Cosmopsychism

I think you whiffed here Steveo.

I interpreted Sci's comparison to be between Chopra (who you proffered as an example) and Tyson (whom Sci proffered in response).  (i.e., not anything Mediochre said.)

Since Sci has not, I wonder if you can describe the why the writings of Chopra are babble and Tyson's is not?

Since Sci has not, I wonder if you can describe the why the writings of Chopra are babble and Tyson's is not?

I think they're both prone to babbling.  The video that Sci provided of Tyson sort of speaks for itself to me.

He's asked about the most amazing fact (interesting choice of terms) and Tyson goes on to try and poetically describe the appearance of life from the physical formation of matter.  Well, considering we don't factually know how life started I'd call his description a bit of babble.

I think they're both prone to babbling.  The video that Sci provided of Tyson sort of speaks for itself to me.

He's asked about the most amazing fact (interesting choice of terms) and Tyson goes on to try and poetically describe the appearance of life from the physical formation of matter.  Well, considering we don't factually know how life started I'd call his description a bit of babble.

Let's see what Sci's answer will be.

Let's see what Sci's answer will be.

Isn't that what I suggested before you asked me to offer an opinion?  Rather odd way to go about conversing (if that is what we're doing).

Isn't that what I suggested before you asked me to offer an opinion?  Rather odd way to go about conversing (if that is what we're doing).

This is Steve001's usual behavior when he has no response. Just going around in circles of confusion, then claiming nobody ever explains things to him.

Agreed.  Never any magnanimous behavior.  I find it comical that guys like Tyson are given a free pass considering how hard materialists press for well parsed truth and evidence elsewhere.

[Laird]

First, I don't remotely see how the Boltzmann Brain Problem refutes a multiverse theory since all it appears to be saying is there'd be less observers like us according to it. Which is a far cry from a refutation.

Well, the author of the article did acknowledge that "Neither of these are knock-down arguments". But I think you need to look at the argument more closely, because your paraphrasing of it is - it seems to me - not all that fair.

You expressed views on free will, choice, and the value of life, and my views on those topics differ from yours, but I don't think this thread is the place to discuss our differences (if it's even productive to discuss them at all).

Thanks for answering my questions in so much detail.

One question I'm still curious to know your answer to, especially given some of what you wrote in your reply, is that which I asked in your thread, The Mentality Training Sim:

What's your view on the nature of mind and its relation to body - are you a dualist, an idealist, or something else?

To put it another way: you seem kind of ambiguous on the differences and relationship between consciousness and matter - and maybe you want to leave it that way, or maybe you do have a more concrete view.

Well, the author of the article did acknowledge that "Neither of these are knock-down arguments". But I think you need to look at the argument more closely, because your paraphrasing of it is - it seems to me - not all that fair.

You expressed views on free will, choice, and the value of life, and my views on those topics differ from yours, but I don't think this thread is the place to discuss our differences (if it's even productive to discuss them at all).

Thanks for answering my questions in so much detail.

One question I'm still curious to know your answer to, especially given some of what you wrote in your reply, is that which I asked in your thread, The Mentality Training Sim:

What's your view on the nature of mind and its relation to body - are you a dualist, an idealist, or something else?

To put it another way: you seem kind of ambiguous on the differences and relationship between consciousness and matter - and maybe you want to leave it that way, or maybe you do have a more concrete view.

He doesn't actually say that it's not a knockout argument because when musing about the idea of saving either a theistic or multiversal model he rescinds it with this:

However, both of these moves feel ad hoc, fiddling to try to save the theory rather than accepting that, on its most natural interpretation, the theory is falsified.

In other words, "well... I'm not saying it refutes it... but it refutes it..."

This is just one of the reasons I say it reads like a plausibly deniable excuse to hand to secularists rather than an actual logical argument.

The fact that our views on free will and etc differ is exactly why I got annoyed at that part of the article. If you're trying to build a model of how objective reality works then by definition all the components of your model must be demonstrably objective or the model instantly fails. There's nothing wrong with the idea of subjectively liking life or believing in free will or whatever, but unless it can be shown it's not just your opinion, it's just your opinion, not part of the fabric of reality. Ironically, cosmopsychism, theism, and every other model of reality can work within a multiversal framework. They only break down when you try to say they apply to absolutely everything ever. I originally went into a lot more detail on this point but deleted it because it seemed really off topic. So I'll leave it at that for now. Overall I do think I was a bit unfair though. Sorry.

From what I can tell the whole soul/body thing is very ambiguous as it is. The short version of what I remember of it is that matter seems to be able to be co opted by a soul and become part of it which I think is the definition of panpsychism. But it's also possible to separate matter from souls and it will continue to do whatever it was doing completely independently and unconsciously which I think is dualism.

Combine that with my experience poltergeisting in this life and you get more ambiguity. Presumably if I died I should be able to just condense myself enough that I'd become just as physical as everyone else as if I'd never died. But at that point what am I? My body would probably still look totally human but would it have any internal organs or anything? I don't know. Past life stuff seems to indicate that I probably wouldn't but I'm not sure. Overall it seemed possible for souls to take on forms directly but also able to interface with pre existing matter. Didn't even need to be things we'd recognize as being alive either. Like dolls and tools and anything else inanimate. Although it seemed to show that you had to, at some point, have been in something traditionally alive like an animal or human before you could possess something otherwise inanimate. Otherwise you'd never have been conscious in any form to figure out how. Or at least get stuck to/in them which kinda supports some hybrid neuroscience thing. It's not something I remember studying much so I don't know how most of it works.

[Laird]

The short version of what I remember of it is that matter seems to be able to be co opted by a soul and become part of it which I think is the definition of panpsychism. But it's also possible to separate matter from souls and it will continue to do whatever it was doing completely independently and unconsciously which I think is dualism.

I think both of those are dualistic concepts actually - panpsychism is more the idea that consciousness is inherently a property of matter rather than that matter can be co-opted by consciousness.

Thanks for answering my question!

Just for interest's sake, this comes from a story of mine.
"In elven lore it is said that the prophet Tchal wrote the book of Eysha. He wrote that the universe was created from a vast pool of gases which condensed to form the chemical balls we know as planets, each ball being unique in it's chemical make up. An elaborate network of waves of energy permeated space and carried information from chemical ball to chemical ball like a giant cosmic brain. "
http://gimpchat.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t...sha#p97332