It's not that I don't understand the arguments, I just understand them well enough to see how incredibly flawed they are.
There is no special consciousness field. It's like the "ether", an invisible universal force crudely conjured by people too impatient to do the harder work of isolating and understanding the hundreds of individually observable mechanisms and their interrelations that lead to the same result.
Even if, after decades of research, materialists totally mapped all the “complex series of biological logic gates” of the brain down to the atom, you would still fundamentally be incapable explaining the source of the conscious experience.
No, at that point it is entirely feasible that we could point to the exact mechanical process that produces the experience of pain, or fear. You're declaring something impossible when you've not even tried, for a rationale no deeper than "well, duh".
Cancer is an ostensibly far simpler biological problem, and after over a hundred years of far more extensive research efforts than that into consciousness we're still puzzled by as many unknowns as knowns about the mechanisms around it. That doesn't mean I'm about to declare that molecular biology is a red herring and we should be doing more research into "bad cancer vibes" or some shit. We're not omniscient super beings, just because the comprehensive answer will very likely not be known in my lifetime doesn't mean it's unknowable, if the observable mechanism already exists and just needs calculating on a larger scale then it's up to you to prove some specific reason it won't work when you scale it up.
You, and other materialists, will assert this. Fine, that’s the commonly accepted paradigm that modern science operates in. That doesn’t change the fact that, just as the panpsychist asserts the field as the beginning of an explanation, the materialist asserts the field as a (d)illusion. Or an epiphenomenon of layered, but purely material process. Great, whatever, I would have welcomed people trying to make the case for that world view, especially if they were capable of admitting their view is, much like the panpsychists, an assertion, not in evidence (maybe if we spend another hundred years doing brain scans it will be, but it currently isn’t, and personally I doubt it can even be discovered in a materialist framework).
But that’s not what’s happened. All the people taking issue are just spitting on the ideas presented, as if they’re fucking geniuses and the Oxford PhD biochemist with 300 peer reviewed papers and 2 dozen books is a drooling idiot. Well, chances are they just didn’t understand what was being said, frankly. It was so far over their heads they somehow mistook it for something beneath their consideration.
Great, whatever, I would have welcomed people trying to make the case for that world view
Apparently you want people to do that without disputing the world view that is diametrically opposed to that and was presented as the starting point of the conversation. At least I waited 3 replies deep before getting tired of the baseless assertions to return a taste of your own medicine. And that's ignoring the philosophical differences between asserting the existence of something Vs the asserting the non-existence of something.
All the people taking issue are just spitting on the ideas presented, as if they’re fucking geniuses and the Oxford PhD biochemist with 300 peer reviewed papers and 2 dozen books is a drooling idiot. Well, chances are they just didn’t understand what was being said, frankly.
C'mon, you should know your audience enough to know that an appeal to that authority won't work here. Anyone who has any experience with academia has seen the patina on top of that pedestal. Especially so the highly cited academics, sometimes they act more like cult leaders within their research department/field than the idealised autists outsiders might believe them to be like. So yeah it totally tracks that an especially prolific academic might pivot to peddling spiritual woo woo in their later years.
Lmao. Your ancestors knew panpsychism was true. It’s so funny that you cap off your dismissal of an “appeal to authority” with “woo woo”, the most base and disingenuous appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment that exists. You’re right though I should know my audience better, I always forget how many angsty atheists made their way here from reddit because they weren’t allowed to call stuff gay anymore lol.
Anyway, I won’t waste any more of your time with such worthless ideas. Enjoy your Tuesday champ.
Ironic, because everyone crying about trying to start a discussion on panpsychism is making blind appeals to the authority of the field of consciousness studies
Well that's nice, but I don't know why you're bitching to me about those people because that wasn't me. Appeal to authority is "Official head smartman says you're wrong, he must be righter than you because he is officially smarter". I've appealed to no credentials and only put forward abstract concepts, concepts don't have authority, only validity. Maybe you misunderstood appeals to authority to mean mentioning any concept someone with authority has also mentioned before, but that's not an appeal to authority, it's just a natural consequence of being logically consistent that multiple people can reach the same conclusion.
“woo woo”, the most base and disingenuous appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment that exists.
Again, you don't even know what the terms you're using mean. That isn't an appeal to authority either, it's just being disrespectful of your schizophrenic ideas. If that makes you so mad you start imagining fallacies to dismiss it, well too fuckin bad for you I guess. Just don't be so disrespectful of me and expect anything less in return.
It's not that I don't understand the arguments, I just understand them well enough to see how incredibly flawed they are.
There is no special consciousness field. It's like the "ether", an invisible universal force crudely conjured by people too impatient to do the harder work of isolating and understanding the hundreds of individually observable mechanisms and their interrelations that lead to the same result.
No, at that point it is entirely feasible that we could point to the exact mechanical process that produces the experience of pain, or fear. You're declaring something impossible when you've not even tried, for a rationale no deeper than "well, duh".
Cancer is an ostensibly far simpler biological problem, and after over a hundred years of far more extensive research efforts than that into consciousness we're still puzzled by as many unknowns as knowns about the mechanisms around it. That doesn't mean I'm about to declare that molecular biology is a red herring and we should be doing more research into "bad cancer vibes" or some shit. We're not omniscient super beings, just because the comprehensive answer will very likely not be known in my lifetime doesn't mean it's unknowable, if the observable mechanism already exists and just needs calculating on a larger scale then it's up to you to prove some specific reason it won't work when you scale it up.
You, and other materialists, will assert this. Fine, that’s the commonly accepted paradigm that modern science operates in. That doesn’t change the fact that, just as the panpsychist asserts the field as the beginning of an explanation, the materialist asserts the field as a (d)illusion. Or an epiphenomenon of layered, but purely material process. Great, whatever, I would have welcomed people trying to make the case for that world view, especially if they were capable of admitting their view is, much like the panpsychists, an assertion, not in evidence (maybe if we spend another hundred years doing brain scans it will be, but it currently isn’t, and personally I doubt it can even be discovered in a materialist framework).
But that’s not what’s happened. All the people taking issue are just spitting on the ideas presented, as if they’re fucking geniuses and the Oxford PhD biochemist with 300 peer reviewed papers and 2 dozen books is a drooling idiot. Well, chances are they just didn’t understand what was being said, frankly. It was so far over their heads they somehow mistook it for something beneath their consideration.
Apparently you want people to do that without disputing the world view that is diametrically opposed to that and was presented as the starting point of the conversation. At least I waited 3 replies deep before getting tired of the baseless assertions to return a taste of your own medicine. And that's ignoring the philosophical differences between asserting the existence of something Vs the asserting the non-existence of something.
C'mon, you should know your audience enough to know that an appeal to that authority won't work here. Anyone who has any experience with academia has seen the patina on top of that pedestal. Especially so the highly cited academics, sometimes they act more like cult leaders within their research department/field than the idealised autists outsiders might believe them to be like. So yeah it totally tracks that an especially prolific academic might pivot to peddling spiritual woo woo in their later years.
Ironic, because everyone crying about trying to start a discussion on panpsychism is making blind appeals to the authority of the field of consciousness studies, which is hilarious because, again, the actual experts will be the first to admit they don’t have a fucking clue as to the roots of consciousness
Lmao. Your ancestors knew panpsychism was true. It’s so funny that you cap off your dismissal of an “appeal to authority” with “woo woo”, the most base and disingenuous appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment that exists. You’re right though I should know my audience better, I always forget how many angsty atheists made their way here from reddit because they weren’t allowed to call stuff gay anymore lol.
Anyway, I won’t waste any more of your time with such worthless ideas. Enjoy your Tuesday champ.
Well that's nice, but I don't know why you're bitching to me about those people because that wasn't me. Appeal to authority is "Official head smartman says you're wrong, he must be righter than you because he is officially smarter". I've appealed to no credentials and only put forward abstract concepts, concepts don't have authority, only validity. Maybe you misunderstood appeals to authority to mean mentioning any concept someone with authority has also mentioned before, but that's not an appeal to authority, it's just a natural consequence of being logically consistent that multiple people can reach the same conclusion.
Again, you don't even know what the terms you're using mean. That isn't an appeal to authority either, it's just being disrespectful of your schizophrenic ideas. If that makes you so mad you start imagining fallacies to dismiss it, well too fuckin bad for you I guess. Just don't be so disrespectful of me and expect anything less in return.