Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Why is the Immaterial Mind Desirable ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why is the Immaterial Mind Desirable ?

    On this forum there's much talk that there is an immaterial component to consciousness at least in part by and by some wholly. Those that believe this have never stated why. So I'm asking: Why is that important and desirable ?

  • #2
    Originally posted by really View Post
    On this forum there's much talk that there is an immaterial component to consciousness at least in part by and by some wholly. Those that believe this have never stated why. So I'm asking: Why is that important and desirable ?
    It isn't a question of whether it is desirable or not. It is true or it isn't. If you think it is true (as I do) and say otherwise for political expediency or any other reason, it is dishonest.

    AP

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by really View Post
      On this forum there's much talk that there is an immaterial component to consciousness at least in part by and by some wholly. Those that believe this have never stated why.
      This is false, as I certainly have stated why: The evidence and the arguments all point in that direction.


      Originally posted by really View Post
      So I'm asking: Why is that important and desirable ?
      Many find the truth important, and I am certainly one of them.

      Desirable? Are you kidding me? To the extent that you do NOT want the afterlife of the converging NDE testimonies to be real, you haven't understood it, or you're not emotionally honest with yourself.

      Comment


      • #4
        The simplest answer, is that there seems to be a conceptual hole in any attempt to explain consciousness by pure mechanism - so we are looking for alternatives.

        Clearly not everyone thinks this hole exists, though even Paul acknowledges that a real explanation for consciousness is far off - which is another way of admitting that there are problems here!

        The physicist, Roger Penrose has never made any comments about psi-related issues, but he came to the conclusion that consciousness can't be a mechanistic process - which is a remarkably severe restriction!

        Other physicists, such as Paul Davies, and Henry Stapp, are also interested in this matter, so don't go away thinking that it is just a strange idea that circulates on this board!

        Above all, you really(sic) need to disabuse yourself of the idea that we are all here to strengthen our religious faith! I know you really(sic) believe that! What we want is to get a bit closer to the truth!

        David
        Last edited by David Bailey; August 8th, 2011, 09:22 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'd just echo what's been said by the other folks here.
          I would add that people are rather annoyed by physicalists "dismissing" every data that doesnt fit the model.
          The best model is not the one that is thought to be true by the majority -and you tend to think very much so really- but one that explains all phenomena that exist.

          To answer your question I'd say truth is the only thing that is desirable. The rest is details.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by David Bailey View Post
            The simplest answer, is that there seems to be a conceptual hole in any attempt to explain consciousness by pure mechanism - so we are looking for alternatives.

            Clearly not everyone thinks this hole exists, though even Paul acknowledges that a real explanation for consciousness is far off - which is another way of admitting that there are problems here!

            The physicist, Roger Penrose has never made any comments about psi-related issues, but he came to the conclusion that consciousness can't be a mechanistic process - which is a remarkably severe restriction!

            Other physicists, such as Paul Davies, and Henry Stapp, are also interested in this matter, so don't go away thinking that it is just a strange idea that circulates on this board!

            Above all, you really(sic) need to disabuse yourself of the idea that we are all here to strengthen our religious faith! I know you really(sic) believe that! What we want is to get a bit closer to the truth!

            David
            I just asked for your reasons not Stapps or Penrose. Did I mention religion ? Did I imply religion ? No to either question.

            Suppose the truth turns out to be what you want. Then what ? How will that change your life from what it is right now ? Will it change it.
            Last edited by really; August 8th, 2011, 09:37 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Hjortron View Post
              This is false, as I certainly have stated why: The evidence and the arguments all point in that direction.




              Many find the truth important, and I am certainly one of them.
              I can't remember what everyone says

              Originally posted by Hjortron View Post
              Desirable? Are you kidding me? To the extent that you do NOT want the afterlife of the converging NDE testimonies to be real, you haven't understood it, or you're not emotionally honest with yourself.
              Oh, but I do. People here talk about the "data" that proves their convictions yet they don't talk about their convictions.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by really View Post
                Those that believe this have never stated why. So I'm asking: Why is that important and desirable ?
                Well really, think of the great alternative benefits of being a psi-denying materialist stuck in classical logic

                - It is impossible for consciousness to survive brain death (localized in brain)
                - It is impossible for consciousness to be uploaded to a machine too (clones do not preserve original consciousness)
                - Lower sense of ethics, since one can believe there is no such thing as an evil thought, only evil action, since thoughts never extend beyond skulls or can help or adversely affect anyone else.
                - One can believe 'Life is Pointless' and has no free-will and one's own consciousness is a just a puppet spectator of life.
                - Once you abandon free will, out goes ethics too ... criminals had no choice but to be criminals.
                - Once you decide criminal action is just brain damage, eugentics is justified and Hitler like politics cannot be said to be wrong.

                Yes being a materialist is wonderful .... but there is one more benefit .... one can also become a CSIcop fellow and claim alternatives to materialism are 'dangerous' then misreport scientists with evidence against them to protect the public from making their own minds up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eveshi
                  People want to know the truth.
                  Originally posted by paqart View Post
                  It isn't a question of whether it is desirable or not. It is true or it isn't. If you think it is true (as I do) and say otherwise for political expediency or any other reason, it is dishonest.

                  AP
                  Originally posted by Roms View Post
                  phenomena that exist.
                  To answer your question I'd say truth is the only thing that is desirable. The rest is details.
                  To use the words truth or desirable is just semantics. The question still remains unanswered. Since none of you argue in favor of an entirely biological cause. Why do you want it to be true ?
                  Last edited by really; August 8th, 2011, 09:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Open Mind View Post
                    Well really, think of the great alternative benefits of being a psi-denying materialist stuck in classical logic

                    - It is impossible for consciousness to survive brain death (localized in brain)
                    - It is impossible for consciousness to be uploaded to a machine too (clones do not preserve original consciousness)
                    - Lower sense of ethics, since one can believe there is no such thing as an evil thought, only evil action, since thoughts never extend beyond skulls or can help or adversely affect anyone else.
                    - One can believe 'Life is Pointless' and has no free-will and one's own consciousness is a just a puppet spectator of life.
                    - Once you abandon free will, out goes ethics too ... criminals had no choice but to be criminals.
                    - Once you decide criminal action is just brain damage, eugentics is justified and Hitler like politics cannot be said to be wrong.

                    Yes being a materialist is wonderful .... but there is one more benefit .... one can also become a CSIcop fellow and claim alternatives to materialism are 'dangerous' then misreport scientists with evidence against them to protect the public from making their own minds up.
                    Not a good answer there OM
                    Last edited by really; August 8th, 2011, 05:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by really View Post
                      Your the first to answer the with depth, good.
                      With a lot of words, but perhaps a little sarcasm as well--warranted in this case.

                      AP

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by really View Post
                        To use the words truth or desirable is just semantics. The question still remains unanswered. Since none of you argue in favor of an entirely biological cause. Why do you want it to be true ?
                        If I wanted it to be true my answer would be because of the implications it has.
                        Let's just say telepathy is real and we can train people to become good at it. Then goes away all the smartphones and other current means of communication.
                        Let's just say that we find way to heal people's spirit/soul by very advanced techniques of prayers/relaxation/meditation. Then go away the pills that make our body drug dependent...
                        And the list goes on...

                        In a nutshell we would all live together more in harmony and also more in harmony with the nature.
                        Last edited by Roms; August 8th, 2011, 10:48 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by really View Post
                          To use the words truth or desirable is just semantics. The question still remains unanswered. Since none of you argue in favor of an entirely biological cause. Why do you want it to be true ?
                          Speaking for myself, because I didn't "want it to be true." To be completely factual here, I wanted psi to be false, as I thought it was to begin with. Therefore, every experience that said otherwise, for many years, was discarded because it didn't fit the pattern of what I expected or what I wanted. Finally the demonstrations of real psi were not just too obvious to ignore, but because I was living with someone who noticed them also and called my integrity into question on the issue I finally paid attention. So for me to answer your question as asked would require implicitly accepting its premise: that I somehow wanted psi to be real. That would be a flat out lie, and so I cannot answer your question as asked.

                          Rather than ask a man why he likes to wear ladies underwear, it may be a good idea to start by asking if he's ever done it in his life. If the answer is no, then the second question makes no sense. You assume that believing that psi is real equates to a desire for it to be real, but they do not have to follow each other in this way. In fact, they often don't, at least among scientists who have studied this, from the early days of the SPR to the present.

                          AP

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by really View Post
                            I just asked for your reasons not Stapps or Penrose.
                            I chose to answer in my way!

                            David

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by really View Post
                              On this forum there's much talk that there is an immaterial component to consciousness at least in part by and by some wholly. Those that believe this have never stated why. So I'm asking: Why is that important and desirable ?
                              I think the OP is a bit misworded. You're mixing two concepts here:

                              1) is it true, and
                              2) is it desirable


                              There is no conflict if one answers yes/yes, yes/no, no/yes, no/no.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X