Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by LorienRyan


101. Fleabytes

Comment #138973 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 2:05 am

"Private and ineffable" in this case means inaccessible from the outside


I hope I'm not just being pedantic, but as soon as the information that contains the qualia is removed or copied from it's original time/space location it becomes 'corrupted'. Therefore, it's original private, perhaps not ineffable, experience remains intact.

EDIT: Or it's quality of 'privateness' remains by virtue of it's space in time being fluid. Is that making any sense? Help...

102. Fleabytes

Comment #138964 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 1:54 am

the qualia you can assume cannot be private and ineffable


Isn't this impossible since no two or more qualia experiencing brains, or the like, can exist in the same space at the same time? Therefore, the qualia really is unique in that sense.

103. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138908 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 12:05 am

Philip,

Take a few deep breaths and think of Obi-Wan.

104. Fleabytes

Comment #138904 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 11:59 pm

there is still a long way to go to eradicate all the hidden elements of dualism, such as the assumption of non-reducible qualia.


Not yet, anyway. I guess my dualism consists of that which I do know and that which I don't:)

105. Fleabytes

Comment #138897 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I think it is more like.. the problem of why it is like anything at all to be self-aware.


Interesting, and revealing, way to put it.

Is the problem like this, if one was to see one's own self-awareness, would one then need to investigate the awareness at which one observed the original self-awareness from, and so forth?. Reaching for the asprin...

106. Fleabytes

Comment #138893 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 11:34 pm

MaxD,

Thanks for the link, had a quick look, it's got some good reviews.

107. Fleabytes

Comment #138885 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 11:26 pm

But will this take us any further to explaining what the sensation of red is like? We will only be following the movement of particles.


Hope this doesn't sound naive, but is this the problem of explaining self-awareness?

108. Fleabytes

Comment #138881 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 11:15 pm

MaxD,

haha, nice. MMA, wish I had the time, and fitness. Fav MMA fighters - Fedor, of course, and Wanderlei.

109. Fleabytes

Comment #138869 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm

MaxD:

LorienRyan,
What kind of Gung Fu do you practice? I did Wing Chun for a few years then Jeet Kune Do.


Wing Chun. Years ago I started off practicing Karate. A close friend of mine became a Sifu under William Cheung here in Melbourne, Australia, and started his own Dojo. He invited me to attend some classes and I was instantly converted, I love it.

Jeet Kune Do, you must be fairly advanced, Jeet is very dynamic and requires a certain level of physical ability to master effectively - hence it's founder!

If you can follow me on this, I see Wing Chun as the atheism of martial arts:)

110. Fleabytes

Comment #138834 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 8:25 pm

MPhil,

Been fun trying to tap into some of your understanding.

I'm off too, got a Kung Fu class.

111. Fleabytes

Comment #138832 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Now these numbers are just off the top of my head, but they are just meant to demonstrate what I think the evidence shows.


That the function of consciousness/conceptualization is dependent on a certain arrangement and complexity of matter, and until that condition is met it cannot emerge.

112. Fleabytes

Comment #138826 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 8:17 pm

MPhil,

I understand your meaning to be, conceptualization is to our brain as gills are to a fish to breath underwater. Conceptualization is a function necessarily bourne from the formation of a brain, or at least one with the sufficient working complexity.

113. Fleabytes

Comment #138823 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 8:09 pm

MPhil,

Then it just comes down to defining terms and categorization. And in that respect I totally agree with you.

114. Fleabytes

Comment #138816 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Packs of birds, insects act in ways that seem rational. But aren't conscious.


Even plants are conscious, they open up when the sun is out, etc. To say ants and the like are not conscious is teetering on the edge of the dark chasm of faith.

EDIT: to say we are conscious in a different way to anything else besides a greater degree of functional complexity leads down a dark road.

115. Fleabytes

Comment #138812 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Zombies are impossible.


Havn't you seen Dawn of the Dead:)

116. Fleabytes

Comment #138806 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Intentional highly complex collaboration is essential for that, and that requires a highly complex language, which in turn is impossible without consciousness.


Might I add, the technology we've developed through our ability to understand and communicate complexity, is now increasing that ability. Giving us access to much greater understanding of complexity than our own consciousness could allow unaided.

117. Fleabytes

Comment #138801 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:43 pm

There must be a great advantage with being able to contemplate one's navel. :)


Technology? That's been a fairly formidable advantage.

118. Fleabytes

Comment #138799 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:41 pm

MPhil,

Yes, I like that explaination. Consciousness is the point of the apex, so to speak. The final printout report after all the groundwork has been done.

119. Fleabytes

Comment #138793 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:34 pm

It does make sense - of course the specific details of the feedback structure are again determined both by genetic coding and external stimuli.


And brings the question of the 'consciousness' into it. Now my brain is starting to hurt:)

120. Fleabytes

Comment #138784 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm

MPhil,

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. The way the brain is structured and the way the shapes and weights are conditioned over time are necessarily conditioned, not only by the 'outside' environment, but also by it's very own composition. Hope that makes sense.

121. Fleabytes

Comment #138778 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Sharon,

Any of Steven Pinker's books.

122. Fleabytes

Comment #138773 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:14 pm

The DNA codes for the ability tp make synaptic connections and to weigh the synapses, but it's the environmental input that determines what connections are made and what their weights are.


Might I suggest that the brain itself, the stuff it's made of, is also it's environment just as much as the trees and the grass.

123. Fleabytes

Comment #138765 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm

I personally think that the belief must have been arrived at by a sufficiently reliable mechanism (but many things can count as that, even mechanisms we don't understand).


I think the problem with a lot of religious thought is in that it creates a disfunctional feedback loop onto reality. If that makes any sense? Help...

124. Fleabytes

Comment #138757 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Brian,

So everything is specific to and dependent on it's previous 'time step' of causality. To suggest anything remotely otherwise is to invoke, well, now my imagination is causing funny thoughts:)

125. Fleabytes

Comment #138752 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I merely state that the synaptic connections and weights are determined by conditioning rather than genetic coding. However their potential to non-specifically do this is genetically coded.


Why 'non-specifically' aren't genes and genetic code conditioned specifically by the environment in which they exist? If one says non-specifically at a certain level then isn't that implying some sort of 'ghost in the machine'? Or some sort of special intentionality outside of environmental conditioning?

126. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #138709 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Funny, but I would probably go with the theory that Moses never existed.


Maybe the bloke who made up the story was trippin'?

127. Fleabytes

Comment #138701 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:43 pm

I'm at one end of the bell-shaped curve. I'm not sure which end. But at least I'm not normal. ;)


On the bell curve of accepted beliefs we're the wackos;)

128. Fleabytes

Comment #138694 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Would these people not be at then extreme ends of a bell shaped curve?


I sincerely hope so. But sometimes when I watch the evening news, I wonder.

129. Fleabytes

Comment #138684 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm

It's not a function of a religious mind, just of a standard mind. Religion has hijacked that function.


Ok, it can also be viewed that this 'function' is the cause of a religious interpretation of reality. If this dogmatic part of the brain is well or over developed, a religious perspective could be inevidable, being necessarily part of a certain brain structure. If this is the case then some people would be physically incapable of thinking undogmatically just as much as a paraplegic is incapable of running a marathon.

130. Fleabytes

Comment #138674 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm

OK. I won't disagree, just note that we are not that different. And many who were religious people are now atheists who aren't dogmatic anymore. The divide doesn't seem that great to me.


Of course, and that's not were I'm coming from. And yes, people convert and change their minds, I do it often myself. Also I am in no way implying that there is any sort of right or wrong here, just trying to make the point that there are those who would sooner kill before they would ever let go of a certain notion in their mind.

What causes that? Most of us would defend ourselves if physically threatened, but to solicit such a response based on conflicting beliefs is, to my mind, extreme. Compare Buddhism to Islamism and I think there is a good example of necessarily different mind structures. Possibly these different mind structures evolved because of different environments. The different environments causing the selection of a certain type of mindset - who knows, given enough time humans could evolve along different evolutionary branches based on different types of mindsets.

By the way, I'm a slow typer and I'm just thinking out loud, hopefully making for some interesting and thoughtful discussion:)

131. Fleabytes

Comment #138648 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I don't think there really is such a thing as a religious mind. More a mind that holds a belief stronger than another.


I disagree. I think there are 'religious minds' or minds predisposed to religiosity as their are high IQ's and low IQ's, autistic minds and artistic minds. And religious minds arise out of their structure, which necessarily causes a certain interpretation of reality or the environment.

Do you have any beliefs that are nigh unshakeable? If so, you have the same mind with similar characteristics as a religious person.


Well, I do identify myself as an atheist, and do try to keep an open mind. Although, I have seen people dogmatically hold to the most absurd ideas to their very grave. I couldn't see myself being like that, I can't relate to that doggedly dogmatic mindset - which leads me to believe (for lack of a better word) that it is necessarily a different kind of mind.

132. Fleabytes

Comment #138637 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 4:26 pm

It has a built in mechanism that prevents scruitiny. If you question the faith and find it wanting then there is something wrong with you.


From a humanistic and political perspective I can see how this would cause problems, as conflicting agendas. But from a purely materialistic perspective what does it really matter. It could also be possible that religious minds have evolved physiologically towards these traits, possibly making it practically impossible to change people's minds. If that is true there is nothing wrong with faith as much as there is nothing wrong with someone with blue eyes.

133. Fleabytes

Comment #138613 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Considering logic and emotion, different types of people and the environment. No doubt that physiological differences between people determines IQ, athletic ability, artistic ability, etc. Depending on the environment people live in will play a major role in the development of their physiological traits, which, in my mind, includes their emotional dispositions.

Over many generations this translates into natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. My question is then, what is causing religion? Or at least, as an area of more concern, 'toxic' religion? No doubt it must be a combination of many environmental factors and byproducts of survival mechanisms from generations gone by.

As an atheist I must view religion as a purely physical phenomenon, a matter of matter, what else could it be? Having said that, when I consider most cultures and societies and how much religious belief is an integral part of those cultures and societies, I can't help but wonder if challenging religious belief is like challenging an artist over the right way to go about his or her art.

134. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138320 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:40 am

Padre Pio is also said...to have been seen in two places at once...


As I was having lunch, there was his image in my toasted cheese sandwich, then I looked out the window and there he was again in the form of a cloud...

135. Fleabytes

Comment #138309 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:28 am

It could be possible that a large percentage of believers are unable to distinguish the difference between logic and emotion. They see their emotional response to the belief in God as evidence.

136. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138303 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 7:22 am

A Catholic magazine once found that far more Italian Catholics prayed to Padre Pio than to any other icon of the faith, including the Virgin Mary or Jesus.


...or Elvis.

137. Fleabytes

Comment #138263 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

I wasn't saying that it wouldn't be immoral to remain slient. Just that it wouldn't technically be a lie.


Would most likely fall under the definition of 'vindictive'.

138. Fleabytes

Comment #138246 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:19 am

Brian,

Well, we pose the real threat, and deep down they know it.

EDIT: Since when has hypocrisy been a problem for religion.

139. Fleabytes

Comment #138239 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 5:07 am

To a believer, nothing is more important than salvation. Not telling believers of other faiths that their salvation is in danger is being dishonest. A dereliction of duty.


I wouldn't encourage them.

140. Fleabytes

Comment #138223 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 4:41 am

...I had been discussing who I fancied on a TV series.


Wilma Derring (Erin Gray) from the Buck Rogers series... oooohh yeah.

Oops, let me just quickly put that back in the laundry basket...

141. Fleabytes

Comment #138215 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 4:24 am

In support of Philip1978,

NMcC, probably best just to let it go. I'm sure you will be able to share some worthwhile comments soon enough, but continuing in your current vein isn't achieving anything.

142. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138184 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 3:25 am

In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence)


"God just exists, alright, He just does. Now don't hurt my feelings."

143. Fleabytes

Comment #138151 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 2:10 am

MPhil,

I think your field of study and the knowledge you have suits the agenda of this site well. Well placed and timely philosophy is such a great weapon against unreason, it gets people thinking, and can be used effectively to lead people in the right direction. I'd say write an article and send it in to RD.net, see what happens.

144. Fleabytes

Comment #138130 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 1:16 am

I would be for the latter. Keep each separate and focused, and do a follow up article tying the whole thing together at the end.


Nicely put. Another idea would be to have a section in each that includes effective approaches to questions from theists. Appropriate and convincing ways to rebut or lead them to reason.

145. Fleabytes

Comment #138126 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 1:08 am

Then you could have the last chapter dedicated to God's only proven omni, omniabsence:)

146. Fleabytes

Comment #138121 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 1:03 am

MPhil,

If you could extend it to include all the 'omni...'s' and make it succinct and catchy I'd be for it.

EDIT: or do a series, one for each 'omni'.

147. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138114 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 12:44 am

Diacanu,

Was just reading some comments along the same lines on another thread and I wholeheartedly agree. This site really is a great resource. An oasis of reason.

148. Fleabytes

Comment #138064 by LorienRyan on March 3, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Brian,

I thought the other way around.

149. Fleabytes

Comment #138061 by LorienRyan on March 3, 2008 at 8:38 pm

experiencing dizziness

150. Fleabytes

Comment #138060 by LorienRyan on March 3, 2008 at 8:34 pm

howd I do

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next