A question of spirits/souls

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 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 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 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.