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.
I’ve been disrespectful of you?! Lmao - I've done nothing but try to engage with your points intellectually as opposed to the reactionary means used ITT which you just dogpiled onto. Your very first comment was just dismissing the entire discussion (in a chain of people dismissing the discussion), for no evidentiary reason beyond “I believe the materialists are right”. Like I said before, that’s great, but it’s not a theory.
Yeah I know I've been disrespectful, I freely admitted it already. But only in response.
I didn't start with a dismissal, I challenged you on what to me is the most obvious flaw in the argument: that it all rests on the assumption that consciousness must be a special irreducible parameter that matter does or doesn't have, and there was no explanation as to why you were asserting that. I even made it a conditional to make it clear it was up for debate not just an assertion to the contrary. It hadn't been addressed yet and ignoring that elephant was clearly the crux of why most your other discussions were breaking down here. So I figured a little prod might loosen the tangle you all were getting in.
But challenging people, even tersely, isn't disrespectful. If it were then the only way to have a respectful society would be to be a completely useless blob of yes-men. Ignoring that challenge to repeatedly insinuate I hadn't even bothered to read or listen to the previous arguments is though. As is falsely leveling fallacies at people, and that's a real pet peeve.
And I didn't hesitate to return that demeanor because I'm done giving more than 1 chance to strangers on the internet anymore, not when in my experience it seems like 9/10 people are just willing to take advantage of any and all slack they're given. I'd sooner apologize 10% of the time than let assholes have their cake and eat it the other 90% of the time. Plus being able to throw some heat and get over it afterwards is something everybody should practice occasionally.
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.
I’ve been disrespectful of you?! Lmao - I've done nothing but try to engage with your points intellectually as opposed to the reactionary means used ITT which you just dogpiled onto. Your very first comment was just dismissing the entire discussion (in a chain of people dismissing the discussion), for no evidentiary reason beyond “I believe the materialists are right”. Like I said before, that’s great, but it’s not a theory.
Yeah I know I've been disrespectful, I freely admitted it already. But only in response.
I didn't start with a dismissal, I challenged you on what to me is the most obvious flaw in the argument: that it all rests on the assumption that consciousness must be a special irreducible parameter that matter does or doesn't have, and there was no explanation as to why you were asserting that. I even made it a conditional to make it clear it was up for debate not just an assertion to the contrary. It hadn't been addressed yet and ignoring that elephant was clearly the crux of why most your other discussions were breaking down here. So I figured a little prod might loosen the tangle you all were getting in.
But challenging people, even tersely, isn't disrespectful. If it were then the only way to have a respectful society would be to be a completely useless blob of yes-men. Ignoring that challenge to repeatedly insinuate I hadn't even bothered to read or listen to the previous arguments is though. As is falsely leveling fallacies at people, and that's a real pet peeve.
And I didn't hesitate to return that demeanor because I'm done giving more than 1 chance to strangers on the internet anymore, not when in my experience it seems like 9/10 people are just willing to take advantage of any and all slack they're given. I'd sooner apologize 10% of the time than let assholes have their cake and eat it the other 90% of the time. Plus being able to throw some heat and get over it afterwards is something everybody should practice occasionally.