simply not up for debate.
No, faith based beliefs are not up for debate, which might be the cue for not debating them.

I am claiming that you have not come up with convincing evidence that there is a "thing" called "the mind," which is not a process, an event, a property or a quality of something else that has ontological existence, like the brain. Something can be true, and right, and all sorts of things, without being an entity that has dimension and location. I contend that ideas and abstractions, things like consciousness, are not spiritual objects that occupy a non-material world, but events, properties, and activities of the world we know.

There are, no doubt, many ways to look at things, and many ways to think about what is real. I would suggest that when a wolf howls in the tundra, it is a real event. We hear it, expression is made, meaning found, memories stirred, symbolism inferred, poetry inspired, and so on and so forth. But that howl is not an object, not a thing in the sense of an entity that has dimension and mass and what we would be pleased to call existence. It's an artifact.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

Last edited by bruto; 8th April 2022 at 05:57 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 06:25 PM   #189
xjx388
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,209
Randomly Generated Messages

Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Water.

Whether it is a drop or an ocean [an individuate mind or a universal mind] it is still "Mind".

But you haven’t established the existence of any other mind other than the widely accepted individual (individuate, as you put it for some reason that I can’t figure out -“individuate” is a verb, near as I can tell) mind. ETA: and let me say that I agree with bruto’s post above that “the mind” is emergent from physical processes.

IOW, it’s widely accepted that individual humans have “minds.” What hasn’t been established is any other kind of “mind.” That’s where you need to start.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 8th April 2022 at 06:28 PM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 08:03 PM   #190
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But you haven’t established the existence of any other mind other than the widely accepted individual (individuate, as you put it for some reason that I can’t figure out -“individuate” is a verb, near as I can tell) mind. ETA: and let me say that I agree with bruto’s post above that “the mind” is emergent from physical processes.

IOW, it’s widely accepted that individual humans have “minds.” What hasn’t been established is any other kind of “mind.” That’s where you need to start.
Thanks for that.

We might also agree that belief/understanding that consciousness is emergent of the brain is a solely different mind [mind-set] than belief/understanding that consciousness is a ghost/spirit/soul/personality which can survive the death of the brain.

Essentially [perhaps] the main reason for why there are theist and non-theist individuate consciousnesses in the planetary system we call "Earth".

This has the effect of causing neither mind-set to be able to understand the other on such a subject as consciousness and whatever the other might declare [as stated opinion or supported statement] re that, is literally gibberish to those who are not of the same mind-set.

In that I am not referring to minor confusion re how to write words correctly [such as you commented re 'individual' rather than 'individuate] because those minor things still allow one to 'get the gist'.

Rather, the fact of gibberish is so prevalent, that in all the centuries the battle has been raging between non-theism and theism, it has not been resolved because it simply cannot be resolved.

Each generation thinks it can be resolved "if only the opposition would stop pretending that they don't understand" but the fact of the matter may well be that each - quite naturally - do not and can not understand the other.

I am not declaring the above is necessarily true, but just voicing in written language, why I think it may be a pointless exercise in trying to find common ground between theist and non-theist regarding the nature of consciousness...so as ever - I am open to any contrary view on this observation and interpretation of what is happening re theist/non-theist interaction.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2022, 08:04 PM   #191
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
No, faith based beliefs are not up for debate, which might be the cue for not debating them.

I am claiming that you have not come up with convincing evidence that there is a "thing" called "the mind," which is not a process, an event, a property or a quality of something else that has ontological existence, like the brain. Something can be true, and right, and all sorts of things, without being an entity that has dimension and location. I contend that ideas and abstractions, things like consciousness, are not spiritual objects that occupy a non-material world, but events, properties, and activities of the world we know.

There are, no doubt, many ways to look at things, and many ways to think about what is real. I would suggest that when a wolf howls in the tundra, it is a real event. We hear it, expression is made, meaning found, memories stirred, symbolism inferred, poetry inspired, and so on and so forth. But that howl is not an object, not a thing in the sense of an entity that has dimension and mass and what we would be pleased to call existence. It's an artifact.
That make no sense to me. [gibberish]

__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2022, 10:51 AM   #192
xjx388
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,209
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Thanks for that.

We might also agree that belief/understanding that consciousness is emergent of the brain is a solely different mind [mind-set] than belief/understanding that consciousness is a ghost/spirit/soul/personality which can survive the death of the brain.

Essentially [perhaps] the main reason for why there are theist and non-theist individuate consciousnesses in the planetary system we call "Earth".

This has the effect of causing neither mind-set to be able to understand the other on such a subject as consciousness and whatever the other might declare [as stated opinion or supported statement] re that, is literally gibberish to those who are not of the same mind-set.

In that I am not referring to minor confusion re how to write words correctly [such as you commented re 'individual' rather than 'individuate] because those minor things still allow one to 'get the gist'.

Rather, the fact of gibberish is so prevalent, that in all the centuries the battle has been raging between non-theism and theism, it has not been resolved because it simply cannot be resolved.

Each generation thinks it can be resolved "if only the opposition would stop pretending that they don't understand" but the fact of the matter may well be that each - quite naturally - do not and can not understand the other.

I am not declaring the above is necessarily true, but just voicing in written language, why I think it may be a pointless exercise in trying to find common ground between theist and non-theist regarding the nature of consciousness...so as ever - I am open to any contrary view on this observation and interpretation of what is happening re theist/non-theist interaction.

I have no problem understanding the side of the debate that says consciousness is something separate from the brain. The problem is that their position is completely unevidenced. The “consciousnesses is emergent from brain” side has plenty of evidence.

A theist/believer/etc is happy to accept things on faith, despite evidence to the contrary or a complete lack of evidence. I understand this, accept it and that’s why I don’t spend any time actively trying to convince them that they are wrong. I’m happy if they are happy. I make an exception to this general policy when they are trying to convince me of something. I want evidence, not theories or a bunch of words combined that don’t make sense.

And that’s what’s happening here. You believe a Cosmic Mind is talking to you through Generated Messages. You have a lot of ideas and theories about this. That’s all fine and dandy; I am happy if you are happy. But you are on a skeptical forum trying to convince us of your ideas; Me and a lot of others are going to challenge you for evidence. It would be a lot easier if you just said, “these are my beliefs and I don’t really have evidence for them.” Easier, but probably not as fun.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2022, 06:43 PM   #193
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 32,980
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
That make no sense to me. [gibberish]

I am sure it doesn't, because you cling to your dualism.

I am quite convinced that the connections, experiences, relationships, actions, and what results from them, are real aspects of the real universe. Some wise philosophers have even made a pretty good case that they are, in a sense the most real thing about it. We infer the substance from the activity we know. What they are not, though (or so I believe) is part of something that is not the real universe. The universe operates. The operation is real. But the operation is not a thing external to the universe. The world does not need a god to give it instructions.

But that's about as far down that rabbit hole as I'm willing to go this time around. Once long ago I reveled in radical empiricism and snacked on actual entities, but life intervened, and I found that though it's still fun to mess about with dualists and mystics on forums, I've forgotten more than I remember, and when it comes right down to it, I don't much care anyway. I think I somehow drifted toward some kind of shade-tree logical positivism with a slightly existentialist flavor note, and anyone can say that's lazy and incomplete, but it's usefully brief and leaves time to do other things that are more fun.

The map got ragged and creased, and I got tired of refolding it, so I tossed it. The universe, I am convinced, will hardly know the difference.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

Last edited by bruto; 9th April 2022 at 06:45 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2022, 02:27 PM   #194
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,507
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Thanks for that.

We might also agree that belief/understanding that consciousness is emergent of the brain is a solely different mind [mind-set] than belief/understanding that consciousness is a ghost/spirit/soul/personality which can survive the death of the brain.

No, not different mind-sets, just different mental models (or narratives, or explanations; all the same thing) for describing and explaining our experiences.

To some learned and intelligent humans not all that long ago, the explanation for the sun was a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses being driven across the sky by a god. Common sense told them that because the sun obviously moved, it had to be a moving thing, but unlike an animal or the wind it also moved in very regular patterns, so more likely an intelligently directed vehicle. And, though the movement appears slow to the eye, they understood that the extent of the sky is large, so the movement had to be fast to be completed from east to west in a day. The obvious choice was the fastest intelligently guided things they experienced, chariots. Common sense also told them that because the sun was bright and hot, it had to be made of the one other bright hot thing they knew of, fire. And common sense informed them that because no human being had the ability to make a chariot fly or survive the speed and heat if they did (there was a specific myth about the tragic fate of a mortal who tried to drive the sun chariot one time), the driver had to be a god. A male god, to be specific, because common sense told them that driving a chariot was a man's job, and because common sense also told them that the efficacy of the sun in making crops grow was similar to the effect of a male animal or human impregnating a female.

The people who chose this mental model weren't stupid. There's nothing wrong with applying common sense, as they did, when there's nothing else to go on, as there wasn't. Their model even got a few fundamental things right: for instance, the sun/fire being the direct source of rays (rather than, for instance, a hole in the sky allowing a beam of heat and light from some other realm to pass through) and that the movement involved had to be fast. Also, there was nothing in their world that required any better explanation, and nothing in their world that could have told them whether their fiery chariot explanation was true or false. (That last sentence is actually saying the same thing in two different ways.)

Of course, had they discussed the matter with certain Egyptians of similar eras, the latter would have disagreed with their solar narrative. "You Greeks don't get it, the solar disk Himself is the one God. He has the properties He has because that's His divine nature. There's no need for godly fire and godly horses and godly chariots, those are just your own materialistic superstitions." Was the Egyptians' solar model then a better one? Not really, but like the Greeks' it was adequate for their needs, at least until a few years later when they decided it wasn't and massacred all the Aten worshippers. Sometimes competing mental models are serious business!

The Greeks seemed a bit more aware of the ways that their mental models of the natural world weren't actually all that good, in the sense of leaving a lot of questions unanswered and unanswerable, such as where the horses and chariot stop and rest if the earth, as they'd come to suspect, was actually spherical. This kind of dissatisfaction is reflected in e.g. Plato's allegory of the cave, and Socrates' supposed claim to know more only by virtue of knowing how little he knew.

I've lived through that experience myself, when I was very young. Some of my earliest memories are of trying to explain things like where the music played by an electric phonograph came from, concluding (based on my limited but completely common sense knowledge of how people make music) that there must be tiny musicians playing instruments and singing inside the box. At the same time I was fully aware that that was pretty much impossible for all sorts of reasons, but I didn't have any of the knowledge needed to come up with any better explanation. It was a frustrating situation. In the long run, the way to escape it is first to look inside the box, and second and more important, pay attention to what you find there. If you don't see any tiny musicians or tiny little musical instruments or any tiny little kitchens and bedrooms for the tiny musicians to eat and sleep in, but you do see parts connected by wires ultimately back to the power cord, then instead of concluding the tiny musicians must also be invisible (and need no food or sleep etc.), you'll arrive at better explanations, more useful mental models, if you start learning about electrical circuitry and how it works.

Note that even this simple and real-life example exhibits the tendency for mental models to diverge between materialistic and supernatural extremes. If one insists on holding to the tiny-musicians model of phonography, one can still arrive at a complete explanation for everything you observe and experience with phonographs. The tiny musicians, having proven by the lack of observable features to be invisible and intangible, become much like spirits; the record disk becomes a form of invocation that summons up the musician spirits from somewhere (the plane of music?) to perform the specified piece; the needle and tone arm communicate the ongoing invocation to the musician spirits; a scratch on the disk corrupts the invocation and angers the spirits causing them to make unpleasant popping noises or start repeating themselves; the electric power from the power cord is needed to transform the spirits' music into a form your mortal ears can hear; and so forth. Compare that with its materialistic counterpart: the phonograph converts the tiny undulations in the groove of the record (material) into isomorphic audible (material) sound waves in the air using (material) varying electrical currents and voltages flowing through (material) wires and components.

If you have an electric phonograph and some LPs and all you want to do is play them, either mental model is sufficient. If you want to invent, build, or repair a phonograph, however, the material model will serve you better.

Is that because the material model is true and the music-spirits model is false? Most people would say yes, but that's not really so. They're all just models. If your music spirit model were ever to become so detailed and so well-tested against actual observations/experience that it could for instance correctly predict what readings would appear on a voltmeter or oscilloscope at any point in a phonograph's circuity under any given conditions, you actually could use it to build or repair or invent a phonograph. It would either be isomorphic with the theories behind analog electronics just renaming the terminology, or (far less likely but still conceptually possible) it would be an alternative theory that works just as well as (or even better than) electromagnetism, voltage, current, resistance, capacitance, phase, and so forth for understanding how to transduce sound using certain bits of material arranged in certain ways. But, note that you'll never reach either of those two conditions if your music spirit model gives up at "music spirits are tricky and capricious, who can ever tell what they'll do?" Which supernatural models tend to do. So as a matter of practicality, the material model works better for inventing, building, or repairing analog phonographs.

In short, models are cognitive tools, not truths. Is a flat screwdriver any more or less true than a Philips head screwdriver? Of course not, but if you've got Philips head screws to drive, one of them is more useful.

Which is the better model of a tree, a big heavy near-stationary plant made mostly of wood, or a centuries-long current of almost entirely water (with only a relative few impurities like carbon and nitrogen also being present) from the ground into the atmosphere (a slow-motion lightning bolt of water)? Well, if you want to cut one down and build something out of it, or avoid driving into one, the first is probably better; but if you want to understand the effects of forests on the surrounding environment and climate in the long term, the second has a lot going for it. Note that to even grasp the second model, you have to be able to think in a whole different time scale and take into account different observations than what you directly see and experience day to day.

Adeptness with alternative models is the key to flexible, creative, and adaptive thinking; to personal resilience in life. (As certain occultists of my acquaintance like to say: "to know [only] one story [model] is death." Unfortunately most modern education systems don't teach or encourage such adeptness. Instead, one model is taught and then tested for, except in a few fields (such as philosophy or artistic movements) where multiple models are taught with the implication that because it cannot be determined which is true, the entire field is denigrated. Consequently, here you are today telling us that your one story is true and materialists' one story is false. "A whole different mind-set" for one model versus another is a lot like having a whole different workshop for your Philip's head screwdrivers versus your flat screwdrivers. Nope, you're better off having both ready to hand. Otherwise, you're only contributing to the pointless battle you've described. You speak of common ground, but you appear to be holding out for unconditional surrender.

(One example of people who, in the present day, are adept at creating and promoting alternative models, is advertisers. "Don't think of this car as a machine that gets you from one place to another, think of it as a symbol of freedom/a force that keeps you safe from harm/a path to a healthy environment/your well-deserved reward for your well-deserved success in life/your opportunity to dominate rivals." "Don't think of germs as microbes that you have to wipe away so they don't make you sick, think of them as an evil army bent on destroying your children that you must counter-attack with our bottle of heroic chemicals." If you fall for their "one story" they can profit from it. Is it any surprise that those aforementioned occultists regard advertising as a form of black magic? Which, by the way, is itself an example of an alternative model that is sometimes actually useful.)

So, let's talk about models for the individual consciousness we all describe experiencing, and the role of the brain in those experiences. In your model, the brain can be described as either a vessel that holds/contains a portion of an ambient universal source of consciousness, or a receiver that tunes in like a radio to some such source of consciousness at a distance. (Perhaps a combination.) That was the predominant mental model of how consciousness happens in humans for most of human history (even going back as far as when other organs besides the brain, such as the heart, were considered the vessel or seat of consciousness). That's not, obviously, a bold new narrative based on recent scientific discoveries. It's the old favorite, long undisputed but now challenged by a materialist model in which consciousness arises as a result of the computational functioning of the brain.

By the way, that the individual consciousness can survive the death of the brain doesn't necessarily follow from the old model. Maybe the consciousness contained in the "vessel" disperses into heat or nothingness when the brain dies. Or the "transmission" turns off once the brain ceases receiving. (That would answer the question of what all the "transmitters" would otherwise have been pointlessly doing during the eons before human brains evolved.) Even the conceptual prospect of "merging back into the universal consciousness" after death doesn't really reassure survival in any meaningful sense. Socrates's atoms all still exist, having apparently merged back into the earth's collective matter, but we don't call that condition "still alive," we call it "dead."

That's far enough for now. I'll leave it to you to point toward the common ground.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2022, 10:03 PM   #195
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,969
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Pixel: Your latest post was just gibberish.

Also Pixel: You will have to leave your common sense at the door
You know, if you stopped mocking that comment and actually attempted to understand it you might learn something.

But what you would learn would be the reason why your perception that your system works might be mistaken, so I'm sure you're going to choose to remain ignorant.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2022, 03:33 PM   #196
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Probably the most revealing thing about hard-core skeptics lack of ability to tolerate evidence, is how they actively suppress said evidence by deeming it "spam" as a convenience.
This shows a dishonesty influenced by conformation bias hereabouts, but fortunately such suppression isn't across the board re other internet groups
Edited by Agatha:  Removed forum management content. Discussions on how the forum is run or moderated must only be raised in the Forum Management Feedback section.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

Last edited by Agatha; 26th September 2022 at 01:11 PM.
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2022, 04:56 PM   #197
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,528
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I am non-random and mindful (at least, some of the time) but if an amoeba in my GI tract tried to gain insight into the nature of reality or the expected course of events by monitoring the moment-to-moment variations of my pulse rate, they are not communicating with me nor receiving any communication (coherent information) from me.
How this is to be understood depends on what you mean when you use those pronouns.

Quote:
You are in essence claiming that you are receiving a signal in addition to (or instead of) noise from your process, with the information theory meanings of "signal" and "noise." To make that claim convincingly, you have to clearly define the characteristics of signal and how it is distinguished from noise.
No I don't. I simply have to provide the evidence of each and every GM created and the rest is up to the individual to examine and either confer to or give reasonable explanation as to why the messages are consistently coherent.

This cannot be done of course, if the messages are not allowed to be presented as evidence.

The recent post I made offering evidence that there is consistent readership on other forum sites over the months I have published the Generated Messages since your comment, [23rd March 2022, 09:04 PM] was systematically shifted to the "Abandon all hope" section of this forum, further evidence that hard-nosed skepticism is about as debatable as fundamental Christianity.


Quote:
That you claim to derive insight or other personal benefit from the process is not evidence for signal, unless you can show that people do not gain insight or other personal benefit from paying attention to noise.
The so-call "noise" is what, that it makes the slightest bit of difference in making valid your argument against Generating Messages/personal insight et al?


Quote:
The amoeba in my intestine cannot communicate with me, nor vice versa, with the amoeba language it's familiar with, because even though I'm non-random and mindful, I don't know or speak amoeba language.
What I have also uncovered through the use of the GM system is that it is similar to learning a new language.


Quote:
Divination is still the generally accepted term for what you're doing here, regardless of the purpose. (Some divination is for predicting the future, but it's still divination if used for e.g. spiritual insight.)
Divination has its place and function re mysticism.


Quote:
But the "it" that happens every time could just be (and most likely is) the mental effects of the exercise of meditating upon echoed noise. "It" isn't convincing evidence of a signal.
What do you consider are 'non signals'?


Quote:
I'm in a minority of one on these forums, in that I actually do believe that earth's biosphere is an intelligence of sorts, and its creative processes (thoughts) are evolution itself. (That is to say, it doesn't "control" evolution, any more than you control which ions move between which synapses in your own brain. Evolution is how it works.) But just because it evolved humans who evolved English doesn't mean it speaks or understands English. Your fingernails grow from you and are part of you, but do you await questions from your fingernails and answer them in fingernail-language?
I have long since abandoned the idea that "you" ["me" et al] as an accurate measure of self identification has much importance in relation to the physical body and how it functions. The Generated Messages over these months have confirmed that suspicion.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you the evidence of this being the case, due to the strict suppression of said evidence by the administration of this site.

But that is not my problem.

I stand by my assertions, even though the supporting evidence I have, is deemed
inadmissible.
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high o’er the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2022, 05:43 PM   #198
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,507
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Probably the most revealing thing about hard-core skeptics lack of ability to tolerate evidence, is how they actively suppress said evidence by deeming it "spam" as a convenience.
This shows a dishonesty influenced by conformation bias hereabouts
Edited by Agatha:  Moderated content removed

I read that post before it was moved and didn't understand it. It appeared to be an image of a screenshot or a collage of screenshots of thread titles by posters named William or VViliam with subjects involving randomly generated messages. Are these examples of randomly generated messages that you've posted elsewhere, that address questions discussed here? Are we supposed to go hunting across the Internet for those posts, since you offered no links? Did you create that image specifically for this thread, or have you been posting it elsewhere? You didn't even say anything to suggest that you intended that information as evidence of anything related to this thread. Not even the consideration of typing something like "Here is some evidence for you," to suggest a reason to go searching for the references.

With such minimal effort apparent on your part, it seems rather presumptuous to come back complaining that that cryptic no-effort post was binned as meaningless spam. Can you see why no one tried particularly hard to figure out what the image you posted meant, let alone track down the sources it's referring to or respond to them? I made an effort four posts ago (and five months ago) in this thread to develop meaningful discourse. Can you give me a reason why I should try to do so again?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Agatha; 26th September 2022 at 01:13 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2022, 07:19 PM   #199
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 14,969
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Probably the most revealing thing about hard-core skeptics lack of ability to tolerate evidence, is how they actively suppress said evidence by deeming it "spam" as a convenience.
This shows a dishonesty influenced by conformation bias hereabouts
Edited by Agatha:  Moderated content removed
]
Probably the most revealing thing about hard-core believers lack of ability to tolerate valid criticism of their faulty arguments and lack of objective evidence is how they interpret normal forum management as an attempt to silence them.

Your previous post contained an image which was so wide it broke the formatting of the thread. That alone would be sufficient reason to remove it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...06#post5669806

Quote:
This rule is intended to cover various kinds of disruptive posting, primarily posting of commercial advertisements and spamming or flooding the forum by repeatedly posting identical, or very similar, content. It also covers such things as posting extremely large pictures that cause the page to display in an unusual manner and using excessive amounts of formatting such as large fonts, colour, and smilies that can make a thread difficult to read or even inaccessible.
[My highlighting]
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Agatha; 26th September 2022 at 01:13 PM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2022, 02:14 AM   #200
Carrot Flower King
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 2,861
But, Pixel, such trifling rules cannot apply to our brave maverick original thinkers (see also various other folk who after many suspensions and AAH-ings were eventually hit with the ban hammer) as they are Brave and Maverick and Original and Thinkers whose Utterings are beyond us grovelling folk who like a bit of science and replicable evidence and coherence. So, of course, they do not have to do as we do and, equally, any attempt at analysis or critique of Their Ideas must be Rong and Biased and the Product of A Conspiracy against them...

Rinse and repeat for each time one of these Brave Maverick Thinkers appears with whatever hive of bees they have in their bonnet.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.