Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → Ringside seats → Comments on Hassan V debunker

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Comments on Hassan V debunker

 (Read 84156 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 6 7 89 10 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #210 - January 29, 2010, 06:07 PM
    Ok, just to be sure I'm not misunderstanding any of you I'll have to ask a straight question, first:

    Do you believe in *the hard problem of conscienceness*? yes/no?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #211 - January 29, 2010, 06:07 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 12:13 PM
    The highlighted part just shows you didn't read the entire conversation between me and Hassan.


    Well if you believe that in the afterlife there is a destination other than heaven and hell then I can't regard you as an orthodox Muslim and I am not interested in debating with an unorthodox Muslim.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #212 - January 29, 2010, 06:11 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:07 PM
    Ok, just to be sure I'm not misunderstanding any of you I'll have to ask a straight question, first:

    Do you believe in *the hard problem of conscienceness*? yes/no?

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


    No, I don't.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #213 - January 29, 2010, 06:11 PM
    @ J4

    I'm sorry, did I give you the wrong impression that I'm dying to debate with you?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #214 - January 29, 2010, 06:14 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on January 29, 2010, 06:11 PM
    No, I don't.


    Then don't pretend that my question is baseless when the problem is ALREADY recognized by philosophers.

    Z10, for example, recognizes the problem and proposes a solution that suggests matter is sentient.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #215 - January 29, 2010, 06:17 PM
    Quote
    Then don't pretend that my question is baseless when the problem is ALREADY recognized by philosophers.


    Tara asked you for evidence of a non-physical component to consciousness and you gave none, merely shouting a baseless assertion at her instead.  If you have evidence, preferably from someone more qualified to discuss neuroscience than a philosopher, present it.  Unless you do, your assertion remains baseless no matter how loudly you shout.

    Quote
    Z10, for example, recognizes the problem and proposes a solution that suggests matter is sentient.


    Then Z10 will also need evidence. 
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #216 - January 29, 2010, 06:23 PM
    Tlaloc and I had this discussion long ago. I was partly playing devil's advocate but partly seeing a little bit of sense in the idea of a non-physical soul/consciousness/mind or whatever you want to call it (and yes, it's all the same thing really) and that we can speak meaningfully about it's functions. Now I realize that a claim about a non-physical anything might be true, or it might be false. It cannot be proved and it cannot be disproved. And there cannot be evidence for it and there cannot be evidence against it. The only thing that could possibly count as evidence is an unexplained gap. But with only the complete lack of an explanation, we can hardly arm ourselves with any kind of intellectual tool remotely reliable for us to say anything worth mentioning at all.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #217 - January 29, 2010, 06:25 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:11 PM
    @ J4

    I'm sorry, did I give you the wrong impression that I'm dying to debate with you?


    Wow, chillout.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #218 - January 29, 2010, 06:25 PM
    @ Cheetah

    Is matter sentient or not? It's non-sentient --> regardless of how atoms are combined togeather, this cannot be solely responsible for the rise of conscienceness since conscienceness is non-physical.

    It's a valid problem and a renowned biologist even compared this to magic, let me quote him again:

    T.H. Huxley remarked:

    how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #219 - January 29, 2010, 06:27 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:25 PM
    @ Cheetah

    Is matter sentient or not? It's non-sentient --> regardless of how atoms are combined togeather, this cannot be solely responsible for the rise of conscienceness since conscienceness is non-physical.


    Once again, your whole argument is based around using a false premise. Consienceness IS physical, because it exists in the. If it weren't physical, it wouldn't exist!
    Quote from: thinkfree on September 28, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #220 - January 29, 2010, 06:29 PM
    @ Iblis

    Ok, what you said implies that matter, any matter, is sentient... Do you believe matter is sentient? Yes/No?
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #221 - January 29, 2010, 06:30 PM
    Quote from: Iblis on January 29, 2010, 05:58 PM
    On what basis do you claim this? You do realise that repeating an unbacked claim doesn't make it any truer?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA



    well remembered, this video is a great dummy for debunker
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #222 - January 29, 2010, 06:30 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:25 PM
    @ Cheetah

    Is matter sentient or not? It's non-sentient --> regardless of how atoms are combined togeather, this cannot be solely responsible for the rise of conscienceness since conscienceness is non-physical.


    I think you're begging the question.
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #223 - January 29, 2010, 06:33 PM
    Quote
    Is matter sentient or not? It's non-sentient --> regardless of how atoms are combined togeather, this cannot be solely responsible for the rise of conscienceness since conscienceness is non-physical.



    You're merely repeating the same baseless assertion.  Where is your evidence?  

    Quote
    T.H. Huxley remarked:


    With all due respect to T.H. Huxley, science has moved on alot since his day.  Can you please produce something peer reviewed from the current field of neuroscience to back up your assertion that there is a non-physical component to consciousness.  Thanx in advance.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #224 - January 29, 2010, 06:34 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:29 PM
    Ok, what you said implies that matter, any matter, is sentient


    Uh, no it doesn't. Matter coming together in a certain organization can cause sentience. That does not mean matter is sentient.. no more than a brick is a house.
    Quote from: thinkfree on September 28, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #225 - January 29, 2010, 06:41 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:14 PM
    Then don't pretend that my question is baseless when the problem is ALREADY recognized by philosophers.

    Z10, for example, recognizes the problem and proposes a solution that suggests matter is sentient.

    To summarise - the fill-in-the-blanks worldview according to Debunker

    Anything that Debunker doesnt understand about humans = Soul
    Anything that Debunker doesnt understand about the universe = God

    You've got it all figured Debunker - you dont even need to think anymore  Afro
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #226 - January 29, 2010, 06:45 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on January 29, 2010, 06:33 PM
    You're merely repeating the same baseless assertion.  Where is your evidence?  

    With all due respect to T.H. Huxley, science has moved on alot since his day.  Can you please produce something peer reviewed from the current field of neuroscience to back up your assertion that there is a non-physical component to consciousness.  Thanx in advance.


    Since neuroscience is NOT my specialty, I don't know if there's any articles on this but my guess is neurscience is NOT concerned with these questions anyway.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #227 - January 29, 2010, 06:49 PM
    @ Iblis

    Ok, let me quote Z10 for you:

    Quote
    either matter itself is experiential or it has the capacity to create experience when in a certain arrangement.


    You think the latter is true but:

    Quote
    However,  brute emergence of this kind is impossible. You cannot get subjective phenomena by combining objective phenomena.


    Therefore, either matter is experiential/sentient OR there is a non-physical element missing. Z10 believes the former, I believe the latter. 
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #228 - January 29, 2010, 06:51 PM
    Neuroscience isn't concerned with it  Huh?  Rubbish, if there's any field which is concerned with explaining the nature and workings of human consciousness it is neuroscience.  Find me some peer reviewed, current research which supports your claim of a non-physical component, or stop asserting it as fact, and admit that it is pure speculation.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #229 - January 29, 2010, 06:54 PM
    @ Cheetah

    Apparently you're a neuroscientist yourself and thus you're sure that this field is concrned with such questions.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #230 - January 29, 2010, 06:55 PM
    Yes, and I'm also a historian which is why I'm sure history studies the past.   Roll Eyes 

    Produce evidence for your assertion, or stop claiming it to be a fact.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #231 - January 29, 2010, 06:55 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:45 PM
    Since neuroscience is NOT my specialty, I don't know if there's any articles on this but my guess is neurscience is NOT concerned with these questions anyway.

    Perhaps because consciousness is not a scientific word, and instead more of a philosophical construct.  

    Come back when you have thought more about it, and can at least define what you mean by consciousness.  At that point a debate can start, but not until you have thought about it.  

    Alternatively you could always do this

    Quote from: IsLame on January 29, 2010, 06:41 PM
    the fill-in-the-blanks worldview according to Debunker

    Anything that Debunker doesnt understand about humans = Soul
    Anything that Debunker doesnt understand about the universe = God

    You've got it all figured Debunker - you dont even need to think anymore  Afro

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #232 - January 29, 2010, 07:02 PM
    Premise 1: Anything that is sentient must be from another dimension, i.e. non-physical
    Premise 2: Consciousness is sentient
    Conclusion: There is a non-physical dimension.

    debunker, that sums up your argument, so the question you have to answer is:

    What makes you think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #233 - January 29, 2010, 07:04 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on January 29, 2010, 06:55 PM
    Yes, and I'm also a historian which is why I'm sure history studies the past.   Roll Eyes  

    Produce evidence for your assertion, or stop claiming it to be a fact.


    Great, so we have a neuroscientist in the house! So do you guys address conscienceness beyond the physical requirements for it? (you know, the health of the brain, nerves, etc?)

    Besides, I wasn't stating a "fact".. I was discussing a problem to which I currently can see one solution, but Z10 gave an alternative solution which I don't find convincing since it requires that matter be sentient.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #234 - January 29, 2010, 07:07 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on January 29, 2010, 07:02 PM
    Premise 1: Anything that is sentient must be from another dimension, i.e. non-physical
    Premise 2: Consciousness is sentient
    Conclusion: There is a non-physical dimension.

    debunker, that sums up your argument, so the question you have to answer is:

    What makes you think that anything that is sentient must be non-physical?


    Well, your question is a reformulation of Z10's question to me. He asked me how can I know matter is non-sentient?

    Well, there's obviously no proof for it... saying that matter is sentient is as arbitrary an assumption as assuming soul exists.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #235 - January 29, 2010, 07:09 PM
    Quote
    Great, so we have a neuroscientist in the house! So do you guys address conscienceness beyond the physical requirements for it? (you know, the health of the brain, nerves, etc?)


    Neuroscience - like all real sciences - studies whatever it finds.  If there is really a non-physical component to consciousness, that is the field of science in which you will find evidence for it.

    Quote
    Besides, I wasn't stating a "fact".. I was discussing a problem to which I currently can see one solution, but Z10 gave an alternative solution which I don't find convincing since it requires that matter be sentient.


    You are stating as a fact that there is such a problem, you have also stated as a fact quite robustly and repeatedly that there is a non-physical component to human consciousness.  That places the burden of proof on you, so.....evidence, please.  Anytime you're ready.   Afro
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #236 - January 29, 2010, 07:10 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 07:04 PM
    Great, so we have a neuroscientist in the house! So do you guys address conscienceness beyond the physical requirements for it? (you know, the health of the brain, nerves, etc?)

    Besides, I wasn't stating a "fact".. I was discussing a problem to which I currently can see one solution, but Z10 gave an alternative solution which I don't find convincing since it requires that matter be sentient.

    You really need to drop your homoerotic affair with z10 Wink  Its based on nothing other than the fact that he agrees with the first part of your theory.  

    But even Hazrat Z10 (pbuh) doesnt fill in the blanks with a soul, nor does he agree with us, so best leave him out of our discussions and leave him for you own private love affair with him.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #237 - January 29, 2010, 07:16 PM
    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:07 PM
    Do you believe in *the hard problem of conscienceness*? yes/no?

    It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of hard facts.

    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:25 PM
    T.H. Huxley remarked:

    how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp.

    In proper debate appeal to authority is not permissible. When I first asked you about the dichotomy between you being a student and thus following scientificall method on one side and being a theist on the other you responded with the same appeal to authority (you used an evangelical Christian as an example, lol). Please don't do that, it shows you in unflattering light.

    Quote from: debunker on January 29, 2010, 06:49 PM
    Therefore, either matter is experiential/sentient OR there is a non-physical element missing. Z10 believes the former, I believe the latter.  

    Wrong!
    This is a false dilemma.
    There could be a third option.

  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #238 - January 29, 2010, 07:19 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on January 29, 2010, 07:09 PM
    Neuroscience - like all real sciences - studies whatever it finds.  If there is really a non-physical component to consciousness, that is the field of science in which you will find evidence for it..


    You don't even get yourselves busy with these questions. All you're concerned about is to study the brain/nerves and their functions.

    Quote
    You are stating as a fact that there is such a problem,

    it does exist, but you so easily dismissed it because it's recognized by philosophers.

    Quote
    you have also stated as a fact quite robustly and repeatedly that there is a non-physical component to human consciousness.  That places the burden of proof on you, so.....evidence, please.  Anytime you're ready.   Afro


    Then you missed my conversation with Z10 when I repeatedly told him that his solution is as arbitrary an assumption as mine.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #239 - January 29, 2010, 07:24 PM
    @ Kenan

    Quote
    In proper debate appeal to authority is not permissible. When I first asked you about the dichotomy between you being a student and thus following scientificall method on one side and being a theist on the other you responded with the same appeal to authority (you used an evangelical Christian as an example, lol). Please don't do that, it shows you in unflattering light.


    Come again?! Francis Collins is an evangilcal Christian? That's all he is? My answer to you was to the point.. you implied that a scientist shouldn't believe in religion, so I shown you a genius scientist who believes in religion.
    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Previous page 1 ... 6 7 89 10 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »