Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[Siro]

What a waste of a work day this has been!

 

[NAOS]

Presented as information to be shared. Science is in the presentation, not the subjective experience of taking measurements or conducting experiments. I addressed what you said about the subjectivity of the observer. Progress toward an objective must be done through the evaluation of many subjective interpretations. This is part of why I consider science to be the sincere effort at objective knowledge, while individual-based approaches, like Eastern Enlightenment, are not. I don't disagree that subjectivity is relevant to the interpretation. It is, however, irrelevant to the existence of an object outside of subjective experience. What is, is.

cool. that wasn't coming through for me. I agree with the bolded. For sure.

Again, you misunderstood my point. Openly means that any observer can validate the information through whatever tools that may be available. This is inherent to the nature of communicable information.

I don't think I misunderstood you on this point. It was my intention to **** with the concept of "open", since that is a fashionable term right now and not nearly as explanatory as everybody is pretending it is.

Meh. I can say that you're being contrarian by denying the absolutely dominant role of the brain in information processing. I am sure some processing happens throughout the nervous system, but compare the volume of processing matter in the brain to the rest of the nervous system, which mostly consists of relays and sensors.

So what if I'm being a contrarian? I'm not wrong when I say that too many people laud the brain without knowing much about the experimental process and data gathering processes of the experiments. People are ****ing ready to tweet about how awesome the brain is. Being a contrarian in this atmosphere is totally acceptable, especially if you have good perspective.

The question was never about dominance (whatever that means). The question was about intrigue. The brain reacts; it is a great reactor in a total corporeal reaction. It is not a computer. What is it that commands brain action?

There are times when looking at the activity of the distal afferent nerves is way more telling (and, therefore, interesting!) than looking at the brain.

 

[♪alt13]

cool. that wasn't coming through for me. I agree with the bolded. For sure.





I don't think I misunderstood you on this point. It was my intention to **** with the concept of "open", since that is a fashionable term right now and not nearly as explanatory as everybody is pretending it is.



So what if I'm being a contrarian? I'm not wrong when I say that too many people laud the brain without knowing the experimental process and data gathering is all about. People are ****ing ready to tweet about how awesome the brain is. Being a contrarian in this atmosphere is totally acceptable, especially if you have good perspective.

The question was never about dominance (whatever that means). The question was about intrigue. The brain reacts; it is a great reactor in a total corporeal reaction. It is not a computer. What is it that commands brain action?

There are times when looking at the activity of the distal afferent nerves is way more telling (and, therefore, interesting!) than looking at the brain.

The brain is the least dispensable physical part of the self. I don't know how but I do know that without it I am not me. Every other physical part of me I can imagine being without. Losing some other parts may change me profoundly but I would still have something that I could call me.

 

[fishonjazz]

Siro, naos, hey hey, etc... Ya'll are smart mo fos.

I feel dumb reading your posts. I can't sling big *** words around on a level anywhere near you guys.


I'm glad I stayed out of this discussion. My brain hurts

 

[NAOS]

The brain is the least dispensable physical part of the self. I don't know how but I do know that without it I am not me. Every other physical part of me I can imagine being without. Losing some other parts may change me profoundly but I would still have something that I could call me.

meh. "self".

If you want to get into this further, you're going to have to be more specific about where you're getting your evidence for these speculations/claims.

 

[♪alt13]

meh. "self".

If you want to get into this further, you're going to have to be more specific about where you're getting your evidence for these speculations/claims.

What's your beef with "self"? Maybe more specifically "myself". From my perspective the existence of yourself is dependent upon mine, whereas mine is not dependent on yours. Doesn't that make myself pretty damn important?

I've never met "someone" without a brain. I've met plenty of "someones" without other bits. Until I see otherwise I will continue to give the brain special importance.

 

[NAOS]

If I handed you a crank set for a bicycle, would you think to yourself, "I've just been given the soul of a bike" or "I've just been given the least dispensable part of a bike"?

I've met amputees who, post-amputation, have been noticeably changed. Check back in with them in 5 years, and the change is more pronounced. It obviously depends on what has been amputated; and it definitely varies person-to-person.

I think what we're really talking about here is the conscious life that an individual bears into the present. My main beef is that "self" seems more and more like sloppy shorthand (at least to me, personally). Have you ever met someone without a heart (who wasn't laying next to an enormous machine)? Have you ever met someone without afferent nerves? Have you ever met someone without a spinal cord?

 

[♪alt13]

If I handed you a crank set for a bicycle, would you think to yourself, "I've just been given the soul of a bike" or "I've just been given the least dispensable part of a bike"?

I've met amputees who, post-amputation, have been noticeably changed. Check back in with them in 5 years, and the change is more pronounced. It obviously depends on what has been amputated; and it definitely varies person-to-person.

I think what we're really talking about here is the conscious life that an individual bears into the present. My main beef is that "self" seems more and more like sloppy shorthand (at least to me, personally). Have you ever met someone without a heart (who wasn't laying next to an enormous machine)? Have you ever met someone without afferent nerves? Have you ever met someone without a spinal cord?

It is so sloppy shorthand. I'm in a sloppy mood.

 

[Siro]

If I handed you a crank set for a bicycle, would you think to yourself, "I've just been given the soul of a bike" or "I've just been given the least dispensable part of a bike"?

I've met amputees who, post-amputation, have been noticeably changed. Check back in with them in 5 years, and the change is more pronounced. It obviously depends on what has been amputated; and it definitely varies person-to-person.

I think what we're really talking about here is the conscious life that an individual bears into the present. My main beef is that "self" seems more and more like sloppy shorthand (at least to me, personally). Have you ever met someone without a heart (who wasn't laying next to an enormous machine)? Have you ever met someone without afferent nerves? Have you ever met someone without a spinal cord?

The changes in the amputees' personality happen in the brain though. In theory, by comparing the difference in brain structure before the amputation to that of 5 years later, you should be able to predict all of those personality changes.

I am with Salt32. The brain is what makes you, you. It is the organ that contains your essence and enables your qualia. If you transplant the head onto a different body, you'd still be you. Of course since the brain is also reactive, like you stated, the effect of being in a different body will eventually affect your personality (for example having a bigger penis might make you more confident, and I hear heyhey has a 21-incher), but you will still have all your memories, your experiences, the narrative continuity of your consciousness, and the base personality which will react to the environment.

I also realize that I'm committing a fallacy of concreteness. The boundaries of what separates the person as an entity are blurry and hard to define. Am I the same person I was 5 years ago? Would I be the same person if I got a tattoo? Whatever. This isn't a philosophy dissertation, and I'm not going to worry about every facet of the argument.

The essence of Salt32's argument is correct, though. If you are to map all the information in my brain into a different substrate without my knowledge, and then put that artificial brain into a robot body that looks identical to my human body, then I would not notice a thing. Neither will anyone else. In all meaningful ways, I would still be me.

If you do the opposite, and clone my body to the last detail, but without copying the contents of my brain, then it is an entirely different person. They'd have a different personality, skills, history, reaction to stimuli, and everything else. That person, if he posted on this forum for example, would be recognized as a completely separate being.

Edit: I just noticed it's Salt13! ROFL.

 

[NAOS]

Yo, Siro, this was really helpful today. Perfect timing (in regards to a few things I've been thinking about lately). Thanks!

Would rep, but I gotta spread first.

 

[Siro]

Yo, Siro, this was really helpful today. Perfect timing (in regards to a few things I've been thinking about lately). Thanks!

Would rep, but I gotta spread first.

Same. I really enjoyed this discussion.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Siro, naos, hey hey, etc... Ya'll are smart mo fos.

I feel dumb reading your posts. I can't sling big *** words around on a level anywhere near you guys.


I'm glad I stayed out of this discussion. My brain hurts

Selling one's own self short is pretty much a cop out. Inexperience (read: ignorance) is a far cry from dumbness. You're capable if you have interest and willingness to research and learn any topic. One's retention and other applicable factor may influence the necessary time involvement, but I severely doubt your incapacity to understand most anything in this topic.

At least you're not in the perpetual I'm terrible at math and that's a good thing mentality some have. Ooh, maybe something for the pet peeve thread.

 

[fishonjazz]

Selling one's own self short is pretty much a cop out. Inexperience (read: ignorance) is a far cry from dumbness. You're capable if you have interest and willingness to research and learn any topic. One's retention and other applicable factor may influence the necessary time involvement, but I severely doubt your incapacity to understand most anything in this topic.

At least you're not in the perpetual I'm terrible at math and that's a good thing mentality some have. Ooh, maybe something for the pet peeve thread.

I know my strengths and weaknesses. Word slinging is one of my weaknesses.

I also have the ability to recognize the skills of others and when I do so I often give them compliments. I'm sorry that these types of things make you feel a certain way and feel the need to judge me. I won't hold it against you however.
Carry on

 

[babe]

Meh. I can say that you're being contrarian by denying the absolutely dominant role of the brain in information processing. I am sure some processing happens throughout the nervous system, but compare the volume of processing matter in the brain to the rest of the nervous system, which mostly consists of relays and sensors.

A defender of objective materialism in our current state of technology sometimes will fall into the trap, logically-speaking, of insisting that there is nothing that we can not measure, observe, detect, quantify, test, etc etc with our present technology, and end up asserting nonsense like "There can be no "God" because. . . . well, let alone because we can't objectively define or present a demonstrable thing answering to our definition. . . .nobody has scientifically demonstrated such a being."

This is like people saying, before the microscope was invented, that there were no germs or bacteria, or viruses.

This is like saying, before modern science developed the tools necessary to explore the ultimate nature of matter, that there are no "atoms" or indivisible particles which distinct characteristics. . . . . let alone sub-atomic particles. . . .

Well, I think science is good. From the time I was a child I understood that it was a system of exploration of things unknown, and in it's most important characteristics included a rule about reproducibility, meaning a result could be sufficient, rigorously described in terms of hypothesis, tools, equipment, methods, experimental design and conduct. . . . : to the extent that independent researchers could reconstruct the experiment and verify or disprove your results, and maybe propose other conclusions to your experiment than the one you prefer. . . .

That is what I understand as "Science".

I've always understood that religion is not conducted on those rules, and I've always defended the human being's right of belief. . . . it is essentially the same right as the right to question authority. . . . and it is the same right that scientists need to have to proceed with their business.

I haven't had time to read all the responses here, but I can tell it has been a productive discussion. . . .thank you all.

 

[Gameface]

A defender of objective materialism in our current state of technology sometimes will fall into the trap, logically-speaking, of insisting that there is nothing that we can not measure, observe, detect, quantify, test, etc etc with our present technology, and end up asserting nonsense like "There can be no "God" because. . . . well, let alone because we can't objectively define or present a demonstrable thing answering to our definition. . . .nobody has scientifically demonstrated such a being."

This is like people saying, before the microscope was invented, that there were no germs or bacteria, or viruses.

This is like saying, before modern science developed the tools necessary to explore the ultimate nature of matter, that there are no "atoms" or indivisible particles which distinct characteristics. . . . . let alone sub-atomic particles. . . .

Well, I think science is good. From the time I was a child I understood that it was a system of exploration of things unknown, and in it's most important characteristics included a rule about reproducibility, meaning a result could be sufficient, rigorously described in terms of hypothesis, tools, equipment, methods, experimental design and conduct. . . . : to the extent that independent researchers could reconstruct the experiment and verify or disprove your results, and maybe propose other conclusions to your experiment than the one you prefer. . . .

That is what I understand as "Science".

I've always understood that religion is not conducted on those rules, and I've always defended the human being's right of belief. . . . it is essentially the same right as the right to question authority. . . . and it is the same right that scientists need to have to proceed with their business.

I haven't had time to read all the responses here, but I can tell it has been a productive discussion. . . .thank you all.

I think the trap you describe is one only a strawman would fall into... I don't think anyone who knows anything really thinks we can know all things at the present time with our present technology. I really can't imagine anyone asserting that.

As to anyone claiming we can prove God doesn't exist...again, something only the strawman claims. I don't need to prove the non-existence of anything. Not dragons, not goblins, not invisible pink unicorns, not flying spaghetti monsters and not God. If someone makes a positive claim of their existence I'll listen to it as long as their claim is based on something...anything.

Until then, I'm busy listening to other stuff.

 

[Siro]

A defender of objective materialism in our current state of technology sometimes will fall into the trap, logically-speaking, of insisting that there is nothing that we can not measure, observe, detect, quantify, test, etc etc with our present technology, and end up asserting nonsense like "There can be no "God" because. . . . well, let alone because we can't objectively define or present a demonstrable thing answering to our definition. . . .nobody has scientifically demonstrated such a being."

This is like people saying, before the microscope was invented, that there were no germs or bacteria, or viruses.

This is like saying, before modern science developed the tools necessary to explore the ultimate nature of matter, that there are no "atoms" or indivisible particles which distinct characteristics. . . . . let alone sub-atomic particles. . . .

Well, I think science is good. From the time I was a child I understood that it was a system of exploration of things unknown, and in it's most important characteristics included a rule about reproducibility, meaning a result could be sufficient, rigorously described in terms of hypothesis, tools, equipment, methods, experimental design and conduct. . . . : to the extent that independent researchers could reconstruct the experiment and verify or disprove your results, and maybe propose other conclusions to your experiment than the one you prefer. . . .

That is what I understand as "Science".

I've always understood that religion is not conducted on those rules, and I've always defended the human being's right of belief. . . . it is essentially the same right as the right to question authority. . . . and it is the same right that scientists need to have to proceed with their business.

I haven't had time to read all the responses here, but I can tell it has been a productive discussion. . . .thank you all.

I'm not going to respond to "science doesn't know everything" and "you can't prove there is no God" portions because they are too philosophically elementary, and have been responded to a million times over.

I will point out the contradiction in your thinking though. You make two conflicting points. First, science does not rule out a creator because our understanding has limits. This is a materialist stance. You are saying that given a sufficient level of understanding, a hypothesis about the nature of God can be advanced. God is thus an ontologically natural phenomenon that can be understood. Later, you make the claim that God's existence does not fall into the bounds of scientific inquiry and must be left to religious belief. That's an immaterialist argument for God.

These are mutually exclusive arguments. I can easily respond to either point, but not both at the same time. Make up your mind.

 

[babe]

I'm not going to respond to "science doesn't know everything" and "you can't prove there is no God" portions because they are too philosophically elementary, and have been responded to a million times over.

I will point out the contradiction in your thinking though. You make two conflicting points. First, science does not rule out a creator because our understanding has limits. This is a materialist stance. You are saying that given a sufficient level of understanding, a hypothesis about the nature of God can be advanced. God is thus an ontologically natural phenomenon that can be understood. Later, you make the claim that God's existence does not fall into the bounds of scientific inquiry and must be left to religious belief. That's an immaterialist argument for God.

These are mutually exclusive arguments. I can easily respond to either point, but not both at the same time. Make up your mind.

And I will point our the unrealistic simplicity of your dichotomy.

In asserting that there is stuff we cannot access with our senses or scientific tools, I don't necessarily assert that it is immaterial, just inaccessible. Read up on Quantum Physics. We are still trying to design and build better tools for detecting material particles which our mathematics demands must exist.

Mormons have long harbored notions of "spirit" being a kind of matter that we cannot see or detect with our common tools of discovery, and in times long past have theorized that all living things have unique spirit forms, and that even inanimate stuff has a spirit form as well. However, the specific "God" Mormons believe in is distinctly and unequivocally material. The only thing we lack is a science with a power of subpoena which could command God to appear and submit to examination.

 

[Siro]

And I will point our the unrealistic simplicity of your dichotomy.

In asserting that there is stuff we cannot access with our senses or scientific tools, I don't necessarily assert that it is immaterial, just inaccessible. Read up on Quantum Physics. We are still trying to design and build better tools for detecting material particles which our mathematics demands must exist.

Mormons have long harbored notions of "spirit" being a kind of matter that we cannot see or detect with our common tools of discovery, and in times long past have theorized that all living things have unique spirit forms, and that even inanimate stuff has a spirit form as well. However, the specific "God" Mormons believe in is distinctly and unequivocally material. The only thing we lack is a science with a power of subpoena which could command God to appear and submit to examination.

Telling me to read up on quantum physics is like me telling you to "check out the Book of Mormon, you might like it".

But yeah, I'm not interested in debating religious beliefs. I'm just wondering why you keep ranting about materialists every time a scientific topic you don't like comes up, when you don't seem to offer a defense of your spiritualism. That impulse seems ridiculous to me.

 

[babe]

Telling me to read up on quantum physics is like me telling you to "check out the Book of Mormon, you might like it".

But yeah, I'm not interested in debating religious beliefs. I'm just wondering why you keep ranting about materialists every time a scientific topic you don't like comes up, when you don't seem to offer a defense of your spiritualism. That impulse seems ridiculous to me.

No, you still don't get it. The most likely origin of the Book of Mormon is NOT spiritualism, but materialism. Gold, in fact. The ism you are likely referring to consists of irrational idealisms like European feudalists calling themselves phony names like communists, socialists of any brand, masquerading as the leading proponents of human progress while leading us back into medieval servitude. you know, folks like billionaire Al Gore who want us to believe we need a new currency called carbon credits owned by former coal magnates.

 

[babe]

I define "power" simply as the ability to do something that you couldn't do, or do as well, otherwise. Thus, knowledge empowers, as it is confers a potential ability advantage over ignorance.

I agree with the rest of your post, except the last part about the brain. It is the organ that does all of the information processing, regardless of whether the output is made available on the conscious level or not.

So, finally, going over the page this post is on. . . . above you state that information exists independent of observers, and here it seems necessary to discuss the information processor we use. hmmm. . . . hearing echos of charges about "subjective experience". This is pretty wacky stuff.

The universe must be inclusively defined to include human brains and human purposes I suppose, but when we discuss science we usually are talking about stuff that exists independently of our opinions, as the objective observable material we can subject to some measure or test in demonstrating a reproducible phenomena or principle. I'd use the term "information" to be some ordered view or interpretation of reality, or maybe an array of ordered physical computer memory bits. But I've heard, and acknowledge, proponents of another definition of "information" as any ordered relation of things past or present, as memory.

I don't, however, care to characterize politically expedient campaigns for developing support for government action the same kind of "science" that has generally advanced human progress. Where are the independent researchers who work independently of government funding? The present network of financial supporters of research on AGW or climate change, like the researchers in pharmacology and military applications, seem to me to exist to conflate science with psy-op protagonists . . . at least potentially. Maybe to be nice, I should just call them our world managers, or decision-makers, but some call them "interests" or more specifically "motivated interests" working the levers of our political machines for their own benefit. I wonder, at all your skepticism about human belief systems, why you don't exercise the same skepticism with science so compromised.

For me, the data presently being promoted supports an increase in worldwide temps of around 2 degrees F, or 1 C, in a hundred plus years of fossil fuel consumption. It is projected to accelerate if we don't do something to change our use. But I've not found the science sufficiently rigorous in terms of the equations and calculations involved in the projected impacts, lots of assumptions and big fudge factors, lots of thumbs on the scales so to speak. And the net claimed change, per our data, is within known variances observed in climate across geological time accessible to some method of correlation of various measures believed to be linked to temperatures in time past. That set of facts does not validate aggressive government mandates for changed economics/taxes/regulations.

But I don't think we should just burn all our carbon fuels, really. I get interested in folks with some new technology under research, like say hydrogen fuel cells linked to solar electric production which can store energy in the form of compressed hydrogen gas that can be burned efficiently and safely in automobiles, eliminating the need to carry batteries half the weight of electric vehicles. Lots of stuff like that, it seems, could render all the alarm about AGW moot. Why don't we put the research funds into something with realistic benefits to mankind?