Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dualism

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 8:48:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought this was interesting. Actual evidence for what seems like the soul.

"A British study published by the journal "Resuscitation" provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared dead supports the truth of dualism. In their journal article, physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist, describe their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured, lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning during the time that their brains were not functioning. The effects of starvation of oxygen or drugs were ruled out as factors. Researchers also found that numerous cases were similar." (http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... )

If everything in the study is accurate, then this would be definite proof that the mind is a separate thing from the body...and also proof that conscious thought is not subject to physical laws. Freewill is true, and possibly further thinking along these lines could lead to God.

But of course that can't be the case,...their study is based on hearsay. Does the brain really stop functioning abruptly after the EKG flatlines? Also, how would this be able to account for all the other studies where neurologists could predict decisions and also control the subjects actions?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 8:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't get it... How would the people who had the heart attacks know that they were having reasoned thoughts at the time their brain was allegedly not functioning?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 8:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And this is only ten percent. What about the other 90%? Do they not have souls? What happened to them?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 8:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 8:54:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
And this is only ten percent. What about the other 90%? Do they not have souls? What happened to them?

I was a little worried about it until I realized that it's only 10%. I'm not inclined to believe that they would deliberately lie, so I'm just curious what it is that those people think they saw.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 8:58:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/28/2012 8:54:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
And this is only ten percent. What about the other 90%? Do they not have souls? What happened to them?

I was a little worried about it until I realized that it's only 10%. I'm not inclined to believe that they would deliberately lie, so I'm just curious what it is that those people think they saw.

Yeah... 10%... it seems like it's more likely a mistake in self-reports than definitive evidence for dualism or a soul.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can their accounts actually be corroborated if there is no way to physically investigate the claims?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 8:48:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
I thought this was interesting. Actual evidence for what seems like the soul.

"A British study published by the journal "Resuscitation" provided evidence that consciousness continues after a person's brain has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared dead supports the truth of dualism.
In their journal article, physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist, describe their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were later revived and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured, lucid thought processes, with memory formation and reasoning during the time that their brains were not functioning. The effects of starvation of oxygen or drugs were ruled out as factors. Researchers also found that numerous cases were similar." (http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... )

If everything in the study is accurate, then this would be definite proof that the mind is a separate thing from the body...and also proof that conscious thought is not subject to physical laws. Freewill is true, and possibly further thinking along these lines could lead to God.

But of course that can't be the case,...their study is based on hearsay. Does the brain really stop functioning abruptly after the EKG flatlines? Also, how would this be able to account for all the other studies where neurologists could predict decisions and also control the subjects actions?

The Fool: Firstly Brain=/=Mind. So it doesn't provide evidence for anything.

Most likely Brain<->Mind. (a biconditional relationship) In that C (the interaction) is invisible to us. Brain<-C->Mind
These means that mind(a Persons Entire consciousness) and Brain(an object percieves in somebodies physical/consiousness) change synonomously together, but we are still completly ignorant of the how they interact.

Duelism states that the mind and body are completly separate substances. If true then there can't be any interaction. Taking drugs affects the mind so Duelism, is false. So they definetly share something. Its means that the Universe is in somesense psychophysical. Not one or the other.

(I know a tini tiny, argument for soul)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 4:54:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

No... as far as I understand it, the mind is our conception of our personas -- everything that makes us incorporeally. Obviously, it has ties to our physicality, so if one dies, so does the other by definition.

I surely don't limit this belief to humans, either. We're not special. I've known animals with all sorts of personalities, and I wouldn't say that their behavior is mechanically predetermined. I've literally witnessed animals pondering their next action.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:01:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 4:54:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

No... as far as I understand it, the mind is our conception of our personas -- everything that makes us incorporeally. Obviously, it has ties to our physicality, so if one dies, so does the other by definition.

I surely don't limit this belief to humans, either. We're not special. I've known animals with all sorts of personalities, and I wouldn't say that their behavior is mechanically predetermined. I've literally witnessed animals pondering their next action.

memory is of the same nature as thoughts, feelings and decisions. It is something that takes on a seemingly sublime form. Therefore the fact that memory is directly subject to and determined by physical events in the brain should suggest the same of the other concepts.

The mind is an appeal to animism. We can't prove that the mind is a thing. We can however demonstrate that the mind is merely a sensation caused by the brain.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 4:54:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

No... as far as I understand it, the mind is our conception of our personas -- everything that makes us incorporeally. Obviously, it has ties to our physicality, so if one dies, so does the other by definition.

I surely don't limit this belief to humans, either. We're not special. I've known animals with all sorts of personalities, and I wouldn't say that their behavior is mechanically predetermined. I've literally witnessed animals pondering their next action.

I think that only works when the body dies.

If the mind dies, I'm pretty sure the body can still live on.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:04:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:54:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

No... as far as I understand it, the mind is our conception of our personas -- everything that makes us incorporeally. Obviously, it has ties to our physicality, so if one dies, so does the other by definition.

I surely don't limit this belief to humans, either. We're not special. I've known animals with all sorts of personalities, and I wouldn't say that their behavior is mechanically predetermined. I've literally witnessed animals pondering their next action.

I think that only works when the body dies.

If the mind dies, I'm pretty sure the body can still live on.

Hmmm....I wouldn't necessarily ascertain so but obviously there is no discrete link between body and mind as the two are not dependent on each other for existence, but less in terms of sustenance.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, please tell me when this other-worldly mind came into the picture. We evolved from organic chemicals...unless you want to argue that the organic chemicals were conscious, our consciousness can only be physical contructs that came to us as we evolved physically...thus making them only manifestations of physical things.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:17:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:10:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Also, please tell me when this other-worldly mind came into the picture. We evolved from organic chemicals...unless you want to argue that the organic chemicals were conscious, our consciousness can only be physical contructs that came to us as we evolved physically...thus making them only manifestations of physical things.

Your mom is conscious. OOOOOOOOOOHHHH! No, but seriously. You right (kind of), you right.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:27:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:10:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Also, please tell me when this other-worldly mind came into the picture. We evolved from organic chemicals...unless you want to argue that the organic chemicals were conscious, our consciousness can only be physical constructs that came to us as we evolved physically...thus making them only manifestations of physical things.

That would be a very interesting implication by itself.

It is true that there is a great debate in pinpointing both the association of body and consciousness and to apply a mechanistic view to it--if it should even be a single concept, or a construct, manifestation of physical things, or processes and occasions in my opinion.

However, I would argue that consciousness is more of a supposed representation of a marriage of attributes that have been the result of evolution, that may have existed in precedents or only with certain prerequisites.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:28:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:04:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:54:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

No... as far as I understand it, the mind is our conception of our personas -- everything that makes us incorporeally. Obviously, it has ties to our physicality, so if one dies, so does the other by definition.

I surely don't limit this belief to humans, either. We're not special. I've known animals with all sorts of personalities, and I wouldn't say that their behavior is mechanically predetermined. I've literally witnessed animals pondering their next action.

I think that only works when the body dies.

If the mind dies, I'm pretty sure the body can still live on.

Not without help, nah.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:32:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:27:45 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/29/2012 5:10:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Also, please tell me when this other-worldly mind came into the picture. We evolved from organic chemicals...unless you want to argue that the organic chemicals were conscious, our consciousness can only be physical constructs that came to us as we evolved physically...thus making them only manifestations of physical things.

That would be a very interesting implication by itself.

It is true that there is a great debate in pinpointing both the association of body and consciousness and to apply a mechanistic view to it--if it should even be a single concept, or a construct, manifestation of physical things, or processes and occasions in my opinion.

However, I would argue that consciousness is more of a supposed representation of a marriage of attributes that have been the result of evolution, that may have existed in precedents or only with certain prerequisites.

Of course that's speculation on my part.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:41:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 5:01:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:54:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

No... as far as I understand it, the mind is our conception of our personas -- everything that makes us incorporeally. Obviously, it has ties to our physicality, so if one dies, so does the other by definition.

I surely don't limit this belief to humans, either. We're not special. I've known animals with all sorts of personalities, and I wouldn't say that their behavior is mechanically predetermined. I've literally witnessed animals pondering their next action.

memory is of the same nature as thoughts, feelings and decisions.

Whoooaaah, those are all entirely different things.

Memory is essentially a pattern of neurons activated by synapse in response to a stimulus. We call this pattern pathways -- neurons will literally alter their physicality and DNA to establish repeated connections that come together as a memory.

This is separate from a thought, because a thought is a unique state of the mind that manifests itself in the absence of a given consciousness. Since something cannot logically manifest itself, we instead refer to what we understand our consciousness to be -- our personas, our egos, whatever -- and this has hitherto explained our conception of the "self."

It's not as though scientists can read minds -- scientists, instead, and see analogous digital imagery that presents mental states at given times, and when they notice patterns in those representations, they start to form hypotheses around them. That's not the same thing. The fact is that even neurologists themselves indicated a difference between a person's consciousness and computations that occur within the brain. It was the crux of their argument -- they can detect the computation of a decision that comes to a "decision" (solution), and this solution occurs in computational value 77 milliseconds (or something like that) before it entered the person's consciousness.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 5:42:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Feelings and decisions are also completely different things, but I think if you really thought about it, you'd plainly see that.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 6:11:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Two possible explanations:

1. Consciousness functions even when there is zero brain activity.

2. If a certain combination of mechanisms occur in a particular order (say, vascular shutdown followed by oxygen starvation to the brain followed by raised levels of hormone x and so on and so on), then a memory of conscious thought and/or hallucination is experienced before death or fabricated after the fact with the help of residual sensory input even after brain-death.

For instance, we find that in a particular part of the brain, if stimulated it results in the simulation of an out of body experience. Assume that a particular person suffers oxygen deprivation, but first this area, as opposed to conscious awareness. What might very well result is the appearance of being conscious while outside your own "dead" body (it'd be interesting to know if the cases have any recollection of what their heart monitors sounded like during the out of body experience, since that would indicate whether the fabricated memory formed before brain death or during).

If explanation 2 is correct, we should not expect to see many cases of NDE, and even then we should expect varied specific causal pathways leading to them (oxygen starvation being one of the more popular mechanism).

If explanation 1 is correct, we should overwhelmingly expect to find consciousness functioning during complete brain death. Some of the 90% can be explained away by saying that at a certain threshold (regarding brain activity or structure) conscious activity after brain death results in NDEs with apparent conscious though/memory/etc. But then you're basically just relying on variation of explanation 1 and using consciousness independent of brain activity in an ad hoc manner.

The data fits explanation 2 much better than 1.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 7:56:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 4:13:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
Isn't the fact that we can lose our memory because of a stroke enough evidence that the mind isn't some separate thing?

The Fool: That refutes dualism, But thats not what I mean, when I say the Brain=/=mind. (this is not substance dualism)

I am saying they are part of the same substance. Lets call it S
therefore S(brain and mind) Thus what ever is in the concept S, is predicated by it.

Most non-theist agree they are interacting. But interacting doesn't mean they are the Same thing but only that they are of a same part..

This is what a biconditional relationship mean. <->
For most doors have an inner and outer door handle. lets call the inner Door handle. I and the outer door handle O

I and O have a biconditional relationship, which means they are not the same handles but they change together. When we twist the knobe to open the the door, the handle on the other side twist as well. Thus (O<->I) they are two different door handles all together, but they share a direct logical connection. This analogy is good because we can't see the connection of the handle(but we all know better)

Now we know that there is a logical connection between brain and mind (B<->M)
Lets call the connecton C. Therefore (B<-C->M.)
But we don't know exactly what this logical connection is(notice I didnt say direct)

For we may look at a network of neuron firing, with a particlular pattern, and lets say the person reports seeing Red. But there is no actual red in the neurons firing. There is nothing in the conception neurons firing in a Grey mass, that entails Red. That is, there is missing Link from merly our physical/consciousness of seeing neurons firing on a grey mass, to our complete conception of red in the mind/(ones entire conscious).
We can all picture red, we can hullicinate red, we can dream red, we have the idea of what red Is, and there is nothing in the conception of Red that entails neurons firing in a grey mass.

That is the physical/concsiousness of seeing neurons firing is not the same as the Conscioussness of Red. We all think that there is a connection. This is the contempory view(text books and internet lag a few years behind) So the hard question now is what is that connection?

Ike, you view is a Positivist view, Cognitive/sceince its a dated conception. Most people here have a dated conception on that, if not all.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 8:21:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 6:11:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
Two possible explanations:

1. Consciousness functions even when there is zero brain activity.

The Fool: percieved brain activity not actually zero brain. Recognition/reallity fallacy.

2. (If a certain combination)<(XD) of mechanisms occur (in a particular order)<(XD) (say, vascular shutdown followed by oxygen starvation to the brain followed by raised levels of hormone x and so on and so on)(lets say and pretend that we know what the hell we are talking about when there are others who can see it)<(XD), then a memory of conscious thought and/or hallucination is experienced before death or fabricated after the fact with the help of residual sensory input even after brain-death.(well it wasn't really dead now was it)<(XD)

The Fool: the only important part is that no blood pumping leads to

For instance, we find that in a particular part of the brain, if stimulated it results in the simulation of an out of body experience. <(XD)

The Fool: Oh Yeah.

Assume that a particular person suffers oxygen deprivation, but first this area, as opposed to conscious awareness. <(XD)

(What might very well result)<(XD) is the appearance of being conscious(<(XD) while outside your own "dead" body (it'd be interesting to know if the cases have any recollection of what their heart monitors sounded like during the out of body experience, since that would indicate whether the fabricated memory formed before brain death or during).<(XD)

The Fool: oh yeah. it might be that you are begging the question.

If<(XD) explanation 2 is correct, we should not expect to see many cases of NDE,(all of a suddan yeah!..lol..<(XD)) and even then we should expect varied specific <(XD)causal pathways leading to them (oxygen starvation being one of the more popular mechanism).<

The Fool: That is quite specificly varied.

If explanation 1 is correct, we should overwhelmingly expect to find consciousness functioning during complete brain death. Some of the 90% <(XD) can be explained away by saying that (at a certain)<(XD) threshold (regarding brain activity or structure)<(XD) conscious activity after brain death results in NDEs with apparent conscious though/memory/etc. But then you're(who)<(XD) basically just relying on variation of explanation 1 and (using consciousness)<(XD) independent of brain activity in an ad hoc manner.

The data fits explanation 2 much better than 1.(his own data fits better then his own data.)

The Fool: You should win and award for the biggest bullsh!t post!
Who are you trying to Kid here! I mean come on!!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 8:39:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 8:21:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/29/2012 6:11:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
Two possible explanations:

1. Consciousness functions even when there is zero brain activity.

The Fool: percieved brain activity not actually zero brain. Recognition/reallity fallacy.

2. (If a certain combination)<(XD) of mechanisms occur (in a particular order)<(XD) (say, vascular shutdown followed by oxygen starvation to the brain followed by raised levels of hormone x and so on and so on)(lets say and pretend that we know what the hell we are talking about when there are others who can see it)<(XD), then a memory of conscious thought and/or hallucination is experienced before death or fabricated after the fact with the help of residual sensory input even after brain-death.(well it wasn't really dead now was it)<(XD)

The Fool: the only important part is that no blood pumping leads to

For instance, we find that in a particular part of the brain, if stimulated it results in the simulation of an out of body experience. <(XD)

The Fool: Oh Yeah.

Assume that a particular person suffers oxygen deprivation, but first this area, as opposed to conscious awareness. <(XD)

(What might very well result)<(XD) is the appearance of being conscious(<(XD) while outside your own "dead" body (it'd be interesting to know if the cases have any recollection of what their heart monitors sounded like during the out of body experience, since that would indicate whether the fabricated memory formed before brain death or during).<(XD)

The Fool: oh yeah. it might be that you are begging the question.

If<(XD) explanation 2 is correct, we should not expect to see many cases of NDE,(all of a suddan yeah!..lol..<(XD)) and even then we should expect varied specific <(XD)causal pathways leading to them (oxygen starvation being one of the more popular mechanism).<

The Fool: That is quite specificly varied.

If explanation 1 is correct, we should overwhelmingly expect to find consciousness functioning during complete brain death. Some of the 90% <(XD) can be explained away by saying that (at a certain)<(XD) threshold (regarding brain activity or structure)<(XD) conscious activity after brain death results in NDEs with apparent conscious though/memory/etc. But then you're(who)<(XD) basically just relying on variation of explanation 1 and (using consciousness)<(XD) independent of brain activity in an ad hoc manner.

The data fits explanation 2 much better than 1.(his own data fits better then his own data.)

The Fool: You should win and award for the biggest bullsh!t post!
Who are you trying to Kid here! I mean come on!!!!

Once again, Fool, you walk into a conversation demanding we regress to metaphysics before being able to discuss something as horrifically controversial as methodological naturalism.

The conversation depends on the idea of "zero brain activity" being a possible state for a person or else it can be argued that someone can be "dead" while having residual brain activity.

When I say "consciousness" I'm not trying to give you a proof on the cogito ergo sum level. I'm referring to the word used by NDE and OBE advocates use in order to differentiate between actual organic material and the "mind." Because NDE and OBEs rarely go as far as to define the mind, I decided to stick with their terminology for the sake of argument.

"The data fits explanation 2 much better than 1"

Fool: His own data fits better than his own data.


So you think an "explanation" is equivalent to "data?"

Go back, re-read, and address this thread as though you were an adult.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:17:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 8:39:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/29/2012 8:21:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/29/2012 6:11:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
Two possible explanations:

1. Consciousness functions even when there is zero brain activity.

The Fool: percieved brain activity not actually zero brain. Recognition/reallity fallacy.

2. (If a certain combination)<(XD) of mechanisms occur (in a particular order)<(XD) (say, vascular shutdown followed by oxygen starvation to the brain followed by raised levels of hormone x and so on and so on)(lets say and pretend that we know what the hell we are talking about when there are others who can see it)<(XD), then a memory of conscious thought and/or hallucination is experienced before death or fabricated after the fact with the help of residual sensory input even after brain-death.(well it wasn't really dead now was it)<(XD)

The Fool: the only important part is that no blood pumping leads to

For instance, we find that in a particular part of the brain, if stimulated it results in the simulation of an out of body experience. <(XD)

The Fool: Oh Yeah.

Assume that a particular person suffers oxygen deprivation, but first this area, as opposed to conscious awareness. <(XD)

(What might very well result)<(XD) is the appearance of being conscious(<(XD) while outside your own "dead" body (it'd be interesting to know if the cases have any recollection of what their heart monitors sounded like during the out of body experience, since that would indicate whether the fabricated memory formed before brain death or during).<(XD)

The Fool: oh yeah. it might be that you are begging the question.

If<(XD) explanation 2 is correct, we should not expect to see many cases of NDE,(all of a suddan yeah!..lol..<(XD)) and even then we should expect varied specific <(XD)causal pathways leading to them (oxygen starvation being one of the more popular mechanism).<

The Fool: That is quite specificly varied.

If explanation 1 is correct, we should overwhelmingly expect to find consciousness functioning during complete brain death. Some of the 90% <(XD) can be explained away by saying that (at a certain)<(XD) threshold (regarding brain activity or structure)<(XD) conscious activity after brain death results in NDEs with apparent conscious though/memory/etc. But then you're(who)<(XD) basically just relying on variation of explanation 1 and (using consciousness)<(XD) independent of brain activity in an ad hoc manner.

The data fits explanation 2 much better than 1.(his own data fits better then his own data.)

The Fool: You should win and award for the biggest bullsh!t post!
Who are you trying to Kid here! I mean come on!!!!

Once again, Fool, you walk into a conversation demanding we regress to metaphysics before being able to discuss something as horrifically controversial as methodological naturalism.

The Fool: Metaphysical is completly superflous. Its just about proper labeling. Its simple, What is IS. Thus we can never label something as abolutly non-existence. Only categorically, the Whole problem can be solved with proper categorization of phenomena.

The conversation depends on the idea of "zero brain activity" being a possible state for a person or else it can be argued that someone can be "dead" while having residual brain activity.

The Fool:The thread was about, if claims of consciousness after being declared dead, which isn't really being dead, are support for I am assuming Substance duelism. As in the mind/conciousess being able to continue on it own with out a physical body.

Not only did you make up hypothesis related to more specific information then can possible be deduced. It presummes people are dying by the loads in MRI machines! (WORD?)<(89)....

When I say "consciousness" I'm not trying to give you a proof on the cogito ergo sum level. I'm referring to the word used by NDE and OBE advocates use in order to differentiate between actual organic material and the "mind." Because NDE and OBEs rarely go as far as to define the mind, I decided to stick with their terminology for the sake of argument.

The Fool: Concsiousness is not even that complex. It only becomes a problem when we force a (physicalism doctrine) on the topic. When we should just be categorizing. The Topic is called Duelism and its in the philosophy section, and maybe I am wrong but the Idea is that we want the best Truth value we can get. Philosophy is about asking question and figuring out answers.


So you think an "explanation" is equivalent to "data?"

The Fool: Raw data, is meaningless until its been conceptualized. aka philosophized. Science is simply philosophy of physical sense data. Natural philosophy is a just another name for Natrual Science. The language has changed but the meaning is the same. But it makes people actually think because they are named different they are actually different topics. (semantic fallacy) Like math and logic. Where every logical rule can be found in math already. People see to names, well they must be actually different. Including Scientists.

Sense data is information from our physical/consciousness. While sense perception is organized data pre-conceptualized. Right? There is no refutation to that. But its understanding that makes a world of a difference to the best way apply the scientific method.

Go back, re-read, and address this thread as though you were an adult.

The Fool: What you said amounts to this: If a set of certain situations, are varying specificly to factors, of causal, pathways, when we should expect x. If this is false this is true and we should expect, with 75% of the variation of the differences, that the indicators are indicating, indications!

We all know that a lack of oxygen to the brain will affect thinking. That was the only informative part of the whole three, or four paragraphs. And this has been explained by various persons already. Even professionally you are suppost to give the full expression of an abbreviations the first time you mention them in a Paper. Then you can switch to them. There are many over lapping abbrevations, it doesn't sound cooler. (aka they were excessive.)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:33:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:17:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/29/2012 8:39:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/29/2012 8:21:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/29/2012 6:11:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
Two possible explanations:

1. Consciousness functions even when there is zero brain activity.

The Fool: percieved brain activity not actually zero brain. Recognition/reallity fallacy.

The Fool: oh yeah. it might be that you are begging the question.

If<(XD) explanation 2 is correct, we should not expect to see many cases of NDE,(all of a suddan yeah!..lol..<(XD)) and even then we should expect varied specific <(XD)causal pathways leading to them (oxygen starvation being one of the more popular mechanism).<

The Fool: That is quite specificly varied.

If explanation 1 is correct, we should overwhelmingly expect to find consciousness functioning during complete brain death. Some of the 90% <(XD) can be explained away by saying that (at a certain)<(XD) threshold (regarding brain activity or structure)<(XD) conscious activity after brain death results in NDEs with apparent conscious though/memory/etc. But then you're(who)<(XD) basically just relying on variation of explanation 1 and (using consciousness)<(XD) independent of brain activity in an ad hoc manner.

The data fits explanation 2 much better than 1.(his own data fits better then his own data.)

The Fool: You should win and award for the biggest bullsh!t post!
Who are you trying to Kid here! I mean come on!!!!

Once again, Fool, you walk into a conversation demanding we regress to metaphysics before being able to discuss something as horrifically controversial as methodological naturalism.

The Fool: Metaphysical is completly superflous. Its just about proper labeling. Its simple, What is IS. Thus we can never label something as abolutly non-existence. Only categorically, the Whole problem can be solved with proper categorization of phenomena.

The conversation depends on the idea of "zero brain activity" being a possible state for a person or else it can be argued that someone can be "dead" while having residual brain activity.

The Fool:The thread was about, if claims of consciousness after being declared dead, which isn't really being dead, are support for I am assuming Substance duelism. As in the mind/conciousess being able to continue on it own with out a physical body.

Not only did you make up hypothesis related to more specific information then can possible be deduced. It presummes people are dying by the loads in MRI machines! (WORD?)<(89)....

When I say "consciousness" I'm not trying to give you a proof on the cogito ergo sum level. I'm referring to the word used by NDE and OBE advocates use in order to differentiate between actual organic material and the "mind." Because NDE and OBEs rarely go as far as to define the mind, I decided to stick with their terminology for the sake of argument.

The Fool: Concsiousness is not even that complex. It only becomes a problem when we force a (physicalism doctrine) on the topic. When we should just be categorizing. The Topic is called Duelism and its in the philosophy section, and maybe I am wrong but the Idea is that we want the best Truth value we can get. Philosophy is about asking question and figuring out answers.


So you think an "explanation" is equivalent to "data?"

The Fool: Raw data, is meaningless until its been conceptualized. aka philosophized. Science is simply philosophy of physical sense data. Natural philosophy is a just another name for Natrual Science. The language has changed but the meaning is the same. But it makes people actually think because they are named different they are actually different topics. (semantic fallacy) Like math and logic. Where every logical rule can be found in math already. People see to names, well they must be actually different. Including Scientists.

Sense data is information from our physical/consciousness. While sense perception is organized data pre-conceptualized. Right? There is no refutation to that. But its understanding that makes a world of a difference to the best way apply the scientific method.

Go back, re-read, and address this thread as though you were an adult.

The Fool: What you said amounts to this: If a set of certain situations, are varying specificly to factors, of causal, pathways, when we should expect x. If this is false this is true and we should expect, with 75% of the variation of the differences, that the indicators are indicating, indications!

We all know that a lack of oxygen to the brain will affect thinking. That was the only informative part of the whole three, or four paragraphs. And this has been explained by various persons already. Even professionally you are suppost to give the full expression of an abbreviations the first time you mention them in a Paper. Then you can switch to them. There are many over lapping abbrevations, it doesn't sound cooler. (aka they were excessive.)

So, when you are in a conversation with another human being, and they say something like "that guy got hit by a car and had zero brain activity for twenty minutes" you'll stop them until they acknowledge that "zero brain activity" is impossible since we can never label something as "absolutely nothing?"

The commonly accepted statistic for some OBE or other hallucination during an NDE (near death experience) occurs in around 10% of cases. I do not need dead people to be hooked up to an MRI for that.

Because the specific study deals with heart attack patients, it makes the argument that low oxygen levels are not sufficient to explain irregular NDEs. I mentioned more than just oxygen because of this fact. It would be an easily shot-down strawman to present oxygen as a primary driver.

Once again, we get another helping of Fool's Sophistry with regards to "explanations."

Normal human beings, when discussing medical phenomena, take "data" to refer to information that has not only already been processed cognitively but has been measured empirically.

You, on the other hand, hear "data" and immediately go into Sophist mode wherein you refuse to go further until we have a full account of sensory data as it relates to awareness of the outside world.

Do you just get off on being argumentative or are you actually seeking dialogue?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 1:03:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:33:58 PM, Wnope wrote:

The Fool: Wnope, you are like a zombie, when you are blown to bit, you don't stay down. Stay down.

So, when you are in a conversation with another human being, and they say something like "that guy got hit by a car and had zero brain activity for twenty minutes" you'll stop them until they acknowledge that "zero brain activity" is impossible since we can never label something as "absolutely nothing?"

The Fool: I think its fair to say you are losing your cool. I do apologize, in that I felt my orginal repsonse to your post was a little agressive, I should have handled it better, but its not logically wrong. But as for you questions here it wasn't actually while anybody was really dying so I don't think that is a fair context to place it in. As for "absoluty nothing" it is crucial for any evidence to be considered for substance duelism. Without that there is not case for a Dualist claim. (that is the topic right?)

The commonly accepted statistic for some OBE or other hallucination during an NDE (near death experience) occurs in around 10% of cases. I do not need dead people to be hooked up to an MRI for that.

The Fool: Come on now, you are a walking STRAWMAN, there is not much room here to confuse that my reference to MRI machines, was for anything other then claims of low brain activity.

Because the specific study deals with heart attack patients, it makes the argument that low oxygen levels are not sufficient to explain irregular NDEs. I mentioned more than just oxygen because of this fact. It would be an easily shot-down strawman to present oxygen as a primary driver.

The Fool: Well, that is problematic because by the lack of blood circulation many necessary nutrients could be a factor of hallucination, including and commonly known for it IS oxygen. (Brain damage starts immediatly)

Once again, we get another helping of Fool's Sophistry with regards to "explanations."

The Fool: You may call me and abnoxious Gad fly, or a idiot, or a Fool, but a Sophist is probably the last thing.. Who's we?<(89) Lol, who are you talking too and apperently for?
But for your pleasure only I will mention, mentionings, that I mentioned, about unmentionables.<(XD)

Normal human beings, when discussing medical phenomena, take "data" to refer to information that has not only already been processed cognitively but has been measured empirically.

The Fool: No comment.. (face palm)

You, on the other hand, hear "data" and immediately go into Sophist mode wherein you refuse to go further until we have a full account of sensory data as it relates to awareness of the outside world.

The Fool: Sophist mode? I think it is more commonly referred to as Critical philosophy(aka critical thinking). We are trying to figure things out right? Obviously we are not on the same page. But I do make an effort to read them in order. I never want to risk missing something so important that it can destroy my chances of understanding the book in general. So if you get lost somewhere on those later pages, I am the Fool you want to be around. You will thankfull later, give it a few years. I guarantee you will never forget some of the arguments I have put forward here on DDO.

.
Do you just get off on being argumentative or are you actually seeking dialogue?

The Fool: Okay, Good Night Wnope.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 1:46:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 1:03:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/29/2012 11:33:58 PM, Wnope wrote:


The Fool: Wnope, you are like a zombie, when you are blown to bit, you don't stay down. Stay down.

So, when you are in a conversation with another human being, and they say something like "that guy got hit by a car and had zero brain activity for twenty minutes" you'll stop them until they acknowledge that "zero brain activity" is impossible since we can never label something as "absolutely nothing?"

The Fool: I think its fair to say you are losing your cool. I do apologize, in that I felt my orginal repsonse to your post was a little agressive, I should have handled it better, but its not logically wrong. But as for you questions here it wasn't actually while anybody was really dying so I don't think that is a fair context to place it in. As for "absoluty nothing" it is crucial for any evidence to be considered for substance duelism. Without that there is not case for a Dualist claim. (that is the topic right?)

The commonly accepted statistic for some OBE or other hallucination during an NDE (near death experience) occurs in around 10% of cases. I do not need dead people to be hooked up to an MRI for that.

The Fool: Come on now, you are a walking STRAWMAN, there is not much room here to confuse that my reference to MRI machines, was for anything other then claims of low brain activity.

Because the specific study deals with heart attack patients, it makes the argument that low oxygen levels are not sufficient to explain irregular NDEs. I mentioned more than just oxygen because of this fact. It would be an easily shot-down strawman to present oxygen as a primary driver.

The Fool: Well, that is problematic because by the lack of blood circulation many necessary nutrients could be a factor of hallucination, including and commonly known for it IS oxygen. (Brain damage starts immediatly)

Once again, we get another helping of Fool's Sophistry with regards to "explanations."

The Fool: You may call me and abnoxious Gad fly, or a idiot, or a Fool, but a Sophist is probably the last thing.. Who's we?<(89) Lol, who are you talking too and apperently for?
But for your pleasure only I will mention, mentionings, that I mentioned, about unmentionables.<(XD)

Normal human beings, when discussing medical phenomena, take "data" to refer to information that has not only already been processed cognitively but has been measured empirically.

The Fool: No comment.. (face palm)

You, on the other hand, hear "data" and immediately go into Sophist mode wherein you refuse to go further until we have a full account of sensory data as it relates to awareness of the outside world.

The Fool: Sophist mode? I think it is more commonly referred to as Critical philosophy(aka critical thinking). We are trying to figure things out right? Obviously we are not on the same page. But I do make an effort to read them in order. I never want to risk missing something so important that it can destroy my chances of understanding the book in general. So if you get lost somewhere on those later pages, I am the Fool you want to be around. You will thankfull later, give it a few years. I guarantee you will never forget some of the arguments I have put forward here on DDO.

.
Do you just get off on being argumentative or are you actually seeking dialogue?

The Fool: Okay, Good Night Wnope.

"The Fool: Well, that is problematic because by the lack of blood circulation many necessary nutrients could be a factor of hallucination, including and commonly known for it IS oxygen. (Brain damage starts immediatly)"

This was actually something that caught my attention in the original article cited that struck me as strange. I looked into it, and their claim was that brain death occurred at a time when the brain was technically oxygen rich. I personally find that a little fishy for the reason you mention, but since I can't rebut it at the moment, I'm accommodating for it.

"The Fool: Sophist mode? I think it is more commonly referred to as Critical philosophy(aka critical thinking). We are trying to figure things out right? Obviously we are not on the same page. But I do make an effort to read them in order. I never want to risk missing something so important that it can destroy my chances of understanding the book in general. So if you get lost somewhere on those later pages, I am the Fool you want to be around. You will thankfull later, give it a few years. I guarantee you will never forget some of the arguments I have put forward here on DDO."

What you still don't seem to grasp is that my post was not intended to address the philosophical concerns you bring up here.

If two people are talking about medical experiments and statistics, and the word "data" is used, don't you think its a bit unreasonable to assume that the term refers to unprocessed sensory input before a priori categorization?

Or if two people want to talk about the difference between an NDE involving memories formed via residual brain waves and memories formed during complete brain death. Don't you think its unreasonable it take "zero brain activity" to mean anything other than "NDEs without the possibility of residual brain waves?"

Only a Sophist would make those assumptions and then formulate an argument based off them. That, or you simply did not consider the context of the conversation.

And, I'm afraid, Sophistry is your main crime. Not stupidity or obnoxiousness.

I know you are aware of what you are doing, because you have done this with me before. Last time, you ended up apologizing and saying that yes, you had butted in without quite realizing the context of the conversation (this would be when you accused me of positivism). At that time, I also pointed out this sophist trend.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:13:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 1:46:08 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/30/2012 1:03:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/29/2012 11:33:58 PM, Wnope wrote:


The Fool: Wnope, you are like a zombie, when you are blown to bit, you don't stay down. Stay down.

The commonly accepted statistic for some OBE or other hallucination during an NDE (near death experience) occurs in around 10% of cases. I do not need dead people to be hooked up to an MRI for that.

The Fool: Well, that is problematic because by the lack of blood circulation many necessary nutrients could be a factor of hallucination, including and commonly known for it IS oxygen. (Brain damage starts immediatly)

Once again, we get another helping of Fool's Sophistry with regards to "explanations."

The Fool: You may call me and abnoxious Gad fly, or a idiot, or a Fool, but a Sophist is probably the last thing.. Who's we?<(89) Lol, who are you talking too and apperently for?

Normal human beings, when discussing medical phenomena, take "data" to refer to information that has not only already been processed cognitively but has been measured empirically.

The Fool: No comment.. (face palm)

You, on the other hand, hear "data" and immediately go into Sophist mode wherein you refuse to go further until we have a full account of sensory data as it relates to awareness of the outside world.

The Fool: you will never forget some of the arguments I have put forward here on DDO.

Do you just get off on being argumentative or are you actually seeking dialogue?

The Fool: Okay, Good Night Wnope.

"The Fool: Well, that is problematic because by the lack of blood circulation many necessary nutrients could be a factor of hallucination, including and commonly known for it IS oxygen. (Brain damage starts immediatly)"

This was actually something that caught my attention in the original article cited that struck me as strange. I looked into it, and their claim was that brain death occurred at a time when the brain was technically oxygen rich. I personally find that a little fishy for the reason you mention, but since I can't rebut it at the moment, I'm accommodating for it.

The Fool: Now in a scientific program, as far as I know you HAVE to take RESEARCH and METHODS class. There is no possible way, that you can miss that the source is from a bunch of LOONIES!. There is nothing SANE about that source. Its a bunch of spiritualist quackery. That is where Critical thinking skills come in my friend. If you are that guilible then I am argueing against an innocent child. And I feel like a Fool.

What you still don't seem to grasp is that my post was not intended to address the philosophical concerns you bring up here.

The Fool: What part about philosophy section and duelism, is confuseing. You are not getting how much you riddled with positivist thinking. I believe your not doing on purpose, but its a big shift in your paradigm to jump from that to what I am saying. I think I over look the Gap here. Thats what I mean by out classed, ah you can't even tell the difference. Notice I have refuted every claim you have made, so far, and you have never refuted one. And I mean logical refution. Not a battle of beliefs. You not putting together logically conclusive argument.

Every scientific experiment is a form of and inductive arugment where the conclusion is the result and the observation are the premises.

Experiment A

P1. observation
P2. more observation
C therefore "whatever is the result."

Can you refute this? no right?

Is this a confusing notion.... PHD is not an accident or misnomer, Its Doctor of Philosophy, why because they all come from philosohpy, the PHD has remained named in its original tradition. I think you are having alot of trouble with the FACTS.
That is what I thought but I think now you just don't know anybetter. If you don't understand something I am saying its okay to ask? Its looks worse, at least to me. I can't speak for anybody else. But your arguments, lack logical form, they are not conclusive, there is a huge difference in the precision of the words I choose. And they way I use them.

I am thinking you don't have sharp distinction between philosophies, you are not quite sure what metaphysics is right?

You are not familiar specifics of how the scientific method works. right?
The method was not made over night nore has it yet to be perfect or complete. Philosophy is everywhere whether you like it or NOT. its not an option. The only open is to use difference words. but you can define something into existence. Your not that familier with the History of science either. right?

If two people are talking about medical experiments and statistics(difference of words), and the word "data" is used, don't you think its a bit unreasonable to assume that the term refers to unprocessed sensory input before a priori categorization?

The Fool: Dude it a blaring appeal to popularity. Shining bright. You are clearly have a muttled conception of what data is. You are switching from general to particular here right? no?....lol

A muttled conception: Is when you are confusing more then one concept as the same when they are not.

The Fool: What mean by arguing with precision is to be really sensitive to the distinction between them. Do be able to slice them into smaller bits and more specific bit. Thus making is clearer to see how they are formed together.
The 'word' Understand comes from stand under, as in to get below, something to see how everything connects. A modern example would be like looking under the hood of a car or under the car.(a good knowledge of etymology helps get out of the circus)

Or if two people want to talk about the difference between an NDE involving memories formed via residual brain waves(this is garbage talk) and memories formed during complete brain death. Don't you think its unreasonable it take "zero brain activity" to mean anything other than "NDEs without the possibility of residual brain waves?"

The Fool: Dude you fabricated this based on a completly irrational source of evidence. What kind of response do you wan't here.

Only a Sophist would make those assumptions and then formulate an argument based off them.

The Fool: You are not even using the word Sophist in the right way. A Sophist is a crowd, player, argues for the debate value rather then truth value. Aka they argue to win rather then for knowledge, They use sophisms(logical fallicy) or strong subjective and/or vague language, anything to sound right.

And, I'm afraid, Sophistry is your main crime. Not stupidity or obnoxiousness.

I know you are aware of what you are doing, because you have done this with me before.

The Fool: Oh yeah, that a great argument. I concede. <(XD)

Last time, you ended up apologizing and saying that yes, you had butted in without quite realizing the context of the conversation (this would be when you accused me of positivism). That, or you simply did not consider the context of the conversation.
vs
¨`I do apologize, in that I felt my orìginal repsonse to your post was a little agressive, I should have handled it better, but its not logically wrong.¨`

The Fool: Do these look the same to you? You are about as rational as Inferno.

At that time, I also pointed out this sophist trend.

The Fool: Wnope you not rationaly defending you claims. All you have to do is exposed my irrational arguments and sophisms then you can claim I am a Sophist.. Good luck with that...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 2:55:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:13:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
You are not familiar specifics of how the scientific method works. right?
The method was not made over night nore has it yet to be perfect or complete. Philosophy is everywhere whether you like it or NOT. its not an option. The only open is to use difference words. but you can define something into existence. Your not that familier with the History of science either. right?

If two people are talking about medical experiments and statistics(difference of words), and the word "data" is used, don't you think its a bit unreasonable to assume that the term refers to unprocessed sensory input before a priori categorization?

The Fool: Dude it a blaring appeal to popularity. Shining bright. You are clearly have a muttled conception of what data is. You are switching from general to particular here right? no?....lol

A muttled conception: Is when you are confusing more then one concept as the same when they are not.

The Fool: What mean by arguing with precision is to be really sensitive to the distinction between them. Do be able to slice them into smaller bits and more specific bit. Thus making is clearer to see how they are formed together.
The 'word' Understand comes from stand under, as in to get below, something to see how everything connects. A modern example would be like looking under the hood of a car or under the car.(a good knowledge of etymology helps get out of the circus)

Or if two people want to talk about the difference between an NDE involving memories formed via residual brain waves(this is garbage talk) and memories formed during complete brain death. Don't you think its unreasonable it take "zero brain activity" to mean anything other than "NDEs without the possibility of residual brain waves?"

The Fool: Dude you fabricated this based on a completly irrational source of evidence. What kind of response do you wan't here.

Only a Sophist would make those assumptions and then formulate an argument based off them.

The Fool: You are not even using the word Sophist in the right way. A Sophist is a crowd, player, argues for the debate value rather then truth value. Aka they argue to win rather then for knowledge, They use sophisms(logical fallicy) or strong subjective and/or vague language, anything to sound right.

And, I'm afraid, Sophistry is your main crime. Not stupidity or obnoxiousness.

I know you are aware of what you are doing, because you have done this with me before.

The Fool: Oh yeah, that a great argument. I concede. <(XD)

Last time, you ended up apologizing and saying that yes, you had butted in without quite realizing the context of the conversation (this would be when you accused me of positivism). That, or you simply did not consider the context of the conversation.
vs
¨`I do apologize, in that I felt my orìginal repsonse to your post was a little agressive, I should have handled it better, but its not logically wrong.¨`

The Fool: Do these look the same to you? You are about as rational as Inferno.

At that time, I also pointed out this sophist trend.

The Fool: Wnope you not rationaly defending you claims. All you have to do is exposed my irrational arguments and sophisms then you can claim I am a Sophist.. Good luck with that...

You again have this delusion that I am trying to philosophically defend myself to you. I'm not.

I was trying to have a conversation with people who believe that a record of heart attack patients experiencing an irregular NDE may not be explainable by conventional science. If I didn't care about communicating, I could have just said "well, they're loonies" but instead I was hoping to get a point across.

My point was made under the assumption of methodological naturalism, which is what most people do when discussing alternative medical theories.

The black box term "consciousness" was given to indicate something independent of the brain function that somehow still influences the brain. If I wanted to be more rigorous, I wouldn't have use it, but that's how NDE advocates talk when discussing medical phenomena.

My two medical explanations then defined under these conditions. You then came in and argued that by "data" I referred to unprocessed sensory input and that I was presupposing positivism. Seeing as how I allow consciousness to not necessarily be a materialistic entity, it's very telling that you choose that label as an accusation.

You have this almost disturbed tendency to think that when I speak of communicating to other humans beings in terms they understand, I am making an appeal to popularity in order to prove myself "right" to you. I think this helps explain why so many, many, MANY people claim they cannot understand the various arguments you make (several of whom are as or more intelligent than yourself).

I refer to your previous transgression not in this particular thread, but in a discussion about how the counter-example of vision can show that the assumption "perception is perfect" is wrong. You eventually apologized when you realized that I wasn't presupposing positivism, only communicating under assumptions the OP had already made.

It is even more telling that you thought that when I said "last time" I referred to the very conversation we are having.

And no, Sam Parnia is not a quack. He also thinks NDEs are probably illusions. However, his record has been used by NDE advocates to argue otherwise.

http://www.skeptiko.com...