| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
13 Dec 2005 02:37:25 PM |
|
|
In article <namdndcTIIDkmQLenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dnlbdl$l19$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dnjqr5$fvi$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dne7mf$pu2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
... subjective evidence....
There is no such thing.
ROTFL.
Laugh all you want,
I shall.
that doesn't change the facts.
Indeed it doesn't. Subjective evidence abounds.
Personal subjective
conviction (belief) does not qualify as evidence of anything.
Stop trying to change the subject. My claim is about subjective
evidence, not "subjective conviction"
Aren't you claiming that subjective conviction (belief) is evidence of
something?
It is evidence of what one believes!
Or does Septic claim that there can be no such thing as beliefs because
there cannot be any objective evidence that they exist?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
13 Dec 2005 12:51:17 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dnlbdl$l19$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dnjqr5$fvi$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dne7mf$pu2$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
... subjective evidence....
There is no such thing.
ROTFL.
Laugh all you want,
I shall.
that doesn't change the facts.
Indeed it doesn't. Subjective evidence abounds.
Personal subjective
conviction (belief) does not qualify as evidence of anything.
Stop trying to change the subject. My claim is about subjective
evidence, not "subjective conviction"
Aren't you claiming that subjective conviction (belief) is evidence of
something?
I'm claiming that there is subjective evidence (i.e, evidence whose
correlation with what it is evidence for, cannot ultimately be
third-party verified). This includes such things as a dog yelping (which
is not a belief or a conviction), as well statements such as "I have a
headache" (which is a *statement* - a declarative sentence - not to be
confused with the belief or a conviction that it might express).
These are obervable items of evidence for, respectively, the dog being
in pain, and the person having a headache. But we cannot ultimately
third-party verify that these items of evidence correlate with conscious
states of pain or headaches. That is why they are subjective evidence,
in the specific sense defined.
I've explained all this to you before, but you seem to want to pretend
that you're too stupid to understand.
So, if you are willing to address my claims about subjective evidence,
please do. But you can stop trying to change the subject onto subjective
beliefs or subjective convictions. I'm not talking about that and
anything you or Popper might have to say about subjective convictions or
subjective beliefs is irrelevent to my claim.
Goober.
Doesn't Popper explain why that is not so?
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
12 Dec 2005 05:01:57 PM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn3iul$c4m$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Could one teach a dog any
new tricks (operant conditioning) if it were unconscious?
That's essentially what the inventor of that term "operant
conditioning" (B.F.Skinner) assumed.
Skinner taught comatose animals new tricks?
You're deliberately missing the point as usual.
Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi from Septic, one of his favorites.
For all that Skinner's
behaviourism (long since rejected as a methodological basis for
cognitive science) is concerned, a subject might just as well be an
unconscious automoton behaving as if it were genuinely conscious. That
is the point - Skinnerian behaviourism does not posit an inner realm of
conscious experiences. In fact it holds that private conscious or mental
events cannot be studied scientifically. Hence, so far as Skinner was
concerned, a subject could be conscious or unconscious, have mental
states or not, for all that matters (in his view) is that we can model
stimulus and response, neither of which were private mental events. To
say that something is conscious, is to attribute to that thing a private
mental state.
If you mean by "wake up" to induce the behaviour that we interpret as
indicative of consciousness, yes.
You don't think consciousness is a physical state of the body
On the contrary, I think consciousness is a physical process of the
brain, and that the evidence for this relies on subjective evidence.
Thus Fallacy of Strawman from Septic, due to complete misunderstanding
on his part yet again.
being
awake, alert, emitting operant behavior and responding to stimuli,
contrasted with being unconscious as when the body is under full
anesthesia and not responsive to stimuli?
Repeating your compounding of evidence for P with P itself makes you
look stupid every time.
Absolutely.
What is conscious then in your
opinion, something mystical?
See above.
Nicely refuted, Goober. Thanks for taking the time.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
06 Dec 2005 09:50:33 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious)
don't you agree?
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
Aren't you presenting with
evidence of being conscious by posting your silly arguments to Usenet?
That's a complex question (a "have you stopped beating your wife?"
question).
Well, no, observed objectively, you are in fact seen to be posting
arguments to Usenet. See your silly BS argument for example, in which
you try to get away with assuming your desired connclusion as a premise
(begging the question).
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean? Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to
agreement concerning our observations of events in the world? We cannot
demonstrate knowledge of the nature of things by publicly demonstrating
the ability to control and/or predict events, verifiably, replicably?
Isn't that what science is all about? In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
06 Dec 2005 08:34:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1133884232.967808.185700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean? Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to
agreement concerning our observations of events in the world?
WE SCIENTISTS"? Now there's an oxynoron to beat all!
Septic's anti-scientific poses are notorious here. ALost as infamous as
his anti-logical ones.
We cannot
demonstrate knowledge of the nature of things by publicly demonstrating
the ability to control and/or predict events, verifiably, replicably?
In the area of animal behaviour, there are still considerable limits on
how well one can predict it, even if one is a scientist, which Septic is
not.
Anyone who claims otherwise is being patently anti-scientific.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
07 Dec 2005 10:46:58 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious". So,
of course I disagree.
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
Seen it.
Aren't you presenting with
evidence of being conscious by posting your silly arguments to Usenet?
That's a complex question (a "have you stopped beating your wife?"
question).
Well, no,
Well, yes.
observed objectively, you are in fact seen to be posting
arguments to Usenet.
I never denied it.
See your silly BS argument for example, in which
you try to get away with assuming your desired connclusion as a premise
(begging the question).
I invite you again to justify that.
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean?
See my posts.
Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to
agreement concerning our observations of events in the world?
I never said nor do I mean that scientists (regardles of whether you are
one or not) can't come to some agreeement about observations of events
in the world.
We cannot
demonstrate knowledge of the nature of things by publicly demonstrating
the ability to control and/or predict events, verifiably, replicably?
I never denied that.
Isn't that what science is all about?
I never denied that.
In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
The subject of our observation may be presenting us, by his or her
behaviour, with satisfactory evidence of being conscious. That evidence
is subjective: viz, its veracity cannot be third-party objectively verified.
Goober.
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 02:38:59 AM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so. I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared to regain consciousness at 0942" in my
report unless I observe that the animal is now upright, presenting with
evidence of being awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli (conscious),
can I? Aren't we as scientists looking for objective evidence
(observable phenomena) that can, at least in principle, be observed by
any third party, to verify our observations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 01:33:30 PM |
|
|
In article <RvSdnbLtXZK_bAreRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Septic does not appear to think at all!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 07:55:15 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Your personal subjective convictions (beliefs) on the matter are
irrelevant, Septic.
I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared
Aye there's the rub. The subject _appearing_ conscious is not direct
observation that the subject _is_ conscious. Once again you attempt to
conflate the two, Septic. Won't work. We're on to your fallacious
tactics.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 12:44:45 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134050115.777785.295150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just
like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed
presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Your personal subjective convictions (beliefs) on the matter are
irrelevant, Septic.
I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared
Aye there's the rub. The subject _appearing_ conscious is not direct
observation that the subject _is_ conscious. \
Except that it is detected by observation (that's all we have for
detecting phenomena). Consciousness is an observable phenomenon.
You suspect Pavlov's dogs were just faking it when Pavlov observed that
they were awake, alert, and responsive to his stimuli (conscious)?
'Consciousness' is defined as being awake, alert, and responsive to
stimuli. It is an objectively observable phenomenon. The doctor can't
perform major surgery until the subject is rendered unconscious by
anesthesia. How do you think they know it when the subject is
unconscious? Right, by observing the subject. You want electronic
sensors? Fine, that is just an aid to observing the subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 07:39:54 PM |
|
|
In article <BNmdnTMg4b-E4gXenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134050115.777785.295150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Aye there's the rub. The subject _appearing_ conscious is not direct
observation that the subject _is_ conscious. \
Except that it is detected by observation (that's all we have for
detecting phenomena). Consciousness is an observable phenomenon.
The appearance of consciousness is an observable phenomenon, but does
not guarantee the noumenon of actual consciousness.
A prime example of an appearance of consciousness without the reality
is a person under hypnosis.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 02:21:01 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134050115.777785.295150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just
like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed
presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Your personal subjective convictions (beliefs) on the matter are
irrelevant, Septic.
I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared
Aye there's the rub. The subject _appearing_ conscious is not direct
observation that the subject _is_ conscious. \
Except that it is detected by observation
Consciousness is not. Only behavior is, and consciousness is not
behavior. You've been told this, Septic, and you will be told it again
(and again and again and...).
(that's all we have for
detecting phenomena).
That does not magically turn consciousness into a directly detectable
phenomenon. It's not. When you have evidence of mind-melding or other
mind-connecting phenomena, get back to us, won't you Septic.
Consciousness is an observable phenomenon.
False at present. (Go back and read Goober's excellent explanation
why.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
09 Dec 2005 06:20:31 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134050115.777785.295150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just
like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed
presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Your personal subjective convictions (beliefs) on the matter are
irrelevant, Septic.
I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared
Aye there's the rub. The subject _appearing_ conscious is not direct
observation that the subject _is_ conscious. \
Except that it is detected by observation
Yes.
(that's all we have for
detecting phenomena). Consciousness is an observable phenomenon.
No. See previous posts for why.
You suspect Pavlov's dogs were just faking it when Pavlov observed that
they were awake, alert, and responsive to his stimuli (conscious)?
'Consciousness' is defined as being awake, alert, and responsive to
stimuli.
You (again) run together behavioural evidence for being conscious with
being conscious. Being conscious and being awake are close synonyms;
being conscious are being responsive to stimuli are not synonyms at all.
For example, a completely paralysed dog would not be responsive to
stimuli, but might yet be fully conscious.
It is an objectively observable phenomenon. The doctor can't
perform major surgery until the subject is rendered unconscious by
anesthesia. How do you think they know it when the subject is
unconscious? Right, by observing the subject. You want electronic
sensors? Fine, that is just an aid to observing the subject.
And any such observaions are not the same thing as what those
observations are evidence for.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
09 Dec 2005 06:27:40 PM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134050115.777785.295150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Your personal subjective convictions (beliefs) on the matter are
irrelevant, Septic.
I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared
Aye there's the rub. The subject _appearing_ conscious is not direct
observation that the subject _is_ conscious. \
Except that it is detected by observation
Yes.
And just to be entirely clear here - I am saying that consciousness is
detected by observation, but not observation *of* conscious states. It
is detected by observation of events or behaviours that are evidence of
conscious states.
Goober
(that's all we have for
detecting phenomena). Consciousness is an observable phenomenon.
No. See previous posts for why.
You suspect Pavlov's dogs were just faking it when Pavlov observed
that they were awake, alert, and responsive to his stimuli (conscious)?
'Consciousness' is defined as being awake, alert, and responsive to
stimuli.
You (again) run together behavioural evidence for being conscious with
being conscious. Being conscious and being awake are close synonyms;
being conscious are being responsive to stimuli are not synonyms at all.
For example, a completely paralysed dog would not be responsive to
stimuli, but might yet be fully conscious.
It is an objectively observable phenomenon. The doctor can't
perform major surgery until the subject is rendered unconscious by
anesthesia. How do you think they know it when the subject is
unconscious? Right, by observing the subject. You want electronic
sensors? Fine, that is just an aid to observing the subject.
And any such observaions are not the same thing as what those
observations are evidence for.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
09 Dec 2005 02:13:29 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8dru$1fs$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive
(conscious)
don't you agree?
You are compounding "concious" with "evidence for being conscious".
I don't think so.
Take my advice - don't believe everything you think.
I can't write "After being unconscious for
approximately one hour and ten minutes due to injection of total
anesthetic, subject appeared to regain consciousness at 0942" in my
report unless I observe that the animal is now upright, presenting with
evidence of being awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli (conscious),
can I? Aren't we as scientists looking for objective evidence
(observable phenomena) that can, at least in principle, be observed by
any third party, to verify our observations?
You're still compounding *being* conscious with the *evidence for* being
conscious: "responsive to stimuli (conscious)". Being responsive to
stimuli is what you observe (the evidence), being conscious is not
observed, it is *inferred from* the evidence (such has responsiveness to
stimuli). Being responsive to stimuli is evidence *for* the subject
being conscious, it is not *identical* with that subject being
conscious. What you observe is evidence *of* the subject being
conscious, but you cannot third-party verify that that evidence
corresponds with a conscious state. Hence it is subjective.
It really isn't that difficult.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 12:50:53 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
The subject of our observation may be presenting us, by his or her
behaviour, with satisfactory evidence of being conscious. That evidence
is subjective: viz, its veracity cannot be third-party objectively verified.
No, not subjective, it is objective (based on observable phenomena).
See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious), you and I have observed it, and any other investigator can
verify it by replicating the observation. For example, I spent a lot
of time in the lab years ago replicating Furster and Skinner's
observations (cumulative records of behavior under different schedules
of reinforcement).
http://tinylink.com/?2VUHnRaqwK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 02:33:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1134024653.552774.100040@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
The subject of our observation may be presenting us, by his or her
behaviour, with satisfactory evidence of being conscious. That evidence
is subjective: viz, its veracity cannot be third-party objectively verified.
No, not subjective, it is objective (based on observable phenomena).
See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective
As there is no direct test of consciousness, and it its presence is
deduced only from other evidences, which may be deceiving, it is not
entirely objective.
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious), you and I have observed it, and any other investigator can
verify it by replicating the observation. For example, I spent a lot
of time in the lab years ago replicating Furster and Skinner's
observations (cumulative records of behavior under different schedules
of reinforcement).
Skinner is dead, and so is much of his theory.
And if Septic spent so much time on Skinner's psychology, it is no
wonder he is so mixed up both personally and about science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 02:37:38 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
The subject of our observation may be presenting us, by his or her
behaviour, with satisfactory evidence of being conscious. That evidence
is subjective: viz, its veracity cannot be third-party objectively verified.
No, not subjective, it is objective
No, it is subjective (i.e., not third-party verifiable).
(based on observable phenomena).
See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective
Seen it.
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious),
I see you're still conflating "conscious" with the behavioural *evidence
for being conscious* (such as being responsive to stimuli). When you get
that difference straight, let me know.
you and I have observed it, and any other investigator can
verify it by replicating the observation. For example, I spent a lot
of time in the lab years ago replicating Furster and Skinner's
observations (cumulative records of behavior under different schedules
of reinforcement).
http://tinylink.com/?2VUHnRaqwK
How terribly uninteresting. Are you trying to tell me you're a
behaviourist?
Goober.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 03:24:12 AM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8rci$2vt$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious),
I see you're still conflating "conscious" with the behavioural
*evidence for being conscious* (such as being responsive to stimuli).
What else do we have other than our observations of the subject? Can't
we reasonably deduce that a dog is conscious if he is observed to be
awake, alert and responsive to stimuli, and unconscious if we have
knocked him out with full anesthesia so that he does nothing but lie
there inert even if we surgically remove his balls? How are we going to
agree that the animal is responsive to stimuli if we don't study the
animal? Should we just send him an email or something, see if he writes
back? How do they practice scientific investigation of these matters
where you are at?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 01:38:52 PM |
|
|
In article <76Wdnep27-glZgrenZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8rci$2vt$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious),
I see you're still conflating "conscious" with the behavioural
*evidence for being conscious* (such as being responsive to stimuli).
What else do we have other than our observations of the subject? Can't
we reasonably deduce that a dog is conscious if he is observed to be
awake, alert and responsive to stimuli...
It is bad science to conflate one's own observations with the
actualities one is trying to perceive.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 07:51:13 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8rci$2vt$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious),
I see you're still conflating "conscious" with the behavioural
*evidence for being conscious* (such as being responsive to stimuli).
What else do we have other than our observations of the subject?
Failure of means does not give warrant for your conflation of
consciousness with third-party evidence of consciousness, Septic.
Perhaps this is your way of conceding the point that there _is_ no
direct third-party evidence that any subject is conscious...
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
09 Dec 2005 04:45:31 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dn8rci$2vt$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
OS XI wrote:
Pavlov has observed dogs awake, alert, and responsive to stimuli
(conscious),
I see you're still conflating "conscious" with the behavioural
*evidence for being conscious* (such as being responsive to stimuli).
What else do we have other than our observations of the subject?
As evidence of their mental states? Nothing.
Can't
we reasonably deduce that a dog is conscious if he is observed to be
awake, alert and responsive to stimuli, and unconscious if we have
knocked him out with full anesthesia so that he does nothing but lie
there inert even if we surgically remove his balls?
Here you again compound being conscious with evidence for being
conscious. Why do you pretend to be so thick?
We can reasonable infer that a dog is conscious from his objective
behaviour. That behaviour is subjective evidence that he is conscious.
How are we going to
agree that the animal is responsive to stimuli if we don't study the
animal?
That presupposes that I'm saying we should not study the animal. I'm not
saying that.
Should we just send him an email or something, see if he writes
back?
Do you have his email address?
How do they practice scientific investigation of these matters
where you are at?
Same as elsewhere, by appeal to subjective evidence.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
08 Dec 2005 08:12:57 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
The subject of our observation may be presenting us, by his or her
behaviour, with satisfactory evidence of being conscious. That evidence
is subjective: viz, its veracity cannot be third-party objectively verified.
No,
Yes, sir. One bag full, Septic.
it is objective (based on observable phenomena).
Same is claimed for God, of course. Cue a Fallacy of Special Pleading
from Septic:
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
06 Dec 2005 10:08:42 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of
False, Septic. It means the subject _is_ awake, aware, etc. Fallacy
of Equivocation from Septic (between "presents with evidence of" and
"is").
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
Aren't you presenting with
evidence of being conscious by posting your silly arguments to Usenet?
That's a complex question (a "have you stopped beating your wife?"
question).
Well, no,
Well, yes.
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean?
He means that we cannot verify that our interpretation of their
behavior is correct.
Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to agreement
Agreement does not constitute direct evidence, Septic. Again, Fallacy
of Equivocation from Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
06 Dec 2005 10:35:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean?
He means that we cannot verify that our interpretation of their
behavior is correct.
Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to agreement
Agreement does not constitute direct evidence
What do you mean by 'does not constitute DIRECT evidence'? Is that like
that other lame theist complaint, 'does not constitute MACRO
evolution'?
How is any scientific evidence presented? The scientist reports
observations which others can then replicate. Google peer review.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
06 Dec 2005 08:36:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1133886958.374578.308220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean?
He means that we cannot verify that our interpretation of their
behavior is correct.
Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to agreement
Agreement does not constitute direct evidence
What do you mean by 'does not constitute DIRECT evidence'?
He means "Agreement does not constitute direct evidence".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
06 Dec 2005 07:15:06 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean?
He means that we cannot verify that our interpretation of their
behavior is correct.
Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to agreement
Agreement does not constitute direct evidence
What do you mean
I mean agreement does not constitute evidence of any kind, Septic.
(Google "flat earth" and "alien abduction", Septic.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
07 Dec 2005 02:10:22 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133918106.091284.20120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
... agreement does not constitute evidence
I didn't say agreement was evidence, moron. It is the FINDINGS, the
events we observe, that are the evidence of the nature of things. Google
peer review to learn something about the process of getting findings
published.
Goober wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Goober wrote:
... We have no direct third-party evidence
that dogs are conscious.
Oh really?
Really.
How are you defining 'conscious'?
Don't you know what "conscious" means? I'm using that word just like
most people - as in "aware".
The term, 'conscious' means that the subject being observed presents
with evidence of being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious)
don't you agree?
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
Aren't you presenting with
evidence of being conscious by posting your silly arguments to
Usenet?
That's a complex question (a "have you stopped beating your wife?"
question).
Well, no, observed objectively, you are in fact seen to be posting
arguments to Usenet. See your silly BS argument for example, in which
you try to get away with assuming your desired connclusion as a premise
(begging the question).
Wouldn't we all agree that Pavlov's dogs were conscious when he
subjected them to respondent conditioning????
Yep, we would. Because that's how we interpret their behaviour. But we
cannot verify that our interpretation is correct.
What do you mean? Are you saying that we scientists cannot come to
agreement concerning our observations of events in the world? We cannot
demonstrate knowledge of the nature of things by publicly demonstrating
the ability to control and/or predict events, verifiably, replicably?
Isn't that what science is all about? In this case the subject of our
observation is presenting us with logically satisfactory evidence of
being awake, aware, alert, and responsive (conscious) don't you agree?
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conscious
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
07 Dec 2005 02:36:15 PM |
|
|
In article <wo2dnZfK_KxwBQveRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133918106.091284.20120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
... agreement does not constitute evidence
I didn't say agreement was evidence, moron.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM is a fallacy, Septic. And you at least implied
that agreement was evidence.
.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
