I am re-reading the Foundation Series and a thought has popped into my mind:
Assuming we could read each others minds - how would humanity change?
Would the impossibility of hiding secrets improve or malign people or the planet?
Telepathy
Moderator: Moderators
Post #62
[Replying to post 60 by Joe1950]
Which post are you responding to? If it is to my Post 59, which specific points in that post are you addressing?
Which post are you responding to? If it is to my Post 59, which specific points in that post are you addressing?
-
Joe1950
Post #63
The first paragraph in post 59. The idea that a position need not have sold evidence. (unless I am misreading your point)hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 60 by Joe1950]
Which post are you responding to? If it is to my Post 59, which specific points in that post are you addressing?
Post #64
[Replying to post 62 by Joe1950]
OK, so, what's your problem with it exactly? The other poster made a number of claims about our knowledge of infinity, but provided me with no clear rationale. I'm simply asking for the rationale. You have a problem with that? How?
OK, so, what's your problem with it exactly? The other poster made a number of claims about our knowledge of infinity, but provided me with no clear rationale. I'm simply asking for the rationale. You have a problem with that? How?
-
Joe1950
Post #65
You seem to be claiming that when one makes a proposition the weight of evidence must be provided to DISPROVE the proposition. I would suggest the opposite. When one makes a proposition the weight of the evidence should be provided to support that proposition. Unless Iam misreading your statement.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 62 by Joe1950]
OK, so, what's your problem with it exactly? The other poster made a number of claims about our knowledge of infinity, but provided me with no clear rationale. I'm simply asking for the rationale. You have a problem with that? How?
Do you agree that the weight of evidence is on the "proposer" rather than the "opposer"?
Post #66
[Replying to post 64 by Joe1950]
OK, well, I don't like talking about other posters. However, to explain my situation, I was simply asking the other poster to present arguments that I could grasp, in support of his claims about infinity. That's it. That's all there was to it. And, as far as I m concerned, that is all fair enough. And I suggest we move on to something else.
OK, well, I don't like talking about other posters. However, to explain my situation, I was simply asking the other poster to present arguments that I could grasp, in support of his claims about infinity. That's it. That's all there was to it. And, as far as I m concerned, that is all fair enough. And I suggest we move on to something else.
-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Post #67
What exactly are we supposed to do with your claims that it is "way off base"? Now that's a detailed retort.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 58 by Kenisaw]
Well, as I said, it's your turn. And I can't say I was particularly impressed by your rationale. In fact, I had a hard time fining it. Instead, your post laregely wrote my off by simply saying you found no evidence. Now arguing you are right because the other guy has no evidence is not a solid argument. Plus, it is way off base. In a number of posts, I have presented you with my rationale. I didn't find one instance in your present post where you rebutted any of my position. Plus, I found a number of contradictions.
I've spent plenty of time and effort detailing out specifics about your statements, and why they are unsupported on your part. You've responded by repeating the same things over and over or dropping the topic in favor of some other slant.
If you feel there is a specific point that has not been addressed, please take the time to list it out.
In the mean time, since you have not supplied any empirical data or evidence that shows your claims to be true, all I can do is continue to point that out to you.
Maybe you can quote exactly where I "appear to be arguing that there is". I certainly did not intend to convey that, and I cannot find any posts of mine that even hint at that.In previous posts, you said you agreed there is no hard-and-fist dividing line between the living and the nonloving. Now you appear to be arguing that there is. OK, so just where do you draw the line and why?
Nowhere did I say a pigment of the imagination, so I have no clue what you re referring to. Perhaps if you could state what I specifically wrote and why it is confusing you, and I will endeavor to explain it again more efficiently than my last go round.You said you didn't hold with Berkeley and his idealism. Now it seems you do. I find that in your claim that not only is color a pigment of the imagination but so, too, size and shape, just misperceptions of what is out there. Well, if size, shape, etc., as well as color, are just pigments of the imagination, then the universe exists no place but in our heads, which was Berkeley's point.
The universe exists. Does the star that released the photons that registered in your eye and sent a signal to your neural network not exist? Of course it does. To state that the universe only exists in our heads is ludicrous, else there'd be no explanation for the photons...
Once again you've managed to incorrectly summize my statements.Your part-whole argument is way off from my original point. What I said was that what is the case at the top of teh scale is also the case at the bottom. Your yourself admitted to this in your comments on bacteria, for example. You also said that and the fact atoms are social represent purely chemical processes. Well, that is precisely my point. Chemical processes are in fact feelings. You cannot separate the two. When lovers kiss, there is a definite chemical reaction that takes place. The fact chemistry is involved simply shows that emotion is a physical process., and that ohsyical processes are also emotional.
You make a blanket statement that is scientifically incorrect. Chemical processes are not feelings. If two hydrogens and an oxygen form a water molecule, there is no feeling there.
I would agree that what humans define as emotions are a result of physical processes. That does not make physical processes emotional. It means the neural network in your brain registered those processes and associated them with stored concepts. Those exact same processes could register as something totally different at some other time. It's not the process that creates emotion, it is the response of your neural network to the physical activity that labels that particular thing under whatever concept it deems appropriate.
This is precisely what I have been explaining about your statements. You appear to like making all or nothing statements about things even though that is an inapplicable conclusion.Your part-whole argument also fails because it does not hold in all respects.
Every single thing that is alive is made up 100% out of dead unfeeling matter. This is a scientific fact. Is there any atom in your body that is alive? If the answer is no, then you are made up entirely out of non-living components. I fail to understand the difficulty you have in connecting these dots.Yes, in certain respects the characteristics of the wholes transcend those of the individual parts. However, that definitely does not mean the parts are a contradiction of the whole. If you add up a whole bunch of zeroes, all you get is zero. If you took deaf and blind individuals who can't play musical instruments, and tried to make an orcheertra out of them, you would fail. True, the overall sound of an orchestra, where it all blends together, is diffent from the invididual sounds players make, but you still have to have musicians playing sound. Same goes for organisms. A whole bunch of dean unfeelingmatter is not going to add up to a living, feeling organism.
No, you failed to understand that your claim is baseless and without merit. You have not shown that feeling is required for causality. You've made the claim plenty of times to be sure, but you haven't once shown that feeling is needed for a cause and efect to happen. The universal laws explain causality, and they don't require feeling in order for it to happen. Provide your data or empirical evidence that feeling is required for causality. We don't need more philosophical ramblings and empty claims, we need proof. Let's see it.You also failed to address my point on causality. it is exclusively an affective event, something we feel. So if there is no feeling out there, then there is no causality either. Your[post sadly failed to explain causality.
Thanks for restating the same debunked material as before. This was already explained in detail. You've failed to present any scientific argument against my statements. Prove your claims instead of rehashing them...Your claims about color are also suspect. You seem to be claiming its just a pigment of the imagination, not out there. OK, where is your evidence? Have you or others somehow stepped out of your human experience, seen reality as it really is, and directly observed there is no color? What? Also, your argument is suspect because it largely is a reiteration of the primary-secondary-quality dichotomy, which I have already shown to be illogical.
You keep claiming that color has no feeling tone. But that overlooks my point that there is no concrete datum indifferent to feeling, no sensations without some degree of affective tone. Pale blue feels milder than faming red and just as definitely as it feels pale blue. Indeed, sensation is essentially a qualification of a more fundamental affective experience, as I explained in an earlier post. And, as I said in a previous post, all perceived qualities are qualities of feeing tone. Hence, if there is no feeling out there, then we haven't an inkling what's going on.
Post #68
[Replying to post 66 by Kenisaw]
Thanks for clarifying your position. Now let me clarify mine. You've made a number of blanket statements which I question, such as chemical processes are not feelings, atoms aren't alive, causality is not an affective experience, etc. In previous posts I hive addressed and challenged all of these. It's been a while, so I am not sure if this material was all included in posts to you or no.
Basically, my argument is that mind and matter are one, not two separate, independent realities. Indeed, if the latter were the case, the two could never interact, which was the basic problem Descartes unsuccessfully faced. Furthermore, and again, all perceived qualities are qualities of feelings. Red, green, round, square, all of our perceived qualities, the qualities we attribute to the what's out there, are essentially feelings, sensations. That's it. that's all we've got. If the rest of reality is not at all like those, like our subjective experience, then we've no idea what's out there at all. In addition, I stress there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving. There's no sop sig that says atoms have no feelings, no mind, no subjectivity. So let's erase the notion that there is passive, inert, dead matter. Also, I hold with evolution, and generally what is the case at the top of the scale is also the case at the bottom, thought to a significantly lesser degree. We have been so busy extending purely mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten it is only fair to extend psychological ones down the scale, to also better explain things. Now, that's mu position in a nutshell. If you want, you can try and offer solid rebuttals.
As to causality, the fact one event follows another or is associated in time with another not prove causality. Correlation dos not prove causality. And that is all our sensory apparatus gives us. Hence, Hume argued causality is but a convenient fiction of the mind. However, I do think what Hume overlooked is that we do experience causality on a purely affective level. We don't see the puff of air make the eye blink, but we feel it do so, we feel its push. Hence, feeling is our basic connectedness with the rest of reality. And that makes sense, because our conscious sensory experience is not fundamental, is but the end product of countless purely unconsciousness, nonsensory events in the brain and body. Blind feeling is the most basic level of experience and of our connectedness to the rest of the world.
Thanks for clarifying your position. Now let me clarify mine. You've made a number of blanket statements which I question, such as chemical processes are not feelings, atoms aren't alive, causality is not an affective experience, etc. In previous posts I hive addressed and challenged all of these. It's been a while, so I am not sure if this material was all included in posts to you or no.
Basically, my argument is that mind and matter are one, not two separate, independent realities. Indeed, if the latter were the case, the two could never interact, which was the basic problem Descartes unsuccessfully faced. Furthermore, and again, all perceived qualities are qualities of feelings. Red, green, round, square, all of our perceived qualities, the qualities we attribute to the what's out there, are essentially feelings, sensations. That's it. that's all we've got. If the rest of reality is not at all like those, like our subjective experience, then we've no idea what's out there at all. In addition, I stress there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving. There's no sop sig that says atoms have no feelings, no mind, no subjectivity. So let's erase the notion that there is passive, inert, dead matter. Also, I hold with evolution, and generally what is the case at the top of the scale is also the case at the bottom, thought to a significantly lesser degree. We have been so busy extending purely mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten it is only fair to extend psychological ones down the scale, to also better explain things. Now, that's mu position in a nutshell. If you want, you can try and offer solid rebuttals.
As to causality, the fact one event follows another or is associated in time with another not prove causality. Correlation dos not prove causality. And that is all our sensory apparatus gives us. Hence, Hume argued causality is but a convenient fiction of the mind. However, I do think what Hume overlooked is that we do experience causality on a purely affective level. We don't see the puff of air make the eye blink, but we feel it do so, we feel its push. Hence, feeling is our basic connectedness with the rest of reality. And that makes sense, because our conscious sensory experience is not fundamental, is but the end product of countless purely unconsciousness, nonsensory events in the brain and body. Blind feeling is the most basic level of experience and of our connectedness to the rest of the world.
