ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags physics

Reply
Old 21st February 2019, 09:07 AM   #241
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The Hard Problem goes further than that. It asks, implicitly, If consciousness is an illusion, who is experiencing that illusion?
If someone is experiencing the illusion then it's not an illusion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 February 2019, 09:09 AM   #242
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,446
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
It seems to me that the first of those posts revealed considerable knowledge of the matters Myriad was discussing.
But he goes on for many paragraphs without linking anything to consciousness and then tacks on "We perceive it, in part, as consciousness" as the last sentence totally out of the blue. There's not a single clue in there as to why the AI process he describes leads to consciousness. That last sentence is just a total non-sequitur.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 February 2019, 09:11 AM   #243
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
If someone is experiencing the illusion then it's not an illusion.
?

baron 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 February 2019, 09:13 AM   #244
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by baron View Post
?
Well, we're talking about experience, right? So if consciousness, the experience itself, is an illusion, then no one would experience it, since the experience itself is consciousness. So by asking who is experiencing the illusion, the illusion, which is consicousness, ceases to be an illusion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 February 2019, 09:18 AM   #245
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23,596
Originally Posted by baron View Post
My claims require fewer entities, not more. The claim that the brain creates consciousness involves two entities - brain and consciousness. I claim consciousness exists independently of brains. That's also two entities - brain and consciousnesses. Yet the claim that consciousness is unique to this set of animals over here and not present in this set over here requires another entity - the line. I don't believe that line exists. So my claims require fewer entities.
If emergent properties don't exist then "the line" certainly doesn't. And you're ignoring the fact that if you're positing the brain and consciousness as two independent things then a means for the two to interact also has to exist.

Earlier you gave the example of radio waves, but here you're denying that aerials are necessary for radios to work.

You also didn't answer my question - how does the reasoning you've presented lead to the idea of a consciousness field that interacts with data being processed?

Quote:
So you're making a distinction between dreamless sleep and your experience in terms of internal conscious awareness. What is that distinction?
The perception of time having passed.

Quote:
That's RBD. RBD and somnambulism are entirely separate phenomena.
Dreams don't only occur during REM sleep.

And you're side-stepping the point, which is that I've never seen it claimed that sleepwalkers experience nothing while they are sleepwalking. On the contrary, most sleepwalkers can remember at least some of their experiences, even if those experiences are often modified by their dreams.

Quote:
No, they're an abstract noun, they don't actually exist.
Then what is the computer doing when it is running those calculations? What is it running?

Do computer programmes exist?

Quote:
Calculations don't share any of the elements we attribute to consciousness.
Which attributes do you believe consciousness has which requires a higher standard for existence than calculations have? What about them requires this?

Or, I suppose, to put it another way - what about consciousness not "existing", as you're apparently choosing to define the word, means that that description of it cannot be accurate?

Quote:
I don't accept that consciousness is an emergent property because that would mean it doesn't exist. I don't accept that consciousness is a direct product of the brain, and only of the brain, because that would require adoptions of unwarranted assumptions and additional entities to explain.
Neither of these actually answer my question. Rather than explaining what your hypothesis contributes to understanding you're explaining where you think other hypotheses fall down. This is akin to creationism attacking the theory of evolution rather than having any explanatory or predictive power of its own.

Quote:
My theory also explains certain observations such as group behaviours, where individual creatures behave as one single large one.
Lots of small components behave as a single, larger system. Do they all imply conscious action? Does the fact that a number of water molecules together exhibit behaviours such as liquidity imply that those behaviours are the result of conscious action? Does the orbit of planets around the sun imply that the solar system is organised by conscious action?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 February 2019, 09:20 AM   #246
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,547
And like I said (which apparently was a "get off my lawn" comment for.. reasons) this is where this conversation always goes and always dies.

Someone walks into the room and puts two identical widgets on the table. By every test, observation, or external criteria we can perform the two widgets behave and perform identically, but we're assured one of the two identical widgets has some special inherent specialness we have to account for. And thus the dance begins.

Bill: "Okay so what is special about the second widget that we have to factor in a new process or variable to account for?"
Ted: "Oh you see the special thing is what makes Widget 2 different from Widget 1."
Bill: "Okay. So what makes Widget 2 different from Widget 1?"
Ted: "Easy. The differences is the special quality that Widget 2 has that Widget 1 doesn't."
Bill: "So the difference is the thing that makes them not the same, and they aren't the same because there's a difference."
Ted: "Yep."
Bill: "Care to elaborate on that... like at all?"
Ted: "Nope!"

It's completely self contained and circular. "True philosophical conscious" is what human brains have that a p-zombie or a Turing Complete Artificial Intelligence or (insert any one of a billion other metaphors/thought experiments/philosophical concepts here) doesn't have but the thing that humans have that p-zombies/Turing Complete AI/etc don't have is "true philosophical consciousness." 20 GOTO 10.

Throughout this will be sprinkling meaningless distinctions without difference trying to linguistic bootstrap a difference that doesn't exist into itself. A computer can "feel" pain but it can never "experience" pain. Sure I could lay you down in a MRI machine and literally watch you have thoughts and emotions but that cold, scientific machine can never really show you real essence of the feeling. Science can explain sensory inputs but not... QUALIA *dramatic music sting.* Science understands hamburgers with cheese, but we need philosophy to understand real true cheeseburgers. And at no point will what separates a cheeseburger from a hamburger with cheese be offered outside of some new variation on "It's defined as the difference."

Bill: "So wait, are you saying science doesn't understand how the mind works?"
Ted: "Oh don't be silly Bill. That's a complete strawman. Nobody here is saying that science doesn't understand that brain. Nobody is saying that at all. Nobody here is some Wooster trying to shove a soul or some other woo into the brain. Nobody at all."
Bill: *Wait for for it.*
Bill: *Wait for for it.*
Ted: "But...."
Bill: *There it is.*

People are going to disassemble a grandfather clock down to its tiniest pieces, spread them all out on a table, and demand I show them where the "process of keeping time" is on the table. When I say I can't they'll go "OH so you're saying clocks don't keep time? That's madness!"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 21st February 2019 at 09:21 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 February 2019, 09:47 AM   #247
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by baron View Post
My claims require fewer entities, not more. The claim that the brain creates consciousness involves two entities - brain and consciousness. I claim consciousness exists independently of brains. That's also two entities - brain and consciousnesses. Yet the claim that consciousness is unique to this set of animals over here and not present in this set over here requires another entity - the line. I don't believe that line exists. So my claims require fewer entities.
...
It depends which claims you mean. I don't accept that consciousness is an emergent property because that would mean it doesn't exist. I don't accept that consciousness is a direct product of the brain, and only of the brain, because that would require adoptions of unwarranted assumptions and additional entities to explain. My theory also explains certain observations such as group behaviours, where individual creatures behave as one single large one.
I can apply the same logic to food.

Substances can be edible or inedible. Some may say that edibility is an emergent property based on the specific chemical composition of the substance in question. But that can't be true because emergent properties do not exist and clearly edibility is real since eating the wrong thing can kill you.

Perhaps instead the universe is imbued with an edibility field that various substances interact with. That is more a parsimonious explanation, eliminating all the complexity of chemistry, and so more likely to be true.
jrhowell 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 February 2019, 09:54 AM   #248
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,547
Dr. Foreman: Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is always the best.
Dr. House: And you think one is simpler than two?
Dr. Cameron: I'm pretty sure it is, yeah.
Dr. House: Baby shows up. Chase tells you that two people exchange fluids to create this being. I tell you that one stork dropped the little tyke off in a diaper. Are you going to go with the two or the one?
Dr. Foreman: I think your argument is specious.
Dr. House: I think your tie is ugly.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 February 2019, 10:17 AM   #249
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If emergent properties don't exist then "the line" certainly doesn't.
It exists as an entity as far as Occam's razor goes, which is what I said.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And you're ignoring the fact that if you're positing the brain and consciousness as two independent things then a means for the two to interact also has to exist.

Earlier you gave the example of radio waves, but here you're denying that aerials are necessary for radios to work.
Where have I denied that? I have no idea how the conscious field and matter might interact, which is exactly the same understanding you have of how a brain might produce consciousness directly, i.e. zero.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You also didn't answer my question - how does the reasoning you've presented lead to the idea of a consciousness field that interacts with data being processed?
Because I see it as eminently more logical to postulate the existence of a field rather than saying "We don't know what consciousness is, but the brain creates it, but it doesn't really exist." I say it does exist and if it exists it must be something. If you don't believe consciousness exists then fine, I just don't understand how you can take that position.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The perception of time having passed.
I don't know what you mean. You seem to be be making unfounded and arbitrary guesses. How can you know that you have an experience of time having passed during dreamless sleep? What method do you use to detect dreamless sleep, and how do you separate it from the periods of REM sleep and half-wakefulness that everybody experiences during their sleep cycles?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Dreams don't only occur during REM sleep.
That's irrelevant. You said, "On the contrary, I've seen many stories where somnambulists were dreaming about doing one thing while physically doing something relevant to that (such as punching in their sleep because they believe themselves to be fighting an ogre)."

I pointed out that the bracketed portion is not somnambulism, it is RBD. You are confusing elements of sleeping experience just as you are confusing elements of conscious experience.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And you're side-stepping the point, which is that I've never seen it claimed that sleepwalkers experience nothing while they are sleepwalking. On the contrary, most sleepwalkers can remember at least some of their experiences, even if those experiences are often modified by their dreams.
And what do you conclude from that?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then what is the computer doing when it is running those calculations?
It's doing a great many things. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Which attributes do you believe consciousness has which requires a higher standard for existence than calculations have?
Self awareness. Why can't you understand that abstract nouns are simply convenient ways of referencing a set of more complex elements which, at some point, have their grounding in the physical? I could announce that the act of eating a biscuit whilst wiggling my thumbs and humming Auld Lang Syne is a scuitwigsyne. That doesn't mean that humanity now shares the planet with a new entity known as a scuitwigsyne, it simply means I've decided to use that word to describe those elements.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Neither of these actually answer my question. Rather than explaining what your hypothesis contributes to understanding you're explaining where you think other hypotheses fall down. This is akin to creationism attacking the theory of evolution rather than having any explanatory or predictive power of its own.
Emergent properties don't exist. Consciousness does. Therefore consciousness is not an emergent property. I don't know how I can phrase it more clearly.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Lots of small components behave as a single, larger system. Do they all imply conscious action? Does the fact that a number of water molecules together exhibit behaviours such as liquidity imply that those behaviours are the result of conscious action? Does the orbit of planets around the sun imply that the solar system is organised by conscious action?
No, why would they?

Last edited by baron; 21st February 2019 at 10:21 AM.
baron 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 February 2019, 10:50 AM   #250
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by baron View Post
...who is experiencing that illusion? ... Who, or what, is doing the observing? ...
That was a surprise, you doing a Nisargadatta there! :--)

That answer is easy enough, though. Our 'self' is an illusion too (strictly in the sense that I'd said that consciousness itself is illusory). Which is kind of tautological, given how the two ideas are merely different ways of looking at the same (non-) thing.

Of course, I think of this not as some article of faith, but as a not unlikely speculation, that may one day be 'proved' with greater certitude.

And, speaking of speculation, I've read your ideas here with interest, but I do wonder how you've found your way to making that part of your belief system / worldview (as you've said more than once).

I don't think it's necessarily irrational to hold subjective beliefs like this, provided you're clear that it's no more than that (which too you've said more than once), but I'm curious why you think this is more than simply speculation.
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 11:05 AM   #251
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
That was a surprise, you doing a Nisargadatta there! :--)
I've not heard of him but a Google shows he was a Hindu mystic and I have read some summaries and commentaries on relevant Hindu and Buddhist texts.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
That answer is easy enough, though. Our 'self' is an illusion too (strictly in the sense that I'd said that consciousness itself is illusory). Which is kind of tautological, given how the two ideas are merely different ways of looking at the same (non-) thing.
OK, but just as you find it impossible to imagine consciousness as a thing I find it impossible to think of the conscious 'self'*, and conscious experience, as an illusion. I am not only more certain that it exists than I am of anything else, I can't understand how somebody could deny it, as they are literally denying the evidence of their own senses.

*Note I'm not referring to the 'self' as a consistent personality here, that's a whole different topic - I don't believe in the self.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Of course, I think of this not as some article of faith, but as a not unlikely speculation, that may one day be 'proved' with greater certitude.

And, speaking of speculation, I've read your ideas here with interest, but I do wonder how you've found your way to making that part of your belief system / worldview (as you've said more than once).

I don't think it's necessarily irrational to hold subjective beliefs like this, provided you're clear that it's no more than that (which too you've said more than once), but I'm curious why you think this is more than simply speculation.
Consciousness, as defined by the Hard Problem, is entirely subjective. I have no evidence for it and neither does anybody else. So we have two options. Disbelieve in consciousness, as you do, or believe in it and try to explain it. I'm forced to choose the latter and have consistently said my theory is only speculation. Just like all other theories, whether originated by scientists, philosophers or some random person on a forum.
baron 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 February 2019, 12:04 PM   #252
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,443
"I would say my toaster is conscious then"
-PixyMisa
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 February 2019, 12:06 PM   #253
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
"I would say my toaster is conscious then"
-PixyMisa
I miss that guy/gal. He/she didn't tolerate much nonsense on this issue. In fact, most of the consciousness heavy hitters seem gone.

Leaving said nonsense in, unfortunately.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 February 2019, 12:09 PM   #254
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Google shows he was a Hindu mystic
whose modus operandi for approaching enlightenment was a relentless questioning/exploration of the 'Who am I?' question.

Quote:
I can't understand how somebody could deny it, as they are literally denying the evidence of their own senses.
So who is it that finds it impossible to understand this? Take a few days off, hike to the top of some nearby hill, change into a loincloth, and contemplate that question. Like Nisargadatta, that impossibility may become easier to comprehend. :--)

Quote:
I'm not referring to the 'self' as a consistent personality here, that's a whole different topic - I don't believe in the self.
We may be in agreement after all. Junk the loincloth, I guess.

Quote:
have consistently said my theory is only speculation
Oh, OK then. I was thrown by your repeated use of "I believe", etc, as opposed to "I imagine", etc. No doubt just a figure of speech, then.
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 12:27 PM   #255
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
whose modus operandi for approaching enlightenment was a relentless questioning/exploration of the 'Who am I?' question.
That's a good idea, and one that people have entertained for thousands of years. Nothing is going to come to people who don't question their own experience, let alone those who dismiss it outright.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
So who is it that finds it impossible to understand this?
Me.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Take a few days off, hike to the top of some nearby hill, change into a loincloth, and contemplate that question. Like Nisargadatta, that impossibility may become easier to comprehend. :--)

We may be in agreement after all. Junk the loincloth, I guess.
I always wear a loincloth whilst posting on ISF.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Oh, OK then. I was thrown by your repeated use of "I believe", etc, as opposed to "I imagine", etc. No doubt just a figure of speech, then.
'I believe' is grammatically more accurate. 'I imagine' is indicative of conclusions based on a cursory examination of the topic, and whether you agree with me or not I can tell you my research has been anything but.
baron 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 February 2019, 12:40 PM   #256
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Oh. I'll take your word for it, for now. I was under the impression that both these have been kind of proven, but perhaps I was mistaken. (Haven't read the two articles you've linked, yet, but I will, when I have a bit of time. And it might be good for me to generally read a bit more on this, and, perhaps, after that, start a fresh thread on this?)
Some people claim it's (that consciousness is merely an illusion) been proven, but it just boils down to a handful of people asserting vehemently that it's been proven, AFAIK. The only evidence backing the claim of proof that consciousness is an illusion I can find is the evidence (which is undeniable) that consciousness is deceptive and strange, and that what we're overtly thinking is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the data our brains are processing. I just personally don't think that even puts a dent into the fact of the existence of sentience, tho.

If you want to start a spinoff thread, that's cool! I love consciousness discussions.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 February 2019, 12:56 PM   #257
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I believe' is grammatically more accurate.
Not necessarily literally "I believe", the "etc" part. E.g., right here, where you say you are unable to even imagine how someone may hold the other POV. That seemed stronger on the belief continuum than just speculation.
Quote:
'I imagine' is indicative of conclusions based on a cursory examination of the topic
Not necessarily, not if you use that phrase colloquially. But let me not nitpick. I take your point, figure of speech, 'believe' as in 'speculation that appears likely'.
Quote:
, and whether you agree with me or not I can tell you my research has been anything but.
I do not know enough to definitively either agree or disagree. But yeah, consciousness fields, I agree they seem unlikely to me.
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 12:58 PM   #258
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Tbh, the nature of this 'field' of yours isn't clear to me. Is it, like, intrinsic to the universe? Or do we conscious creatures somehow generate it, and then, once it is in place, interact with it?
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 01:03 PM   #259
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Here you're talking about qualia absent the presence of stimulus, but an absence of stimulus is not required for qualia to exist. If you feel pain then you have qualia, regardless of whether or not you can induce pain simply by thinking about it.
But the without stimulus is the point used to argue that feeling pain, seeing red is different to the "experience" of red. But I'm someone who does not have such qualia absent a clear environmental stimulus. I only see or experience red when my eyes are open and there is a red apple in front of me. There is simply no need for qualia to explain how I am conscious. Even if qualia do exist I would say folk like me demonstrate that they are not required to explain consciousness unless you want to claim I'm a p-zombie.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 February 2019, 01:03 PM   #260
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Tbh, the nature of this 'field' of yours isn't clear to me. Is it, like, intrinsic to the universe? Or do we conscious creatures somehow generate it, and then, once it is in place, interact with it?
It's fundamental and ubiquitous.

Originally Posted by baron View Post
I can maybe explain my thinking in this way:

* Imagine the conscious field as a flat, 2d sheet (of course it's not 2d, but for ease of imagining).

* A complex entity (say an ant) appears on this sheet. The ant processes information in its little ant brain.

* A distortion appears at the point of information processing in the conscious field, and this is the ant's (minuscule) consciousness.

* Add a million more ants. Each ant produces the same distortion in the field representing its own conscious experience.

* But now there is communication between ants, and this communication also produces distortion of the field, but an overarching distortion - group consciousness - overlaid on the individual consciousnesses of the ants.

* When the magnitude of this distortion exceeds that of the individual, the individual behaves under the group influence as opposed to its own.

This is what I believe anyhow, and I have done since long before I heard of IIT (which I first read about three or four years ago).
baron 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 February 2019, 01:05 PM   #261
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I only see or experience red when my eyes are open and there is a red apple in front of me.
That's enough - that's qualia. I don't know why you won't believe this.
baron 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 February 2019, 01:10 PM   #262
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's fundamental and ubiquitous.
"Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel it around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere! "
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 February 2019, 01:14 PM   #263
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Some people claim it's (that consciousness is merely an illusion) been proven, but it just boils down to a handful of people asserting vehemently that it's been proven, AFAIK.
[/quote]


You could be right. And I still haven't read anything on this, not even those 2 articles.

But about this part: isn't this a bit like the God question? Rather than saying, 'Sure, he/it exists, I feel/know it, you prove he/it doesn't exist', won't the burden of objective proof lie with those who do posit God, or free will, or consciousness?
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 01:39 PM   #264
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,427
Just because the mind can be shown to have been tricked sometimes doesn't automatically imply it is being tricked all of the time.
ServiceSoon 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 February 2019, 01:54 PM   #265
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That's enough - that's qualia. I don't know why you won't believe this.
I've been over this with him before. I think Darat's just amused by the notion that he's a real life p-zombie. LOL

On a related note, I think "I" (depending on your definition of "I" ) actually have been a p-zombie before. When coming out of massive seizures (again, I'm epileptic), I apparently talk a lot and express emotions and desires, like ("I'm cold, can I have a blanket?") even tho there is no "me" there. I woke up once to the sound of another voice saying "My tongue is numb". (The voice I heard, turned out, was my own..I'd badly bitten my tongue in a seizure rendering it totally numb.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 February 2019, 01:57 PM   #266
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Just because the mind can be shown to have been tricked sometimes doesn't automatically imply it is being tricked all of the time.
Even if I'm tricked all the time, that doesn't mean I do not exist!
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 February 2019, 02:07 PM   #267
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I've been over this with him before. I think Darat's just amused by the notion that he's a real life p-zombie. LOL
He certainly seems eager to embrace the notion.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
On a related note, I think "I" (depending on your definition of "I" ) actually have been a p-zombie before. When coming out of massive seizures (again, I'm epileptic), I apparently talk a lot and express emotions and desires, like ("I'm cold, can I have a blanket?") even tho there is no "me" there. I woke up once to the sound of another voice saying "My tongue is numb". (The voice I heard, turned out, was my own..I'd badly bitten my tongue in a seizure rendering it totally numb.)
Ah, now we're onto something different. As I say, I don't believe in the permanent self, but my theory regarding consciousness does allow for two things that might be of relevance:

1) Multiple seats of consciousness in the brain
2) Mechanical actions for which consciousness takes credit

Either one (or even a combination) could explain your experiences.

In the first instance, your seizure has caused localised concentrations of information processing (or disruption) to form in your brain, causing multiple seats of consciousness; consciousness A causes you do say and do various things whilst consciousness B - your transient self - listens in. There's more to say on this but that's just an example.

In the second instance your body mechanically performs actions. However, your consciousness, which would normally take credit for them, is out-of-whack (a scientific term) on account of your epileptic seizure and thus it appears like you are the observer as opposed to the cause.

I personally think the second option is way more likely.

Last edited by baron; 21st February 2019 at 02:08 PM.
baron 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 February 2019, 02:24 PM   #268
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by baron View Post
He certainly seems eager to embrace the notion.



Ah, now we're onto something different. As I say, I don't believe in the permanent self, but my theory regarding consciousness does allow for two things that might be of relevance:

1) Multiple seats of consciousness in the brain
2) Mechanical actions for which consciousness takes credit

Either one (or even a combination) could explain your experiences.

In the first instance, your seizure has caused localised concentrations of information processing (or disruption) to form in your brain, causing multiple seats of consciousness; consciousness A causes you do say and do various things whilst consciousness B - your transient self - listens in. There's more to say on this but that's just an example.

In the second instance your body mechanically performs actions. However, your consciousness, which would normally take credit for them, is out-of-whack (a scientific term) on account of your epileptic seizure and thus it appears like you are the observer as opposed to the cause.

I personally think the second option is way more likely.
My gut sense is that it's more like the second thing, too. I really think my body and brain was functionally a p-zombie, doing rote memorization verbalizing about "perceptions" which were about as "conscious" as an iPhone. I was happy to learn that "I" was totally pleasant and kind when in zombie-mode, but that's just a testament to how well I've trained myself to "act pleasant" lol

I do not know wtf is up with consciousness. It really feels like the deeper I dive into the deep end trying to figure it all out, the more I see that the space to explore is more vast and deep than I could ever hope to comprehend.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 February 2019, 06:32 PM   #269
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by baron View Post
It's fundamental and ubiquitous.

I beg your pardon, you seem to have stated this very clearly, already. Afraid I'm rushed, and have been kind of stealing quick looks here, rather than reading all this carefully and at leisure.

But that field -- even granting that such exists -- why would that tie with what we commonly think of as consciousness? You're not joking, I hope? Doesn't this veer off into decidedly supernatural/magical territory?
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 06:39 PM   #270
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Just because the mind can be shown to have been tricked sometimes doesn't automatically imply it is being tricked all of the time.

What you say is true, as far as that goes.

But surely you see that this is textbook special pleading?

Unless you can clearly provide good reasons for this exceptionalism -- that is, why the burden of proof operates one way for (a) God, but then changes direction when it comes to (b) free will and (c) consciousness -- I'm afraid that kind of reasoning would be fallacious.
Chanakya 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 February 2019, 06:48 PM   #271
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 981
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
...I'm someone who does not have such qualia absent a clear environmental stimulus. I only see or experience red when my eyes are open and there is a red apple in front of me.

Never heard of somthing like this! Although TBH there's plenty I've not heard of, so ...

Have you had this condition diagnosed, then?
Chanakya 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 22nd February 2019, 01:12 AM   #272
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I've been over this with him before. I think Darat's just amused by the notion that he's a real life p-zombie. LOL



On a related note, I think "I" (depending on your definition of "I" ) actually have been a p-zombie before. When coming out of massive seizures (again, I'm epileptic), I apparently talk a lot and express emotions and desires, like ("I'm cold, can I have a blanket?") even tho there is no "me" there. I woke up once to the sound of another voice saying "My tongue is numb". (The voice I heard, turned out, was my own..I'd badly bitten my tongue in a seizure rendering it totally numb.)
Nope. It would appear you don't understand what the claims are for qualia. Qualia are not mean to be the same as stimulus then reaction. Redness is mean to be something different than certain wavelengths of photons hitting a retina, causing chemical changes and so on. They are meant to explain how we can have an "experience" of redness aside from the perception of red. As me and other folk demonstrate even if they exist they are not a requirement for consciousness. Of course so far no one has demonstrated that they do exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd February 2019, 01:30 AM   #273
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,079
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Never heard of somthing like this! Although TBH there's plenty I've not heard of, so ...



Have you had this condition diagnosed, then?
Only learnt about it a few years back, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34039054. I've posted about it in the past in these types of discussions, but I never realised that I was different, I always thought folk were being poetic and using flowery language when they talked about what they could see in their mind's eye. I never realised you did in fact have a real mind's eye.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd February 2019, 03:39 AM   #274
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23,596
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Where have I denied that? I have no idea how the conscious field and matter might interact, which is exactly the same understanding you have of how a brain might produce consciousness directly, i.e. zero.
You're denying that it interacts. If "the line" is an entity, then so is the interaction between a brain and the consciousness field. And only one of the two of those things isn't an arbitrary straw man invented by you.

Quote:
Because I see it as eminently more logical to postulate the existence of a field rather than saying "We don't know what consciousness is, but the brain creates it, but it doesn't really exist."
You're the only person who is arguing that emergent properties don't exist.

And you've still not answered my question - why do you favour this explanation as opposed to an alternate explanation? Is it purely because you can't think of another one? Do you sincerely believe that the only two options are that consciousness is generated by the brain and that there is a consciousness field?

Quote:
I say it does exist and if it exists it must be something. If you don't believe consciousness exists then fine, I just don't understand how you can take that position.
That's because it's a straw man, and you know it's a straw man.

Quote:
How can you know that you have an experience of time having passed during dreamless sleep?
Because you go to sleep and wake up, feeling that time has passed.

Quote:
What method do you use to detect dreamless sleep, and how do you separate it from the periods of REM sleep and half-wakefulness that everybody experiences during their sleep cycles?
I've worked jobs with very crazy work schedules, and sometimes have had to sleep while other things are going on and for short periods of time. I've been asleep for 15 minutes in a room full of people who commented that I'd gone "absolutely sparko". That's too short a time to enter REM sleep, and according to all observers completely unconscious and displaying no signs of REM sleep.

Yet when I've woken up, I've perceived that time has passed, as opposed to the "jump-cut" of losing consciousness.

Quote:
That's irrelevant. You said, "On the contrary, I've seen many stories where somnambulists were dreaming about doing one thing while physically doing something relevant to that (such as punching in their sleep because they believe themselves to be fighting an ogre)."

I pointed out that the bracketed portion is not somnambulism, it is RBD. You are confusing elements of sleeping experience just as you are confusing elements of conscious experience.
RBD occurs during REM sleep. That's not what I'm talking about.

And you are again introducing irrelevancies to distract from the point. Your statement was: "A sleepwalker can perform tasks as complex as cooking or driving a car whilst unresponsive and seemingly asleep. We're told they are unconscious, as having no internal experience, but this is based only on the 'evidence' that they don't remember their actions." This is incorrect on two counts - the first being that anybody claims that sleepwalkers have no internal experience while sleepwalking, and the second being that sleepwalkers don't remember anything, when they frequently do.

Quote:
And what do you conclude from that?
That the two of your claims in the above paragraph are factually inaccurate.

Quote:
It's doing a great many things.
What? What is it running? Do computer programmes exist?

Quote:
Self awareness.
Why does self awareness require a higher standard of being said to exist than calculations do?

Quote:
Emergent properties don't exist.
So you keep saying. What you keep failing to do, though, is make a cogent argument for this assertion.

Quote:
Consciousness does.
On what evidence do you base the assertion that consciousness exists in a more real sense than emergent properties do?

Quote:
Therefore consciousness is not an emergent property. I don't know how I can phrase it more clearly.
And yet again you're only making a case against what you believe isn't true, rather than making a case for what you believe to be true. This is exactly the same as arguments for creationism.

Quote:
No, why would they?
If your explanation for the smaller parts of, say, an ant colony (individual ants) acting as a single larger, system is the consciousness field, then why is the same not true for individual water molecules acting as a single, larger system? What distinguishes the ant colony from the ocean so that both can exhibit behaviours as a whole that individual identical components cannot yet one requires a different explanation to the other? Why does one require an external force to explain its behaviour while the other doesn't?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 22nd February 2019, 03:43 AM   #275
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23,596
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But the without stimulus is the point used to argue that feeling pain, seeing red is different to the "experience" of red.
I've never seen that argument made, nor seen it used in a definition of qualia.

Quote:
But I'm someone who does not have such qualia absent a clear environmental stimulus. I only see or experience red when my eyes are open and there is a red apple in front of me.
I'm honestly not sure you're different from anybody else on this score.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 22nd February 2019, 04:10 AM   #276
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're denying that it interacts. If "the line" is an entity, then so is the interaction between a brain and the consciousness field. And only one of the two of those things isn't an arbitrary straw man invented by you.
If you want to call it an entity then go ahead and do so, just bear in mind it's an entity that must be owned by both sides of the argument, so my point still stands.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You're the only person who is arguing that emergent properties don't exist.
Well, like another poster, nobody knows what you're arguing because you don't have a debating position, nor do you have a theory on the topic, you're just sniping at mine.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And you've still not answered my question - why do you favour this explanation as opposed to an alternate explanation? Is it purely because you can't think of another one? Do you sincerely believe that the only two options are that consciousness is generated by the brain and that there is a consciousness field?
I have answered your question, you're just unwilling or unable to understand my response. Maybe if you adopted a debating position and put forward your theory things would become clearer.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's because it's a straw man, and you know it's a straw man.
Yawn.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Because you go to sleep and wake up, feeling that time has passed.
Your sleep cycle consists of purely deep sleep? You are unique in the world.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've worked jobs with very crazy work schedules, and sometimes have had to sleep while other things are going on and for short periods of time. I've been asleep for 15 minutes in a room full of people who commented that I'd gone "absolutely sparko". That's too short a time to enter REM sleep
Wrong. A person can enter REM sleep immediately and can even dream in non-REM sleep.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
, and according to all observers completely unconscious and displaying no signs of REM sleep.
Now you're talking soft. You expect me to believe you fall asleep in a 'room full of people' who immediately examine you for signs of REM sleep (maybe they peer at your eyelids or get out their covert EEGs) and then, when you awaken, they all give testimony about how you were 'completely unconscious' and displaying no signs of REM. Do you live in a sleep laboratory or something?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yet when I've woken up, I've perceived that time has passed, as opposed to the "jump-cut" of losing consciousness.

RBD occurs during REM sleep. That's not what I'm talking about.
The fact is neither of us know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And you are again introducing irrelevancies to distract from the point. Your statement was: "A sleepwalker can perform tasks as complex as cooking or driving a car whilst unresponsive and seemingly asleep. We're told they are unconscious, as having no internal experience, but this is based only on the 'evidence' that they don't remember their actions." This is incorrect on two counts - the first being that anybody claims that sleepwalkers have no internal experience while sleepwalking, and the second being that sleepwalkers don't remember anything, when they frequently do.

That the two of your claims in the above paragraph are factually inaccurate.
Why are you assuming I'm talking of every single instance of sleepwalking? As you quoted, I said, "A sleepwalker can... We are told they are unconscious..." My statement clearly refers to those to whom this applies, which is probably the majority.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

What? What is it running? Do computer programmes exist?



Why does self awareness require a higher standard of being said to exist than calculations do?



So you keep saying. What you keep failing to do, though, is make a cogent argument for this assertion.



On what evidence do you base the assertion that consciousness exists in a more real sense than emergent properties do?



And yet again you're only making a case against what you believe isn't true, rather than making a case for what you believe to be true. This is exactly the same as arguments for creationism.
Instead of bombarding me with frankly stupid questions maybe you can explain what you believe consciousness to be, and also explain why you believe it and why you reject all other explanations.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If your explanation for the smaller parts of, say, an ant colony (individual ants) acting as a single larger, system is the consciousness field, then why is the same not true for individual water molecules acting as a single, larger system? What distinguishes the ant colony from the ocean so that both can exhibit behaviours as a whole that individual identical components cannot yet one requires a different explanation to the other? Why does one require an external force to explain its behaviour while the other doesn't?
An ant is vastly more complex than a water molecule. More information processing goes on in an ant than in a drop of water. The options for an ant's behaviour are orders of magnitude more than for a drop of water, as are thus the number of options available to it. But if you had taken the trouble to try and understand my thinking, which I have clearly and repeatedly posted in this thread, you would also understand that I believe that water droplets and the ocean itself have rudimentary consciousness, so you could have avoided the straw man of 'Why does one require an external force whilst the other does not?"
baron 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 22nd February 2019, 04:17 AM   #277
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'm honestly not sure you're different from anybody else on this score.
Indeed. When we imagine something, do we really see its shape and colour, or just the general sensation of it? After all, the brain doesn't really record images.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 22nd February 2019, 04:19 AM   #278
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope. It would appear you don't understand what the claims are for qualia. Qualia are not mean to be the same as stimulus then reaction. Redness is mean to be something different than certain wavelengths of photons hitting a retina, causing chemical changes and so on. They are meant to explain how we can have an "experience" of redness aside from the perception of red. As me and other folk demonstrate even if they exist they are not a requirement for consciousness. Of course so far no one has demonstrated that they do exist.
Look out the window. What you experience is qualia. I promise you this.
baron 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 22nd February 2019, 05:14 AM   #279
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23,596
There's just too many straw men, personal insults, evasions, and disingenuous statements in that last post to even bother with. It's a shame, baron, that you don't have any interest in trying to honestly discuss your belief, especially given that you claim to have put so much time and effort into formulating it.

You've browbeaten me into submission. You can count that as a "win", if you like.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 22nd February 2019, 05:18 AM   #280
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,588
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Look out the window. What you experience is qualia. I promise you this.
What's the difference between "qualia" and "experience", then?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

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 09:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.