Posts by jp1692

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

jp1692

SBF, I'm aware of (did you see what I just did there?) what panpsychists say. I don't require a restatement of what I already understand.

What I require is some evidence to support their assertions. As far as I have seen in the literature on the subject that I have reviewed and from any of the comments put forth here, there is none.

The definition(s) of awareness that you cite via Nagel are problematic. They are formulated as a question, the answers to which are by definition unknowable by us. How can anyone know what it's like to be a cat or a tree or an atom? We can't. We can't even know at what point the answer would be nothing. Hell, it's hard enough to know what it's like to be human! And my experience of being human is likely quite different than yours.

As a result, while these sorts of questions are seductive mind-candy for a parlor room game of wild-pseudo-philosophical speculation, they do not, indeed they cannot, move us toward a better understanding of the subject under discussion.

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

jp1692

SBF: Simply making the assertion that most things are unaware, and any other view is ridiculous, is not an argument.

Perhaps it is not an argument, but it is--I believe--the more reasonable approach.

As a student of the history of science, I am well aware of the fact that many things which we (humans alive at any particular time in history) have believed were wrong. I alluded to some of these in an earlier post: the flat earth, the geocentric universe, the phlogiston theory of combustion. The list is long.

But science does not progress by merely asserting a differing idea. There must be some evidence to support it. From that experiments and/or some other means of data collection must be performed to either disprove the new hypothesis or give it support. To do otherwise is unscientific. And yet advances in science also require creative, original thinking.

The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (c. 460 – c. 370 BC) proposed the then novel idea of the atom--doing so many centuries before John Dalton could, in the early 19th century, provide experimental support for it leading to our modern atomic theory in chemistry.

PS: You will be interested to know that John Dalton is also known for his research into colour blindness, which is sometimes referred to as Daltonism in his honour.

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

jp1692

SBF: That's not a good analogy. We are not postulating the existence of imaginary entities.

Well you can tell Russell that it's not a good analogy.

I happen to think it's a great analogy, and perfect for this debate. Perhaps you meant that it's not an appropriate analogy since you said that "we are not postulating the existence of imaginary entities." But you are postulating the existence of imaginary qualities, abilities or characteristics, namely: awareness, a thing which--unless I missed it--you have still not defined in relationship to your premise.

Perhaps it would help if you defined (what you mean by) awareness in the context of this thread and explain how it is both different than and distinct from consciousness. (If I missed it, I apologize. Although I have scanned this thread pretty thoroughly, I haven't read every single word of this thread. If you have, please supply a link to the post.)

jp

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

jp1692

SBF: Why not make the opposite assumption: that things have awareness unless it's proved that they don't?

Because it leads to unrigorous, unscientific thinking. From there, all kinds of crazy propositions can be posited with with no requirement of proof or evidence. Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?

"It is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."

"He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong."

Or, as Carl Sagan explained, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

79

My Memes

by ozbrad in

jw
friends

i've been using my photoshop skills for good rather than evil.. and it also helps relieve the shunning frustration.. .

.

jp1692

Those are hilarious! Thanks

84

Spirit Channeling at Wallkill's Bethel

by Marie33 in

look what an ex-bethelite has to say about the spirit channeling he saw first hand up at wallkill:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfmqnzbyrko.

now i believe rayven's story of horror at brooklyn bethel:.

jp1692

Yes. I know it’s dismissive of me. It’s all bullshit.

I’ve spent over four decades researching this stuff looking at every bit of the supposed “evidence” for the supernatural that I could find.

Here’s what I found: nothing.

The evidence isn’t there.

It doesn’t exist.

There are no demons. It’s all bullshit.

Anyone the believes in things that do not exist is—by definition—deluded.

Delusional disorders are one form (of many) of mental illness.

34

Bringing reproach on Jehovah's name.

by ScottyRex in

jw
friends

i have thought long and hard about this, you know in those midnight hours.. you will probably string me alive in what i say, but here you go-.

i feel that the jw's do have the truth.

i do agree with the doctrines and biblical exgenesis they propound.i do feel that they have the 'truth' i do understand they are imperfect, and i think they have had to 'refine' their teachings as time has gone on-and change accordingly- i see nothing wrong with this.

jp1692

The ironic thing is that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society uses the “reproach on Jehovah” thing to actually protect themselves.

How often do they use the expression, “Jehovah and his organization” effectively conflating the two ideas into one? They do this constantly. Their idea of course is to make their followers believe that anything they do that is wrong will be viewed negatively by God when in fact all they really want to do is get people to be obedient to the organization—which for all practical purposes is themselves, the governing body

So when they act the way they do with their “Two Witness Rule” protecting pedophiles, they are really just bringing reproach upon themselves. It’s pretty fucking stupid actually.

84

Spirit Channeling at Wallkill's Bethel

by Marie33 in

look what an ex-bethelite has to say about the spirit channeling he saw first hand up at wallkill:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfmqnzbyrko.

now i believe rayven's story of horror at brooklyn bethel:.

jp1692

There would have to be demons for this to be true. There aren’t. It isn’t.

People that believe in them are delusional. It’s a common and very ancient form of mental illness.

End of story.

1

Hierarchy of JW's

by Tallon in

no disrespect to women intended ... however hopefully this will give you something to laugh about.. .

jp1692

Speaking Truth to Power

142

Panpsychism - a philosophy with a future

by slimboyfat in

at one time scientists believed that living things and non-living things were made of different material, accounting for the unique properties of living things.

this idea is called vitalism and is no longer popular.

what does remain popular (in fact is still the dominant view) is a similar idea that things that experience the world (humans, frogs, mice) are different from things that don't experience the world (potatoes, rocks, snowflakes).

jp1692

Ruby: great link JP

You're welcome.