The sequel to Irreducible Mind...

Past and future states? Best not to assume those exist:

"…History is bunk…Science must even deny the basic notion that we ever really think about the past and the future or even that our conscious thoughts ever give any meaning to the actions that express them…"
-Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide to Reality.

I don't assume anything exists. I don't know. I honestly really do not care at all. I just use the rhetoric that other people use. Most of my comments are spontaneous and not given any thought.

I agree with Alex Rosenberg and materialist assumptions in general. Of course, the basis for their assumptions is not really all that great but their conclusions are sound, for the most part.
 
I don't assume anything exists. I don't know. I honestly really do not care at all. I just use the rhetoric that other people use. Most of my comments are spontaneous and not given any thought.

I agree with Alex Rosenberg and materialist assumptions in general. Of course, the basis for their assumptions is not really all that great but their conclusions are sound, for the most part.

Are you coming from a nondualist perspective, like that born of Don DeGarcia's yoga-"science"? It's interesting to me that nondualism basically leads to the same conclusions as materialism, though apparently you have to feel bad about your desires to get to the same place. Similarly, in some monotheistic traditions you have to hate your sexuality even while conceding an omniscient God knows all that you will do and you are shackled to His plan.

Why do these people even bother refuting materialism? A sublimation of sexual urges into masochism perhaps?

I prefer Putnam's pragmatic pluralism, as described in Beyond Physicalism & Dualism, which accepts we can only get so far describing reality via any method of inquiry. I guess it's Neutral Monism without the assurance of any underlying monism.
 
Are you coming from a nondualist perspective, like that born of Don DeGarcia's yoga-"science"? It's interesting to me that nondualism basically leads to the same conclusions as materialism, though apparently you have to feel bad about your desires to get to the same place. Similarly, in some monotheistic traditions you have to hate your sexuality even while conceding an omniscient God knows all that you will do and you are shackled to His plan.

Why do these people even bother refuting materialism? A sublimation of sexual urges into masochism perhaps?

I prefer Putnam's pragmatic pluralism, as described in Beyond Physicalism & Dualism, which accepts we can only get so far describing reality via any method of inquiry. I guess it's Neutral Monism without the assurance of any underlying monism.

I coming from the knowledge that the idea of what it means to be me as an individual doesn't really exist fundamentally.* I'm coming from a point of view where I hold experience and common sense to be paramount to anything else. I'm not saying consciousness doesn't exist or even that individual consciousness is an illusion. I won't go as far as to say duality doesn't exist, because it clearly does, and there is no such thing as nondual experience. Ego-less and nondual aren't the same, regardless of what the spiritual scriptures might say. Anything beyond experience is incomprehensible and isn't worth discussing.

When it comes to metaphysical beliefs, what is good for a healthy functioning society and what realizations an individual might come to are probably not compatible, just like this conversation is not compatible with the idea of nonduality.

*I know this because it comes and goes and changes so easily. Something fundamental should be more permanent.
 
In particular, the filter model is certainly reducible, cuz, like, you have brains and filters and the external store and the transmission mechanism and whatever else. Perhaps the irreducible part is the store? Except it is reducible to individual memories.

The new title does not include the word "irreducible," so perhaps we are being unfair.

~~ Paul

My take on the filter model is different to what most would think. Consciousness is a neutral, blank slate. The brain gives it content, personality, memories, individuality, individual agency. It's like consciousness is water, and the brain is the grenadine that makes it taste nice. (Trying to avoid a Hannibal lectur references there)
 
My take on the filter model is different to what most would think. Consciousness is a neutral, blank slate. The brain gives it content, personality, memories, individuality, individual agency. It's like consciousness is water, and the brain is the grenadine that makes it taste nice. (Trying to avoid a Hannibal lectur references there)
I think I would partially agree with this, but not entirely. I think the consciousness has its own individuality and memories. It brings other qualities too, which may seem more mysterious. But the physical body, including the brain, overlays that with characteristics relating to the current life, which may include some of the things you itemised.
 
Just dropped by and saw an interesting post from Steve001. Steve, what would you consider to be an empirical proof that the brain produces consciousness, or an empirical proof that the brain doesn't produce consciousness. I'm a psychologist who has conducted research, so I know at least a little bit about empirical proofs, and as far as I know, these things are philosophic questions for which there could never be empirical proof. Tallis understands this, which is why he's approaching it from a philosophic view.

Thanks,
Don Salmon
www.remember-to-breathe.org
 
You can only get 100% proof in mathematics. In science you can only say what is the best hypothesis to explain the data. Every scientific controversy shows that the best hypothesis is only a matter of opinion. However when they look deeply into the phenomenon, ie not just at superficial attempts to debunk, not just the weakest cases but the strongest, and consider how the investigators respond to critics, many people including Nobel prize winners and other scientists consider the evidence for the afterlife to be overwhelming.

If you haven't read several books on the subject by those who find the evidence convincing and then gone deeper and looked at the original research reports by investigators, then you are not well informed on the subject. If you are basing your opinion solely on what self proclaimed "skeptics" say you are not well informed on the subject. If you only look at what is published on the internet, you are not well informed on the subject.

If your preconceived ideas are so fixed that you feel it would be a waste of time to become well informed, then your opinion on whether consciousness is produced by the brain is based on faith not evidence and is religious not scientific.

There is extraordinary evidence for the afterlife.
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/summary_of_evidence (Includes links to free e-books on the evidence for the afterlife.)
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-death-experiences-and-afterlife.html#facts_evidence

This evidence includes:
Mediumship: Proxy sittings, Drop-in communicators, Cross-correspondences.
Near-death experiences, veridical near-death experiences, and shared near-death experiences.
Death-bed visions, veridical death-bed visions, and shared death-bed visions.
Apparitions and multiple witness apparitions.
Children who remember past lives including those with an unusual type of birth mark on their body where an injury was sustained in the previous life.

Neither ESP or Super-psi can explain the evidence for the afterlife:
Poltergeist phenomena not associated with a particular person, drop-in communicators, cross-correspondences, etc.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/06/survival-and-super-psi.html
Mrs. Piper's Mediumship:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/05/further-record-of-observations-of.html

Nobel Prize winners Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Brian Josephson, Sir John Eccles, Eugene Wigner, George Wald and other great scientists and philosophers such as John von Neumann, Kurt Gödel, Wernher von Braun, Karl Popper, and Carl Jung believed consciousness is non-physical because of the evidence:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Consciousness is not produced by the brain. Consciousness is not an illusion or an epiphenomenon or an emergent property of the brain. Objective measurable physical phenomena cannot produce unmeasurable subjective experience. Correlation does not prove causation, the brain does not produce consciousness it filters consciousness. Natural selection would not produce consciousness. The brain is not a conscious computer.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-materialist-explanation-of.html

Why you should not automatically trust "skeptics" but should demand the same high level of proof from "skeptics" that they demand for claims of the paranormal: Skeptical Misdirection:
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection

(http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_afterlife)
 
Last edited:
How can you have a sequel to something that is already irreducible?
:eek:
I love this post. It shows clearly how wonky you are.

That someone, anyone, would confuse the title of a book with the actual concept the book addresses is stunning. Even if you (hopefully) were attempting to be amusing, it's an epic fail.
 
TBH I'm not that interested in the idea of a reconciliation of "science" and spirituality. Science as currently configured deals with only a small part of spirituality (source reality). To pretend that they are equal only fuels the naysayers.
 
I love this post. It shows clearly how wonky you are.

That someone, anyone, would confuse the title of a book with the actual concept the book addresses is stunning. Even if you (hopefully) were attempting to be amusing, it's an epic fail.
You failed to see the sardonic tone. :-).
I see you called Paul stupid more or less too. I could not care less what you think of me. Now go mine somemore quotes.
 
I see you called Paul stupid more or less too. I could not care less what you think of me. Now go mine somemore quotes.

- I hope not. If so that's on me. What I would have wanted to convey is that his approach to thinking about certain things is daft.
- I'm glad. It would be crazy to be affected by what some poster here thinks about your consistent naysaying.
- ?? Uh-huh.
 
Thanks. First time I've heard of it. Says it's temporarily out of stock at Amazon UK. But the USA Amazon claims it's not being published until the 15th. Oh well, I've ordered it anyway. Might take weeks before I receive it if it's anything like trying to get hold of Irreducible Mind! (near when it was first published).
 
Got message from Amazon saying:

Please be advised that we have a revised delivery date for the items you ordered on February 07 2015
Kelly, Edward "Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality"
Estimated arrival date: February 28 2015 - March 07 2015
 
Currently reading the first book.. Seems interesting. Im not nearly through with it, but ahm. Im thinking about buying the second book aswell soon enough. Idk what i should expect from the sequel though. Lets see.
 
Back
Top