/sci/ - Science & Math

I have respect towards all my fellow Earthlings

whats the matter? can't handle the banter?

fucking politically correct culture we live in nowadays.... go join a support group and cry about it

his books are interesting. and he promotes a proper understanding of evolution by natural selection.

i just wish people wouldn't glom onto him and make him guilty by association of being a fedora neckbeard god, along with hitchens and harris and them.

>>5857304
I have no problem with people arguing against religion, or believing in evolution or atheism. I just don't like Dawkins. I find him arrogant, stuck up, close minded, and over glorified.

I don't like how he's inconsistent in his views.

On the one hand he pretends to be completely rational and only accept that which has evidence. I agree with him so far, because that's how science works. But then on the other hand he openly admits sharing spiritualist views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw

In my opinion he should put more effort into staying scientific.

>>5857319
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0I4pmTvdiw

thats not spiritual at all you daft fuck

>>5857321

nobody gives a fuck what you think

>>5857323
Dualism is a form of spiritualism and it's highly anti-scientific.

>>5857304
He's more focused on religion bashing than science- you'd think he was molested by a priest, or something.

>>5857325
Well you showed me. How wrong of me to have an opinion. Fuck my life; I think I'll go kill myself now.

>>5857326

he was asking that question from a biological perspective. do you think consciousness is spiritual? Is it religious to admit that it exists?

please

>>5857323
>he believes in a soul
>implying that's not spiritual

How about a dictionary definition for you?

spiritual:
Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

>>5857331

good, and take your shit thread with you

>whaaaaa I don't like someones views
>better shitpost on /sci/

>>5857330
From a biological point of view a soul/consciousness does not exist. Science is about things which have observable effects and evidence, not about untestable metaphysics and spiritualism.

>>5857330
>Is it religious to admit that it exists?

That WHAT exists? How about you define it in scientific terms and provide evidence? Until you did that, we'll have to redirect you to >>>/x/ where non-interacting spirits belong.

>>5857332

he never once said "soul" in that video

stop putting words in his mouth

nice strawman dumb fuck

>>5857336
>hurr durr if I use synonyms my pseudoscience becomes totally true

Troll harder, idiot.

>>5857334

>implying consciousness = soul

consciousness is an undeniable fact, and he hopes one day it will be explained scientifically

the idea of a soul is never brought up and is completely made up by religion

you have an EXTREME bias if you think consciousness=soul

>>5857345
>is an undeniable fact

No, it fucking isn't. You can't even name any observable effects, let alone provide evidence. Please keep your spiritualism garbage out of /sci/ and stop trolling.

>>5857333
Nobody is forcing you to be here. You can leave. You can also hide this thread. Are you just looking for things to complain about, have you nothing better to do with your life?

>>5857345
A Soul is the spiritual part of yourself that makes you unique from every other person in the world given 2 you by God it determines your personality and temperament and everything about you internally
Jesus Christ is the Savior and truth denying stiff necked deceitful people WILL perish one day. Please God is faithful if you are willing to be so. Believe in Jesus and Repent times are getting really REALLY bad

>>5857337

>>5857341

I destroy your arguments and the best you got is to try and rope me into a philosophical debate on the pedantic meanings of souls.

you are both dumb a shit

FACTS: he never mentioned soul, consciousness is undeniable and he wants to learn more about it

>HURR DURR HE IS A RELIGIOUS MAN!!!

>>5857345
0/10

It's like you're not even trying.

>>5857351

gtfo of /sci/

>>5857349

obviously you are not conscious or you would be alot smarter

>>5857352
>is undeniable

This is a science board, not a religion board. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A non-interacting soul spirit surely is not "undeniable" but on the contrary it has to be dismissed from a scientific point of view. You were asked to name its observable effects and you failed to do so. Please get the fuck out with your trolling garbage.

>>5857357

you don't even know what you are arguing about. lrn 2 fucking read

>>5857352
>I destroy your arguments
You didn't. You kept making the same assertions even though they are not tenable anymore after it has been pointed out how they contradict science.

>you are both dumb a shit
ad hominem

>FACTS
No, baseless assertions are not facts.

>undeniable
Your religious beliefs are deniable and any rational person will deny them.

>>5857358
I am smart. This has been confirmed by several IQ tests and it does neither require nor imply metaphysical intervention.

>>5857362

you missed a large part of whats going on in this thread, please re-read before i waste any more time with you

>>5857359
I read and addressed your dimwitted fallacy. How about you educate yourself and stop trolling with /x/ bullshit on /sci/?

>>5857334
'soul' and 'consciousness' are not synonyms you fucking moron. A sould is necessarily spiritual. Consciousness is supported that we are fucking conscious. And a scientific account for what accounts for subjective experience (that is, how our brains and unique experiences are accounted for physiologically, and how these characteristics determine the differences between individuals.) has already begun, with recent electroencephalography work
see: Freeman, W, J. (1991). The Physiology of Perception. Scientific American.

>>5857365
You missed a large part of what's going on in science. Your nonsense contradicts basic principles of the scientific method. Please learn to apply Hitchens' razor or go back to >>>/x/

>>5857373
whoa pardon my typos. I just woke up

>>5857364
>by several IQ tests

0/10

Consciousness is just a really shitty universal minimap inside your head that updates constantly.

>>5857373
They are essentially synonyms. I don't care about the details of your /x/ bullshit. Fact is that they are not definable in terms of observable effects and are only taken by faith against all science. From a scientific point of view no metaphysical phenomena exist. Everything in existence has to have observable effects. If you can't name them, your claims are bullshit. Please stop forcing that dualism garbage on /sci/.

>>5857300
Pop science is important because in civilized nations the populace controls funding.
Dawkins is a snide, hateful,maladjusted misanthropic little bitch.
He costs science and science education money.
Thank Darwin he does mos tof his harm in Britain.

>>5857325
Shut up cunt.
Dawkins is not stupid. He know what dim twats his fanbois are

>>5857387
Thank you, someone who finally gets it. But, that's the thing. I'm a Brit, and I'm tired of his constant bullshit; religion is evil, it's the cause of every war. Without religion there would still be wars. Humans will find things to fight about: land, resources, control of markets etc.
He's always so focused on religion bashing, you forget he's a scientist. I think he just makes the scientific community look bad, because he makes scientists look, exactly how you put it.

>>5857383
do you deny that people make subjective judgments about the world, and internal psychological states? There is mountains of evidence to support that.

I do not support dualism, this has nothing to do with it.

>consciousness does not exist
DURRRRR

I like dawkins, he´s one of the few who speak out against religion. His arguments are always ignored, it´s always just ad hominem (hurr he´s so arrogant and rude) or they are saying that the very fact that he´s fighting religion makes him bad (hurr why isn´t he only doing science. What a fucking retarded argument, if everyone would do that, then nobody would fight religion)

We are all atheists on /sci/ and yet so many here seem to be okay with the fact that we couldn´t go into politics if we admitted that.

The most ridiculous thing is that it´s not even the real religious nuts who are fighting us, but mostly atheists in denial.

>>5857387
his work has done a lot improve the laymen's understanding of evolution (I'm sure we can all agree that a lot of people just don't understand how it works) not as 'survival of the fittest' per se, but the change in frequencies of genes, either through natural or sexual selection

>>5857408
That's algorithmic information processing happening in the brain. It can be explained neuroscienticially and has absolutely nothing to do with a soul/consciousness. on the contrary it proves that we don't need the concept of a soul/consciousness because it has no explanatory power. Keep your spiritualism trolling on >>>/x/.

>>5857413
But why is there a need to 'fight' religion? In the UK people aren't even religious. Nor is science being hindered by religion. We live in a free society, and people should be able to prescribe to whatever system of belief they choose.

I don't believe in aliens, or that people have had encounters with aliens, but those that do are free to do so.

>>5857421
information processing in the brain is not wholly algorithmic. Algorithms are set solutions to set problems. Obviously the problems we encounter are so varied that we need consciousness, and executive functioning deciding between conflicting interests at any given time to make decisions and you know, live life.

seriously, do you even neuroscience?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but which neuroscientist(s) have denied consciousness? I haven't come across that line of thinking but I'm no professor

>>5857406
Completely agree. Religion is just one of the first methods at which people accrued power over others, which is why it's as pervasive as it is due to its stabilizing effect. Religion serves a purpose for some, just not for me, and I will oppose any attempt at religious-influenced public policy. The way Dawkins goes about it does not get people to change to scientific thought, it only hardens the religious in their beliefs having to defend it constantly, especially Christianity.

>>5857425
>Obviously the problems we encounter are so varied that we need consciousness
How do you propose a metaphysical non-interacting entity/phenomenon is supposed to interfer with physical algorithmic processing? By means of magic perhaps? Please keep your delusional ramblings on /x/.

>seriously, do you even neuroscience?
Yes, I do. That's why I'm telling you how idiotic your claims are. Neuroscience rejects dualism and spirtualism. As a science neuroscience uses the scientici method. That means only observable phenomena are researched by neuroscience. Non-interacting metaphysics nonsense is dismissed.

>>5857424
Dawkins probably thinks society would be much better off if none of us worshipped mythical skydaddies.

I can't help but agree. Believe it or not, but public discussions about social issues (abortion, marriage, social policy, welfare etc. etc.) would improve if they weren't clogged with religious dribble. I'd much rather people refer to the relevant science instead of a holy book.

I hate people who misinterprets or misunderstand this man, especially considering how fucking simple it is to undrtstand him. He is definitely one of many I hold in high regard, much due to his humility and passionate honesty.

>>5857432
You can remove religion, but you'll still be left with morality and ethics. Look at the opposition to GM crops, nothing to do with religion, people will stand in the way of progress no matter what.

>>5857430
Emergentism

>>5857424
He wants to fight scientific ignorance. As an evolutionary biologist, he has a fair chunk of the creationist christian and muslim population disbelieving in him and his work. As an educator he probably got to a point where he just got fed up and started to go a bit nutty. He's incredibly intelligent and has written some great books. His exceedingly arrogant personality aside, I don't think that he is a complete dick.

He's just acting as hardcore as the theologians are on the other side. Thats not that I agree with him, but its also not that I'll stop him because I couldnt care for either 'side' really.

>>5857430
Wat

The mind is completely physical (from what the evidence suggests, VERY strongly). Nothing of what I have said so far is incompatible with materialism.

Seriously, does acknowledging the existence of subjective experience scream spiritualism to you?

Also, we can infer internal states from behavior, as well as various brain imaging techniques. We show someone, say, and apple. The image of this apple will evoke different interpretations, and correspondingly different mental states (i.e. firings of different neurons, or the same brain areas in varying levels of intensity) between individuals.

Algorithms do not explain this. Interpreting stimuli is not playing a game of chess, there are an infinite number of responses to anything.

So here is your misunderstanding: Dawkin's is simply asking, how and why do we have these different interpretations (i.e. subjective experience?).

There is no spirtualism here. I can understand why you're so hypervigilant though. There is no shortage of nutcases trying to peddle their pseudo-scientific garbage onto people who don't know any better.

Example: http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/02/how-to-decalcify-your-pineal-gland.html

>>5857442
You've fallen for the consciousness troll here on /sci/
All he does is play around with semantics.
Basically he defines consciousness to be non-material and unscientific then asks you for empirical evidence. If you then present evidence he simply refers back to his own definition "but if it has evidence it can't be metaphysical, so that has nothing to do with consciousness!!!!!!!!!!"

It's best to ignore him.

If lying to and threatening people to control them is so bad, why aren't people who are against religion also against government?

>>5857460
Because going against religion is easy. Religion is so irrelevant in the modern day that anyone can attack without much repercussion. Attacking government is different because government funds everything.

>>5857438
This, so much this. I find Dawkins to be as arrogant as Sagan. That is to say he is not. I just don't get how people manage to seemingly intentionally misunderstand him.

>>5857453
that's good to hear. Because fuck me if there are actually people who think that

Why don't you faggots attack Krauss instead? He's arrogant and apparently you people hate arrogant people?(For some reason)

>>5857466
I think its because he is british... I have found that, for americans at least, anyone with a british tone is seen as automatically arrogant.

>>5857478
I'm British, and I find him arrogant.

>>5857479
please explain how he is arrogant? As an aussie, we generally dont see him that way

>>5857479
How come?

itt: /sci/ equivalent of a food fight

>>5857481
He acts like he's on some kind of a crusade to save the earth. He thinks he'll destroy all religion and usher in some kind of utopia. And anyone that disagrees with him is disregarded as an idiot.

>>5857490
This is what I'm>>5857438
talking about.

Kill yourself.

>>5857300
I enjoyed 'The Selfish Gene'. He used to be a respectable, albeit controversial public intellectual. Now he's nothing more than a shrill atheism advocate, just another DeGrass Tyson for the ignorant 'Geek Chic' morons to worship. The limelight changes people.

>>5857499
Ok fine, clear up my misconception.

>>5857495
This

>>5857501
How does asking questions and reason equate to any of the thing you mentioned? He has a curious nature, not an arrogant one you something you.

>>5857506
It's not the questions that make him arrogant, it's the fact that he looks down on anyone who doesn't share his way of thinking.

>>5857514
But he doesn't. This is just an emotional judgment of character on your part where you ascribe your imagined nonexistent characteristics to subconsciously paint a fictional picture of him. It's pathatic and irrational. Just stop.

>>5857519
Couldn't I just as easily say the same to you? That you're in such awe of this man, that you do not see how arrogant he is.

>>5857524
But it isnt just about the man, its the ideas. If you seriously think its healthy to allow cultures that kill and maim others to exist if only because "my beliefs", then I think said people are fools and dangerous

>>5857524
You could but difference would be that you'd be wrong. inb4 you misinterpret this to mean you are an idiot for not agreeing with me.

>>5857300
I think he is just fed up with having to refute the same religious arguments over and over, to him, the world must seem like its full of retards, and I can understand how that could frustrate someone

>>5857377
lol

>>5857538
I feel we're heading towards a circular argument here.

>>5857300
I respect him and concede that he is, indeed, an asshat.

STFU Dick.

>>5857535
To be honest, this thread was supposed to be about him as a person. But, look at it this way. We cannot tell people what to believe or what not to believe. But we should be free to preach whatever we want.

>>5857550
Ok, but why couldn't you convey that message without the aggression?

>>5857546
Indeed. Open your fucking eyes.

>>5857546
>Either I'm right or you are, it's 50/50.

>>5857555
>We cannot tell people what to believe or what not to believe. But we should be free to preach whatever we want.
It's like Dawkins is in this very thread.

>>5857559
I meant dick for richard.

sorry.

>>5857565
Jesus will forgave all sins by an heroing himself, so no worries.

>>5857565
Ah right, my bad. I was wondering why you capitalised the 'D' in 'Dick'. But, this board is so hostel, I wasn't sure.

>>5857564
Oooh! Cheap move.

>>5857580
Dawkins would have added that we also are free to question what is preached.

>>5857584
That would be implied, given that we are free to choose what we believe.

>>5857584
>>5857596
Has anyway else ever met people who thought "believe what you want" equated with post-modernism. As if every belief were equal?

>>5857597
I had a friend who was like that once... then we went even weirder, and became a calvinist

>>5857597
I don't think "every belief is equal" necessarily follows from the fact that everyone are free to choose what they believe and we can't tell people what to believe or not, we can only make arguments for our cases. Maybe I read you wrong? Are you this stupid?

>>5857597
That's the kind if world we're trying to build, right? Giving every individual the right to make the own choices. It's where globalisation is taking us, lines will be blurred and people can already pick and choose what kind of life styles they want.

>dawkins
>arrogant or shrill

Choose one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

Any normal person would have slapped that thick cunt after the first minute.
Dawkins has the fucking humbleness and patience of God himself.

It's 3:40am and no one seems to be willing to shift their point of view, so I'm going to bed.

>>5857607
I'm just pointing out that it's what many people understand from that. For example, I can't tell a racist that he shouldn't believe what he believes I'm not advocating thought crime. I'm just saying it's idiotic to think that his thought process is as consistent as a non-racist's in terms of race.

People can choose to believe what they want but that doesn't mean that there aren't objectively better ways of thinking then others given the same goals and/or axioms.

>>5857623
Ah, thanks for clarifying.

>>5857612
I hate how creationists are so quick to blame proponents of their own faults in order to make themselves look good, or rather, make it look like the pot calling the kettle (look! Controversy!). It's so fucking annoying.

>>5857300
I like Dawkins the scientists and like his biology books.

When he goes outside of the really extreme (half the shit Muslims do, creationists) I don't like the horseman of atheism that demands people to mock Christians that believe in sacraments.

Sadly, most of his fanbase admires the second part of him, but I bet you can all think of a book/videogame/series/whatever that has a fucking annoying fanbase and it's still good.

>>5857612
To be fair, anyone complaining about his anti-theism would have to consider what his opinion on religion would be after dealing with this shit for 50 years.

>>5857413
> he´s one of the few who speak out against religion.

Untrue. Athiests as a group are outspoken, Many to the point of being obnoxious.

>We are all atheists on /sci/
Also untrue. I visit the board 5-7 times a week and find the certainty need to call yourself an atheist small minded.
>The most ridiculous thing is that it´s not even the real religious nuts who are fighting us, but mostly atheists in denial.

The confirmed theists like Dawkins; he is busy embarrassing their opponents.
I think when you say "atheists in denial" you mean agnostics and ignostics; people like me who do not feel any human being is qualified to tackle these questions.

What's this talk about consciousness being not real?

We've got brain scans and shit to prove it

Yeah, he's a dick. I like Sam Harris better. His meditation stuff and life philosophy have actually really improved my life.

>>5858039
Are you trolling or retarded? Brain scans prove the exact opposite, i.e. that everything is physically explicable and that no metaphysical intervention happens.

>>5858134

And how does that disproves consciousness?

Consciousness means the electrical impulses on your brain, if that wasn't clear

>>5858743

>consciousness is metaphysical

That's a Troll.

>>5858743
The electrical impulses in the brain are already named "the electrical impulses in the brain". There is no need to rename them by using spiritualist vocabulary. Would you please stop trolling?

>>5858752
A "phenomenon" without any observable effects surely isn't physical and can be considered non-existent.

>>5858763

Arthur Conan Doyle table rapping spiritualism?

howls of derisive laughter.

>>5858752

>metaphysical

Electrons and atoms are metaphysical?

Elaborate

>>5858763

OK then, but where's the religion bullshit involved on a brain scan?

I don't see why you're both calling every post you see a "troll" either, is that some kind of new "funny meme" i missed?

>>5857300
He is the sort of person whose actions attract the kind of fans that anger religious types, who in turn pester Dawkins, causing him to act more in the way that gathers more cancerous fans, creating a downward spiral of douchebaggery

I refuse to publicly identify as an atheist because of evangelical atheists like Dawkins and the cult that's sprung up around him.

>>5858769

I don't care.

I'm only trying to find out if you are a bot.

>>5858772

"Consiousnes is hurr durr metaphysical magic" guy is a Troll.

I suspect it may be a bot.

>>5858779

This made me think, what if Dawkins is actually a christian fundamentalist, funded by religious groups to make true atheists look bad and arrogant?

>>5858786
That is starting to make way too much sense

I think he is awesome, instead of being a boring old man spending his time in some boring Oxford library he goes out and stirs shit up.

>>5858791
But if you stir shit up, it's still shit, just smoother shit...

>>5858779

Why would you publicly identify as an atheist in the first place.
Nobody really gives a shit what you believe. Not even the missionaries. They just want your money.

>>5858772
>Electrons and atoms are metaphysical?
Electrons and atoms surely are physical. Non-interacting ghost entities or unobservable "epiphenomena" are surely not physical. Please keep dualism on /x/.

>OK then, but where's the religion bullshit involved on a brain scan?
Nowhere. A brain scan explicitly disproves /x/ nonsense by showing that we can explain behaviour biologically without resorting to baseless soul/consciousness hogwash.

>>5858803
I don't mean I'd go around saying "I'm an atheist" unprompted, but in terms of if someone asks me a direct question about it, instead of saying "I'm an atheist", I'd just be noncommittal or say I'm agnostic or I don't think about it or shit like that.

>>5858783
I am neither a "guy" nor a "troll". What I said is scientifically accurate. If you want to talk about metaphysics or spiritualism, please go to /x/. On /sci/ we want to discuss science and math.

>>5858814

Fair enough, but i never defended either of those pseudo-sciences

>>5858814
"conscious is pseudoscience" troll confirmed for bot

He fights religion but he refuses to acknowledge tat atheism is a religion

>>5858837
They're orrganized, I tell you.
They have a political agenda.

>>5858872

They do.
They are trying to Rustle Jimmies.
????
For Profit

I understand that his work in genetics found huge interest in the academic world, which is a cause for respect.

He also seems not to pick on Christianity in particular, but is also critical of other religions/cultures, and even shares moderately controversial views that the stereotypical Dawkins fan would find ominous, such as on eugenics or racial differences.

So altogether I think he's pretty boss.

There was an overzealous acceptance of him at first, followed by an overzealous rejection of him, in my opinion.

>>5857345

imagine if it wasn't for religion, then we could actually discuss something as fascinating as conscience on /sci/

>>5858918
You contradicted yourself in your own post. But I guess that's your failed troll attempt. So I'll just give you a 1/10 for making me reply.

was really into him until I tried to read The God Delusion. Got halfway through and put it down because he sounded like too much of prick. I agree with him and but holy hell he just sounded so goddamn butthurt the whole book with muh atheism

>>5857321
Not to get pedantic, but you don't "belive" in evolution. It's a science supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. There's no belief required. You either understand it or you don't.

>>5860124
Is it really that bad of a book?

I respect him and he is my hero.

>>5858791
I agree. He reaches out to people and talks to them. Isn't afraid to express his opinions and is actually interesting and entertaining to listen to. He made atheism popular and opened many people's eyes to how silly religions are.

He is a cool guy. Sometimes he can be arrogant, but everyone would do the same if you often had to deal with people who thought your field of study is bullshit based on misunderstandings of your field of study and because it contradicts their religious views. He should win a nobel prize and a field's medal.

>>5857300
He's a jerk but, hey, I can still lot of jerks.

>>5860825
I don't actually think he's that arrogant, he just sounds arrogant because of his accent. David Attenborough also sounds arrogant, but it's just his accent.

The problem with him is he doesn't confront people with his own belief, he just let's them talk over him. In reality he is no better than conspiracy theorists going around promoting their own books, instead of helping the situation just creating jimmy rustling everywhere.

>>5860412
Taking someone else's word for things is believing in something. Whether that thing is true or not is a different matter.

>>5861109
How are you gonna talk with people that believe in flying horses that split the moon in half ?

>>5860802
not at all if you can take the tone of it. It's a decent read

I see him as a nice enough man outwardly, he's got a wife and family so he not a dick all the time just to idiots with idiotic questions.

But his work in science grant him respect, he's made a few discoveries and some important and his foundation has funded a lot of research that the US government usually rejected because of "muh religion".

You can see him as a dick if thats what your priest tell you, but you can still respecting his science bitch.

>>5857300
He's a fucking cunt of a man. Makes both atheists and scientists look really fucking bad right in the public eye. He's probably secretly a radical christian plant.

>>5861134
You don't have to take his word for it, all the evidence is there.

>focusing on opinions of individuals instead of scientific concepts
I'd like to say you're better than this, /sci/, but you're obviously not.

>>5860412
>Not to get pedantic, but you don't "belive" in evolution. It's a science supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. There's no belief required. You either understand it or you don't.
No YOU don't "believe" in evolution. Many others do.

http://youtu.be/GFn-ixX9edg?t=5m

>>5861134
this.
>>5861201
But, him saying it, even if it is based on fact, is still a belief derived from that fact.
> of course it's still super gay to say, "I believe 2+2=4" and most people laugh at the psych major trying too hard to fit in.

>>5861207
Evolution is not a belief, evolution is a scientific theory.

>a scientific theory

any predictions beyond mutation and adaptation?

as a scientist- yes
as a person- no, he doesn't seem to have good people skills and tends to come off condasending almost always

>>5862035
and like many other scientific theories, completely useless and incorrect

>>5862052
nothing that "breeding" won't cover

>>5862178
>incorrect
evolution is a fairly unremarkable consequence of the fact of imperfect inheritance.

I used to think he was a dick, then I actually watched some of his videos and such.
Seems pretty alright.
Turns out the reason I hated him was militant athiest teens

>>5862220
I watched some of his videos too and my impression is that he is in fact an arrogant douchebag.

>>5860818
No, he made being a pseudointellectual and edgy popular.

I respect him for his outspoken anti-theism. I don't see the big deal about his science publications but that's not my field so my opinion doesn't count on that matter.

Telling christians how wrong they are doesn't contribute anything to science.

He's not a scientist, he's a pop figure and anyone who idolizes him is a fucking fedora.

>>5857319
>he openly admits sharing spiritualist views
You're fucking retarded. I hope you're trolling.

>>5863647
From what I've seen he seems to have a problem as an educator when he's dealing with religious individuals.

>>5857821
I'm down with this opinion

Of course, he and his fan-base is laying down the rudiments for a theology based on science.

>>5863642

Because we didn't have pseudo intellectuals in the past?

>>5863647

He doesn't claim to be contributing anything to science.

>>5857326
But he's not advocating dualism. In fact, he's actively searching for a materialistic explanation of consciousness. That's what his response was about. Right now we have this phenomenon "subjective consciousness", and we currently don't have a full account of the mechanics. Like I already said, he's simply searching for a scientific, materialistic, empirical explanation of that phenomenon.

Whether you're trolling or not is irrelevant. This should help clear up any confusion for those who might legitimately think the same way as you.

There are moderate secularists in abundance. We don't need more of them. And he's not really that much of a militant atheist either in comparison to others. Whether he's doing it for money, fame or out of genuine concern for the cause I don't know but as far as his approach goes I commend him.

>>5862220

Same here. Both the theists and the atheists exaggerate his persona when in fact his stances of a lot of issues are pretty moderate as far as secular stances go. He pretty much advocates humanism.

You people should look at Lawrence Krauss if you want to see an arrogant jerk off.

I have a neutral/positive-leaning view of Dawkins, but I mostly don't understand why people hate him. I presume it's because they see the negative press he gets and try to disassociate themselves from that. I like him in this discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IHU28aR2E

Also a great discussion just in general, worth a watch.

>>5863664
>for a materialistic explanation
That's a contradiction. There is no materialistic explanation for something metaphysical and since it doesn't even have any observable effects, there isn't even anything that needs to be explained. Please keep dualism and spiritualism out of the science board.

>Right now we have this phenomenon
No, we don't. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidnece. Non-interacting ghosts belong on >>>/x/. Science needs objective evidence.

>>5863689
Ah, so that's an affirmative on the trolling then.

Carry on.

>>5863685

This. Krauss is a proper jerk. Not only towards religion. He pretty much has a distaste for anything that isn't "pure" science. Coming to thing of it, he's a /sci/borg irl.

>>5863690
>/x/tard gets disproved
>resorts to calling scientists "trolls"

Please grow up.

>>5863664
>he's searching for a materialistic explanation for [unobservable non-physical /x/ "phenomenon"]

0/10, please try to be more creative in your troll attempts

>>5863711

troll wannabe

>>5863716
I guess so. I wished people like him would lurk more and if they still feel the need to "troll", they should at least try to be kinda creative and funny. Just walking into /sci/ and posting /x/ spiritualism shit is so old and overused. We get this nonsense every fucking day.

>>5863721

Here's why I find it mildly amusing:

Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. Anyone may receive spirit messages, but formal communication sessions (séances) are held by "mediums," who can then provide information about the afterlife.[1]

Spiritualism developed and reached its peak growth in membership from the 1840s to the 1920s, especially in English-language countries.[2][3] By 1897, it was said to have more than eight million followers in the United States and Europe,[4] mostly drawn from the middle and upper classes, while the corresponding movement in continental Europe and Latin America is known as Spiritism.

>>5857300
I always try to have a nice intelligent conversation with this guy on twitter but he never replies :/

>>5857319
>believes in "spiritualist" views
>Dawkins actually talking about subjective consciousness, aka "the hard problem"
Really? You are an asshat.

>>5857326
That's not dualism you idiot.

>>5857332
What the fuck does consciousness have to do with souls? You can have one without the other.

>>5857334
Consciousness is testable. Here, let me ask my friend, "Do you see that red table over there?". "Yes I do". Tested.

>>5857424
1- You have religious schools where creationism is being taught.

2- Beliefs are operative. People behave according to their beliefs. If lots of people have false pernicious beliefs, then that's bad for everyone, and that's why we should try to inform them and fix their bad beliefs.

>>5857425
>information processing in the brain is not wholly algorithmic.
Why not? If you use the basic loose definition of algorithm ala the Church Turing thesis, then of course the mind is a computable process.

Give or take quantum randomness.

>>5857437
Religion is not the only source of evil and stupidity. It is a big one.

Specificalyl, the underlying cause that people think it's ok to believe something without evidence, which is also the source of anti-GMO, anti-vaxxers, and so on.

>>5857471
Come on. Hitchens was the best/worst of them all in terms of arrogance. He was a boss.

>>5857490
Anyone who is religious is acting idiotic, yes. That is correct.

>>5863859
Yes, it is and it does not belong on a science board.

>>5857499
What? For going behind an honest, intelligent man who is trying to make the world a better place? No, you kill yourself.

>>5857514
Religious people are wrong. Thus you look down on their beliefs because their beliefs are demonstrably wrong. The only alternative is some weird epistimological relativism where what is true for me may not be true for you, and that's insane.

It is not arrogant to merely know that someone else is wrong. That is what it is to have knowledge.

It is not arrogant to merely say that someone else is wrong. That is required in many cases to make the world a better place.

>>5863863
Essentially they are synonyms. I don't care about the details of your spiritualist beliefs. From a scientific point of view everything that cannot be observed is nonsense and does not exist.

>>5863864
That's visual perception. Visual perception is a biological process and does neither require nor imply spiritual intervention.

>>5857529
Never has Dawkins advocated violence. Fuck off.

>>5863893
>Never has Dawkins advocated violence
top lel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yR8DaGOa1s

>>5857821
>mock Christians that believe in sacraments.
But the sacraments are obscenely silly. Do you really think the cracker turns into human flesh? Please. I had it before. It's still a cracker.

>>5863894
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yR8DaGOa1s
Nowhere in that 5 second clip did Dawkins advocate violence.

>>5863892
Ok. So you are a definition troll who uses a different definition than the rest of us. That's great. Fuck off already.

>>5863904
"Kill" sounds pretty violent to me.

>>5863907
Yes, and? He is not advocating violence.

>>5863905
I did not post any definition. I'm asking you to post yours, if it is scientically testable. Please name the observable effects of your /x/ theory.

>>5863908
Are you saying that "killing" is not an act of violence?

>>5863911
Things with human consciousness are able to pass the Turing test. They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.

Consciousness is merely a description of a macro system, a weak form of emergentism compatible with hard determinism and reductionism. E.G. the compatibilist position.

Similarly, one can talk about the meaningfulness of the number of floating point operations per second of a processor, and it's meaningless to talk about the number of floating point operations per second of a rock. The number of floating point operations per second is a description of a material machine. Similarly, consciousness is a description of a material machine.

This is your problem. Confusing model-prediction-reductionism with composition-reductionism.

>>5863913
Are you saying that he is advocating we kill someone?

>>5863911
Now consciousness is not qualia. Seems your beef is there. This is another problem of yours.

None of us have ever seen an atom. We know atoms exist only because it is a very convenient model of reality. E.G. Atomic theory. /Theory/. We know atoms exist because of indirect observations. We have never observed atoms "directly", whatever that means.

Similarly, you experience the sensory input of your own body, and not the sensory input of someone else's body. At least I do. I also take as axiomatic that I'm not special, I'm not the center of the universe, etc., and thus it follows that you also have these same experiences.

Like all good reductionist scientists, we want to know if we can explain these phenomena - why I experience this body's sensory input and not your body's - in terms of a simpler model. Maybe we can in the future. Maybe we can't.

It's like asking how do magnets work? They just do. We have lots of evidence that they do, but we have no model reduction that attempts to explain the behavior of the magnetic force in terms of a "more basic" model. (Rough approximation.) I cannot explain to you how magnets work, except to say that they do, and how they do. I cannot explain to you how magnets work in terms of anything else you're more familiar with, because I don't understand them in terms of anything else which you're more familiar with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

>>5863915
>to pass the Turing test
The Turing test tests verbal intelligence and not metaphysical soul nonsense.

>They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.
That's called "information processing" and is purely physical. It does neither require nor imply metaphysical or spiritual intervention.

>a description of a macro system
What macro system? How does it look like? How can it be observed?

>a weak form of emergentism
"Emergent" is a meaningless word, equivalent to "magic". It does not add any information and does not explain anything.

>compatible with hard determinism and reductionism.
Magic is not compatible with science or rationality.

>a description of a material machine.
Machines are described in terms of physical processes and observable effects, not in terms of untestable and unobservable spiritualist nonsense.

I am asking you again: Please define your /x/ shit in terms of observable effects. Without observable effects it does not exist.

>>5863932
>The Turing test tests verbal intelligence and not metaphysical soul nonsense.
The rest of us define consciousness as a description of a material machine with many observable qualities, not in terms of an immaterial soul.

>>5863932
>What macro system? How does it look like? How can it be observed?
Do you have a similar problem when I say this table is red? What is a table? What is red? Both are not quarks. A table is a description of a macro object. Are you going to similarly disagree with the utility and objective meaning of saying that a certain collection of atoms is a table?

>>5863930
>Now consciousness is not qualia.
I don't care what it "isn't", I want to know what it "is". Please either define it in a scientific manner or gtfo back to /x/. I'm getting tired of that spiritualism trolling of yours.

>None of us have ever seen an atom.
Atoms have scientifically testable effects.

>we want to know if we can explain these phenomena
WHAT phenomena are you talking about? Please name them.

>>5863944
>WHAT phenomena are you talking about? Please name them.

>>5863915
>They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.

>>5863934
What are the observable effects? How many times do I have to repeat this question? Name them or GTFO. Without observable effects your spiritualism hogwash is to be dismissed.

>>5863938
Why do you resort to low tier trolling? Please don't be silly.

>>5863946
As I said, that's information processing and has absoutely nothing to do with your metaphysical or spiritual claims. I still have no idea what a soul/consciousness is and if you keep refusing to define it in scientific terms, then please go back to /x/.

>>5863954
>I still have no idea what a soul/consciousness is and if you keep refusing to define it in scientific terms, then please go back to /x/.

This is how most people define the word "consciousness":
>>5863915
>They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.

>>5863956
Information processing is physical and has nothing to do with spiritualism or dualism. There is absolutely no reason to rename it by using such unscientific vocabulary. Why do you troll /sci/?

>>5863969
People do not use the definitions that you use. We are going to continue to use the definitions common to neuroscience journals.

>>5863956
By that definition everything is "conscious". When I push my table, it moves. Thus it processed the information of being pushed and reacted accordingly due to the laws of physics. Is my table "conscious"?

>>5863972
I do not have a definition. I still do not understand what that word means. That's why I'm asking you to define it in terms of science. You fail to do so. Simply renaming existing phenomena by use of spiritualist vocabulary is just stupid. And you're wrong, neuroscientists avoid such vocabulary. Neuroscience is about the brain (a physical organ) and its functions. Non-interacting metaphysics has no place in neuroscience or in any science at all.

>>5863975
Rocks do not manufacture models of reality, any more than it can be said that they perform floating point operations.

>>5863986
>Rocks do not manufacture models of reality
Of course they do. They are part of reality. They are pure information.

>>5863975
>>5863986
There is a significant and objective difference in the internal parts of a rock and a human brain. The human brain can be said to manufacture predictions of possible and likely futures. We use the word "consciousness" to describe that and related phenomena. Rocks do no such thing.

>>5863988
>They are pure information.
Wow. Talk about hypocrisy. What the hell does that mean? How the hell is that meaningful by logical positivist standards? What testable claim might that imply?

>>5863991
The human brain is just a biological computer. Humans are biological machines. Everything in our brains is physical and obeys the laws of physics. There is no place for metaphysical or spiritual nonsense without observable effects.

>>5863995
I agree. We use the word "consciousness" to describe those material processes that happen in humans and not in rocks.

>>5863992
What is logical positivism and why do we need it?

>>5864002
Ok. I thought you might know that term. Ignoring that. Moving on.


>They [rocks] are pure information.
What the fuck does this mean? Is this testable? Is this observable?

>>5863999
Why would anyone use a spiritualist word to describe that which has already been given the name "information processing"? Seriously, your trolling is shit tier. "lol xD I'm posting /x/ stuff on /sci/ and pretend it's scientific by arbitrary redefinition." Don't you have anything better to do?

>>5864006
"Consciousness" is not a spiritualist word.

>>5864006
>Don't you have anything better to do?
Top Lel

>>5864004
Of course it is. The rock consists of particles. Particles have position and momentum. Both position and momentum can be measured with arbitrary precision. That's information

>>5864007
It is. That's why it doesn't belong on /sci/. You failed to define it in terms of observable effects. Please stop the trolling.

>>5864010
No. It can be described "via information". That is fundamentally different than saying "it is" "information". The second implies composition of parts in some way. Atoms are not composed of information. They do not contain information. They can be described by information.

>>5864011

See:
This is how most people define the word "consciousness":
>>5863915 (You)
>They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.

>>5864010
Let me try it like this. If it is observable, then that means that there is some possible coherent observation which would prove you wrong. Otherwise it's not observable, and it's just a truism.

What possible test could I run, with what possible coherent observation result, which would demonstrate that rocks are not information?

>>5864013
>irrelevant semantics

>>5864016
>This is how most people
No, it isn't. "Most people" are not spiritualists and thus reject such retarded vocabulary.

>>5864021
Very relevant semantics. That's all this is. Consciousness is not a spiritualist word. Consciousness is a word that we use to describe the material processes in the brain.

Rocks are not composed of information.

>>5864022
Consciousness is not a spiritualist word.

>>5864023
The algorithmic processes of the brain don't need to be renamed by using spiritualist vocabulary. Please stop the trolling.

>>5864024
It is. That's its origin and due to its lack of observable effects it is unscientific as fuck.

>>5864029
Consciousness is not a spiritualist word.

>>5864030
It is and it does not belong on a science board. Science is about observable phenomena and not about spiritualism or metaphysics. Please stop the trolling.

>>5864034
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=consciousness&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conscious&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conscience&allowed_in_frame=0

>>5864039
Thanks for confirming my point. Would you please take your dualism/spiritualism theories back to /x/ now?

>>5864048
>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=consciousness&allowed_in_frame=0
>state of being aware
That's testable.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conscious&allowed_in_frame=0
>knowing, aware
That's testable.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conscience&allowed_in_frame=0
>be (mutually) aware
That's testable.

>from com- "with," or "thoroughly" (see com-) + scire "to know" (see science).
That's testable.

Not a single mention of spirits or souls in those links.

>>5864054
>That's testable.
Please name the test. I fail to see it.

>>5864058
Which?

>aware
There are plenty of tests for awareness that can differentiate between awake people vs asleep people, and awake people vs rocks.

>knowing
Just ask them. People can answer. Rocks can't.

>>5864061
>There are plenty of tests for awareness that can differentiate between awake people vs asleep people, and awake people vs rocks
What does wakefulness have to do with a metaphysical "awareness"?

>>knowing
Knowledge is physically stored information. I fail to see how this proves your metaphysical claims.

>>5864064
>awareness
That's not metaphysical. Awareness is not a spiritualist word.

Is this all you're going to do? Continue expanding spiritualist words to include all common vocabulary?

>>5864064
>Knowledge is physically stored information. I fail to see how this proves your metaphysical claims.
I am demonstrating that the etymology of consciousness comes from knowledge, not from souls. Thus making you wrong earlier when you said:
>>5864029
>It is. That's its origin and due to its lack of observable effects it is unscientific as fuck.

>>5864073
>That's not metaphysical. Awareness is not a spiritualist word.
What does it mean? What are its observable effects?

>I am demonstrating that the etymology
The etymology is irrelevant.

>>5864081
Someone is aware if they can take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible futures, and take actions based on those predictions. E.G. awake humans are aware. Rocks are not.

>>5864081
>The etymology is irrelevant.
You said that its original meaning was spiritual. I showed via the etymology that in fact it came from words that effectively mean awareness, knowledge, and other science cognates. No souls, spirits, or christian or other religious references at all.

>>5864090
>Someone is aware if they can take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible futures, and take actions based on those predictions.
That's a useless definition. By this definition everything is always aware.

> E.G. awake humans are aware.
Sleeping humans would also be aware. Our bodies are still processing information of exterior stimuli during sleep.

>Rocks are not.
By your definition they are. Rocks are made of particles. Due to quantum mechanics particles are processing information.

>>5864097
>By your definition they are. Rocks are made of particles. Due to quantum mechanics particles are processing information.
Now you are being difficult. We both know that human humans can be described as a general purpose computer which manufactures predictions of futures according to basic rationality and reasoning. Rocks do not perform calculations at all. Their internal structure is not set up to take in information, do inductive reasoning and scientific analysis.

>>5864128
>Their internal structure is not set up to take in information, do inductive reasoning and scientific analysis.

How do you know? Basically they are quantum systems, so they with future technology they could be used as quantum computers.

>>5864138
>How do you know? Basically they are quantum systems, so they with future technology they could be used as quantum computers.
That's funny. Keep up the good work.

I love Richard Dawkins.

>>5864081

Such sloppy trollage
awake and aware can't be exact synonyms:

Cf: I was awake of the implications of the treaty.

nonsense. You want to argue about words?

Lets go.!

>>5858812

I feel your need to distance yourself from certain atheists, but mislabeling yourself just makes the situation worse.

It gives people the wrong idea about what atheism and agnosticism are and it furthers the idea that atheism is something to be ashamed of.

Also, lying to people so that they will like you is kinda shitty.

So smart you assume someone means "a non-interacting soul spirit" when they say "consciousness."

>>5857300
>Does anyone here respect this man? I can't be te only one who thinks he is a complete dick.
Aren't both possible?

I mean Hitchens was kind of a dick, but damn did he know his stuff.

I respect the man because he tells idiots that they are idiots.

No politically correct garbage like"hurr everyone has a right to their own opinion and all opinions are equally true and durrr you are not an uneducated imbecile if you are 40 years old and think evolution is a hoax"

the public IS pig ignorant about science. that's a fact, not matter how offensive you find it. if you criticize them, they might change.

>think Dawkins is a jerk
>not just butthurt over being called delusional

shiggydiggy

I think most people use the word consciousness to simply mean "self-awareness," which isn't necessarily a mystical/spiritual concept at all. It is undeniable that you possess self-awareness. If your philosophical position leads you to deny the evidence of your senses, then your philosophy does not permit you do do science, since absolutely nothing could constitute "evidence" after a complete refutation of your senses.

>>5865551
>It is undeniable

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Please define your weird /x/ terms in a scientific manner, i.e. observable effects, and please provide evidence. Science is about observable phenomena, not about made up philosophy garbage.

>>5858786
But he does not make atheists look bad at all, what are you talking about? If simply being right is enough to make a guy look arrogant then so be it.

>>5865571

Sorry, I forgot that it was possible to both deny and accept the validity of the senses simultaneously.

>>5858868
Atheism is not a religion by definition.

>>5865583
Can you feel the euphoria?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBVefn6e5-A

>>5860832
The fuck is wrong with you people that you find David Attenborough arrogant, the hell is wrong with their accents?

>>5865584
What you just posted makes no sense. Nobody is denying the valdity of perception. Perception is a physical process of measurement. Since it is physical, we don't need metaphysical nonsense to describe or explain it. Instead we describe and explain it in terms of science. Since it is physical, we can also conclude that all its effects stay physical and thus do not produce any metaphysical magic. You seem confused. Please read up on how science works.

>>5865571
He's talking about the use of information to draw conclusions using logic, which is what philosophy is which is what science is. You're using logic, in science, to make conclusion about what you've observed. That is exactly to what he is referring.

Why is it that half of /sci/ thinks they all of a sudden get to decide what philosophy is?
the sciences are god damn expansions of philosophy

>>5865594
1. Science and philosophy are incompatible. Science explains things while philosophy insists in "u cannot know nuthin".
2. He was not talking about logic, but on the contrary he was talking about metaphysical "phenomena" without observable effects. That's highly illogical, irrational and not compatible with science's principle of Hitchens' razor.

>>5865571
>>yfw disputing the merits of philosophy is philosophy

>>5865598
No, it's just common sense.

>>5865596
That's because you can't know anything, based upon logical truths, other than your own existence, or something like that the discovering of the truth of which being the point of philosophy.

How about this, just answer me some questions.

How do you know your senses are reliable?

>>5865601
Why do you resort to irrelevant philosophy trolling on kindergarten level? Is it because you're lacking the education to talk about science and math?

Can someone help me out on explaining this more clearly?

It's difficult for me to argue against the equivalent of "nuh-uh" just like it would be hard to explain to someone that said 2+2=4 is math when they argue "no, it's just logic"

>>5865602
Why do you dodge my points and questions and instead rely on a weak ad hominem to try and raise a "point"?

>>5865605
Where did I post an ad hominem? I was merely stating observations.

>>5865607
An Ad Hominem has nothing to do with correctness of the personal attack. It has everything to do with a personal attack irrelevant to truth or one's point in terms of the discussion.

Thusly It doesn't matter whether or not it was true, you still dodged my question and points, and countered with a fallacy that you, as you have just demonstrated, misunderstand the meaning of.

>>5865607
>trolling on kindergarten level?
>ad hominem
>denser than uranium

I have not much comment, he did his job and did it well.

The problem is people, I don't like those who worship him like god, they are retarded.

>>5865615
As we all know, elementary schools offer a rigorous course of logic and critical thinking classes.

>>5865614
You don't even have a point. Your "question" is answered by common sense any 5 year old should have developed naturally. I'm sorry to hear that your neurological condition is abnormal.

>>5865625
Well, since "common sense" refers to the most commonly held thought processes, and the beliefs of the group do not constitute absolute truth both by definition and observation, not only are you still responsible for your beliefs in this matter, but you should have no trouble answering any of my questions in a more comprehensible, thorough and logical fashion.

Otherwise you're just committing another fallacy of appealing to vague authority (forget the official name, google it if you must). Even if I'm having a stroke and it isn't a fallacy I've pretty much explained why it's a bullshit evasion.

Also, what if I just said "no, your point isn't even a point." That would be very detrimental to any actual intelligent discussion, know?

People generally try to avoid steering discussion in that direction because this is, you know, a science board.

>>5865639
Pseudo-philosophy is for children too intellectually lazy to discuss real science and math where their baseless opinions would be objectively disproved.

>>5865650
>what? Reasons why you think you're right? well I'm right

Stop talking about it and do it, otherwise you're irrelevant.

>>5865655
Why do you refuse to talk about science and math? What are you doing on /sci/?

>>5865660
>Why do you refuse to talk about science and
> math? What are you doing on /sci/?
he said, objectively proving, once and for all, the irrelevance of philosophy.


Or maybe its psuedo-philosophy now? Did you google philosophy and find out you've been wrong and try to sneak in a change of your proposed point?

>>5865668
It is not my burden of proof.

>>5865670
When you are claiming to know something , especially when you're using said something's affirmation as a justification for your correctness, the burden of proof is with you. That's science you fucking idiot.

I don't get to just say "nope you're wrong", you don't get to say "nope you're wrong", because that's science logic and to do otherwise would mean that you are expecting me to change my mind and agree with you simply because you said so.

>>5865670

cont'd from
>>5865677
If you don't think you need to prove yourself than why are you arguing that at all? It's still a defense just a bad one.

>>5865670
God damn you're persistent. 7/10 for dedication, +1 for having people actually fall for it.

>>5865692
Fall for what? What are you talking about? I'm just explaining why the other anon is wrong. That's how science works. Science is all about falsification.

>>5865714
You weren't explaining why I was wrong- you specifically explaining, or trying to, why you didn't have to explain anything.

Even if you are a troll i don't care, because people do believe stupid shit like this and hopefully someone will see this thread and realize they are wrong.

>>5865720
I did not even make any claims ITT. Only you were stating your beliefs and I provided scientific and logical reasons why they're wrong. Please learn how to debate.

>>5865722
I think the kind of argument you're looking for would actually be more suited to >>>/lit/ as you're doing nothing but arguing wordings and semantics, dodging any questions and resorting to "go back to /x/" a lot. On second thought, try /b/.

>>5865722
>It is not my burden of proof.
are you fucking kidding me?

>>5865722
>scientific and logical reasons
>go back to /x/
>consciousness = soul
>I don't have to answer that
>that's not my burden of proof
>that's not even a point so I'll ignore it
>that's a retarded claim so I'll ignore it

>>5865722

>perception is measurement

claim offered without proof

>>5865725
You must be addressing the wrong post. I do not argue semantics. That's childish and I disapprove of such useless nonsense posting.

>>5865726
Do you even burden of proof?

>>5865733
Maybe I am addressing the wrong post then. Help me out here, are you or are you not the guy whose entire argument is "consciousness means the same thing as soul"?

>>5865729
Thanks for collecting my words of wisdom. Read them carefully and you might learn something.

>>5865731
It's a scientific fact. Perception is a physical process of measurement. What else do you think it is? Magic? Don't be silly. The biochemical and physical mechanisms behind perception have been explained by biology more than a century ago.

>>5865734
I am not a guy and that wasn't an argument but simply a fact. From a scientific point of view all untestable and unobservable claims are equivalent and are equally dismissed after application of Hitchens' razor. If you want to argue about the details of magic beliefs, then you're on the wrong boad. You might want to try >>>/x/

>>5865736
So if for perception to count as scientific, you require scientific proof, then does that not mean that anything that's not been proven is unscientific? And then does that not mean that science is inherently useless because whatever hasn't been proven is not scientific and therefore not worth proving?

>>5857325
dat irony

>>5857377
lol'd

>>5865741
Please learn how the scientific method works.

>>5858791
>no hoverhand
ALPHA AS FUCK

>>5865739
"I just typed a post on the 4chan/sci/ board."
This is a claim I just made. If it is true, by definition I'd have had to be conscious to do it. I even had to be conscious to make that claim. In fact I'd have to be conscious to tell you that I just made a claim.

Please prove me wrong logically and scientifically.

>>5865746
Tell me.

>>5865750
> by definition

No. Typing a reply is a biological response to a stimulus. It has nothing to do with spiritual intervention. Please keep that nonsense on /x/.

>>5865736

"It is a scientific fact"

is argument by assertion


we can discuss what magical thinking is later

>>5865751
Do your homework alone.

>>5865752
Consciousness has nothing to do with spiritual intervention. This has been brought up and dealt with before in this very thread. Repeating claims does not make them true.

Prove to me that consciousness by definition involves spiritual intervention.

>>5865754
Science is based on facts and logic. If you disagree, you are wrong on /sci/.

>>5865757
Without testable effects it does not exist from a scientific point of view. Why do you keep trolling? Please go back to /x/.

>>5865759
>Without testable effects it does not exist from a scientific point of view.
That is not an answer to my question and you're not going to give me one so I'll leave you alone now.

>>5865759

>Science is based on facts and logic. If you disagree, you are wrong on /sci/.

irrelevant.

you made a claim. You have yet to prove that perceptiong and measurement are identical.
Intuition tells me that are not. But I am not asserting that.
You asserted : you provide evidence.

>>5865596
Science is one philosophy of many you idiot.

>>5865762
I asked you to name observable effects. You still refuse to do so. Please leave. You are wrong on the science board, if your only intention is trolling.

>>5865767
>You have yet to prove that perceptiong and measurement are identical.
I never said they are identical. Perception is a special case of measurement. Did you fail the logic section of the IQ test? Get that disability checked.

>>5865770
No, science is objective truth.

>>5865733
>You must be addressing the wrong post. I do not argue semantics. That's childish and I disapprove of such useless nonsense posting.
That's all you've been doing, is arguing over the definition of consciousness.

>>5865773
I did not argue. I was simply asking anon to name the observable effects because I do not know what that word means.

>>5865772
>No, science is objective truth.
No, science is a philosophy.

How do you know that basing your expectations of future sensory experience based on inductive reasoning on your past experience will work?

>>5865774
And I did, repeatedly.


>>5863915
>They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.

>>5865775
>How do you know
Because unlike you I'm not cognitively impaired.

>>5865777
I already told you that this definition of yours is useless because what you describe does already have a scientific name and does not need to be referred to by spiritualist vocabulary instead. What you're basically doing is parading around /sci/ and shouting "lol I refer to 'voltage' as 'clairvoyance' now xDD". Childish and inappropriate. Please keep /x/ out of /sci/ and stop trolling with such kindergarten nonsense.

>>5865782
That's not an answer.


No, science is a philosophy.

How do you know that basing your expectations of future sensory experience based on inductive reasoning on your past experience will work?

>>5865782
>I already told you that this definition of yours is useless because what you describe does already have a scientific name and does not need to be referred to by spiritualist vocabulary instead. What you're basically doing is parading around /sci/ and shouting "lol I refer to 'voltage' as 'clairvoyance' now xDD". Childish and inappropriate. Please keep /x/ out of /sci/ and stop trolling with such kindergarten nonsense.
So, you are arguing only over the proper definition of "consciousness". I know you're either terminally retarded or trolling, but I can keep this up all day, and tomorrow, etc.

>>5865783
I answered your question. I'm sorry to hear that you lack the cognitive skills to understand science.

>>5865785
I am not arguing, I am asking you for a definition. All I got from you so far was childish trolling. But since you're now resorting to pure insults, I'll assume your shitposting is gonna end soon. Your nonsense has been disproved and your childish troll attempt failed. Go ahead and rage a little bit more until mommy tells you to go to bed.

>>5865789
>I answered your question. I'm sorry to hear that you lack the cognitive skills to understand science.
That's a personal attack, not an answer to the question.
How do you know that basing your expectations of future sensory experience based on inductive reasoning on your past experience will work?

>I am asking you for a definition. All I got from you so far was childish trolling.
No. Here it is again:

>They are able to take in information, form models, manufacture predictions of possible future, and then take actions.

I just found out what his PhD was about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Thesis Selective pecking in the domestic chick (1967)

Apparently he was able to deduce some hardcore stuff about the evolution of cooperation and teamwork through this, but seriously. Imagine a 25 years old Dawkins sorrounded my chickens, picking different materials and systems to analize their pecking. It's just cute.

>>5863897
what is symbolism for the fact that jesus and his disciples feasted on bread that night. wow. if you're going to shit on something makes sure you know alot about it or you just risk making yourself look retarded. No one believes the cracker or bread or whatever turns into anything

>>5865571
in that case to animals have a sense of self or self awareness? I mean thy respond to their environment through insight learning wouldn't they need to know their current position and what not to be able to do this thus they know they exist?

>>5865926
You need to do your research. The Roman Catholic Church for most of its history, including today, teaches that it literally becomes the body of Jesus Christ. Of course, other christian groups may differ. However, "the sacraments" AFAIK is a distinctly Roman Catholic concept, and that's why I applied Roman Catholic teachings.

>>5865989
Including today? I don't believe that I went to one of those private catholic schools and all I ever heard them say during mass time(yeah it was mandatory) is this "REPRESENTS the blood and body of christ" "take of it and think of me" and what not.

>>5865974
What are "sense of self" and "self awareness"? Can you please name the testable effects?

>>5866841

only causes have effects
scratch that
cause and effect is probably an illusion

You should ask "what coorelates with sense of self"

Wait, I'll get you a cognitive anthropologist.