Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Theodicy and the Holocaust
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="holo" data-source="post: 74397696" data-attributes="member: 21467"><p>Usually I have to set aside quite a bit of time figuring out what you're saying, but here's a quick reply to the points I think you're making. I have to say again, I have a hard time believing you can't make yourself clearer. Of course I don't mean you're not using the correct terms or that you're using them imprecisely, but I simply don't see the point seemingly consistently choosing the least known, most technical way of saying stuff. It kind of reminds me of [USER=167101]@2PhiloVoid[/USER]. I (and I guess many others) have to read his long sentences two or three times to figure out what the heck he's talking about. I assume it's partly because he knows a lot, is clever and good with words and likes to show it, but mostly because it's fun. But it's happened more than once that I've just gone "meh, whatever, can't be bothered" and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's of course possible that I'm simply too dumb for threads like this, but at the same time I don't have too much trouble following quite complicated and deep philosophical discussions on, say, The Science Salon podcast (this thread made me think of a recent episode with Deepak Chopra who has some very interesting ideas about the nature of reality, consciousness etc).</p><p></p><p>I don't assume the threads I participate in will be necessarily very interesting to others, but I know that when I read posts and go "oh, parousia, what was that again, I gotta open a new browser window" several times, I can't help but ask why. Personally, I would use the extra seconds to write "second coming" and spare the reader having to go look something up when I could've made myself perfectly clear with words I could reasonably expect the other to know. So like I said, I might get to a point where I simply can't be bothered.</p><p></p><p>I couldn't name a specific experiment that proved this, but what I mean is that consciousness at sleep, being awake, half-awake, stoned on drugs, concentrated etc, are different forms, or qualities, of consciousness. At the very least it seems obviuously right to say there are degrees of consciousness.</p><p></p><p>I don't see how it follows that empiric evidence is impossible if consciousness is a product of the brain. Is empiric evidence possible if it's not?</p><p></p><p>Well, people can think about it in all sorts of ways, but I haven't seen good evidence of ideas like consciousness being independent of the brain.</p><p></p><p>Like you say, it's a metaphor. You make choices all the time, most of them unconscious, like when you suddenly have to jump out of the way of a speeding car. The brain does a bunch of "calculations" of lots and lots of information and makes you get out of the way.</p><p></p><p>It's certainly true that we didn't evolve to see reality as it is, because that in itself doesn't increase our chances of survival and procreation.</p><p></p><p>OK, but do you mean we shouldn't expect to see things like grammar if we are the product of evolution?</p><p></p><p>Any model of the mind and personalities will obviously be tentative. Jung's are as far as I've learned among the more solid and useful ones.</p><p></p><p>But again, the question is, what's the alternative if you don't already believe in something supernatural? A lot of arguments against evolution/for God (or "something else out there") don't really answer anything as far as I can tell, it's just an assertion that we don't know, or our current knowledge and theories don't explain it well enough, and we basically end up with a god of the gaps.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="holo, post: 74397696, member: 21467"] Usually I have to set aside quite a bit of time figuring out what you're saying, but here's a quick reply to the points I think you're making. I have to say again, I have a hard time believing you can't make yourself clearer. Of course I don't mean you're not using the correct terms or that you're using them imprecisely, but I simply don't see the point seemingly consistently choosing the least known, most technical way of saying stuff. It kind of reminds me of [USER=167101]@2PhiloVoid[/USER]. I (and I guess many others) have to read his long sentences two or three times to figure out what the heck he's talking about. I assume it's partly because he knows a lot, is clever and good with words and likes to show it, but mostly because it's fun. But it's happened more than once that I've just gone "meh, whatever, can't be bothered" and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's of course possible that I'm simply too dumb for threads like this, but at the same time I don't have too much trouble following quite complicated and deep philosophical discussions on, say, The Science Salon podcast (this thread made me think of a recent episode with Deepak Chopra who has some very interesting ideas about the nature of reality, consciousness etc). I don't assume the threads I participate in will be necessarily very interesting to others, but I know that when I read posts and go "oh, parousia, what was that again, I gotta open a new browser window" several times, I can't help but ask why. Personally, I would use the extra seconds to write "second coming" and spare the reader having to go look something up when I could've made myself perfectly clear with words I could reasonably expect the other to know. So like I said, I might get to a point where I simply can't be bothered. I couldn't name a specific experiment that proved this, but what I mean is that consciousness at sleep, being awake, half-awake, stoned on drugs, concentrated etc, are different forms, or qualities, of consciousness. At the very least it seems obviuously right to say there are degrees of consciousness. I don't see how it follows that empiric evidence is impossible if consciousness is a product of the brain. Is empiric evidence possible if it's not? Well, people can think about it in all sorts of ways, but I haven't seen good evidence of ideas like consciousness being independent of the brain. Like you say, it's a metaphor. You make choices all the time, most of them unconscious, like when you suddenly have to jump out of the way of a speeding car. The brain does a bunch of "calculations" of lots and lots of information and makes you get out of the way. It's certainly true that we didn't evolve to see reality as it is, because that in itself doesn't increase our chances of survival and procreation. OK, but do you mean we shouldn't expect to see things like grammar if we are the product of evolution? Any model of the mind and personalities will obviously be tentative. Jung's are as far as I've learned among the more solid and useful ones. But again, the question is, what's the alternative if you don't already believe in something supernatural? A lot of arguments against evolution/for God (or "something else out there") don't really answer anything as far as I can tell, it's just an assertion that we don't know, or our current knowledge and theories don't explain it well enough, and we basically end up with a god of the gaps. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Theodicy and the Holocaust
Top
Bottom