Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

I'd like to clarify that I don't actively go seeking out these skeptical bloggers or articles. I mainly brought it up just because I doubted we'd ever seen something so strangely argued before. Sorry that you got dragged into this Silver, and I'm sorry that you're getting frustrated with me again Sci. Like I said, if you want to discuss my personal life I think it's better now to do so in a private chat.

Your personal life? What are you even talking about?

Your personal life? What are you even talking about?

I would appreciate discussing my current situation with my therapist and the contents of the discussions in a private chat rather than on a thread on skeptical talking points since we've gone seriously off topic here. If I have posted about this publicly I realise that was inappropriate of me to do so. I consider it to be a very personal matter.

Lol, sure...just happened to be around to post right after I asked where you were...come on. You and Omni are the same person or in cahoots.

Just admit you guys are skeptics, and maybe you won't get banned.

I was literally checking this site and noticed the post, so I logged on it’s that simple. And what have I done at all to suggest I’m some troll? Just cuz I didn’t agree that Omni was one in that TL post, where I spent the time to tell him why those arguments didn’t make sense? Be angry with him but leave me out of it, seriously.

I would appreciate discussing my current situation with my therapist and the contents of the discussions in a private chat rather than on a thread on skeptical talking points since we've gone seriously off topic here. If I have posted about this publicly I realise that was inappropriate of me to do so. I consider it to be a very personal matter.

A private chat you included basically every old timer, where you suddenly brought it up after it was pointed out again how much you seem like a troll?

A chat where you demanded we should engage with your arguments otherwise we're no better than the pseudo-skeptics?

Don't pretend it was some one-on-one conversation where you poured your heart out to me.

A private chat you included basically every old timer, where you suddenly brought it up after it was pointed out again how much you seem like a troll?

A chat where you demanded we should engage with your arguments otherwise we're no better than the pseudo-skeptics?

Don't pretend it was some one-on-one conversation where you poured your heart out to me.

Well I was suggesting we talk in a new private chat, not that one. A chat involving a one-on-one conversation between me and you when possible. Where did I say I wanted to continue that chat? I'm willing to just discuss any articles or comments I see like this with someone privately on a counseling site or on here in private. I preferred on here because users are more likely to be well-informed on the subject. 

They also weren't my arguments, they were the arguments of someone who had collected what he considered evidence for materialism and was posting it online. I can also send you a link to the refutation I'd written for that as well. Once again, I would not waste my time writing so many pages on debunking the guy's claims if I was just trolling you all. 

I'm not pretending it was a one-on-one conversation. I'm asking to start one. Apologies for the confusion.

I don't understand what's wrong with challenging these arguments? Surely by challenging them, we can show that we are aware of their claims and have debunked/refuted them. As a result, we are showing that we are well-aware of them and can confidently explain why they are wrong, especially for lurkers and newcomers. Perhaps I'm thinking of this too much like some kind of war?

Several points in favour of not doing so:

By responding at all, it gives the original post, maybe long-dead and forgotten, fresh publicity, bringing it to the attention of a new audience. You may have heard the famous line from Oscar Wilde, "there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about".

Next, by responding, it makes the original post seem significant and worthy of a response. It aids the reputation and credibility of the original to spend time and effort on a response.

Regarding lurkers and newcomers, they deserve to hear about valid and worthwhile information, not to be distracted by some half-arsed crackpot arguments posted somewhere else. Time is precious. Getting the original sources and direct evidence to people's attention, that is worthwhile. The foundation of all of this subject matter is empirical evidence and facts.

Hey guys, so this question is based on something that's been bugging me since I got into this stuff, which is based on the retort often made by diehard materialists and physicalists (such as in YT comments sections). I want to be sure I have the counter-argument right. 

So say I bring up the Penfield experiments showing how aspects of our consciousness cannot be stimulated via the brain (IIRC). The common retort seems to be this:

"You're appealing to the 'soul of the gaps' argument and a lack of scientific progress/gap in reasoning." 

The most obvious response to this I can think of is that this claim is also fallicious, for it is committing the 'materialism of the gaps' fallacy. This fallacy is basically 'we don't have a materialist explanation for this phenomenon or anomaly yet, but we will one day'. This is assuming that the anomaly will somehow be explained in the future, essentially appealing to scientism, and assuming it will be a materialist one even when the anomaly doesn't really make sense according to materialism's predictions and principles.

It doesn't make much sense to me how a diehard physicalist can claim that the brain is barely understood and acknowledge the anomalies or experiments that go against the expected correlation, yet also still say it 'definitely generates consciousness' and can conveniently bounce back from anything or improve itself after being damaged...oh, but only for certain lucky people, since this isn't a common occurrence...again, how convenient...

Do I have that counter-argument right or am I missing something (besides including evidence such as veridical NDEs of course)?

Hey guys, so this question is based on something that's been bugging me since I got into this stuff, which is based on the retort often made by diehard materialists and physicalists (such as in YT comments sections). I want to be sure I have the counter-argument right. 

So say I bring up the Penfield experiments showing how aspects of our consciousness cannot be stimulated via the brain (IIRC). The common retort seems to be this:

"You're appealing to the 'soul of the gaps' argument and a lack of scientific progress/gap in reasoning." 

The most obvious response to this I can think of is that this claim is also fallicious, for it is committing the 'materialism of the gaps' fallacy. This fallacy is basically 'we don't have a materialist explanation for this phenomenon or anomaly yet, but we will one day'. This is assuming that the anomaly will somehow be explained in the future, essentially appealing to scientism, and assuming it will be a materialist one even when the anomaly doesn't really make sense according to materialism's predictions and principles.

It doesn't make much sense to me how a diehard physicalist can claim that the brain is barely understood and acknowledge the anomalies or experiments that go against the expected correlation, yet also still say it 'definitely generates consciousness' and can conveniently bounce back from anything or improve itself after being damaged...oh, but only for certain lucky people, since this isn't a common occurrence...again, how convenient...

Do I have that counter-argument right or am I missing something (besides including evidence such as veridical NDEs of course)?

I think the term you’re looking for is “promissory materialism” which is about claiming we’ll have a materialist explanation for certain phenomenons/anomalies “eventually”.

Also, just stay out of the YT comment section. You’re not gonna find proper discussion there and will just get annoyed

I think the term you’re looking for is “promissory materialism” which is about claiming we’ll have a materialist explanation for certain phenomenons/anomalies “eventually”.

Also, just stay out of the YT comment section. You’re not gonna find proper discussion there and will just get annoyed

I see. Alternatively I have heard it described as the 'Materialism of the Gaps' fallacy, inserting materialist speculation or wishful thinking in trying to explain an anomaly.

I see. Alternatively I have heard it described as the 'Materialism of the Gaps' fallacy, inserting materialist speculation or wishful thinking in trying to explain an anomaly.

Eh, use whatever you prefer. I’ve just heard promissory materialism used in regards to these kinds of things