| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dianelos Georgoudis" |
| Date: |
19 May 2006 03:39:16 AM |
| Object: |
objectivity found wanting? |
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe. Yet
consciousness exists - we are absolutely certain of that - which shows
that the rule "We should only believe in the existence of something
when there is objective evidence for it " is wrong, as we have just
found a counterexample.
If one should relax this rule and say "We should only believe in the
existence of something when it is directly perceived or when there is
objective evidence for it" then one can justify the existence of
consciousness by pointing out that one's own consciousness is directly
perceived, therefore it exists, and therefore consciousness in general
exists also. But how about the existence of other peoples'
consciousness? We don't perceive it directly and neither is there
objective evidence of it. Yet we know other peoples' consciousness
exists also - we are practically certain about that. So this form of
the rule doesn't work either.
How about: "We should only believe in the existence of something when
it is directly perceived or when there is evidence for it."? That's I
think the rule that rational thought should follow. But it's not
objective anymore. (And it makes you think what subjective evidence
there is for the existence of other peoples' consciousness.)
In short what I am claiming here is that objectivity directly leads to
the solipsistic view that one is the only conscious being there is.
Objectivity and non-solipsism are logically exclusive.
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
19 May 2006 07:54:13 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Pastor Kutchie wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
It's MEASURABLE, buddy. Study some cognitive psychology.
What is measurable? Consciousness itself? Can you measure for me
whether cockroaches are conscious beings? I've always wondered about
that.
Here's some examples of what sentient beings can be observed doing:
Solving problems
Running away
Attacking things, usually, but far from exclusively with the intention
of eating them.
Having sexual intercourse, and clearly enjoying it.
Remembering things
Forgetting things.
Dreaming
Being awake
Not being awake
Being dead
Suffering from point-of-view distortion of reality.
Being manipulated from beyond the conscious mind by received 'wisdom'
(look in the mirror).
Being intoxicated
Being infatuated
Anything on this list for which there are at present no defined metrics
are nonetheless capable of having metrics devised for them. Even poets
make a stab at it. Google Elizabeth Barrett-Browning.
Well, let's leave aside items for which no defined metrics already
exist, because I was asking for actual objective evidence not for
dreamed for objective evidence.
Those were pointers, you are meant to go look for yourself. Otherwise,
you're nothing but a troll and are not even entitled to any kind of
response. Also, there is no need to get abusive because your English
comprehension isn't perfect. That, also, isn't anybody else's problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 06:30:10 AM |
|
|
On 19 May 2006 05:54:13 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> in news message
<1148043253.671881.127390@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Pastor Kutchie wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
It's MEASURABLE, buddy. Study some cognitive psychology.
What is measurable? Consciousness itself? Can you measure for me
whether cockroaches are conscious beings? I've always wondered about
that.
Here's some examples of what sentient beings can be observed doing:
Solving problems
Running away
Attacking things, usually, but far from exclusively with the intention
of eating them.
Having sexual intercourse, and clearly enjoying it.
Remembering things
Forgetting things.
Dreaming
Being awake
Not being awake
Being dead
Suffering from point-of-view distortion of reality.
Being manipulated from beyond the conscious mind by received 'wisdom'
(look in the mirror).
Being intoxicated
Being infatuated
Anything on this list for which there are at present no defined metrics
are nonetheless capable of having metrics devised for them. Even poets
make a stab at it. Google Elizabeth Barrett-Browning.
Well, let's leave aside items for which no defined metrics already
exist, because I was asking for actual objective evidence not for
dreamed for objective evidence.
Those were pointers, you are meant to go look for yourself.
Looking for himself would refute his premise.
Otherwise,
you're nothing but a troll and are not even entitled to any kind of
response. Also, there is no need to get abusive because your English
comprehension isn't perfect. That, also, isn't anybody else's problem.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 04:08:40 PM |
|
|
Pastor Kutchie wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Pastor Kutchie wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
It's MEASURABLE, buddy. Study some cognitive psychology.
What is measurable? Consciousness itself? Can you measure for me
whether cockroaches are conscious beings? I've always wondered about
that.
Well?
Here's some examples of what sentient beings can be observed doing:
Solving problems
Running away
Attacking things, usually, but far from exclusively with the intention
of eating them.
Having sexual intercourse, and clearly enjoying it.
Remembering things
Forgetting things.
Dreaming
Being awake
Not being awake
Being dead
Suffering from point-of-view distortion of reality.
Being manipulated from beyond the conscious mind by received 'wisdom'
(look in the mirror).
Being intoxicated
Being infatuated
Anything on this list for which there are at present no defined metrics
are nonetheless capable of having metrics devised for them. Even poets
make a stab at it. Google Elizabeth Barrett-Browning.
Well, let's leave aside items for which no defined metrics already
exist, because I was asking for actual objective evidence not for
dreamed for objective evidence.
Those were pointers, you are meant to go look for yourself. Otherwise,
you're nothing but a troll and are not even entitled to any kind of
response. Also, there is no need to get abusive because your English
comprehension isn't perfect. That, also, isn't anybody else's problem.
Let's see. Evidence for which "no metrics" is known, "pointers"
instead of objective evidence, "go look for yourself", snipping the
text where I point out that at least one item in your list is not
objective evidence for the existence of consciousness, claiming that
only a troll would insist further - your position sounds a little
vague and defensive, don't you think?
Is it possible that you do hold some deeply felt beliefs even at the
absence of objective evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 04:32:07 PM |
|
|
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:08:40 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Is it possible that you do hold some deeply felt beliefs even at the
absence of objective evidence?
So what? Does that invalidate all of the objective evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
22 May 2006 12:10:55 AM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:08:40 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Is it possible that you do hold some deeply felt beliefs even at the
absence of objective evidence?
So what? Does that invalidate all of the objective evidence?
No, of course not. It's quite reasonable to justify one's beliefs on
objective evidence - in other words to say: "I believe in X because
it's the best explanation for this objective evidence E and if you
disagree then propose a better explanation Y for this objective
evidence."
So, clearly, objective evidence is sufficient to justify one's belief
in X. What I claim here is that objective evidence is not necessary to
justify one's belief in X. As a counterexample I have proposed X="the
existence of other peoples' consciousness" and have pointed out that it
is reasonable to believe in X even though there is no objective
evidence for it. I could have proposed many other examples, for example
"X=one should not hurt others". All reasonable people hold many
strongly felt beliefs for which there is no objective evidence, and
it's unreasonable to simply ignore this fact.
Now it's easy to criticize objectivity without proposing a solution.
Here is what I propose is reasonable:
The strict objectivity maxim is "I should only believe in X if there is
objective evidence for it". Or to put the same in a longer but clearer
form "I should only believe in X if there is objective evidence for
which X is the best explanation". That's the maxim used in the natural
sciences. So, for example, we believe that mass bends spacetime because
this is the best explanation for the objective evidence of
gravitational phenomena, such as the falling of apples or the movement
of planets in the night sky. Or we believe in the existence of the
electron because this is required for our best explanation for many
phenomena, such as magnet attracting iron or the light emitted by
flames - not to mention lightning.
The consistent application of this strict objectivity maxim is
unsustainable outside of natural sciences. For example when
consistently applied to the issue of consciousness it leads one to such
absurd stances as solipsism (to deny the existence other peoples'
consciousness) or to the even more absurd stance to deny the existence
of one's own consciousness.
Now a relaxed version of the objectivity maxim would be "We should only
believe in X when it is direct personal experience or if there is
objective evidence for which X is the best explanation." This version
justifies, for example, one's claim that one's consciousness exists,
or one's claim that one knows how pain feels like, and so on, all
obviously true claims that cannot be justified by the strict
objectivity maxim above. But this version still leads one to solipsism.
The maxim I find reasonable is this: "I should only believe in X when
it is direct personal experience or if there is evidence for which X is
the best explanation". Observe that I removed the "objective"
qualifier. This does not invalidate objective evidence but simply makes
its presence not an absolute requirement (except in the context of
natural sciences). Neither does this maxim invalidate rationality,
because when two people agree on the evidence (which can be objective,
subjective, or a mixture of the two) then they can still argue based on
reason about what is the best explanation for that evidence. For
example two people may agree that subjective religious experiences are
real and discuss what the best explanation for that evidence is.
So, I think that this is a good solution. Do you agree? And if not, why
not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
22 May 2006 12:16:25 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1148274655.713516.250650@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:08:40 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Is it possible that you do hold some deeply felt beliefs even at the
absence of objective evidence?
So what? Does that invalidate all of the objective evidence?
No, of course not. It's quite reasonable to justify one's beliefs on
objective evidence - in other words to say: "I believe in X because
it's the best explanation for this objective evidence E and if you
disagree then propose a better explanation Y for this objective
evidence."
So, clearly, objective evidence is sufficient to justify one's belief
in X. What I claim here is that objective evidence is not necessary to
justify one's belief in X. As a counterexample I have proposed X="the
existence of other peoples' consciousness" and have pointed out that it
is reasonable to believe in X even though there is no objective
evidence for it.
That only applies to/for you.
<snipola>
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
23 May 2006 04:15:28 AM |
|
|
An Sun, 21 May 2006 22:10:55 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:08:40 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Is it possible that you do hold some deeply felt beliefs even at the
absence of objective evidence?
So what? Does that invalidate all of the objective evidence?
No, of course not. It's quite reasonable to justify one's beliefs on
objective evidence - in other words to say: "I believe in X because
it's the best explanation for this objective evidence E and if you
disagree then propose a better explanation Y for this objective
evidence."
So, clearly, objective evidence is sufficient to justify one's belief
in X. What I claim here is that objective evidence is not necessary to
justify one's belief in X.
You are absolutely right here. In fact there are many people who believe
in X without any objective evidence whatsoever. When you argue with them,
they tend to make really crazy statements that don't make sense until you
understand the facts they used to derive there argument.
As a counterexample I have proposed X="the
existence of other peoples' consciousness" and have pointed out that it
is reasonable to believe in X even though there is no objective
evidence for it.
Except that in the case you chose to use, there is plenty of objective
evidence. The shame of it is that when you are presented with such
evidence, you make crazy nonsensical statements that indicate that your
mind is closed this evidence.
I could have proposed many other examples, for example "X=one should not
hurt others". All reasonable people hold many strongly felt beliefs for
which there is no objective evidence, and it's unreasonable to simply
ignore this fact.
Now it's easy to criticize objectivity without proposing a solution.
Here is what I propose is reasonable:
The strict objectivity maxim is "I should only believe in X if there is
objective evidence for it". Or to put the same in a longer but clearer
form "I should only believe in X if there is objective evidence for
which X is the best explanation".
I think this is where your consciousness argument is fucked. You need to
be able to not believe in X when new evidence is presented that
contradicts X. No one is immune. I can remember the difficulty I had
when I started to learn conditional probability.
That's the maxim used in the natural
sciences. So, for example, we believe that mass bends space-time because
this is the best explanation for the objective evidence of gravitational
phenomena, such as the falling of apples or the movement of planets in
the night sky. Or we believe in the existence of the electron because
this is required for our best explanation for many phenomena, such as
magnet attracting iron or the light emitted by flames - not to mention
lightning.
The consistent application of this strict objectivity maxim is
unsustainable outside of natural sciences. For example when consistently
applied to the issue of consciousness it leads one to such absurd
stances as solipsism (to deny the existence other peoples'
consciousness) or to the even more absurd stance to deny the existence
of one's own consciousness.
Or in your case, to ignore the evidence.
Now a relaxed version of the objectivity maxim would be "We should only
believe in X when it is direct personal experience or if there is
objective evidence for which X is the best explanation." This version
justifies, for example, one's claim that one's consciousness exists, or
one's claim that one knows how pain feels like, and so on, all obviously
true claims that cannot be justified by the strict objectivity maxim
above. But this version still leads one to solipsism.
I think you have it backwards. Solipsism leads to rejecting objective
evidence if it conflicts with your preconceived maxims.
The maxim I find reasonable is this: "I should only believe in X when it
is direct personal experience or if there is evidence for which X is the
best explanation". Observe that I removed the "objective" qualifier.
This does not invalidate objective evidence but simply makes its
presence not an absolute requirement (except in the context of natural
sciences). Neither does this maxim invalidate rationality, because when
two people agree on the evidence (which can be objective, subjective, or
a mixture of the two) then they can still argue based on reason about
what is the best explanation for that evidence. For example two people
may agree that subjective religious experiences are real and discuss
what the best explanation for that evidence is.
Why do you keep saying that evidence collected by others is not
objective. Subjective evidence is objective evidence of what the subject
believes, be it you or someone else.
So, I think that this is a good solution. Do you agree? And if not, why
not?
It is as good as any other; it doesn't really make any difference. You
may have fewer arguments with others, but you won't change the reality
of nature. You will continue to believe what you believe.
When you believe something and are presented with evidence contrary to
your belief, you either cease believing or you reject the evidence. When
you gather together with other people who believe as you do, you will not
challenge any of your common unsubstantiated beliefs. You will probably
make new ones. When you meet up with people from another group like yours,
you will have a religious war because the foundations of your belief
structure is built on consensus with those you hang out with.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramod Subramanyan" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 09:45:36 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe.
I think I agree with this. I've also come to a similar conclusion. But
I can't really formulate it in precise terms.
What I think Dianelos wants to say is that its difficult to put a
finger on something and say "THIS is consciousness". Its a vague
concept. And maybe, its a vacuous one as well. A rough analogy would
with the "ether" or 19th century physics, maybe the thing called
"consciousness" is a complicated rationalization to a problem which we
are trying to solve the wrong way.
Yet
consciousness exists - we are absolutely certain of that - which shows
that the rule "We should only believe in the existence of something
when there is objective evidence for it " is wrong, as we have just
found a counterexample.
If one should relax this rule and say "We should only believe in the
existence of something when it is directly perceived or when there is
objective evidence for it" then one can justify the existence of
consciousness by pointing out that one's own consciousness is directly
perceived, therefore it exists, and therefore consciousness in general
exists also. But how about the existence of other peoples'
consciousness? We don't perceive it directly and neither is there
objective evidence of it. Yet we know other peoples' consciousness
exists also - we are practically certain about that. So this form of
the rule doesn't work either.
How about: "We should only believe in the existence of something when
it is directly perceived or when there is evidence for it."? That's I
think the rule that rational thought should follow. But it's not
objective anymore. (And it makes you think what subjective evidence
there is for the existence of other peoples' consciousness.)
In short what I am claiming here is that objectivity directly leads to
the solipsistic view that one is the only conscious being there is.
Objectivity and non-solipsism are logically exclusive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 08:21:01 PM |
|
|
An Sat, 20 May 2006 07:45:36 -0700, Pramod Subramanyan hat geschreibt:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe.
I think I agree with this. I've also come to a similar conclusion. But
I can't really formulate it in precise terms.
You get causality wrong:
1. Phenomena exists.
2. People observe objective evidence of phenomena.
3. People classify evidence and give it a name, consciousness or ether.
4. People make models of the evidence to try to explain phenomena.
5. Observe, classify, model, repeat.
Over time technology improves the instrumentation used to measure the
phenomena, new more precise evidence, causing us to refine the model where
it doesn't fit the new evidence.
What I think Dianelos wants to say is that its difficult to put a
finger on something and say "THIS is consciousness". Its a vague
concept. And maybe, its a vacuous one as well.
That is a testament to the fact that our measurement tools are too crude
for us to classify the evidence well enough to make a model that explains
the phenomena.
A rough analogy would
with the "ether" or 19th century physics, maybe the thing called
"consciousness" is a complicated rationalization to a problem which we
are trying to solve the wrong way.
Yet Einstein concludes at University of Leyden, May 5, 1920:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of
light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and
time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense."
If you read the entire speech you find that it was the observation of
certain properties of light that led scientists to conclude there was an
ether, and until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, the
explanation was illusive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
22 May 2006 04:34:13 AM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sat, 20 May 2006 07:45:36 -0700, Pramod Subramanyan hat geschreibt:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe.
I think I agree with this. I've also come to a similar conclusion. But
I can't really formulate it in precise terms.
You get causality wrong:
1. Phenomena exists.
Right, phenomena exist.
2. People observe objective evidence of phenomena.
Right. Also observe that "objective evidence" and "physical phenomena"
are exact synonyms (any objective evidence is a physical phenomenon,
and any physical phenomenon is objective evidence). I mean it is
impossible to observe objective evidence of non-phenomena, so your
language above is somewhat redundant.
3. People classify evidence and give it a name, consciousness or ether.
I disagree with both examples. Consciousness is not objective evidence
itself - if it were nobody would wonder whether, say, cockroaches have
it. Neither is the luminiferous ether objective evidence. Ether was a
hypothesis proposed to explain objective evidence, namely phenomena
related to the propagation of light. It's very important to distinguish
between objective evidence and the hypotheses introduced to explain it.
4. People make models of the evidence to try to explain phenomena.
Yeees - but again "objective evidence" and "physical phenomena" are
synonymous, so that's tortuous language.
5. Observe, classify, model, repeat.
I know what you mean, but I would have put it "Observe, model, test."
Over time technology improves the instrumentation used to measure the
phenomena, new more precise evidence, causing us to refine the model where
it doesn't fit the new evidence.
What helps us refine the models are not instrumentation but new
objective evidence that does not fit the model. Sometimes, but not
always, we get that contrary evidence through better instrumentation.
What I think Dianelos wants to say is that its difficult to put a
finger on something and say "THIS is consciousness". Its a vague
concept. And maybe, its a vacuous one as well.
That is a testament to the fact that our measurement tools are too crude
for us to classify the evidence well enough to make a model that explains
the phenomena.
So I take it you are saying that there is no actual objective evidence
for the existence of consciousness, but that this is only because our
measurement tools are still too crude, and that more precise
measurement tools will produce such evidence in the future. Could be -
I mean it's not strictly impossible. Your argument is this:
1. I know that consciousness exists.
2. There is objective evidence for anything that exists.
3. Therefore there is objective evidence for the existence of
consciousness.
4. We don't now have objective evidence for the existence of
consciousness.
5. Therefore there must be some problem with the measuring tools we use
to collect objective evidence.
I don't find any error with the logic, except of course that #1 is a
subjective statement. Also one could use the same argument for anything
one subjectively thinks exists - for example try substituting
"consciousness" above with "luminiferous ether" or with
"astrological effect" or with "PSI and supernatural powers of the
mind" or with "life after death".
Interesting argument though - I don't think I have encountered it
before.
A rough analogy would
with the "ether" or 19th century physics, maybe the thing called
"consciousness" is a complicated rationalization to a problem which we
are trying to solve the wrong way.
Yet Einstein concludes at University of Leyden, May 5, 1920:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of
light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and
time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals
in the physical sense."
If you read the entire speech you find that it was the observation of
certain properties of light that led scientists to conclude there was an
ether, and until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, the
explanation was illusive.
And here is what Einstein said next: "But this ether may not be
thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it." What do you think of that?
To me it sounds as if he didn't know what he was talking about.
Einstein was a scientific realist and, like all scientific realists,
had specific preconceptions about how the objective and independent
physical reality out there must be, which led him to some strongly
worded claims that today were experimentally proven to be wrong (such
as the impossibility of non-local phenomena; in fact I think that
non-local phenomena, not to mention QED's success, pretty much
invalidate any ether concept). What's certain is that today, 86 years
after that speech, science does not require the ether hypothesis to
explain any physical phenomena, and therefore one is not justified to
believe that ether exists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 05:16:44 PM |
|
|
Pramod Subramanyan wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe.
I think I agree with this. I've also come to a similar conclusion. But
I can't really formulate it in precise terms.
What I think Dianelos wants to say is that its difficult to put a
finger on something and say "THIS is consciousness". Its a vague
concept.
Well, actually many existents we all agree about are in many ways
"vague" concepts. Take for example the electron: Even though nobody
doubts the electron's existence because it is the best explanation for
electrical phenomena, the fact is that nobody has a clear pictura of
what an electron is (the best theory QED appears to be saying that when
an electron moves from point A to point B it follows all possible paths
throughout the universe at arbitrary speeds - even much higher than the
speed of light). And of course nobody can actually put a finger o
something and say "this is an electron".
And maybe, its a vacuous one as well. A rough analogy would
with the "ether" or 19th century physics, maybe the thing called
"consciousness" is a complicated rationalization to a problem which we
are trying to solve the wrong way.
There is fundamental difference between the case of luminiferous ether
and the case consciousness. Even people who believed in the existence
of the ether (because they found it was the best explanation for the
propagation of light) accepted the possibility that it might not exist
and that that a better explanation for the propagation of light might
be found in the future (as in fact it was). But nobody really doubts
the existence of consciousness and nobody can really even imagine what
it means to doubt the existence of consciousness, because in the very
act of doubting one is affirming its existence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
19 May 2006 09:13:27 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 19 May 2006 01:39:16 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Liar.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 05:06:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 May 2006 09:13:27 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism On 19 May 2006 01:39:16 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Liar.
Resorting to solipsism is a tactic of desperation. It is kind of
pathetic isn't it?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 09:03:02 AM |
|
|
On 19 May 2006 01:39:16 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe. Yet
consciousness exists - we are absolutely certain of that - which shows
that the rule "We should only believe in the existence of something
when there is objective evidence for it " is wrong, as we have just
found a counterexample.
Conciousness considers itself. So conciousness becomes its own
observation. Then it becomes its own best explanation.
If one should relax this rule and say "We should only believe in the
existence of something when it is directly perceived or when there is
objective evidence for it" then one can justify the existence of
consciousness by pointing out that one's own consciousness is directly
perceived, therefore it exists, and therefore consciousness in general
exists also. But how about the existence of other peoples'
consciousness? We don't perceive it directly and neither is there
objective evidence of it. Yet we know other peoples' consciousness
exists also - we are practically certain about that. So this form of
the rule doesn't work either.
How about: "We should only believe in the existence of something when
it is directly perceived or when there is evidence for it."? That's I
think the rule that rational thought should follow. But it's not
objective anymore. (And it makes you think what subjective evidence
there is for the existence of other peoples' consciousness.)
In short what I am claiming here is that objectivity directly leads to
the solipsistic view that one is the only conscious being there is.
Objectivity and non-solipsism are logically exclusive.
Then maybe there is something wrong with either your objectivity or
your logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 05:13:43 PM |
|
|
William Wingstedt wrote:
On 19 May 2006 01:39:16 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
There is no objective evidence of consciousness. In other words there
is no objective observation for which the existence of consciousness is
the best explanation. So the consciousness hypothesis is not required
for understanding any of our observations of the physical universe. Yet
consciousness exists - we are absolutely certain of that - which shows
that the rule "We should only believe in the existence of something
when there is objective evidence for it " is wrong, as we have just
found a counterexample.
Conciousness considers itself. So conciousness becomes its own
observation. Then it becomes its own best explanation.
I am not sure what you mean, but it sure does not sound like you are
speaking of objective evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 07:35:40 PM |
|
|
An Sat, 20 May 2006 15:13:43 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
I am not sure what you mean, but it sure does not sound like you are
speaking of objective evidence.
Let me put it a different way. Maybe there is something wrong with either
your logic or your objectivity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
19 May 2006 06:01:28 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 04:10:35 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that. How about you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 04:34:46 PM |
|
|
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that. How about you?
There is objective evidence. If you choose to ignore it so that you can
base your belief on faith instead of evidence, that is your concern.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
22 May 2006 01:52:03 AM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that. How about you?
There is objective evidence. If you choose to ignore it so that you can
base your belief on faith instead of evidence, that is your concern.
I am asking for objective evidence for the existence of conciousness.
Now, we say that there is objective evidence for some belief when this
belief is the best explanation for this objective evidence. And
objective evidence is evidence that anybody can at least in principle
independently validate. That's objectivity 101. I suppose we agree this
far.
So, propose one piece of objective evidence for which the existence of
consciousness is the best explanation. Some people in this thread have
proposed a few examples but in all cases the existence of particular
physical processes in our brain is the best explanation to account for
these examples, so they don't count as objective evidence for the
existence of consciousness but as objective evidence for the existence
of these physical processes in our brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
22 May 2006 08:14:03 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 21 May 2006 23:52:03 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Sat, 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, Dianelos Georgoudis hat geschreibt:
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that. How about you?
There is objective evidence. If you choose to ignore it so that you can
base your belief on faith instead of evidence, that is your concern.
I am asking for objective evidence for the existence of conciousness.
You've been given it.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
20 May 2006 05:38:01 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that. How about you?
Your "objective" evidence would be contradictory with what you want to
prove.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 04:38:26 PM |
|
|
An Sat, 20 May 2006 15:38:01 -0700, Chris H. Fleming hat geschreibt:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that. How about you?
Your "objective" evidence would be contradictory with what you want to
prove.
He holds a belief that it is a fact there is no objective evidence of
consciousness. Therefore whenever he is confronted with objective
evidence of such, he cannot see that it exists. There is nothing to
prove, there is no argument that will shake his preconception.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 02:17:42 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that.
But there is, and you just provided it.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 04:54:21 PM |
|
|
An Sun, 21 May 2006 02:17:42 -0500, Don Kresch hat geschreibt:
In alt.atheism On 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that.
But there is, and you just provided it.
Dianelos is demonstrating that facts are nothing more than beliefs that
are true to the person holding them. He also demonstrates how his faith
in this fact inspires him to interpret everything so that it is consistent
with his belief. I suppose that this was his premise all along even
though he suggested that it was only true in the absence of objective
evidence, he proves that it is true in spite of such evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 05:10:52 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that.
But there is, and you just provided it.
You mean the fact that I post to usenet is objective evidence for the
existence of my consciousness? If so you are quite wrong, because
modern science has found a much better explanation for that objective
evidence, namely the physical structure of my brain and physical
processes that happen there. So you don't need to hypothesize that my
consciousness exists in order to explain the evidence you suggest.
Even so, you still believe that other peoples' consciousness exists,
correct? How can that be? The only possible answer is because you use
objectivity in a selective manner. Where the application of objectivity
gives results that don't seem right you simply ignore objectivity.
Which is ok - I do the same. Everybody does. What bothers me is that
many pretend that they do not and loudly proclaim that they strictly
require the presence of objective evidence for anything before
believing in its existence. Which, my argument here shows, is either
delusional or hypocritical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 02:49:26 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 21 May 2006 03:10:52 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that.
But there is, and you just provided it.
You mean the fact that I post to usenet is objective evidence for the
existence of my consciousness?
Yep, and I'm quite correct. Argumentation presupposes
consciousness.
You. Lose.
Got any more refuted-to-death ***** you'd like to trot out
so that we can see even more evidence of how fucking stupid you are?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 03:38:17 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 21 May 2006 03:10:52 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though there
is no objective evidence for that.
But there is, and you just provided it.
You mean the fact that I post to usenet is objective evidence for the
existence of my consciousness?
Yep, and I'm quite correct. Argumentation presupposes
consciousness.
No it doesn't. Argumentation (as well as any other objectively
observable human behavior) is best explained by the existence of
physical processes happening in a human brain, as modern science has
clearly shown. No consciousness hypothesis required.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
21 May 2006 03:18:52 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in
news:1148243897.725407.226960@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 21 May 2006 03:10:52 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 20 May 2006 14:10:35 -0700, "Dianelos
Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Dianelos Georgoudis in episode
<1148027956.597785.121960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
There is no objective evidence of consciousness.
Then you didn't post anything and nobody can reply...
Ah, but I do believe that people are conscious beings even though
there is no objective evidence for that.
But there is, and you just provided it.
You mean the fact that I post to usenet is objective evidence for
the existence of my consciousness?
Yep, and I'm quite correct. Argumentation presupposes
consciousness.
No it doesn't. Argumentation (as well as any other objectively
observable human behavior) is best explained by the existence of
physical processes happening in a human brain, as modern science has
clearly shown. No consciousness hypothesis required.
DG is playing sillybuggers now, since the physical processes are
equivalent to "consciousness" in the scientific hypothesis.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
How can we connect the dots
if we cannot collect the dots?
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: objectivity found wanting? |
22 May 2006 01:30:08 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in
news:1148243897.725407.226960@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On 21 May 2006 03:10:52 -0700, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> let us all know that:
[snip]
You mean the fact that I post to usenet is objective evidence for
the existence of my consciousness?
Yep, and I'm quite correct. Argumentation presupposes
consciousness.
No it doesn't. Argumentation (as well as any other objectively
observable human behavior) is best explained by the existence of
physical processes happening in a human brain, as modern science has
clearly shown. No consciousness hypothesis required.
DG is playing sillybuggers now, since the physical processes are
equivalent to "consciousness" in the scientific hypothesis.
What do you mean by "equivalent"? This sounds pretty vague to me.
Actually, some researchers do suggest that consciousness is *identical*
to the brain's physical processes. This belief is riddled with
paradoxes (to suggest this identity is tantamount to suggesting that
flying is identical to the airplane) and that's why most researchers
prefer not to follow that line and keep trying to understand how the
brain's processes produce consciousness. The greatest problem though
with the belief that consciousness is nothing more than the brain's
physical processes is that there is no objective evidence for this
belief. So, again, we don't need the "consciousness=brain processes"
hypothesis to explain any objective observation, and therefore it is
not a scientifically valid hypothesis. Of course you don't need the
"brain processes produce consciousness" hypothesis either. (And just to
dispel any misunderstanding I fully agree that as far as science goes
strict objectivity is required in all cases.)
The whole issue really looks hopeless from the materialist point of
view; that's why the phrase "Hard Problem" was coined to describe the
problem of understanding consciousness. On the one hand we know
consciousness exists, on the other hand it appears impossible to fit in
a materialistic view of reality, and to top it all science refuses to
consider consciousness itself as a valid hypothesis because it is not
required for explaining any objective phenomenon - and explaining
objective phenomena is what science does.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
