I'm looking forward to hashing out some stuff with JF... then again, I'm not sure what to expect. any thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/user/JFGariepyVideo
https://www.youtube.com/user/JFGariepyVideo
Upcoming Live stream: Jean-François Gariépy The Open Space
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
You should start with talking about consciousness after death. JF is very materialist/biologically minded, it would be important to answer the fundamental, if consciousness continues after death, its the core of our differences, ultimately.
Expect to debate about the science we have about consciousness, as JF is a biologist he talks a lot about science. As such it would be wise to expect something like Michael Schermer, but more Darwinian and science minded.
It would also be important to flesh out what the data in general shows us, as far as i am aware JF has not studied this topic, so representing that would go a long way.
Expect to debate about the science we have about consciousness, as JF is a biologist he talks a lot about science. As such it would be wise to expect something like Michael Schermer, but more Darwinian and science minded.
It would also be important to flesh out what the data in general shows us, as far as i am aware JF has not studied this topic, so representing that would go a long way.
I suggest you stick to neuroscience-related subjects, but you will have to really push.
The Hard Problem is a good place to start.
Also, when it comes to localising certain types of mental activity to particular parts of the brain - e.g. anger to the amygdala, ask him how anger can be localised anywhere, because anger is almost always about something - so it has to pull in all our other mental faculties. They have to realise there is something to be angry about before 'telling' the amygdala - so what does the amygdala do itself - other than maybe pumping out some hormones?
That argument seems to me to dismantle the whole notion that consciousness can be broken down into various simple interacting modules.
I'll bet T.E.S will have some great ideas, but make sure he boils them down to something you definitely understand
Then of course there are NDE's. Make sure he has a bunch of information about NDE's ahead of time - then he can't argue that he hasn't read about them.
His politics sounds like it is rather poisonous, so maybe it would be best not to explore there?
David
The Hard Problem is a good place to start.
Also, when it comes to localising certain types of mental activity to particular parts of the brain - e.g. anger to the amygdala, ask him how anger can be localised anywhere, because anger is almost always about something - so it has to pull in all our other mental faculties. They have to realise there is something to be angry about before 'telling' the amygdala - so what does the amygdala do itself - other than maybe pumping out some hormones?
That argument seems to me to dismantle the whole notion that consciousness can be broken down into various simple interacting modules.
I'll bet T.E.S will have some great ideas, but make sure he boils them down to something you definitely understand
Then of course there are NDE's. Make sure he has a bunch of information about NDE's ahead of time - then he can't argue that he hasn't read about them.
His politics sounds like it is rather poisonous, so maybe it would be best not to explore there?
David
I suggest you stick to neuroscience-related subjects, but you will have to really push.
The Hard Problem is a good place to start.
Also, when it comes to localising certain types of mental activity to particular parts of the brain - e.g. anger to the amygdala, ask him how anger can be localised anywhere, because anger is almost always about something - so it has to pull in all our other mental faculties. They have to realise there is something to be angry about before 'telling' the amygdala - so what does the amygdala do itself - other than maybe pumping out some hormones?
That argument seems to me to dismantle the whole notion that consciousness can be broken down into various simple interacting modules.
I'll bet T.E.S will have some great ideas, but make sure he boils them down to something you definitely understand
Then of course there are NDE's. Make sure he has a bunch of information about NDE's ahead of time - then he can't argue that he hasn't read about them.
His politics sounds like it is rather poisonous, so maybe it would be best not to explore there?
David
The Hard Problem is a good place to start.
Also, when it comes to localising certain types of mental activity to particular parts of the brain - e.g. anger to the amygdala, ask him how anger can be localised anywhere, because anger is almost always about something - so it has to pull in all our other mental faculties. They have to realise there is something to be angry about before 'telling' the amygdala - so what does the amygdala do itself - other than maybe pumping out some hormones?
That argument seems to me to dismantle the whole notion that consciousness can be broken down into various simple interacting modules.
I'll bet T.E.S will have some great ideas, but make sure he boils them down to something you definitely understand
Then of course there are NDE's. Make sure he has a bunch of information about NDE's ahead of time - then he can't argue that he hasn't read about them.
His politics sounds like it is rather poisonous, so maybe it would be best not to explore there?
David
Sorry I am late replying ... but in a situation like that I would give lots of references to links and books and articles. Try to get viewers away from the materialist youtube channel and into an environment where the culture is different. People are influenced by what other people think so getting them away from the materialists and into a more broadminded environment can be helpful. And if they will look at your references they can be exposed to an alternative view without the materialists constantly repeating their bad arguments for materialism.
As far as debating goes. I would not try to debate the other person. I would allow them to have their opinions. I would try to explain to the materialists why many people believe differently. What the evidence is etc. Why it is reasonable for those so inclined to believe it. I would try to avoid a head to head conflict - that only makes people dig in harder. I would point out that all the controversies in the history of science show the best interpretation of the evidence is an opinion, intelligent people may disagree, and materialists should understand and respect different opinions held by intelligent people such as Nobel prize winners, scientists, medical doctors etc etc. If Nobel prize winning scientists believe something there are no grounds to ridicule non-scientists for believing the same thing.
As far as debating goes. I would not try to debate the other person. I would allow them to have their opinions. I would try to explain to the materialists why many people believe differently. What the evidence is etc. Why it is reasonable for those so inclined to believe it. I would try to avoid a head to head conflict - that only makes people dig in harder. I would point out that all the controversies in the history of science show the best interpretation of the evidence is an opinion, intelligent people may disagree, and materialists should understand and respect different opinions held by intelligent people such as Nobel prize winners, scientists, medical doctors etc etc. If Nobel prize winning scientists believe something there are no grounds to ridicule non-scientists for believing the same thing.
Last edited:
This Gariépy bloke isn't, as far as I've been able to determine, a surgeon, let alone "one of the best in the country". He's apparently a postdoctoral student in neuroscience:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Francois_Gariepy
Maybe he was just joking in some obscure way, trying to be ironic by claiming expertise he doesn't have to reflect back his claim that you were making appeals to authority? Who the heck knows.
His technique seems to be just the usual skeptical dismissive stuff: he doesn't even really know about Rupert Sheldrake's or Dean Radin's work, and can't be bothered to examine it seriously; instead he reflexively claims fraudulence or incompetence in researchers who've been at the game far longer than he has. He seems to rely on his predispositions to resonate with those in his echo chamber. It's impossible to have a real conversation with a guy like this.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Francois_Gariepy
Maybe he was just joking in some obscure way, trying to be ironic by claiming expertise he doesn't have to reflect back his claim that you were making appeals to authority? Who the heck knows.
His technique seems to be just the usual skeptical dismissive stuff: he doesn't even really know about Rupert Sheldrake's or Dean Radin's work, and can't be bothered to examine it seriously; instead he reflexively claims fraudulence or incompetence in researchers who've been at the game far longer than he has. He seems to rely on his predispositions to resonate with those in his echo chamber. It's impossible to have a real conversation with a guy like this.
Never seen JF so emotional, I think alex struck a nerve somwehre, JF's outright dismissal of anything that can possibly change his world view was obvious. Also its interesting how he denies authority, as a "fallacy" then claims a nurse cannot be trusted. Too me its seems like whenever he heard something that disagrees with him especially the neuroscience stuff, he just calls BS because he cant do anything else.
Don't know the bloke. over neuroscientists. Googled him and got:
"Jean-François Gariépy is a Franco-Canadian neuroscientist and a far-right activist. He specialises in evolutionary biology and brain sciences. Gariépy hosts the YouTube channel "The Public Space" where he calls for the creation of a white ethnostate in the US and Canada."
Bored already. Looks like predictable shite from my POV. Convince me otherwise.
"Jean-François Gariépy is a Franco-Canadian neuroscientist and a far-right activist. He specialises in evolutionary biology and brain sciences. Gariépy hosts the YouTube channel "The Public Space" where he calls for the creation of a white ethnostate in the US and Canada."
Bored already. Looks like predictable shite from my POV. Convince me otherwise.
The look on your face when JF denied the "double slit" experiment was priceless! BTW, I am a Skeptic viewer and I am
asking that you do a show on Velikovsky. ::)))))
asking that you do a show on Velikovsky. ::
)))))