Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

RebelWithanAK · Oct 21, 2003, 02:37 am

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
Certainty acceptable to whom?

To you, obviously from your comments-- but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to anyone else.

As I have said, I don't dispute this when dealing with clearly material phenomena. But when you're dealing with phenomena that are less clearly material -- such as socio-political structures, ethics, aethetics, epistemology and (importantly for this discussion), consciousness.

When you make statements like "our consciousness is nothing more than a series of electric synapses" then I don't consider sensory information even close to an acceptable level of certainty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I am, of course, referring to the material world. Everything else is a man-made sociological construct and thus up to interpretation depending on who is interpreting it and how their brain's physical connections have formed and what emotional state they are in when they think about it. I don't believe in 'spirituality,' except as just such a construct placed on top of physical emotions. Likewise, I see the 'mind' as synapses, traceable by the likes of EEG scans. The certainty is acceptable to me, and well enough to modern science to track and examine cases of epilepsy and other malfunctions of the mind.

As such, I don't believe I am due part of the 'naive' group you've placed me into, because I see the answer as having taken a wrong step in replying to the question. The question, as I saw it, was "how does our consciousness work, as related to the physical mass of our grey matter?" and the answer was attacking it from the wrong direction, by first starting with a sociological contruct: Spirituality. That's like a two-dimensional being trying to explain three dimensions. It's simply impossible.

Oct 21, 2003, 02:37 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,) Certainty acceptable to whom? To you, obviously from your comments-- but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to anyone else. As I have said, I don't dispute this when dealing with clearly material phenomena. But when you're dealing with phenomena that are less clearly material -- such as socio-political structures, ethics, aethetics, epistemology and (importantly for this discussion), consciousness. When you make statements like "our consciousness is nothing more than a series of electric synapses" then I don't consider sensory information even close to an acceptable level of certainty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am, of course, referring to the material world. Everything else is a man-made sociological construct and thus up to interpretation depending on who is interpreting it and how their brain's physical connections have formed and what emotional state they are in when they think about it. I don't believe in 'spirituality,' except as just such a construct placed on top of physical emotions. Likewise, I see the 'mind' as synapses, traceable by the likes of EEG scans. The certainty is acceptable to me, and well enough to modern science to track and examine cases of epilepsy and other malfunctions of the mind. As such, I don't believe I am due part of the 'naive' group you've placed me into, because I see the answer as having taken a wrong step in replying to the question. The question, as I saw it, was "how does our consciousness work, as related to the physical mass of our grey matter?" and the answer was attacking it from the wrong direction, by first starting with a sociological contruct: Spirituality. That's like a two-dimensional being trying to explain three dimensions. It's simply impossible. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.