At UD this claim was made:
Neither rocks nor human brains dream. Only the mind/soul dreams. The human body is a diving suit, specifically designed to be operational by conscious/subconscious intent – meaning, an individualized consciousness (mind/soul) can use it to functionally operate in the physical world. A rock has no such capacity for service.
I have to wonder how what this video depicts can be squared with that.
During hypobaric chamber, or altitude chamber training, #14 displayed symptoms of hypoxia, after exceeding his time of useful consciousness (TUC).
What does the (mind/soul) bring to the party that hypoxia disrupts?
I’ve been fascinated by this video since I first saw it. It’s like the mind get’s trapped in a “loop”. But if the physical brain is just being used, hypoxia must somehow be making it’s way “back up” the channel the mind/soul is using and confusing that too? As it’s not as if when normality is restored the mind/soul notices the disruption. It happened on “both sides” exactly the same, or so it seems.
Perhaps our memory of the event is being back-filled after the event. I hope someone more experienced in such matters can enlighten.
Richardthugues said:
For my own benefit.
keiths said:
Yes, keith’s. “It” is indeed “right there” in my own comment:
IOW, keiths, where I said it serves a divine intention, such entities would be biological automatons. Not “people” in the meaningful sense because they have no locus of consciousness any more than a rock does and as such are not the authors of their own experience. Such entities would be the functional equivalents of props on a movie set.
William,
So the “interpretation and manifestation level” “serves a divine intention” when it “generates a biological automaton”, but not when it generates the experience of drunkenness for the “individuated mind”?
Even you can’t keep your evidence-free metaphysics straight.
Any croutons in that word salad?
Richard,
Croutons and some dressing would make it a lot more palatable.
keiths,
Wait… Did he say that drunk people have no soul?
Gralgrathor,
Some do, some don’t.
There was an amusing interlude here at TSZ, before you joined us, in which William was speculating about which of us had free will and which were “biological automata”.
“Building on my previous gibberish….”
It may be a word salad, but I say it still ain’t Faulkner.
keiths,
That quote is from an ISB song incidentally; prolly before your time–though it’s pointed out earlier in the book. It’s just Rabi quoting a line from a song I like. He does that a lot.
Anyhow, maybe it’s just a weird prejudice of mine, but I still don’t think reading the first and last couple pages of a book is the same thing as reading a book. It’s a very widely unread tome: for all I know the number of people who’ve ever read it can be counted on one hand. I have a feeling that your picking up a (used) copy for a few bucks and crowing about that here isn’t going to change its life or my own too much. We do know it won’t be affecting any royalties I receive ;>}
But you may not have noticed that it’s a work of fiction–with non-fiction writings interspersed. I’m not Rabi. He’s Indian–I hail from upstate New York. He meditates a lot. I don’t. I’m a combination of all three major players.
You aren’t in there at all IIRC (prolly an oversight), but maybe if there’s ever a sequel…..
I think I could capture you pretty well.
I keep it straight enough for my purposes. Of course, attempting to correct your misconceptions would be a foolish and wasted effort. However, I do at times use your posted mischaracterizations to express or explain some views of mine for my own benefit. I certainly don’t think you’re ever going to actually understand my views.
Walto, William.
Please team up and write a book. Then perhaps Greg could do a TedX about it. That would be all shades of awesome.
Richard,
+1
Interesting idea, but one possible problem: I don’t agree with either William or Greg about anything.
Maybe you could write a musical and keit could review it (after just seeing half of the first act)?
He can do that–he understood modal logic after 15 minutes!
keiths:
William:
As Richard said:
walto,
Actually, you and William are peas in a pod. You both make things up so that you can feel better about yourselves.
You did it just now by pretending that I haven’t read your book.
And the edit you just made to your last comment is another example:
Your insecurity is on vivid display, walto.
I’ve got a great song for your musical
Know (to the tune of “Dream the Impossible Dream”)
To know all that there is to know
To fight the ridiculous foe
To cheer our victorious sallies
To glow with the winners’ gold glow
To right all their dim-witted wrongs
To love what is true and is best
To post when our eyes are all tired
To drum such a tune on our chests
That is our quest
To never be wrong
No matter how pointless
How big is our shlong?
The theistic crap
That those idiots hold
We must grab at their noses
Till their bodies are cold
And I know, if I’ll only be true
To this glorious quest
That Dawkins and Harris will quell
When we best the obsessed
And the world will be better for us
That one site, rose so high on the net
And defeated the foes of true science
We ARE the top brains that you’ve met!
keit, you gotta stop lying man! You’ve topped your quota for the whole week and it’s only Wednesday!
enough.
Wow, it’s mirror time. I actually didn’t think you were that similar to William, but there IS something there.
Plus you’ve made phoodoo’s arguments a lot easier with all your nonsense about “genetic explanations” being required but not complete blah blah.
Are you actually a spy for the bad guys??
walto,
“Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading”
We already have our hit:
“There once was a homo called Keiths
Who had strange posterior beliefs
Ravens, Bananas,
Crammed up his pyjamas
to ascertain whether Hempel’s paradox expressed as a hypothesis is a true representation of inductive logic for a finite set of entities working under other a priori assumptions such as the uniformity of nature.”
OMagain,
Hey, OMagain, I will if he will. As there’s no ignore function here, I notice when he continues to misrepresent stuff, so I reply. But if he’ll stop….
I’m becoming convinced that we’re an experiment of Lizzie’s. She has set up an environment with some very simple rules, populated it with a handful of specimens, and let it run. I’m not sure if the conclusion to be drawn from the current state of this blog is that the rules do not define a stable attractor or that in a small enough group bad money drives out good.
In any case, I’m no saint myself but I am going to publicly commit to following Lizzie’s rules much more closely in this forum. Here they are, to save you a click:
1) Assume all other posters are posting in good faith. For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading
2) Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards. (there are plenty of places on the web where you can do that!)
3) Address the post, not the poster. This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic, as is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
4) Don’t advocate illegal activities.
5) Don’t post porn, or links to porn, or any material liable to risk the integrity of another poster’s computer*.
6) If you have author permissions, and post an OP, you may find you have the technical ability to edit comments to your post, and move them. Please do not do so. Rule violating posts will be moved by moderators, and it is a principle of this site that comments are not edited, deleted, or hidden.
7) Don’t use this site to try to “out” other internet denizens or indulge in ad hominem speculations. Such speculations may, notwithstanding general principles regarding deletion, be deleted.
Pretty simple. I apologize to anyone referred to by my violations of (3) — the one I tend to break most often.
I’m seeing a lot of other people having trouble with the same rule. Frankly, I don’t have a high enough opinion of human nature to think that a simple reminder like this is going to get any of the miscreants to police themselves. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Richardthughes,
Same answer, Richard. Your insecurity is on vivid display, walto. is also rule-violative, although I happen to think it’s a bad rule, myself.
Patrick, I have no interest whatever in continuing this skirmish. However, I’m not as nice as Alan. When I get attacked, or somebody intentionally misrepresents me, I get pissed off and respond. Alan is a bigger man, and just walks away. I’d like to be like that, but…..
Anyhow, I’m perfectly willing to stop this right here–I have grave doubts, but like you, I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Nice.
I have to admit, that’s a lot better than my effort.
Richard:
That’s my favorite Richicism, even ahead of “like a weasel with a rag soaked in rabbit juice”.
walto:
walto,
You are the person who keeps bringing it to thread after thread, including this one.
If that were the case, it would hardly be a problem. You wouldn’t need to fabricate accusations against your opponents, like “he says he’s smarter than Plantinga”, or “he hasn’t even read my book”, or “he’s selectively quoting me”.
Can you commit yourself to being honest, even if that means that you’ll have to refrain from making things up about me?
Patrick, no! You’re in trouble now! You’ve just let the cat out of the bag. That’s going to skew the result for sure.
Wife? Beat? Stop?
Patrick,
The rules are clear. I too think they are reasonable. What to do about violations?
keiths,
Told y’all. The guy simply will not stop with his bullshit. Why should I be expected not to respond? What kind of rulemaking is that?
Actually that is what I thought originally when Lizzie started to engage in a unfailingly polite, respectful manner at UD in what seemed like endless comment numbers.
I always expected that to end up in some form as part of a research project. And I’ve read things recently about how telling people facts can actually reinforce their original wrong belief. So the messaging of something is actually just as important, if not more so, then the actual thing itself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2014/03/03/antivax-parents-dig-in-heels-at-pro-vaccine-messaging/
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2014/03/new-study-on-vaccine-messaging.html
Something along those lines.
Do respond. Site would be boring with no comments. But, personally, I’d prefer it that if you are going to call someone a liar just make it plain what you are calling them out on, explain it! I can’t quite see it (an edit was/was not made? huh?)
Of course, you are still breaking rule #1 but hey, if someone is lying about shit then they gots to be called on it!
walto,
As I’ve said before, rules/moderation can’t be expected to resolve issues of this nature. The only real question is whether he will succeed in so irritating me that, like several others before me, I will disappear. It’s another kind of survival of the ‘fittest.’. We sensitive types get run off and the thickest skinned continue to spew bullshit. I guess there’e a sense in which that’s only fair. It’s not the moderators’ job to coddle ‘sensitive souls’ because they believe they are being intentionally misrepresented or otherwise lied about. It’s a harsh cauldron that produces difficult truths, right? Not for the meek.
keiths, to walto:
Alan:
The difference is that I provide evidence for my claims. My claims, my responsibility.
I don’t object at all to accusations against me if the accuser takes responsibility for them and provides evidence for them, and I am allowed to respond. Walto doesn’t like those scenarios because when the evidence is on the table, he loses.
I think that’s exactly what OMagain is getting at here:
Evidence, please, instead of histrionics.
Do you need a hug, Walto?
Comere.
*HUGS*
Richard T. Hugs.
OMagain,
I get what you’re saying, OMagain, but I’ve been down that road. It’s an exercise in futility. It makes for long, convoluted, uninteresting posts. Torturous really (like a couple of Butler’s books on Darwin).
You know, somebody asks a question, which is not answered. Then, when it’s asked again, there’s a huffy response that it’s already been answered, along with several links to other stuff having little to do with that question. Or there’s a subtle modification of something that one has written along with links to more irrelevant stuff. It’s not interesting enough for anybody but the principals to care enough about to read–a fact which is depended upon by one of the parties. (Actually, that affected the snoresville response to those books of Butler’s–in spite of the fact that he was a much more interesting guy than anybody here.)
It’s a lot of trouble for anybody who doesn’t really enjoy these spats, even when it’s enjoyed by the other party. Anyhow, trust me, it wouldn’t make the posts more enjoyable.
Richardthughes,
Why Thankee!
keiths,
What you call “evidence” is almost always total bullshit. There is a difference, actually.
This reminds me to add “evidence” to the list of words keit doesn’t actually understand:
addressed
explanation
epistemic
possibility
answered
free-floating
requires
read
finished
Those are all I can think of at the moment, but I’m pretty sure there are a bunch of others.
That’s really interesting. Somewhat depressing as well. If parents with an emotional drive to protect their children can’t be convinced by facts, people with an emotional drive to reject facts contrary to their views are probably impervious to reason.
I fear we might have to dip a toe in the murky waters of psychology. The poor abused philosophers deserve a break, anyway.
That was nice. But I’m wondering, did you bother to do that with Kantian Naturalist or sophisticat, or any of the others who’ve recently been run off? Maybe you could have stopped them!
Just imagine how many problems could be averted if everyone at TSZ adhered to the following guidelines:
1. You are solely responsible for what you write here, including your responses to other commenters. “He/she made me do it!” is not a valid excuse for irresponsible behavior.
2. What you write may be challenged by others. This is The Skeptical Zone. You are not entitled to special treatment, even if you are on the “right” side of the ID debate.
3. If you think you are right, then it is up to you to defend your position. If you realize you are wrong, you are responsible for acknowledging it like an adult.
4. If you think someone else is wrong, it is up to you to clearly explain why and to respond to questions.
5. If you make an accusation against a fellow commenter, you are responsible for backing it up, and the accused has a right to respond.
“I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they’ve always worked for me.”
— Hunter S. Thompson
Okay, I got the HST out of my system.
Heavy moderation is too time consuming and the potential for abuse is too high, so I don’t think that’s a solution.
Enabling filters customizable by each individual participant would help, but requires significant changes to the software.
Ditto some kind of karma / flag system. (I’m a big fan of technical solutions to social problems — too bad they never work.)
I could see value in adding one more rule: Don’t go meta. Much of the discussion lately is about the discussion. Sticking to the original points, with links and quotations, would eliminate a lot of the noise.
Ultimately, like any other community, it comes down to a combination of social opprobrium and being the change you want to see. This blog will survive or not based on how we all treat each other. Either way, we’ll learn something and Lizzie will get her paper. 😉
keiths,
Hahahahahha!
walto,
Which of those guidelines do you object to, and why?