A question of spirits/souls

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

A philospher is one who philosophizes. Like a runner is one who runs. Do you need to be in the olympics to be a runner? No. One who reads is a reader.

Then what is the significance of pointing out that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy.

At one post you try to degrade my points by stating that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy, obviously in contrast to the fact that I don't, but on another post you degrade the value of a degree to basically nothing.

Ahnimus

Let's look at Bohm and Pribram's syllogism:

Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.

Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.

All strawberries are red
All cherries are red
Therefor, all strawberries are cherries and all cherries are strawberries.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Then what is the significance of pointing out that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy.

At one post you try to degrade my points by stating that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy, obviously in contrast to the fact that I don't, but on another post you degrade the value of a degree to basically nothing.

If I outrightly put you down, that is degrading you. If I make a factual statement about another person, I'm responsible for what I specifically say, and my intent. Two different things.

I pointed out Byrnzie had a philosophy degree because I thought it was really funny! I thought it interesting that you were going on about what philosphers do/don't do/and what they should do. You were judging Byrnzie's "positive knowledge claim" by your standards, as if he's expected to go by your own definitions of what people "should/shouldn't" say. As if people, or philosophy in general had your standard to live up to.

I thought a little dose of reality would be fun.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Let's look at Bohm and Pribram's syllogism:

Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.

Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.

All strawberries are red
All cherries are red
Therefor, all strawberries are cherries and all cherries are strawberries.

You continually point to your own lack of comprehension and project it onto esteemed thinkers, implying the flaw is with them, while others understand and "get" what they are saying. When arrogance gets in the way of truth seeking, you'll learn the hard and humbling way. You're on your own if you can't make sense of what they theorize.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You continually point to your own lack of comprehension and project it onto esteemed thinkers, implying the flaw is with them, while others understand and "get" what they are saying. When arrogance gets in the way of truth seeking, you'll learn the hard and humbling way. You're on your own if you can't make sense of what they theorize.

Fuck off.

Just give a detailed explanation and then it will be comprehensible.

I understand the intricate workings of computer hardware and network systems. I can program in 3 different languages and speak two different human languages. I have a semi-sophisticated understanding of neuroscience, psychology and developmental psychology. I understand basic physics and draw on a lot of knowledge of quantum physics from people like Murray Gell-Mann. I'm on my second Neuroscience book this week! I spend almost all of my time learning and understanding complex things.

Don't talk down to me. I can understand anything that is coherent. Just make it coherent.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

If I outrightly put you down, that is degrading you. If I make a factual statement about another person, I'm responsible for what I specifically say, and my intent. Two different things.

I pointed out Byrnzie had a philosophy degree because I thought it was really funny! I thought it interesting that you were going on about what philosphers do/don't do/and what they should do. You were judging Byrnzie's "positive knowledge claim" by your standards, as if he's expected to go by your own definitions of what people "should/shouldn't" say. As if people, or philosophy in general had your standard to live up to.

I thought a little dose of reality would be fun.

You are missing a lot of reality Angelica. You have one toe in reality and the rest is in fantasy land.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Fuck off.

Just give a detailed explanation and then it will be comprehensible.

I understand the intricate workings of computer hardware and network systems. I can program in 3 different languages and speak two different human languages. I have a semi-sophisticated understanding of neuroscience, psychology and developmental psychology. I understand basic physics and draw on a lot of knowledge of quantum physics from people like Murray Gell-Mann. I'm on my second Neuroscience book this week! I spend almost all of my time learning and understanding complex things.

Don't talk down to me. I can understand anything that is coherent. Just make it coherent.

You said:

Ahnimus wrote:

Let's look at Bohm and Pribram's syllogism:

Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.

Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.

If you are not ready to understand or appreciate this theory, that is understandable. It's definitely not for everyone. Our subjective filters determine what we are willing/ready to hear. When you draw simplistic, innacurate judgments on something, though, it shows you are being simplistic and judgmental.

For the guy who is so adamant about the "rules" of philosophy, you seen to gloss over epistemology and your own inner processes that affect what you see.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You are missing a lot of reality Angelica. You have one toe in reality and the rest is in fantasy land.

If living my dream life is a fantasy, then, yes!! I love this fantasy!! If "reality", in your definition, is being tied to material life only, you're quite right that it's not something I'm big on.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You said:

If you are not ready to understand or appreciate this theory, that is understandable. It's definitely not for everyone. Our subjective filters determine what we are willing/ready to hear. When you draw simplistic, innacurate judgments on something, though, it shows you are being simplistic and judgmental.

For the guy who is so adamant about the "rules" of philosophy, you seen to gloss over epistemology and your own inner processes that affect what you see.

What the hell are you babbling about?

I just acknowledged how they draw their conclusions, or at least, that is all that is apparent in any of the crap you've posted or I've read online. I'm not glossing over epistemology, you are.

Epistemologically, this form of acquisition of knowledge is so-called a priori. Examples of which are Phlogiston Theory, Flat-Earth Theory, Cartesian Dualism and Vitalism. These were theories based on the epistemology that simply experiencing a phenomena opens the door to a priori knowledge, or knowledge simply by intuitive reasoning. All of these theories turned out to be wrong after hundreds of years. This is why science stresses empricism and a posteriori acquisition of knowledge.

I am not glossing over epistemology, you are denying it's history.

gue_barium

'To the moon, Alice! To the MOON!"

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I just acknowledged how they draw their conclusions, or at least, that is all that is apparent in any of the crap you've posted or I've read online.

What I see is that you are demonstrating your shallow view of these theories.

I'm not glossing over epistemology, you are.

American Heritage dictionary defines epistemology as: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

When you keep erroneously assuming inaccurately as you've done throughout this debate: ie: assuming I am defending Michael Talbot's view rather than David Bohm's actual words. Or David Bohm is not a philosopher, etc. That's about your false attainment of "knowledge".

And in that past post where you attempt to degrade David Bohm's or whomevers "fallacious logic"--the fallacious logic is inherent to your fallacious "straw man" argument. Your argument is not an actual argument of David Bohm's. Therefore David Bohm (Or Pribram, or Wolf) are not responsible for a fallacious argument you cook up and falsely attribute to them.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

'To the moon, Alice! To the MOON!"

That's actually really funny!

Ahnimus

Consider an example. When William Harvey (1578 - 1657) began research on the heart, his guiding question was this: exactly where in the heart are the "vital spirits concocted? His question reflected the respectable, conventional, too-obvious-to-be-questioned wisdom of his time. According to this conventional wisdom, blood was continuously and copiously made in the liver. The job of the heart was to make vital spirits (by virtue of which life existed) by mixing air from the lungs with blood from the liver. The reason death followed the cessation of heartbeat was that the vital spirits ceased to be concocted.
In one of the great stories of science. Harvey ended up discovering something utterly different from what he sought. He discovered that the heart was actually a meaty pump, blood circulates around the body, and blood is continuously made, but not by the pint per minute and not in the liver at all. Shockingly, Harvey's discoveries implied that almost certainly there were no vital spirits concocted in the heart--or anywhere else either. TO come to see this, he had to doff the conceptual lenses of the framework of spirits --vital, animal, and natural--and don a completely different set of lenses. This he did: "Medical schools admit three kinds of spirits: the natural spirits flowing through the veins, the vital spirits through the arteries , and the animal spirits through the nerves,... but we have found none of these spirits by dissection, neither in the veins, nerves, arteries nor other parts of living animals." Thenceforth the conceptual framework of spirits was in decline
Patricia Smith Churchland Brain-Wise pg. 256-257 An Introduction to Epistemology

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What I see is that you are demonstrating your shallow view of these theories.


American Heritage dictionary defines epistemology as: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

When you keep erroneously assuming inaccurately as you've done throughout this debate: ie: assuming I am defending Michael Talbot's view rather than David Bohm's actual words. Or David Bohm is not a philosopher, etc. That's about your false attainment of "knowledge".

And in that past post where you attempt to degrade David Bohm's or whomevers "fallacious logic"--the fallacious logic is inherent to your fallacious "straw man" argument. Your argument is not an actual argument of David Bohm's. Therefore David Bohm (Or Pribram, or Wolf) are not responsible for a fallacious argument you cook up and falsely attribute to them.

Go ahead and describe their argument better. Don't just quote huge sections of interviews with them. What is their central thesis?

It is as I've said it is, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also points out the huge conceptual gap between quantum events and conscious events.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Go ahead and describe their argument better. Don't just quote huge sections of interviews with them. What is their central thesis?

It is as I've said it is, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also points out the huge conceptual gap between quantum events and conscious events.

I'm not at all here to describe their argument. I made a few points earlier. If you choose to take that out of context and create a straw man argument about their whole theory, go to town. It's just not accurate.

Because Artistotle believed one thing did not dictate what everyone else would philosophically believe till the end of time. That's the beauty of philosophy. We're entitled to freely think.

When you sneak around with cheap shots, straw men and misattribution, rather than intelligently ask questions or challenge specific points, yes, you remain safe from acknowledging your own misconceptions. And still you paint yourself into an intellectually false corner that is about your brain programming, rather than about understanding.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm not at all here to describe their argument. I made a few points earlier. If you choose to take that out of context and create a straw man argument about their whole theory, go to town. It's just not accurate.

Because Artistotle believed one thing did not dictate what everyone else would philosophically believe till the end of time. That's the beauty of philosophy. We're entitled to freely think.

When you sneak around with cheap shots, straw men and misattribution, rather than intelligently ask questions or challenge specific points, yes, you remain safe from acknowledging your own misconceptions. And still you paint yourself into an intellectually false corner that is about your brain programming, rather than about understanding.

This is what you are doing Angelica.

I have tried to debate the theories, I've gone all over looking for the central point. It turns out there isn't one, just a long stretching speculation between two completely separate areas of science. I've even talked about Penrose and Hammeroff's ideas and other theories of quantum consciousness. We've talked epistemology, or rather, I've talked epistemology. You haven't said anything, except to attack me. Your only argument is that I'm not seeing it, whatever it is and you claim it's because of some perceptual block I have. That is a strawman if I ever heard one. You fancy yourself some kind of guru on consciousness, but it's apparent to me that you don't know a damn thing. The only reason I'm even spending the time on this is so that there is some objectivity on this board. Not to mention, this was a thread I created to get some idea of the logic leading up to a belief in spirits/souls. You provided your illogic and I dissected it and pointed out the problems with it. It's over. Unless you have something to add to the logic or some other method you want to espouse, then there is no point in discussing this further.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Why two different words for spirit and soul?

What the kfuc is the difference exactly?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

This is what you are doing Angelica.

I have tried to debate the theories, I've gone all over looking for the central point. It turns out there isn't one, just a long stretching speculation between two completely separate areas of science. I've even talked about Penrose and Hammeroff's ideas and other theories of quantum consciousness. We've talked epistemology, or rather, I've talked epistemology. You haven't said anything, except to attack me. Your only argument is that I'm not seeing it, whatever it is and you claim it's because of some perceptual block I have. That is a strawman if I ever heard one. You fancy yourself some kind of guru on consciousness, but it's apparent to me that you don't know a damn thing. The only reason I'm even spending the time on this is so that there is some objectivity on this board. Not to mention, this was a thread I created to get some idea of the logic leading up to a belief in spirits/souls. You provided your illogic and I dissected it and pointed out the problems with it. It's over. Unless you have something to add to the logic or some other method you want to espouse, then there is no point in discussing this further.

I'm comfortable with the fact that only I define myself, by my thoughts/words/deeds. As do our "experts" by their thoughts/words/deeds. I understand people will see what they see.

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why two different words for spirit and soul?

What the kfuc is the difference exactly?

Good luck with that one. I couldn't get an accurate definition of one, let alone the differences.

angelica

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Why two different words for spirit and soul?

What the kfuc is the difference exactly?

I'm thinking one is individualized and "personal" (soul) while Spirit is universal and everywhere. Although it looks like deadnothingbetter is the expert on the subject. This is not a concept I was raised with in any way.