You Don’t Believe this crap, Do You?

I don't see what you're referring to in that thread.

It was a pretty lengthy discussion over many posts - Even if you are a really fast reader I'd be surprised if you made it through the thread in such a short time! The OP of that thread also links to another thread where I speak of it. One post was:

I've been pretty consistent in promoting that we all should treat each other with respect. But so long as each side considers themselves the good ones and the other the bad ones our chances of bringing the two sides together remain slim.

There is no "entire demographic of people that is too noble to fight back with the same tactics." Rather you've got people in each demographic that are rude, and people who are polite. You've got people in each demographic who sneer, and people who don't. You've got people in each demographic who foster discord, and people who promote consensus.

It's not "skeptics" who are rude - but there are rude skeptics. It's not "proponents" who consider themselves too noble to use the same tactics - but there are proponents who would not use those tactics. And there are proponents who are rude and skeptics who would not use those tactics.

The way we treat each other is a people issue - not a particular group issue. The fact that some skeptics have organised and proponents have not can give a false perception here I think. When we see proponents approaching something like organisation (such as the reg proponents on this site) we see individual proponents who if you put their comments beside some of the ruder skeptic comments and removed identifying language you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Now, I recognise that many proponents here don't see it that way. They see it as you do: hard language used against people who deserve it. What you miss is that the rude skeptics consider it the same way from their perspective.

The solution? Take particular effort to really try and understand where the other side is coming from. Take particular effort to try and understand how you come across to others. Reflect on whether there are subtleties to your own positions that don't always come through in your posts and ask yourself whether there might be subtleties to other people's positions that don't always come through in their posts. Recognise that your initial reactions to the other as THEM stem from long evolved protectionist traits where members of the other tribe really were a danger. Analyse your reactions to other people's posts and reflect on whether they are reacting in a similar way to your posts.

I'm not saying any of this is easy. I have the same US vs. Them instincts as anyone. Frankly I'm not sure much can be done to get rid of them. What I have honed, I believe, is the ability to pause and make some of the reflections above. I have learned that WE are rarely as good and smart and competent as we think we are and THEY are rarely as bad and dumb and dastardly as we think (whichever side of US vs. Them we fall on). I've learned that error is almost always more likely than deliberate plotting.

I've also learned that my posts like this, while I believe are sound and that we'd all benefit from following them, can come off as shrill and preachy and eye rolley. I've tried in this post to highlight that I don't think I am more moral because I am more diplomatic. I think of diplomacy as a skill, with a deliberate goal: to improve communication, foster understanding, avoid hurting feelings unnecessarily, and making things more pleasant. It's not about being good or bad. With regard to skeptiko its about reflecting on what our goals are. If our goals are to improve communication, foster understanding, avoid hurt feelings and making things more pleasant then I think my way will accomplish that. I recognise that not everyone shares these goals.

Ok, I'll stop now.

If you're interested I'm happy to elaborate on anything I wrote there. Maybe we should bring that discussion back to the Eye thread. Let me know what you found unclear!
 
It's even ironic that we have to call "alternative" what is the real medicine: Nutrition (food, herbs) and life style.

That's not 'alternative', that's medicine. Alt-med hi-jacked whatever they could from medicine which was effective but didn't run awry of regulations (about prescribing therapies). Anything which works or might work is medicine, which has always included nutrition (food, herbs) and life-style. The only thing which distinguishes 'alternative' from medicine is "stuff which doesn't work".

(Note: by "work" I mean "cures disease, saves lives, prevents disability, relieves discomfort, improves quality of life, beyond that accomplished by doing nothing".)

There's never been a documented case of homeopathy accomplishing something remotely like that described in the OP, so there's no reason to regard the story as an accurate account of real events.

Linda
 
It's possible to be a functioning, pragmatic "materialist", and remain agnostic (or even conflicted) over the unknowable questions. It takes a special kind of illogic to invoke those unknowables as a supporting argument for altmed (or whatever).

This is classic Sciborg paranoia/misdirection.

I'm not seeing a real argument here against the quoted statement I made?
 
People tend to mangle arguments related to the concept of "consciousness being an illusion."

Consciousness - defined in the sense of being aware or having experiences cannot be illusory in the same manner of "I think therefore I am" cannot be illusory.

If we have experiences, if we are aware then we quite simply are conscious.

What can be illusory, however, is my concept of the nature of "I" or my concept of how my consciousness works.

Rather than derail this thread, I feel like we already covered this in the Dennet Debunked thread?

See also the OP of the Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness thread.

The actual issues in question are clarified there.
 
Heh - you'd think so, given the number of posts - but I don't think they were! These questions tend to be glossed over, imo.

Feel free to post in either thread about what you think was missed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Feel free to post in either thread about what you think was missed.

Exactly what I referred to above: the difference between consciousness itself being illusory and our conception of how conscious processes work being illusory.

This subtle distinction is important in these discussions. The two are often conflated when they shouldn't be, leading to a much less productive discussion.
 
Exactly what I referred to above: the difference between consciousness itself being illusory and our conception of how conscious processes work being illusory.

This subtle distinction is important in these discussions. The two are often conflated when they shouldn't be, leading to a much less productive discussion.
You're going to have to go into a lot more detail than that. I have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you sit back, grab a beer and spend some time writing a lengthy explanation. I'm genuinely interested in an explanation, but I'm not sure that I'm going to understand if this is brought forth two sentences at a time.
 
Illusion: an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience

Who is having the experience?
Who is being fooled by the illusion? And if absolutely everyone is being fooled, then how do you know it is an illusion?

All Perception is illusory. Is anyone suggesting that we disengage perception from consciousness?

Perhaps read through the Don DeGrazia show thread again. He gets it (from a proponent perspective).

Give me your best, favourite "model of reality" and we can discuss the illusions inherent. I think they're generally pretty obvious.

(I don't think that the notion of anyone "being fooled" helps, given that there is nobody to fool existing outside the illusion)
 
You're going to have to go into a lot more detail than that. I have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you sit back, grab a beer and spend some time writing a lengthy explanation. I'm genuinely interested in an explanation, but I'm not sure that I'm going to understand if this is brought forth two sentences at a time.

Let me first ask you what you think is meant by the phrase "consciousness is an illusion"?
 
I don't know. It seems ridiculous to me.

I'd agree with you there. I don't think it means anything either.

Does this make more sense to you?
  • some believe/perceive consciousness to be a single phenomenon
  • what we call consciousness may in fact be a collection of phenomena
  • If so, it is the the sense that consciousness is a single thing may be an illusion.
 
I'd agree with you there. I don't think it means anything either.

Does this make more sense to you?
  • some believe/perceive consciousness to be a single phenomenon
  • what we call consciousness may in fact be a collection of phenomena
  • If so, it is the the sense that consciousness is a single thing may be an illusion.

None of those make sense to me. Please don't go all Socrates on me. Just take some time, think about it and go into some detail about what's on your mind.
 
None of those make sense to me. Please don't go all Socrates on me. Just take some time, think about it and go into some detail about what's on your mind.

I'm trying to get a sense of what it is you don't understand regarding what I've written.

You've stated that you know what consciousness is. I think by that you really mean: we know that we a conscious - that is: we know that we are aware and have experiences.

This is a different question than knowing how consciousness works.

Conversely, many people, I submit, wrongly attribute the concept of consciousness being an illusion to refer to the fact that we are aware and have experiences. Rather, the concept of illusion is geared towards how consciousness feels to us, ie: as a single thing, when it may be more accurate to refer to numerous processes (ie: numerous brain processes interacting with themselves and the environment) that combine to give us our conscious senses.
 
I'm trying to get a sense of what it is you don't understand regarding what I've written.

You've stated that you know what consciousness is. I think by that you really mean: we know that we a conscious - that is: we know that we are aware and have experiences.

This is a different question than knowing how consciousness works.

Conversely, many people, I submit, wrongly attribute the concept of consciousness being an illusion to refer to the fact that we are aware and have experiences. Rather, the concept of illusion is geared towards how consciousness feels to us, ie: as a single thing, when it may be more accurate to refer to numerous processes (ie: numerous brain processes interacting with themselves and the environment) that combine to give us our conscious senses.

This is not working for me. Let's move on to something else.
 
Actually, I'd be interested if Arouet wants to make a new thread.

I guess this one is about homeopathy right? This seems related to the OP, though my posting it shouldn't be considered an endorsement as I've not looked deeply into homeopathy:

The Waters of Heterodoxy: A Review of Gerald Pollack’s “The Fourth Phase of Water”

Pollack’s research casts both assumptions – uniformity and isolability – into question. He does not go so far as to claim that water can carry information, but he comes close when he observes that the exclusion zone’s properties differ for different materials. That is perhaps why homeopaths have seized upon his research (as they also did with Benveniste’s). Homeopathy, of course, is the very epitome of quackery in the eyes of medical orthodoxy; its association with Pollack’s work (though he never makes any claims for it himself) is surely one reason why the scientific establishment is wary of his work.

No sober observer would say that he has “proven” the validity of homeopathy, let alone the menagerie of water-based modalities and products one can find on the Internet. But if we accept his results – and I hope other scientists repeat and extend his experiments – at least one can no longer say that these modalities contradict indubitable scientific principles. Of course if any two samples of pure water are identical, then structured water products and medicines are bunkum. Thanks to Pollack (and a lineage of other researchers that he has uncovered in the scientific literature), this is no longer certain.
 
Back
Top