Presuppositional Apologetics

[shunyadragon]

No one is referring to the relationship. How many times does this need to be said?!?!

The relationship is what is the important issue, as per the refreneces I cite, which you choose to ignore.

As MaxVel said, how can you know if subjective experiences are identical for identical brain states?

First you say it is not an issue, but than present a problem of knowing if subjective experiences are identical for identical brain states. Contradiction here.

At present scientists compare subjective experiences with the neurological activity of the brain. My argument does not depend on what scientists 'know now,' but the potential of science in the future to understand and determine the relationship between subjective experiences and the brain.

Simple answer, you can't because they are subjective experiences that are experienced by individuals. Science cannot measure subject experiences.

Science need not specifically measure subjective experiences to understand that nature of the relationship between the brain, the mind will and consciousness.

[element771]

The relationship is what is the important issue, as per the refreneces I cite, which you choose to ignore.



First you say it is not an issue, but than present a problem of knowing if subjective experiences are identical for identical brain states. Contradiction here.

At present scientists compare subjective experiences with the neurological activity of the brain. My argument does not depend on what scientists 'know now,' but the potential of science in the future to understand and determine the relationship between subjective experiences and the brain.



Science need not specifically measure subjective experiences to understand that nature of the relationship between the brain, the mind will and consciousness.

You really have no clue do you.

You are not the arbiter of what is important. We ask valid questions and you ignore them because you have no clue how to answer them. The reason that you don't know how to answer them is because someone hasn't done it for you. You can't look up our exact question on the web so you claim it to not be important. You then claim that science can understand the relationship between the mind and the brain which no one is disputing.

A serious question...

What do you get out of coming here?

Do you get a kick out of posting pop science articles and pretend to understand the actual science behind them?

You never are wrong so it can't be to learn anything. You never answer direct questions so it can't be fruitful discussion.

Is it just to make yourself feel important by claiming to live by the Socratic method which appartently to you means question everything everyone else says but not anything that you believe?

Or is it that you really think you understand this stuff but your ego won't let religious people prove that you are wildly ignorant? I guess that we should extend that to atheists now as well. If another Baha'i joins and shows how ignorant you are...what will you do then? You'll have to convert to shunyism where 2+2=5 if you say so.

[shunyadragon]

You are not the arbiter of what is important.

We ask valid questions and you ignore them because you have no clue how to answer them.

I am the arbiter of the argument I present, and yes I responded to all questions. You just do noott like the answers. I also gave references.

The reason that you don't know how to answer them is because someone hasn't done it for you. You can't look up our exact question on the web so you claim it to not be important. You then claim that science can understand the relationship between the mind and the brain which no one is disputing.

A serious question...

What do you get out of coming here?

Do you get a kick out of posting pop science articles and pretend to understand the actual science behind them?

You never are wrong so it can't be to learn anything. You never answer direct questions so it can't be fruitful discussion.

Is it just to make yourself feel important by claiming to live by the Socratic method which appartently to you means question everything everyone else says but not anything that you believe?

Or is it that you really think you understand this stuff but your ego won't let religious people prove that you are wildly ignorant? I guess that we should extend that to atheists now as well. If another Baha'i joins and shows how ignorant you are...what will you do then? You'll have to convert to shunyism where 2+2=5 if you say so.

[Bisto]

(...) Science need not specifically measure subjective experiences to understand that nature of the relationship between the brain, the mind will and consciousness.

Hi.

After reading your and MaxVel's recent posts (and the quotes therein), this little snip looks exactly like what MaxVel's quoted individuals are talking about: that the neurologists or what-have-you choose to explain subjective experiences by basically ignoring them and explaining what objective experiences can be explained instead. To my eyes, that's what this paragraph of yours reads like too. (See what I did there? )

[MaxVel]

You really have no clue do you.

You are not the arbiter of what is important. We ask valid questions and you ignore them because you have no clue how to answer them. The reason that you don't know how to answer them is because someone hasn't done it for you. You can't look up our exact question on the web so you claim it to not be important. You then claim that science can understand the relationship between the mind and the brain which no one is disputing.

A serious question...

What do you get out of coming here?

Do you get a kick out of posting pop science articles and pretend to understand the actual science behind them?

I think so. At least it seems to make him feel like he knows stuff, important stuff.

You never are wrong so it can't be to learn anything. You never answer direct questions so it can't be fruitful discussion.

Sadly, true. At least you can learn by seeing what Shunya says, and basically taking the opposite.

Is it just to make yourself feel important by claiming to live by the Socratic method which appartently to you means question everything everyone else says but not anything that you believe?

Or is it that you really think you understand this stuff but your ego won't let religious people prove that you are wildly ignorant? I guess that we should extend that to atheists now as well. If another Baha'i joins and shows how ignorant you are...what will you do then? You'll have to convert to shunyism where 2+2=5 if you say so.

He's already been shown to have an, uh, idiosyncratic understanding of Baha'ism.

I basically see Shunya as a troll - he clogs up potentially interesting discussions with screeds of citations, bogs them down with his misunderstandings, and generally frustrates everyone who interacts with him. And then tells them that they are the stupid and childish ones. That's troll behaviour, even if his intentions are not to disrupt, disrupt he does.

[shunyadragon]

Hi.

After reading your and MaxVel's recent posts (and the quotes therein), this little snip looks exactly like what MaxVel's quoted individuals are talking about: that the neurologists or what-have-you choose to explain subjective experiences by basically ignoring them and explaining what objective experiences can be explained instead. To my eyes, that's what this paragraph of yours reads like too. (See what I did there? )

You need to be specific on this as per citations I presented, because this is not the case. The apologist view is that the natural deterministic relationship between the brain, the mind will and consciousness is incomplete, because the ultimate nature of 'qualia' is unknowable and not measurable. The proponents of natural determinism propose various explanations at present, and in general propose that the relationship between 'qualia' and the brain will be explained.

My objection is the claim that the nature and relationship of 'qualia' is absolutely 'unknowable,' and not considering he possible advance in the knowledge that may explain this relationship in the future.

[MaxVel]

The only thing you have demonstrated, as I have, that is there are indeed two sides of the problem. You have not conclusively proven your side is the only explanation. Yes, there are many unanswered questions, but I do not believe that the nature of the relationship can be considered unknowable in the future. Unanswered questions should not be considered unanswerable in the future.

What question have I not answered?

More to follow . . .

Don't bother. Instead of actually addressing the arguments, you just handwave them away. You're a hypocrite, ready to accuse others of doing what you yourself constant do.

Explain in your own words why Searle, Nagel et al are wrong when they argue that qualia cannot even in principle ever be explained by science.

[shunyadragon]

No one is referring to the relationship. How many times does this need to be said?!?!

As MaxVel said, how can you know if subjective experiences are identical for identical brain states?

Simple answer, you can't because they are subjective experiences that are experienced by individuals. Science cannot measure subject experiences.

Actually, back up to grmorton's posts challenging natural determinism possibly explaining the relationship between the brain, the mind, will and consciousness. His argument against natural determinism hinges on his belief that relationship between 'qualia' and the brain is 'unknowable.'

My argument and responses are based on grmorton's posts. My references describe two contrasting views, for example between Chalmers and Dennett, and the issue is unresolved as to whether a natural explanation for this relationship may be fully determined in the future.

[element771]

I am the arbiter of the argument I present, and yes I responded to all questions. You just do noott like the answers. I also gave references.

Responding and answering are not the same thing.

Question: What is 2 + 2?

Response: I don't think that question is important.

Answer: 4

You have not answered any of our questions...

[element771]

I basically see Shunya as a troll - he clogs up potentially interesting discussions with screeds of citations, bogs them down with his misunderstandings, and generally frustrates everyone who interacts with him. And then tells them that they are the stupid and childish ones. That's troll behaviour, even if his intentions are not to disrupt, disrupt he does.

If he is a troll, then my hat is off to him. He is very good at it.

If he is serious, then I feel bad for the dude since he lives in a delusion. Maybe Dawkins will write a book about "the Shuny Delusion" and fill it was a bunch of nonsense.

[Adrift]

If another Baha'i joins and shows how ignorant you are...what will you do then?

That's actually happened. He mostly willfully ignored him and kept on with his typical ignorance. See here for instance. We had 1 or 2 other Baha'is on the forum before the crash, but I don't remember how they got on with shunya. If I recall, he kept pretty low key about his so-called "faith" till Sparko made a series of posts calling him out about what he believed a few years ago. In an entirely unconvincing attempt to quell suspicions about him being a non-theist, he made a series of threads about his devotion to the Baha'i faith which were pretty easily picked apart by other posters. After he out and out admitted that, for all intents-and-purposes he is an agnostic, the mods got tired of the games, and forced him to change his faith tag.

[Sea of red]

That's actually happened. He mostly willfully ignored him and kept on with his typical ignorance. See here for instance. We had 1 or 2 other Baha'is on the forum before the crash, but I don't remember how they got on with shunya. If I recall, he kept pretty low key about his so-called "faith" till Sparko made a series of posts calling him out about what he believed a few years ago. In an entirely unconvincing attempt to quell suspicions about him being a non-theist, he made a series of threads about his devotion to the Baha'i faith which were pretty easily picked apart by other posters. After he out and out admitted that, for all intents-and-purposes he is an agnostic, the mods got tired of the games, and forced him to change his faith tag.

Would you mind linking me to those posts?

[Adrift]

Would you mind linking me to those posts?

A lot of it was lost in the crash, but most of Sen McGlinn's posts deal with issues about the Baha'i faith, much of which shunya gets wrong. Sen doesn't have many posts on this forum, but you can read them here.

Some of the posts where shunya waxes poetic about his love for the Baha'i faith can be found here, here, and here. There's a lot of posts in those threads, but posters like robrecht, OingoBoingo, eider, and McGlinn tend to demonstrate where shunya goes off the rails in his knowledge of the Baha'i faith.

Oh, and here's the post where he finally came out as an agnostic. It's pretty damning, but I actually defend his right to keep his faith designation if he wants to, though I totally see why the mods made him change it.

[Sea of red]

A lot of it was lost in the crash, but most of Sen McGlinn's posts deal with issues about the Baha'i faith, much of which shunya gets wrong. Sen doesn't have many posts on this forum, but you can read them here.

Some of the posts where shunya waxes poetic about his love for the Baha'i faith can be found here, here, and here. There's a lot of posts in those threads, but posters like robrecht, OingoBoingo, eider, and McGlinn tend to demonstrate where shunya goes off the rails in his knowledge of the Baha'i faith.

Oh, and here's the post where he finally came out as an agnostic. It's pretty damning, but I actually defend his right to keep his faith designation if he wants to, though I totally see why the mods made him change it.

I honestly think he's an atheist.

I've been on atheist forums before where we have had people that say they are atheists/agnostics, and consistently post rhetoric that is sympathetic towards theistic points of view. I believe the motivation was to appear as though they were playing a sort of devils advocate, where they could throw stones and not have to answer for their own beliefs. It's kind of like the 'philosopher' David Berlinski that attacks atheism in all his books, claiming to be an agnostic, while clearly arguing for theism. It's contemptible no matter who's doing it.

I think that's what shunya is doing. He's pretending to be a Bahia so he can argue with theists without having to answer for his own atheism. I suspected it for awhile myself, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. After him lying publicly about his reaction to my criticism, and having a meltdown when I called him out, I don't believe anything he says anymore. He lost all of his credibility with me forever.

[shunyadragon]

Explain in your own words why Searle, Nagel et al are wrong when they argue that qualia cannot even in principle ever be explained by science.

I never said they were wrong, I said that their conclusions were not necessary true to be able to conclude what grmorton believes concerning determinism.

I provided other sources that disagree with Searle and Nagel etal. I believe the final resolution is inconclusive as to what science may be able to explain in the future.