Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann

Agree. Thanx for comment.

Volker

You're welcome.

I should note that I haven't read the original thread, and at this point I don't intend to. I am defending the use of the word "spiritual" as a valid and useful description of our subjective awareness - that's all.

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
Volker,

You claimed that you need a being with spiritual consciousness to perceive colour. This is wrong as well. All you need is either a luminance meter with CIE calculations included, or you need a monochromator and a detector covering visible range and a bit of software.

Is it your position that a luminance meter has subjective awareness? A machine can DETECT color; what evidence do you have that a machine can PERCEIVE color?

Mageth · 03-25-2003, 11:29 AM

"Spiritual", as illustrated on this thread, is far too loaded a term to generally use as a description of "subjective" awareness, IMO.

So why not practice parsimony and just stick with "subjective awareness" rather than dragging along the extra baggage "spiritual" brings to the party?

Mageth · 03-25-2003, 11:32 AM

what evidence do you have that a machine can PERCEIVE color?

I submit that our brains are evidence of machines that can perceive color.

I might modify this to say that our brains generate the perception of color.

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
[B]

But I might ask you to give proofs for any sort of a spiritual dimension for anything. Do you believe in mind/brain duality, that the "spirit" exists independently of the brain? In regards to that, how do you define "spiritual"?

My belief is that we merely perceive that our mind is separate from our physical body. I believe that the mind/consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the physical, and thus is a physical, natural phenomenon, and is not separate from the physical. Damage or take away the physical, and you damage or take away the "spiritual".

It may be that you agree with this. If so, our disagreement may indeed just be a matter of semantics.

This is a good post - you are asking good questions. You're not asking them of me, so I'll resist answering. I appreciate the clearthought.

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather
No, they don't. In fact, neither does the one you list. "Supernatural" includes "immaterial" as a subset.

There is no definition or usage of "spiritual" which does not imply that "spiritual" is supernatural.

Is your position then that "thoughts" are supernatural? How about "number theory"? Emotional feelings? etc. etc. Many immaterial things exist in the natural universe. What evidence do you have that "Immaterial" is a subset of "supernatural"?

I gave you definitions that support my position. The assertion that I didn't, is meaningless.

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather

Ahh, Argument from Ignorance. Just because every facet of the relationship between the chemical processes in the brain and the nature of perception is not spelled out in detail in "the literature," you are going to suppose that it's all "spiritual." Now that is nonsense.

I mean, really, how is it different from saying, "I don't know why the earth orbits the sun, therefore it must be the work of large invisible rubber bands."

Boy you assume a lot.
You assume I think it's all "spiritual". I don't - especially considering your dogmatic interpretation of the word.
You assume any theory that disagrees with emergent theory is nonsense. Wrong again. Emergent theory may be correct, but the matter at least is debatable.
You assume the phenomanae of subjective awareness will be described by physical theory. Maybe, but still it's assumption only.
You assume I'm ignorant. (Well, one out of four aint too bad. I am for example ignorant of why you are trying so hard to misunderstand me.)

Feather · 03-25-2003, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann

No. You have not shown what the physical dimension of color in SI units is. Neither a wavelength measured in meters nor an electric potential measured in Volt is a unit to describe colors (red, magenta, white, brown).

PLEASE name a matching SI unit for colors.

Volker [/B]

Wavelength does indeed measure color. Just because you assert that this is not the case does not mean that it is not in fact the case.

Each "color," you see, is merely the result of light bouncing off of one or more things and hitting the rods and cones in your eye. How much clearer can it be made than that?

Nowhere357 · 03-25-2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather

That's nice. Only your (4) is just a shorthand way of writing my (2)&(3). So you've done nothing except play games with semantics.

No. Your steps assumed chemistry explains subjective awareness. Currently, at least, it does not. Possibly, it cannot. I put in step four in order to make my position clear. My position does not require the supernatural.
Now, sematics are important to our understanding each other. Why do you say "play games"? You don't bother to try and understand other view points? Holding an idea is not the same as accepting it, right?

Feather · 03-25-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Is your position then that "thoughts" are supernatural? How about "number theory"? Emotional feelings? etc. etc. Many immaterial things exist in the natural universe. What evidence do you have that "Immaterial" is a subset of "supernatural"?

I gave you definitions that support my position. The assertion that I didn't, is meaningless.

How droll. "Number theory" is an abstract concept and never describes some thing that exists. To describe "number theory" as either material or immaterial is nonsensical.

"Thoughts" and "emotions" are the result of chemical processes. To suppose they are not is to make an assumption, assertion or other kind of claim which I'm afraid I can't accept without evidence.

I'm not the one asserting, here, in other words--you are.

Quote:

Boy you assume a lot.

Non sequitor.

Quote:

You assume I think it's all "spiritual". I don't - especially considering your dogmatic interpretation of the word.
You assume any theory that disagrees with emergent theory is nonsense. Wrong again. Emergent theory may be correct, but the matter at least is debatable.

Strawmen.
I've never claimed you think "it's all spiritual." Only one thing--namely that "color" is spiritual--have I made this claim for you. And my "interpretation" is not dogmatic. Well, I admit it might be. In which case it may be said that I dogmatically require some common normalized meanings for words in order for this whole communication thing to work. I suppose it is a bit dogmatic of me to assume that words have gained an accepted common meaning (that may change given time).

I haven't made any statement regarding my opinions of "emergence." You seem to be juxtaposing me with Mageth. That's a shame, because I'm quite sure Mageth would take offense at such a base comparison. I know I would if I were him.

Quote:

You assume the phenomanae of subjective awareness will be described by physical theory. Maybe, but still it's assumption only.

So you and xian are of one mind on the meaning of "assumption," then. Well that clears things up.

Quote:

You assume I'm ignorant. (Well, one out of four aint too bad. I am for example ignorant of why you are trying so hard to misunderstand me.)

You misunderstand. I was referring to the "technical term" for a fallacious argument: see
here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2003, 11:29 AM	#33
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	"Spiritual", as illustrated on this thread, is far too loaded a term to generally use as a description of "subjective" awareness, IMO. So why not practice parsimony and just stick with "subjective awareness" rather than dragging along the extra baggage "spiritual" brings to the party?

03-25-2003, 11:32 AM	#34
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	what evidence do you have that a machine can PERCEIVE color? I submit that our brains are evidence of machines that can perceive color. I might modify this to say that our brains generate the perception of color.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.