Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lol, then your a pineapple.We grow heaps of pineapples in Australia. Pineapples are not so bad.
Yes.What do you mean like a survey or stats or a graph showing the increase.
And where did this theory come from. A mind did it not lol. Without a mind there would be no such theory. In 100 years there may be a completely different theory just as there is now compared to 100 years ago. The one comon denominator in all this is the mind itself.
The DI article did not provide what I wanted which are statistics that show the claimed trend toward "prominence" that you have been claiming. (And you need better sources because DI is tainted by their abject dishonesty as are all of the creationist orgs.)But if the DI article was saying the same thing as the non DI articles then where is the poor research. Its actually good science to have repeated findings by more than one independent source for which the DI article aligned with other independent sources.
Lol here the problem though. Why should I bother to even provide any evidence when you just admitted that its all nonsense. If you already think its all nonsense then me prividing such evidence will make no difference. As you have already decided.
You've posted the same experts (like Chambers) so many times that I recognize them individually. This does not bode well for the notion that this is anything more than a niche idea studied and supported by a few people.Anyway, I already did provide this evidence and it seems that you have already dismissed this as well by assuming that there was no such evidence in the articles I linked. For example from the articles
The “panpsychist” view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.
Interest in panpsychism has grown in part thanks to the increased academic focus on consciousness itself following on from Chalmers’ “hard problem” paper. Philosophers at NYU, home to one of the leading philosophy-of-mind departments, have made panpsychism a feature of serious study. There have been several credible academic books on the subject in recent years, and popular articles taking panpsychism seriously.
The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility
Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.qz.com
The other sources say similar. So is this not clearly stating that these ideas have become more and more popular. New departments in universities dedicated to the study of consciousness.
As mentioned that since Chambers seminal paper on 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness' interest has been increasing. Especially with ideas that try to account for the gap in explanation between the physical and non physical. Which by its very nature has to expand beyond deterministic and material explanations.
Don't confuse the study of consciousness for consciousness as fundamental.So really its a natural evolution of science. That the physical paradigm is lacking so exploration is happening beyond this in different ways. Some very spectulative and others attempting to develop scientific theories.
Heres some more. I mean there are dozens I would say from across all domains. I don't think such ideas were so mainstream 20 years ago. Anyway its certainly seems widespread enough to be more than just a fad or psuedoscience. People are taking it seriously at the academic level.
Scientists Are Finally Taking Altered States of Consciousness Seriously
Times are changing. The very fact that in the past few decades the theme of consciousness itself has become a central topic for psychologists and neuroscientists signals a transformation in the scientific landscape.
For example, it is said among distinguished brain researchers that just 30 years ago they dared not disclose that their actual research topic was consciousness.
Scientists Are Finally Taking Altered States of Consciousness Seriously
If we want to understand our consciousness, we must not be afraid to break new ground.thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
I mean I can keep getting more and more mainstream links from universities and credible academic sources which all say that consciousness and all these different ideas are being looked at more and more in the last 20 or 30 years.
I want stats as I have stated at least 6 times in this thread.Do you actually want stats or credible sources stating this fact.
You are talking past him Hans, or rather so far over his head your words must require bottled oxygen. He just does not understand the difference between many anecdotes and a serious, well designed, properly conducted, independently verified study. He sees several aticles (popular articles, it seems, with click bait headlines) and in his mind that demonstrates that there is growing acceptance of the ideas that attract him. He fails to see that he subconsciously cherry pick such articles, fails to recognise that they are often sensationalised, or simply wrong, but in either case proceeds to misunderstand them.Where is the quantification of "popularity? Is this anything but anecdotes about a few scientists with "thoughts"?
You are talking past him Hans, or rather so far over his head your words must require bottled oxygen. He just does not understand the difference between many anecdotes and a serious, well designed, properly conducted, independently verified study. He sees several aticles (popular articles, it seems, with click bait headlines) and in his mind that demonstrates that there is growing acceptance of the ideas that attract him. He fails to see that he subconsciously cherry pick such articles, fails to recognise that they are often sensationalised, or simply wrong, but in either case proceeds to misunderstand them.
I applaud your persistence in trying to get through to him and trust you are well supplied with blood pressure medication.
At present, it doesn't appear as if monism can even begin to explain fundamental mental operations like abduction and the reality of subjective experience. From my vantage point, the only reason to resist dualism is a prior commitment to naturlist reduction. Citing parsimony as if it is a viable manner of sifting the options isn't appropriate since there's not really any genuine connection between parsimony and truth, so it's just a way of making an arbitrary decision seem as if there is real reason behind the decision.Yes, I know, I just find positing a duality unnecessary.
That’s simply and argument from ignorance.At present, it doesn't appear as if monism can even begin to explain fundamental mental operations like abduction and the reality of subjective experience.
Not at all, it's a recognition that despite all attempts to the contrary naturalizing consciousness continues to be nothing but spinning wheels. It's an inductive argument based on the continued failure of programs attempting to naturalize consciousness.That’s simply and argument from ignorance.
It's an inductive argument based on the continued failure of programs attempting to naturalize consciousness.
The argument is that given the volume of attempts to naturalize consciousness and the persistent fork of either epiphenomenalism or some form of dualism, it is likely that so long as naturalism only has monism as a recourse it will continue to fail because the issue is that consciousness must either reduce to the physical processes and therefore be causally inert, or consciousness is causally robust and requires some form of dualism to explain its causal powers. The general fact that naturalist theories for at least the last 50 years keep running aground on the same binary options leads to the inference that monist naturalism is insufficient to the task of explaining consciousness and one of the binary options is likely true.I'm all for inductive arguments. Could you perhaps summarize yours for me.
Yet you would agree that any conclusion must be tentative in the light of any new information?It's an inductive argument based on the continued failure of programs attempting to naturalize consciousness.
Sure, though given the ontological/metaphysical nature of the question I'm not sure such posturing is genuinely possible.Yet you would agree that any conclusion must be tentative in the light of any new information?
The argument is that given the volume of attempts to naturalize consciousness and the persistent fork of either epiphenomenalism or some form of dualism,
At present, it doesn't appear as if monism can even begin to explain fundamental mental operations like abduction and the reality of subjective experience. From my vantage point, the only reason to resist dualism is a prior commitment to naturlist reduction. Citing parsimony as if it is a viable manner of sifting the options isn't appropriate since there's not really any genuine connection between parsimony and truth, so it's just a way of making an arbitrary decision seem as if there is real reason behind the decision.
In philosophy of mind, theories keep ending up either embracing an eliminativest materialism and denying mental phenomena as efficacious, or adopting a dualist model. Type theory found itself there, as did token/functionalism and more recent notions like grounding are showing signs of ending up in the same untenable position. No one seems to be able to solve the problem of mental phenomena being asymetrically dependent on material processes while still having unique properties/causal influence.Pardon my ignorance, but could you explain what you mean by 'persistent fork of either epiphenomenalism or some form of dualism'.
So your thoughts are spatially located, and have mass?I have never thought that there is a mind-body distinction. It simply doesn't match my experience.
You seem to miss the point entirely, because mechanistic explanations are necessarily "physical" so you're simply begging the question with this.What mechanistic explanations does dualism give for abductive reasoning and the reality of subjective experience?
Oh, how charminingly Newtonian you are.So your thoughts are spatially located, and have mass?
You seem to miss the point entirely, because mechanistic explanations are necessarily "physical" so you're simply begging the question with this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?