Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

2014: The naturalist theory of consciousness was as successful as ever.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A similar level of success is expected in 2015.

Another grand theory to explain consciousness flickered briefly before joining its throng of predecessors.

Sam Harris allowed us to know why consciousness does not feel like a self Yes it does; it is how we know we are selves:

Sam Harris, whom we last wrote about here, where he complained about being defamed, gave an interview with philosopher Gary Gutting at the New York Times on “Sam Harris’s Vanishing Self.”

Well, that should take care of the defamation problem.

How can a vanishing self complain of defamation?

A Princeton prof attempted to explain consciousness too. Hush, we may be hearing answers now. (Nope.)

There was, of course, a continued push for consciousness as a fourth state of matter, which raises the key question: Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness? Apparently not.

Too bad really because the great physicists knew that consciousness is immaterial. But orthodoxy may be more important to naturalists than understanding.

See also: Can we talk? Human language as the business end of consciousness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
rvb8 and hrun0815 Since you seem so willing to assist one another, you may want to consider giving a little help to your comrade Seversky with responding my post #12 in this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-539940 If you see him around, please, would you mind reminding him about this? Thanks. :)Dionisio
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
rvb8 Here's a hint to facilitate your 'difficult' search: https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-539940 You may want to review my posts # 12 and 13 in this thread. Maybe next time you'll try and read it more carefully so that you can understand it. However, if you don't understand it well, please, quote the text you don't understand and ask me what is that you don't understand and will try my best to clarify it for you or correct it if it is a mistake (I make many of them daily). Would this work for you? BTW, let me know when you find the text you paraphrased. Thanks. :)Dionisio
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
hrun0815 Don't you want to help your comrade rvb8 with searching for a missing text he apparently can't find? :)Dionisio
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
#40 rvb8
You deny writing on, Dec 21st 2014 at the blog entitled, “Mystery at the Heart of Life” at post No 7, that some folks want to instill in our youth the lies of RV+NS+T=E ?
Before I answer your questions referring to specific text, please, would you mind quoting the text that I wrote? Do you have problems quoting text for reference? Is it a technical difficulty associated with the device you use to write your comments on? Or is it an intentional action in order to hide a subtle agenda to introduce doubt and confusion? Or is it simply a matter of style? Or is it another reason?Dionisio
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
#40 rvb8 Ok, if I never wrote that to you, can you show what is exactly the text I wrote, that you used it as the base for your paraphrasing exercise? Your paraphrasing doesn't tell me much in this case, because that's your subjective interpretation of what I wrote. I keep asking you to produce the original document that you paraphrased. How many times will I have to repeat my question before you understand it or you confess that you have finally realized that your paraphrasing wasn't accurate enough to have been used to support your claims? Why is it so difficult for you to produce the original text that you have tried to paraphrase? Don't you realize that the doubtful accuracy of your subjective interpretation of the original text can only be clarified if you show the original text? Why can't you point to the original text that I wrote? Is it that you don't want to show that your interpretation of that text was far from accurate? If someone writes that I'll be happy to know something, and I ask how does that someone knows that I'll be happy to know that something, the interlocutor should explain what he meant by what he wrote, unless he doesn't care about being understood accurately. I can ask my questions as many times as I deem it nnecessary until I get an understandable answer, unless something keeps me from asking. In cases like this, where the interlocutor seems to have problems understanding the request (or seems to ignore it), it's fine to repeat the question, as a reminder. I may keep reminding you about this when I see you posting in any thread within this blog, under your pseudonym rvb8. Please, try once more. Thanks.Dionisio
January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
You deny writing on, Dec 21st 2014 at the blog entitled, "Mystery at the Heart of Life" at post No 7, that some folks want to instill in our youth the lies of RV+NS+T=E ? (By the way, what is RV? Do you mean RM, Random Mutation? And what is T, your invention?) At post No 28 of the same title Seversky said; then you'll be happy to know that a whole bunch of christian PUBLIC school teachers defy evolution and teach, 'God didit.' (This is called paraphrasing, it means you take the words of the speaker, retain the meaning, but economise on the wording; understand?) At post No29 of the same entry you ask the two questions I and Seversky answered here. At post No 24 here, just above, entitled, '2014: The naturalist theory of consciousness was as successful as ever', you ask me "In what post did I write that to you?" Answer: You never wrote that to me, that is why I used the word, 'paraphrase'. Do you understand 'subtlety', and 'meaning', or are you another 'one glove fits all' fundamentalist, multiple poster, simpleton. Why do you post plurally, a psychologist would assess you as not confidant. When confronted with your disingenuousness you take fright and hide behind the Lord Jesus Christ; am I right? Dog bless.rvb8
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
hrun0815 You may want to consider giving a hand to your buddy rvb8 with finding a post that he keeps referring to? I can't help with that. I don't know how to search for a given text within this blog. Otherwise, I would gladly share the information.Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
rvb8 You keep referring to a text that allegedly I wrote, but have not produced any link to an associated post or simply the post # and the thread name. Either way is fine. But try to document your claim. That should help. Thanks.Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
rvb8 Please, don't forget to answer my question @24. https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/2014-the-naturalist-theory-of-consciousness-was-as-successful-as-ever/#comment-539969 Thank you.Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Got it now?
No. Sorry. And it turns out the reposting the same post will not help.
Maybe you’ll finally realize that it’s better to get serious.
The irony. It's string with this one.hrun0815
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815
I believe that at some point you were asking about etiquette of forum discussions.
Still am. But apparently some of you don't understand that polite language. This is just to help you and your comrades along with your fellow travelers to understand how bad your own medicine tastes. Maybe you'll finally realize that it's better to get serious. It would be more pleasant. Got it now?Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815
I believe that at some point you were asking about etiquette of forum discussions.
Still am. But apparently some of you don't understand that polite language. This is just to help you and your comrades along with your fellow travelers to understand how bad your own medicine tastes. Got it now?Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
hrun0815 @25
I believe that at some point you were asking about etiquette of forum discussions.
Still am. But apparently some of you don't understand that polite language. This is just to help you understand how bad your own medicine tastes. Got it now?Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
@25 hrun0815
I believe that at some point you were asking about etiquette of forum discussions.
Still am. But apparently some of you don't understand that polite language. This is just to help you understand how bad your own medicine tastes. Got it now?Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815
I believe that at some point you were asking about etiquette of forum discussions.
Still am. But apparently some of you don't understand that polite language. This is just to help you understand how bad your own medicine tastes. Got it now?Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815 Having fun yet? :)Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815 The blog administrator and the thread moderator can screen out my posts. But I appreciate your wax-loaded advice. :)Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815 What, don't like your own medicine? :)Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815 Look who's talking! :)Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
#25 hrun0815 Say what?Dionisio
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Dionisio, I believe that at some point you were asking about etiquette of forum discussions. As you probably know, it is bad form to spam s forum by repeating the same post multiple times. My kids do the same thing in real life, but they are not yet school-aged, so it is more forgivable but equally annoying.hrun0815
January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
rvb8
...and you reply, I’ll paraphrase; “I don’t like you to answer questions not directed at you.” Really?
In what post # did I write that to you? I don't see it in #29. It must have been another post? I want to see if it was a mistake I made, in which case I must correct it and apologize for it. But first I want to see the exact text.Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
rvb8 @15
...and you reply, I’ll paraphrase; “I don’t like you to answer questions not directed at you.” Really?
In what post # did I write that to you? I don't see it in #29. It must have been another post? I want to see if it was a mistake I made, in which case I must correct it and apologize for it. But first I want to see the exact text.Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
@15 rvb8
...and you reply, I’ll paraphrase; “I don’t like you to answer questions not directed at you.” Really?
In what post # did I write that to you? I don't see it in #29. It must have been another post? I want to see if it was a mistake I made, in which case I must correct it and apologize for it. But first I want to see the exact text.Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
#15 rvb8
...and you reply, I’ll paraphrase; “I don’t like you to answer questions not directed at you.” Really?
In what post # did I write that to you? I don't see it in #29. It must have been another post? I want to see if it was a mistake I made, in which case I must correct it and apologize for it. But first I want to see the exact text.Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
Post No 29, at the link you provide above, four times here, at posts 6,7,8,& 9. Incidentally Seversky answered this question by providing ample evidence of deceitful religious science teachers trying to rig the game in favour of myths.rvb8
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
rvb8 In what post # did I write that? I want to see if it was a mistake I made, in which case I must correct it and apologize for it. But first I want to see the exact text.Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
rvb8 @15 In what post # did I write that?Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
@15 rvb8 In what post # did I write that?Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
#15 rvb8 In what post # did I write that?Dionisio
January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply