|
Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred] (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Show me a single thought divorced from the corporeal vessel. You can't, where as I can show the requirement of thoughts on the material. Occam's Razor, for me, says the conclusion drawn from observed evidence is simpler than one that requires inductive reasoning from without, reasoning that must battle it out with a near-infinite multitude of contrary strains of inductive reasoning, all clinging to that one link to plausibility: "You can't disprove me" but none with any tighter grip on reality than the next. |
i think that's a fair interpretation of ockhams razor.
but the problem is, 'observed evidence' tends to avoid the underlying cause of the phenomenon.
i don't think this is a terrible way to think, and as i've written in this thread, i support the scientific method as one way to ascertain the truth of something. however, I think there are other ways to ascertain truth that are just as important.
ultimately, as objective as you'd like to be, you have to realize that every observation you make, every waking moment is subject to your own consciousness, and any claim of true objectivity or conclusive evidence is completely dependent upon that consciousness, which is outside and greater than anything you can measure.
so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness'
really, I am a proponent of science, and I think its ultimate goal is to discover the nature of the spirit and its relationship to dimensional materiality. I think the destiny of science is to reveal to man how to manipulate 'matter' with his mind. I think that in some cases it doesn't hurt to challenge the fundamentals of what one 'knows' in order to approach a problem from another perspective. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness' |
 |
|
|
| nefardec |
very cheeky, but that is still subject to our consciousness, since we are looking at it.
interestingly enough, i got to hold a human brain in my hands when i was 10 years old, when i toured a neurobiological institute - definitely an interesting experience. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
very cheeky, but that is still subject to our consciousness, since we are looking at it. |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness' |
|
|
|
| neatski |
| quote: | Originally posted by habman6
lmao....Im such a nerd, I love science jokes |
Jokes? I take creationism, er, Intelligent Design, very seriously. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
interestingly enough, i got to hold a human brain in my hands when i was 10 years old, when i toured a neurobiological institute - definitely an interesting experience. |
I got to hold a few dissected human ones in my senior year of undergrad... weren't you struck by how much smaller they were than you expected? I guess I always pictures brains as huge. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
|
what, do you want a pat on the back?
i'll re-word it for you:
'show me a brain that exists outside of any consciousness' |
|
|
| habman6 |
| quote: | Originally posted by neatski
Jokes? I take creationism, er, Intelligent Design, very seriously. ;) |
Haha sorry bro, my mistake. ID is definitely not for IDiots.
| quote: | | I got to hold a few dissected human ones in my senior year of undergrad... weren't you struck by how much smaller they were than you expected? I guess I always pictures brains as huge. |
We dissected some in my neuroanatomy class...I thought they were pretty big. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by neatski
I got to hold a few dissected human ones in my senior year of undergrad... weren't you struck by how much smaller they were than you expected? I guess I always pictures brains as huge. |
guess they didn't tell you they were from children :( |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
what, do you want a pat on the back? |
For pointing out prepositional elements that alter the semantics of your sentence? Should I assume you remove every problematic piece of a statement I reply to?
Or is your argument essentially a glorified "If a tree falls in the woods..." sentiment? |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
For pointing out prepositional elements that alter the semantics of your sentence? Should I assume you remove every problematic piece of a statement I reply to?
Or is your argument essentially a glorified "If a tree falls in the woods..." sentiment? |
No, I wrote the reply quickly and changed words around without reading it well enough. But this is pointless, I didn't mean to say that, and I pointed out the mistake. Now let's move on and look at what i meant to write. You shouldn't assume I remove such things, lol. Apply Occam's Razor to this situation too.
It's not a glorified "if a tree falls in the woods sentiment". But if you want to think in those terms, I could say "If a tree falls in the woods, and you're not around to hear it, it does still make a noise, simply because you can imagine it. " Consciousness is all-pervasive. |
|
|
| habman6 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
No, I wrote the reply quickly and changed words around without reading it well enough. But this is pointless, I didn't mean to say that, and I pointed out the mistake. Now let's move on and look at what i meant to write. You shouldn't assume I remove such things, lol. Apply Occam's Razor to this situation too.
It's not a glorified "if a tree falls in the woods sentiment". But if you want to think in those terms, I could say "If a tree falls in the woods, and you're not around to hear it, it does still make a noise, simply because you can imagine it. " Consciousness is all-pervasive. |
By saying consciousness is all-pervasive, are you implying that it is some form of objective reality? I may be off the mark, but let me know if this is correct thus far:
nefardec = consciousness exists immaterially
system-j = consciousness is simply a manifestation of material phenomena
Are my coles notes correct? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | | It's not a glorified "if a tree falls in the woods sentiment". But if you want to think in those terms, I could say "If a tree falls in the woods, and you're not around to hear it, it does still make a noise, simply because you can imagine it. " Consciousness is all-pervasive. |
Again, it's observed evidence vs inductive reasoning. You could invoke a "brain in a vat" thought experiment or some ontological/solipsistic idea that nothing exists if we don't perceive it, but that again is a hypothetical framework to what we observe with no evidence for it. I believe in reality outside our perceptions of it. Do you approach reality as if your imagination is as real as anything you touch? Do you approach it as though not thinking of something is it not existing? If you imagine a dinosaur rampaging down the street do you refuse to go out into that street from fear? If you picture it stepping on your car do you phone the insurance company?
If you want to disregard your senses because of a possibility activated only by a lack of disprovability then do so. For me, a brain on a table is a brain outside of consciousness. Even if we never see it, it's there. The microbes slowly eating it will attest to that. |
|
|
|
|
