You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
glendab
Guest
What in particular would you like to discuss? The problem of sin and consciousness? Or something else?
Glenda
Glenda
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
However it is thePlease find the link to the article in here and feel free to discuss if you have any problem.
physical world which is secondary to our personal experience, a consensus of stable subjective representations we assemble into our
real world view. It thus remains unclear whether a physical universe without conscious observers could exist in any more than a
purely conceptual or theoretical sense. Subjective consciousness may be necessary for the actualization of physical reality, and thus
fundamental to physical existence in a cosmological sense, as expressed in the ‘anthropic cosmological principle’ that ‘observers’
are significant and possibly necessary boundary conditions for the existence of the universe (Barrow and Tipler 1988).
A lot of bull. The real world existed before man came along. So much for " Barrow and Tipler. " Just two more idealist idiots. If you want to know how the soul interacts with the brain I’m afraid you will have to wait and ask God.
Bahman, you keep harping on this subject but it just isn’t interesting for us because we all know we have a spiritual soul through which we learn what the world is. And we don’t have to prove it to your or anyone else’s satisfaction.
Linus2nd
B
Bahman
Guest
The hard problem of consciousness itself.What in particular would you like to discuss? The problem of sin and consciousness? Or something else?
Glenda
G
glendab
Guest
What’s so hard? I’m conscious and alive. It really isn’t a problem. If I was unconscious, I’d either be asleep or knocked out. Ummmmmm…I’m not trying to be facetious but I’d like a specific problem you are having trouble with. Is it say, a definition that you’ve found troubling? What specifically is the problem.
Glenda
Glenda
B
Bahman
Guest
Your argument does seems appealing since either I am cognitively open to the mind-body problem or I am closed. In first case I can find the answer by putting enough effort and in second case God cannot possibly explain the answer to me.However it is the
physical world which is secondary to our personal experience, a consensus of stable subjective representations we assemble into our
real world view. It thus remains unclear whether a physical universe without conscious observers could exist in any more than a
purely conceptual or theoretical sense. Subjective consciousness may be necessary for the actualization of physical reality, and thus
fundamental to physical existence in a cosmological sense, as expressed in the ‘anthropic cosmological principle’ that ‘observers’
are significant and possibly necessary boundary conditions for the existence of the universe (Barrow and Tipler 1988).
A lot of bull. The real world existed before man came along. So much for " Barrow and Tipler. " Just two more idealist idiots. If you want to know how the soul interacts with the brain I’m afraid you will have to wait and ask God.
Bahman, you keep harping on this subject but it just isn’t interesting for us because we all know we have a spiritual soul through which we learn what the world is. And we don’t have to prove it to your or anyone else’s satisfaction.
Linus2nd
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Bahman.
Jesus is the answer.
Glenda
Jesus is the answer.
Glenda
T
tdgesq
Guest
The article is difficult to completely comprehend because of its length and complexity of the math. I read as much of it as I could, but paid most attention to the summary and the conclusions. It seems to me that the authors weren’t able to give very convincing answers to the two dilemmas presented by Chalmers.
Quantum uncertainty and chaotic processes just don’t seem good accounts for human volition. They fall prey to the same arguments of randomness used frequently against libertarian free will proponents. Intentionality of the mind is a quality that most of us believe exists, and our subjective experience is at odds with a mechanistic yet chaotic explanation. The answers given to the problem of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience are a little bit alarming.
Here is the concluding question from the article for the reader: “If we are actually witnessing exclusively and only our internal model of reality, what then is the manifest nature of the physical world?” While the authors aren’t explicitly affirming idealism, they are giving it more credence than it deserves. The reaction of any realist must be that there isn’t any reliable method of investigation of the mind for the author in the first place if we are only witness to our own internal model of reality. Raises an enormous epistemic problem.
Quantum uncertainty and chaotic processes just don’t seem good accounts for human volition. They fall prey to the same arguments of randomness used frequently against libertarian free will proponents. Intentionality of the mind is a quality that most of us believe exists, and our subjective experience is at odds with a mechanistic yet chaotic explanation. The answers given to the problem of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience are a little bit alarming.
Here is the concluding question from the article for the reader: “If we are actually witnessing exclusively and only our internal model of reality, what then is the manifest nature of the physical world?” While the authors aren’t explicitly affirming idealism, they are giving it more credence than it deserves. The reaction of any realist must be that there isn’t any reliable method of investigation of the mind for the author in the first place if we are only witness to our own internal model of reality. Raises an enormous epistemic problem.
G
glendab
Guest
Actually I found two real reasons for rejecting the paper altogether. The first is found in the abstract for the paper: it sets about finding was to substantiate the theory of evolution with analysis of the chemical processes involved in the formation of neural pathways. This flies in the face of my beliefs. In order to follow along with the premise, one simply must accept the theory of evolution as it pertains to survival of the species and the ways in which the chemical processes of the brain facilitate this. The levels of mathematical analysis for its proofs really is simply a red herring to the underlying fallacy that it is evolutionary processes that are responsible for man’s consciousness raising and doesn’t even consider either the Church as a civilizing structure in society or God as Creator and Author of life and all that is in it. Follow the math as they rule God out as a contributing factor in the evolution of man’s mind. NOT ME! No thanks. Got better things to do.
The second problem I have is that it reduces my thoughts and feeling to mere chemical reactions. It make me the sum total of my chemical balances. It turns me into a chemical soup out of which comes nothing but shear survival. Um, I am a child of God not a mass of neurons reacting to my environment and stimuli. Hello? Human beings, not humans doing. A little too objective for my taste.
There is another problem with the paper. After reading the greater portion of it and fighting the temptation to do some of the math, (Yeah, I aced physics in college - don’t tell anyone - I loved math) it is simply too scattered and lacks focus on any one thing for its proofs. It takes in too many different areas of thought and actually strays to far afield for it to provide anything conclusive. Its facts are gathered in too many places. It really needs better focus.
But these are just my opinions and I’m no expert on anything but bacon and eggs with runny yolks and toast.
Glenda
The second problem I have is that it reduces my thoughts and feeling to mere chemical reactions. It make me the sum total of my chemical balances. It turns me into a chemical soup out of which comes nothing but shear survival. Um, I am a child of God not a mass of neurons reacting to my environment and stimuli. Hello? Human beings, not humans doing. A little too objective for my taste.
There is another problem with the paper. After reading the greater portion of it and fighting the temptation to do some of the math, (Yeah, I aced physics in college - don’t tell anyone - I loved math) it is simply too scattered and lacks focus on any one thing for its proofs. It takes in too many different areas of thought and actually strays to far afield for it to provide anything conclusive. Its facts are gathered in too many places. It really needs better focus.
But these are just my opinions and I’m no expert on anything but bacon and eggs with runny yolks and toast.
Glenda
A
abucs
Guest
One problem I have with materialism is that I find it anti-intellectual.
So …
Thinking we are free to choose how to think becomes a delusion.
Critical thinking, that is, thinking about our thinking therefore becomes a greater delusion.
Is this not the road to madness and an attack on the intellectual enterprise?
So …
Thinking we are free to choose how to think becomes a delusion.
Critical thinking, that is, thinking about our thinking therefore becomes a greater delusion.
Is this not the road to madness and an attack on the intellectual enterprise?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.