Well they’re both unevidenced archaic superstitions for a start.
Given how laid back both superstitions are about dogma and doctrine you mean? Have a leaf through the old testament, just to get a feel for the kind of moral worldview that spawned the Abrahamic religions.
So pure imagination then, not a sound basis for evaluating reality objectively.
Is valuable, but only if the ideas are then subjected to the rigours of the methods of science. This is where your false equivalence pops like a balloon on a hot day.
Premise 1 is pretty circular since it all but assumes your conclusion.
Premise 2 requires that P1 be true, can you demonstrate anything approaching objective evidence that it is true? We know you can’t as we went through this exhaustively already.
Your conclusion is dubious, as it is based on your circular unevidenced claim in P1. Processes like evolution affect how matter behave, you are ignoring this in favour of an a priori belief you are biased in favour of, and again we went through this exhaustively already.
None of this remotely evidences any deity?
Note how you make a leap from a claim to have a sound syllogism for a deity, to one that isn’t sound, and doesn’t even mention any deity? This is what I mean by "all your arguments were weak and poorly reasoned, thanks for a cracking example.
Quite obviously weak and biased, though I suspect that is not what you meant.
Here we go:
Panpsychism is, as has been explained exhaustively, unevidenced, unscientific, untestable, and unfalsifiable.
Panpsychism does not remotely evidence a deity.
Or unicorns, mermaids Superman et al.
You’re wrong.
You have failed to demonstrate that any deity is possible.
It doesn’t matter, you would need to objectively demonstrate a deity is possible, before you can have any clue how plausible it is, and assuming it, based on bias, and weak arguments is all you have. And of course we are talking about the Christian deity, so you have fallen very short of your goal. If you could objectively demonstrate it was possible, let alone plausible, let alone actually existed, we would not be finding out here, now that is obvious.
I am sure you have been told this many times, by many posters already, but:
You cannot argue something into existence, without a shred of objective evidence.
That’s not completely true. We know that qualia is real, and according to materialism, matter produces qualia. The idea that all matter has some form of qualia or at least possesses the fundamental properties that produce it is far more plausible than the idea that no matter possesses any form of qualia except brains, which is equally indemonstrable and unsupported by evidence—just like panpsychism—except that it is even less probable.
The fact that all known emergent properties in nature are based on more fundamental properties of matter also supports this point. If you are casting doubts on this idea when all evidence clearly supports it, then it shows, once again, a bias against any idea that could lead to the concept of God.
In summary, I think you have an ideological bias—whether conscious or unconscious, I don’t know—but it clearly does not follow a rational line of reasoning.
It is absolutely true, why would you lie? Panpsychism is untestable, and unfalsifiable, thus it is by definition unscientific, and it is unsupported by any objective or scientific evidence.
So what, my assertion was about panpsychism, not qualia.
Straw man fallacy, and you really ought by now to be able to understand the fundamental difference between asserting disbelief, and asserting a contrary belief, and spare us these endless straw man and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies in a vain attempt to shift your burden of proof.
It does not support panpsychism, and again you are ignoring the fact that natural processes (evolution for example) affect how matter behaves. Panpsychism does not evidence any deity, the only bias is yours. To hammer home this point, you have offered no concept of any deity, none, so this projection is simply hilarious. Even if we accept you mean the Christian deity, we have 45k different versions globally.
In summary you’re dishonest, as well as biased, but feel free to sulk all you want, because I don’t set a threshold for credulity that would accept irrational, unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable ideas.
To be clear I am talking about panpsychism and deities. The existence of qualia neither evidences or requires either of those.
Please explain which principle of logic I have violated and where? I look forward to you ignoring this, as you did the last time you tried to peddle this lie. Meanwhile your many logical fallacies are listed here, as before, for anyone to see.
If we place belief first, then everything would be true a priori, so one would not be differentiating between true and false at all, what a spectacularly stupid claim.
He is talking about the start of a process, not a belief he holds is true, but one he is confident might be, based on knowledge and understanding of scientific facts, and of course those would end up in the bin, unless the rigour of the methods of science bore them out.
Though of course not one of those ideas would have been entirely untestable, or unfalsifiable, even right at the start, else he (Einstein) would have discarded them as unscientific. Though the hilarity of you calling me irrational, then in the same post using an appeal to authority fallacy, and a false equivalence fallacy, is pretty fucking hilarious.
Whatever it is, scientific intuition is something you build after gaining experience with working in science. It is thus some sort of distilled meta-knowledge about science and the relevant scientifc subject(s). The longer you work within a subject, the better your meta-knowledge about the subject work for you subconsciously. It can be a good tool for getting ideas for new research, and for certain types of problem solving. Normally, scientific problem solving is just a combination of highly specialised knowledge, discussions among peers, plus a lot of hard work. But sometimes some experience- or knowledge-based intuition can be a good thing to have to gain results faster, or to get out of a dead end. It is therefore a nice addition to have a good intuition about a subject, but it is not a required tool. Thus, your intuition fails you when it comes to the importance about intuition.
I don’t think it’s so simple. Many of these revolutionary ideas emerge at a young age and seem to break completely with old paradigms. The idea that experience and deep knowledge lead to paradigm shifts directly contradicts the fact that these ideas completely break well-established dogmas and often arise at a young age.
Intuition seems to work at a level that has nothing to do with logic and reason. I mean that there is an infinite variety of possibilities, and intuition seems to be a light that points toward one specific option—not necessarily the most probable or plausible. That option only reveals its value later when deeply studied. So, intuition clearly exhibits a behavior that is not comprehensible by reason but is based on other principles.
What is interesting about intuition, for me, is that in its “supernatural” side, it works exactly in the same pattern: someone has a dream, takes a drug, or alters their normal mental state, and then, from an infinity of possibilities, is able to identify the right one.
We make a distinction between saying, “this is possible” and “this is impossible,” but I don’t think coming up with a theory like the Uncertainty Principle or Relativity is any less strange than making a prediction about the future. Yet, for some reason, we consider the first natural, even when we don’t understand how it happens, while we deem the second impossible—despite equally not understanding it.
It is surprising to say this when all fundamental discoveries, according to their own authors, are based on intuition—and sometimes not just intuition, but also very strange coincidences. In any case, there has been an ongoing crisis in physics since at least the development of the Standard Model. This suggests that something is preventing this intuitive, fundamental sense from inspiring new solutions. I believe that an incorrect set of ideas, which has permeated society, could be the cause of this blockage.
Exactly, the idea this is plucked from thin air is facile, but even if an idea came solely from the creative imagination of a genius, it can be utterly wrong, so such ideas are only of any use if they can be validated by strict rigorous methodologies like science. They are only any use together. Even a genius can be woefully wrong, it’s why science validates ideas with rigorous strict methods, as without it we couldn’t know if they were correct.
Care to evidence that claim, please list some paradigm shifting scientific ideas, and then explain which principles of logic they violated and why?
You still haven’t told me what principle of logic you claimed I had violated, or why, when you earlier asserted I was being irrational, and you have form for this, along with your relentless use of common logical fallacies, this suggests you don’t understand what logic is, or what it does.
So? You still need a fair bit of knowledge about the field, Conventionally you would need to be at least on a PhD level to do things on the research front. Before that, you just don’t have the required tools. And being at a PhD level, you already have started to built some intuition through your undergraduate and graduate studies. That being said, paradigm breaking breakthroughs are few and far between, and even though such breakthroughs tend to be made by young researchers, these individuals are certainly not unfamiliar with science and scientific methods.
Your are mistaken. Researchers who make breakthroughs might tend to be young, but they are certainly not inexperienced. See above. Also, not all breakthroughs are due to “intuition” by rebel young researchers. Most are due to deep insight and hard work over years. And some are due to sheer dumb luck, by being in the right place at the right time with the right people and the right equipment.
I don’t think it is the end of history because, essentially, we don’t understand how this intuition works. While you presume it to be the fruit of experience, I would say it is more the result of having a different point of view on the matter, which leads to the right questions. This better explains why these inventions often take place at a young age. Once you formulate the correct question with enough conviction, the right solution tends to emerge on its own.
But as I told you, the solution is sometimes so different from the prevailing ideas of its time that it seems as though these insights must manifest in the form of dreams, as they require a leap that reason alone cannot achieve. It is as if the only way this intuition can emerge is when reason does not interfere. This is the same mechanism by which other intuitive abilities manifest, such as premonitions.
So, I understand your point, but I don’t think intuition is merely an accumulation of more and more knowledge over time. Otherwise, it could manifest as logical reasoning from the very beginning. Intuition implies a leap that reason cannot achieve, and this is what catches my attention. Perhaps not all intuitions can be verified by reason, but that does not mean they are not pointing in the right direction—only that we are unable to fully understand what they reveal.
Maybe intuition allows us to perceive the truth when reason falls short. This is why I believe we are making a serious mistake by ignoring it.
Do explain how one can have a different opinion on something they don’t understand or know anything about? This is hilarious, in case we lose sight, what you’re doing is trying to pretend that unevidenced untestable and unfalsifiable superstition, is somehow comparable to paradigm shifting scientific breakthroughs, except the latter must satisfy the strict methodology of science, no matter how they’re conceived, the former can literally be used as an excuse to believe any bat shit crazy superstition one fancies.
Any citations coming to evidence this, or how often you are claiming this happens? I guess not as I’ve asked twice now.
Nonsense.
No it doesn’t, you’re simply indulging in your own fantasy notion of reality yet again.
Sigh, care to offer any objective evidence that premonitions are possible? I will be setting up a sweepstake so we can all gamble how many logical fallacies that response involves.
It’s not helping you here is it? tell me again how I am being irrational, this is just too fucking funny.
We? You’re indulging this facile nonsense. Do you mean science is ignoring it?
Tell you what, use intuition to design and build a jet, on the condition you don’t use any existing science, and it deviates drastically from existing understanding of every aspect of science involved, really paradigm shifting stuff. Do please let me know when it’s ready to fly… so that I can get the fuck out of the area.
We most certainly do not. It is an invented concept that is a matter of debate among philosophers. It is based on how things subjectively feel to the experiencer. How you subjectively experience what it is like to see, have, do or be “X” isn’t available to me to examine and may as likely as not be irrelevant to my experience.
I’m a type 2 diabetic and my subjective experience of that is that if my glucose is crashing, as it tends to in the evening, I need to either eat or I will (at a minimum) be “hangry” and (in the worst case) will fall into a diabetic coma. That is my subjective experience of supper time some days. The other day I [mis]understood my wife’s intention to make a particular dish that evening and came down from the office around suppertime feeling “crashy” and asked her nicely what the plan was. SHE took it as me expecting her to have already cooked the dish. I simply wanted to know if I should make myself a snack, or if dinner was more ready than I thought – for my own planning and management purposes. Lacking as she did the “qualia” I was working with, and having her own “qualia” of being somewhat tired and irritable (but not hungry!), we were ships passing in the night until I clarified my request.
That’s the problem with concepts like “qualia” that are personal and subjective and non-falsifiable. Even IF they were real, they often aren’t of practical utility.
This is why I think that sometimes taking the scientific method to the extreme could lead to nonsensical affirmations. Of course, you can’t demonstrate your qualia to other people because it is personal, subjective, and non-falsifiable. But the only evidence you have about reality is your experience of it—this is your qualia.
The crisis here is that if qualia is not real, then you can’t affirm that anything is real because your experience must be real to affirm that anything experienced exists. Denying qualia because you can’t demonstrate it is like denying that there is someone behind the door just because you can’t open it when they are pressing the doorbell. It is totally irrational to me. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point—I don’t know—but certainly, qualia should be real.
Moreover, any alternative like “qualia is an illusion” is equally irrational because any illusion requires a real subject to exist. In the end, denying qualia is like saying, “I don’t exist.” Well, no…
People have experiences and feelings and those are two of several inputs to our lived experience and our interpretation of reality.
Personally I have little use for anything but intersubjectively verifiable observations.
If I see a leprechaun on your shoulder and no one else in the room sees it, then the most economical explanation is that I am hallucinating the leprechaun.
If I feel a formless terror yet am the only person in the room who is hyperventilating about it, then I probably am having an anxiety attack or some such.
Now if I had such hallucinations and emotional meltdowns, it wouldn’t be helpful so far as I can tell to give the experience that it is to be me a nice $25 word like “qualia”. And so I don’t see any purpose in doing it for more ordinary experiences. It is like making up and naming a new particle in physics. That is why we build things like the Large Hadron Collider – to actually detect and measure particles in a reproducible way. Even mathematically theorizable particles, like the Higgs Bosun, weren’t considered “real” until they were measured in some way.
Since no one can say how you would detect qualia even indirectly, it seems fine to just call it “experiences”. Experiences have qualities, to be sure, and we can do our best to describe them to each other and compare notes. Although the patterns in those experiences and our feelings about them will probably demonstrate very little except that most humans have a lot of commonality in how they respond to stimuli. Which is entirely to be expected.
This is not 100% true—you can’t detect the qualia of others, but you can detect your own qualia.
For me, the question is that qualia demonstrate that reality has an “internal” dimension. The physical processes we use to explain it don’t change the fact that this internal dimension is real.
We only accept the external dimension of reality because it is the only thing we can observe. But what I’m trying to convey is that the universe has an internal dimension too—one that may escape our observation, but we know it exists because we experience it. Therefore, we have evidence of this.
Yes, we have no idea how it forms, how it relates to matter, or whether it is only a particular phenomenon in humans or animals. But perhaps this internal dimension is universal, and we are treating reality as something devoid of experience when, in fact, this isn’t the case.
Given the evidence we have, considering that the universe is conscious—that is, that it has a universal internal dimension—is as plausible as considering its opposite.
But there is more to this because we know that human beings, systematically, across all places and times, relate to their environment as if it were an intelligent being, not an inert thing. Yes, there are all sorts of different beliefs, but they all end up at the same point: treating their environment as something intelligent. A strictly materialist worldview could have evolved hundreds of times, yet what has prevailed over the ages is a behavior that respects and acts as if the universe is intelligent. This is not mysticism; this is a well-established piece of evidence that you can research for yourself.
That’s because despite it being the most reliable method, it provides no evidence for beliefs you are biased in favour of.
“Qualia are the subjective experiences that make up consciousness. They are the qualities of experiences that make them feel the way they do. For example, the qualia of seeing a red rose is different from seeing a yellow rose.”
Real
adjective
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; *not imagined or supposed.
Oh dear, a failure to grasp basic word definition perhaps?
How about the fact that research demonstrates that hallucinations occur at around 13% in the general population? This would make your claim that “we know” that subjective experiences are “real” pretty fucking dubious without objective evidence to support what we experience, or perceive would be a better idea.
You don’t get it even now, do you? If I claim to have seen a mermaid, but can’t demonstrate it to anyone else, do you really imagine I have demonstrated that mermaids exist?
Or, we could test those subjective claims against objective reality using objectively verifiable evidence, oddly enough as science does, but for some reason this simple fact escapes you. All ideas are subjective, but they are not all equally subjective, so the more subjective bias we can remove, the more reliable they become. Your claim for a deity is at the very bottom of that scale, with zero objective evidence to support it, you can’t even demonstrate a deity is possible. Hell, you haven’t even tried.
Nope, this is a false equivalence, since I can open the door, and test the claim, it is therefore easily falsifiable. Our subjective consciousness is much harder to explain, and falsify, we can only test what we claim to perceive against objective reality, using objective evidence to remove subjective bias, when an idea is unfalsifiable we can’t even do that, as some scientists assert, such ideas are “not even wrong”.
No this is another false equivalence, look existence up in any dictionary and you will see this.
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
So subjective and unfalsifiable then, so yes it is true.
Oh dear, another sweeping unevidenced, untestable and unfalsifiable claim.
Who is we? You have already admitted we cannot experience the subjective perceptions of others, only test them against objective reality with objective evidence by trying to remove as much subjective bias as possible, and your beliefs and claims are as biased as subjectively biased as they come.
What fucking evidence, what does “the universe is conscious” even mean?
Oh dear lord, another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, one can disbelieve a claim without making a contrary claim, how many times does this fallacy have to be explained to you before you stop making the same irrational argument? And the plausibility of anything, can only be calculated if we can demonstrate it is possible, and then you would need to show the maths behind the claim, you are still offering naught but an irrational fallacious argument, namely that it is plausible because the contrary can’t be demonstrated. This is the very nature of unfalsifiable claims ffs.
Bullshit.
False dichotomy fallacy, sigh. We know the objective material universe exists, this is an objective fact, if you want to claim something exists beyond that, then you must demonstrate it, and I am rationally justified in disbelieving it if you can’t, because PAY ATTENTION I don’t need to believe only the material exists, in order to disbelieve your claim there is more…
Nope, if you want to claim a rock is “intelligent” then I don’t believe you, as the claim is untestable, unevidenced, and unfalsifiable, so it is unscientific to boot.
It is an idea some philosophers like, it is not objectively evidenced at all. as you already know and have admitted, there is no scientific evidence to support it, and it is in fact unscientific as it is untestable and unfalsifiable. The only arguments you have managed here, are relentlessly irrational, as they use or contain known common logical fallacies, as you have done here in this very post, and worse, you keep dishonestly ignoring that fact, or responding with sophistry and handwaving, even laughably trying to make counter claims of irrationality without explaining which principle of logic has been violated, or why, when you are asked. it’s tedious to have to explain this shit to you over and over and over, but it is irksome to see you behave this dishonestly, as if we won’t notice you skip past such questions, and roll on peddling the same irrational superstitious arguments.
I agree, but I would add that even if everyone claimed to see it, this doesn’t represent objective evidence, it is still the same bare claim, just more of them, an a bare appeal to numbers is fallacious.
Ta dah, and this demonstrates the difference between objective evidnece, and the subjective unfalsifiable and untestable claims @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU is peddling, and tacking the word evidence onto all the time, when he has none.
Exactly, like trying to quantify pain, this can only be subjectively inferred by looking for objective markers or indicators in behaviour, clinicians the world over are taught to watch for addicts pretending to be in pain, to get a hit. Now can of course remove some subjective bias, by testing what we perceive, or claim to perceive against objective reality, but not for any ideas that are unfalsifiable of course, which makes them pretty useless, at least for those seeking objectively true or correct claims.
Bingo, evolution and natural selection, might have “selected” traits that were at odds with objectively reality, if they provided a sufficient survival advantage, like for example, a penchant for pretending there’s a warm fuzzy friendly sky wizard, where we all go and be happy together when we die, rather than topping ourselves at the sheer horror of the emotional pain of some events.
Since panpsychism has again reared its ugly head I found this article.
“This is bogus for several reasons, and I’m quite puzzled why anyone takes it seriously. It is not an explanation of consciousness, but rather fobs the problem of consciousness onto molecules. How are they conscious? How can combining the rudimentary consciousness of constituents lead to “higher level” consciousness in organisms like us? This is a “turtles-all-the-way-down” theory.”
"Further, you cannot test the “theory”—it is an assertion that is not at present available for empirical assessment. Although in his article in this issue (see below) Christof Koch claims that Integrated Information Theory, a panpsychic “theory” does make testable predictions, I haven’t seen any (I’ve read some of the theory), nor does Koch give any.
Finally, as Sean Carroll has emphasized repeatedly, panpsychism, with its attribution of a new property (rudimentary consciousness) to atoms and particles, violates the laws of physics subsumed under the “Standard Model”. Goff simply has no rebuttal to Carroll’s criticisms (see the article and video here)."
That’s a slam dunk for that and of course it wouldn’t evidence a deity anyway.
if anyone wants to see @JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU’s original thread (now closed) and his arguments and claims thoroughly destroyed, you read it here.
