Pure Consciousness?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:37 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:... conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. ...
Where did Uri Geller demonstrate this? Please don't say the spoons.

marjoramblues
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: The beon concept from 'The Soul of Anna Klane'

Post by marjoramblues » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:19 pm

GE: The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I."
Elsewhere, GE:
My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness
.
M: Oh, so it seems you are Terrel Miedaner, author of 'The Soul of Anna Klane' - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology. Are you, really ? So - please, tell me - how were the chapters misused?
And how have they been used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when ?


GE:
Miedaner used both chapters to present strong beliefs of the sort that would normally be associated with an atheistic position, and that is how Hofstadter employed them. However, he knew better. "...Anna Klane" was presenting a theory that, while certainly not a Christian perspective, was decidedly not atheistic. It used those chapters to show an alternative viewpoint, ultimately employing them to support its unique perspective about the relationship between soul and brain. Had Hofstadter been philosophically honest he would have mentioned as much within his discussion of those chapters.
The chapters were not misused, as explained in an earlier post.
If you wish, they and reflections from the 'Mind's I' can be read online.
Also used as part of a philosophy course 'Mind and Reality' (Fall 2013) - apparently run by philosopher David James Barnett.
Here :

http://www.davidjamesbar.net/M%26R/Mind ... 0Beast.pdf

http://www.davidjamesbar.net/M%26R/Mind ... ality.html

http://www.davidjamesbar.net/About/Davi ... sophy.html

The film referred to by GE,' The Beast' is 12 minutes long:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195543/
Review by Miedaner:
My only complaint is that, as in "The Mind's I", Martha's story is interpreted incorrectly, the opposite of its intended context. And it is not a short story at all, but a chapter in a short book. Alas. I'm still delighted; the finished product recreated the tears I lost writing it.
Haven't been able to find a copy of this filmette; would really like to see it - perhaps on youtube ??
Perhaps if I could find the cult...since '[it]...remains a popular internet cult classic.'

Oh, might that be the 'Church of Physical Theology', linked to GE's book 'Digital Universe-Analog Soul' - chapters of which can be read, here:

http://www.beon-cpt.com/index.htm

[ discussion may be followed :arrow: the Book Club: 'Anna Klane and 'Mind's I' - viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12524 ]

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:20 am

Blaggard wrote:
However, a gene programmer who anticipated the hostile environment could program a bacterium to survive it. You might want to consider endospores as evidence of intelligent engineering. Yep, scary! But consistent with the available information.
Or you could just say that bacteria that exhibited this behaviour were more likely to adapt to hazardous conditions and hence the trait would be more likely to accumulate in bacteria over time. Which is somewhat less scary and fits with all available evidence. There's no reason to think any creator had to do anything because such a situation would of arisen by sheer asexual fitness in bacteria, heredity of such phenotypes is hardly then some mystical event that could of only happened by the hand of an engineer. The blind watchmaker makes his watches randomly by mutation some watches don't work some work far better than others and these the watchmaker keeps and these in turn are improved upon. There's no mystery to genetics. The formation of both endospores and exospores seems a natural process that already existed ie the replication of self with a mutation which inhibited certain enzyme formation, it seems pretty clear you could easily see how such a state of affairs could happen by little more than selection pressure in the environment and DNA mutation.

Your ideas about intelligent design are not very well reasoned, you seem to run with the idea that not understanding things means God slides in or a designer, when there are as many viable scientific hypothesis and in fact theories (this area of research is hardly baron of study) somehow an intelligent designer is the only clear winner? Which is an example of selective reasoning, ie only picking the lines of reasoning that support your case and ignoring the vast swathes of research on bacteria that explain this mechanism in far more depth than you probably care for and don't seem to have to resort to magic to reason its existence.

Why do people insist on such biased and clearly unscientific methodology as if its some logical paradigm that has shifted the evolution of reason by some unfathomable degree, when really it's just evidence of cognitive dissonance a lack of study of the science itself and god of the gaps style argument.

There are dozens of theories about how life got started how it evolved, why it evolved out there, why pick one that requires some magic bearded guy on a sky cloud over all the other viable alternatives? What is the motivation to ignore all other rational explanations because you want to believe someone designed us? Clearly your hypothesis is just one of several hundred not to distinguish itself in any meaningful way so until it does then surely the current theory is fine. Why do we need an engineer at all?

Biogenesis of RNA has been demonstrated in labs, poly aromatic hydrocarbons have been found in asteroids, as have simple enzymes formed from chains of hydrocarbons. the flagellum of a cell has been explained in detail to the satisfaction of all science if not the ID community, and at the current time their still exist gaps in understanding, for example but evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. It took a billion years for simple bacteria to develop and archea which do not require oxygen to survive only hydrothermal energy, I'm pretty sure that makes the process complicated as it wends its way up to man kind, but not irreducibly so.
Blaggard,

You mis-characterize my position. And like everyone else who makes assumptions without reading the relevant material, you have your figurative head up your figurative ass. Kindly accept these corrections.

1. I am not a creationist, at least not in the usual sense of the word, or an I.D. proponent, because when the folks behind these ideas are seriously questioned, at the core of their opinions lies the omnipotent gods of Christianity. I do not believe that such entities can exist.

2. I fully accept the evidence of evolution, but unlike Darwinists and conventional scientists, I'm still seeking an explanation of the mechanisms behind it.

You wrote, "Your ideas about intelligent design are not very well reasoned," without having the slightest understanding about my ideas, because you did not read them. You have no clue about my reasoning because you have not studied it. The only people I know of who make such ill-considered statements without the knowledge to support them are dolts, Democrats, and Republicans. From previous posts I'd expected better from you. Stupid of me, wasn't that?

I've studied both Darwin and Behe, and a number of books written by authors in-between. I've noticed the powerful forces of agreement that you seem to rely upon, and which I do not.

I appreciate the mathematical/theoretical aspects of science, and have little respect for those so-called sciences that ignore such things. Hence I have zero respect for the nitwits who support current versions of Darwinism.

Yes, I know that they all agree with one another, pretty much like Baptists agree with Baptists, and Muslims agree with Muslims, etc. (Pick any religion, cult, or confused pseudo-science.) I don't care, since I do not run my life according to the opinions of others. What I do care about is whether or not their opinions agree with the math and the physics.

Darwinism depends upon two distinct components that are typically bundled by Darwinists (you did not do that, to your credit).

1. Random mutations to critters.

2. Natural selection of the most effective mutations.

One would be stupid to argue the principle of natural selection, because it applies irrespective of how the critters came into existence. What if an almighty God decided to create a real shmoo, a critter that is so anxious to please that it will turn itself into a steak to make someone happy? If God wanted to keep such gentle and helpless beasties alive, he'd best exterminate all carnivores and make the shmoos vegetarians.

Natural selection is a general principle that has nothing to do with biology, per se. It applies equally well to economics, and determines what products appear upon store shelves in a free-market economy. It explains why we do not drive Edsels, and why Germany is wealthier than Greece. But the issue of random mutations is another matter entirely.

Darwin hypothesized the notion of "random mutation," but science had no way of examining the mechanisms behind such a process until the discovery of DNA and subsequent developments that made detailed DNA studies feasible. Electron microscopes have proven very helpful, in conjunction with exotic biochemistry tricks. And as soon as Darwinists obtained the tools needed to make a serious study of "random mutations," they abandoned them. I don't know why. Perhaps they were simply too incompetent to use those tools, or, more likely, they knew, like Obama and Hillary stonewalling any Bengazi-massacre investigations, that the outcome of an honest study would not be good for them.

The effective standard for scientific impossibility is a probability value of 10exp-40 or less. Consider the probability for the assembly of a single 900 base-pair human gene. This is a simple calculation, right out of any basic probability math text. Its result:

1.4 x 10exp-542

Do the math yourself-- I'm sure that you are qualified.

Now because of codon redundancies, this number is not quite correct. However the redundancies make it difficult to calculate, and I do not have the time or resources to do that. (Honest evolutionary biologists with access to a university's large computers and the support of math department grad students could make (and probably have made, but buried) an easy job of this calculation.

I compensate for the inaccuracy of my simpler calculation by noting that the small genes in the human body are 900 base-pairs, and the largest are 1500 bps. The average is approximately 1200, and if I used this as a calculation base the probability would be many orders of magnitude uglier. So don't quibble, unless you want both barrels and are willing to do more exotic math yourself.

Finally, suppose that we use my simplified calculation and also assume that all protein-producing genes in the human body are of the short, 900 base-pair variety. Since probabilities multiply and there are approximately 23,000 such genes in the human genome, the approximate probability for the assembly of all genes in the human body self-assembling by random mutations is:

8.8x10exp-12,462.640

That pretty much defines an ugly small probability, but a complete calculation that involved the actual (larger) sizes of the genes involved, even accounting for codon redundancies, would be even uglier.

Any scientist who stands behind the legitimacy of Darwinist theory in the face of such numbers is either stupid, brain-dead, or just another religionist who believes whatever the authority figures taught him.

I got it that you are as comfortable standing behind the opinions of educated authorities with their heads up their collective asses as the average Muslim is singing Muhammed's praises and kowtowing to their Mullahs. Do what you will, but have the integrity, please, to not lump me into any category of collective nitwits, especially the category that yours thinks it's smarter than.

If you want to pursue this level of discussion, I'm happy to do so. However it would be a complete waste of my time to pursue it with you at your current level of ignorance. Read my three chapters on Darwinism, do the math I've proposed above, peruse both of Behe's books, explain why you think that Darwin's finches represent different species, study Paul Martin's essay on codons, and come back on a separate thread when you've done some thinking instead of parroting.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:03 am

marjoramblues wrote:
Elsewhere, GE:
My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness
Oh, so it seems you are Terrel Miedaner, author of 'The Soul of Anna Klane' - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.

Are you, really ?
So - please, tell me - how were the chapters misused?
And how have they been used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when ?
Thanks for answering the question re alleged misuse. I have replied - disagreeing with your position.

However, I remain curious as to how the novel was used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when. Perhaps too long ago to remember...?
You are a researcher. So get back to work, do your thing.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:17 am

Blaggard wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote: Gee,

Thank you!

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn notes that empirical evidence which does not fit into the current explanatory paradigm is always dismissed by those who have vested their time and maybe career in the current paradigm. It will not be accepted as valid evidence until someone devises a different theoretical paradigm into which it fits.

The new paradigm itself will not be accepted until the preponderance of those who have bought into it die off.

My theories provide a paradigm into which all paranormal phenomena fit. They also incorporate the recently discovered phenomenon known as "dark energy," which has been labeled "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." And I'm about to die off.

Greylorn
I find this especially specious given the revolutions in science that happened in last two centuries where very quickly existing paradigms were demolished in a day just by the publishing of a viable and testable hypothesis, such as the quantum revolution and the evolution of species which stood in the face of the more belief based ideas of creationism, and other types of speciation at the time. The existing paradigms are not waiting for everyone to die before suddenly ID becomes accepted, because it can't happen, science really does have nothing to do with God. If you are looking for a battle on the existence of a designer you seem to be attacking the wrong target, philosophy is the place best suited to existence questions. Science must remain mute on things for which there is no evidence. Dawkins when he is talking about the selfish gene is talking science, but when he's talking about The God Delusion that is philosophy, sure it can be based on some form of science, but at the end of the day they people who are most likely to provide a viable defence are philosophers like Dennett et al.
This entire comment demonstrates that you know nothing of science, nor of its history. Our conversations are done.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:19 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:... conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. ...
Where did Uri Geller demonstrate this? Please don't say the spoons.
Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.

Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:04 am

marjoramblues wrote:
Gee wrote:
You also do not have much to say about consciousness, but seem interested in debate practices. In debate, a person looks for a weakness in their opponent's position and then attacks it, which makes for long detailed posts that take the thread off topic. Please note that after 1,000 years of this style of debate, we have learned little about consciousness, and have succeeded in reducing this concept to a war between science and religion, Monism v Dualism. This style of debate does not give us answers and reduces the discussion to anger, frustration, non-cooperation, and useless posturing. If you want to fight with someone, go find the neighborhood bully, and have a go at him.
I am not interested in debate practices, nor looking to attack anyone.

Merely responding to GE's points/positions, following on from the concept of 'beon'.

There is no need to be so rude about interested people following different threads of thought; in my case wishing clarification about references to old novels, philosophy books - dealing with different aspects of consciousness.
Marjoram,

If there is a way of removing off-topic and irrelevant posts that does not involve whining to a moderator, please let us know.

Of course this knowledge might come around and bite you in the backside, and I trust that many of my own late night rantings would appear high on many poster's hit list.

Your posts have not discussed mind or consciousness, but have been focused upon history and credibility. I wonder what post it is in which you addressed the content of Beon Theory or even sought a clarification? You may have missed your calling as a gossip columnist.

Or, perhaps you missed your calling as a great philosopher for fear of its consequences and thought that becoming a gossip monger on a philosophy site would be safer. :cry: Alas. You've learned otherwise.

Gossip columnists are frustrated stars, gals who had the talent for acting but not the looks or camera presence to make it big. So here you are on a philosophy forum, where looks or camera presence are irrelevant. Only your mind counts. So why not gather up your ideas and put them out there?

Sure you'll be criticized, but if your ideas are interesting, the criticism of nitwits is high praise. And if you persist and find acceptance, you'll find that the acceptance of your opinions is the booby prize.

Gee was pointing out the truth, not being rude. You haven't written a word about consciousness or the properties of beon, so kill that silly story. Wait a week, have a nice dinner and bottle of 8-year old Zinfandel with a cherished friend, or go out for burgers, beer, and good dancing; then go home, sleep it off, and over the next morning's coffee and aspirin, ask yourself honestly how your posts might apply to her OP, gather up your images of personal integrity, then apologize for implying that she was being rude and acknowledge that she represents the epitome of polite restraint.

Then, if you wish to become a certifiable philosopher, read some stuff and come on back.

Greylorn

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Blaggard » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:54 am

I know why don't you take your 20 years out of date science and crackpot theories to a site more dedicated to that sort of nonsense where you wont get legitimate arguments and everyone will agree with any sort of half baked arm waving no matter how unscientic and devoid of logic? There are plenty of Intelligent Design/creationist forums where you can talk complete nonsense with no fear of people challenging your fantastic and usupported claims, so I suggest that...

On the other hand if you want a forum where only pro crackpot posts are allowed you are welcome to go to one there are plenty of conspiracy web sites out there too, where you can lambast the establishment for not giving your poorly though out untested hypothesis the time of day.

If you want a philosophical discussion amongst various veiws then don't come to an open forum with all this whiny censor everything that does not agree with my wild unsubstantiated nonsense, if you can take criticism then this is probably the right place. If you don't like peer review, people challenging your bad science or people saying that some claims are just outright nonsense as you seemingly don't those are my recommendations, good luck with that. And just because you wrote some fringe unscientific hypothesis down in a book doesn't mean anyone has to take it any more seriously than a good fantasy either, so don't bring discussions to the table where you don't make the rules and then whine about the rules not being tough enough on people who disagree with your mindless philosobabble.

And clearly I know way more about science history than you do being as you seem to be so far out of date on current science it's like talking to a caveman. There we both can make ad homs, suit yourself.
Sure you'll be criticized, but if your ideas are interesting, the criticism of nitwits is high praise. And if you persist and find acceptance, you'll find that the acceptance of your opinions is the booby prize.
Sense of entitlement, sense that the establishment is keeping you down, the entire science community are nit wits apparently for not agreeing with your "ID" nonsense, hmm my crackpot alarm is tingling big time.

Acceptance of your opinions is a booby prize because it means giving up any scientific or rational perspective and just saying God done it or waxing lyrical about some wildly unscientific hypothesis about beons and then trying to justify by talking about mechanisms which are already accounted for by natural selection because you are far too lazy to do any real research to prove any claims except to only quote sources that are pro your claims and dismiss arbitrarily all the sources which are of course much larger that counter your claims and then pretend it's one giant conspiracy of dogmatic establishment keeping you down.

This is not a healthy way to remain objective it is however a healthy way to promote a religious belief, tried and tested over thousands of years. If you don't believe me your out of the family. As I say gl with that.

Oh and by the way your maths is of course nonsensical since you did not take account of the quadrillions of steps between RNA and Human beings that took 4.7 billion years or so. What you have is not a critique of evolution it is an irreducible complexity argument that does not actually represent the subject you are referring to.

What are the chances that Homo Neanderthallus and humans previous ancestors (2 species that seem to have interbred at least in their human forms) could accumulate enough mutations to produce Homo Sapiens Sapiens? I'd say pretty good given it took 3 million or so years as far as we know.

I got it that you are as comfortable standing behind the opinions of educated authorities with their heads up their collective asses as the average Muslim is singing Muhammed's praises and kowtowing to their Mullahs. Do what you will, but have the integrity, please, to not lump me into any category of collective nitwits, especially the category that yours thinks it's smarter than.
Yeah you are smarter than all the scientists on the planet, you do have quite a cavernous and misplaced sense of self worth, if you really think everyone who is working in the field are nit wits. This frankly says more about your psychology than it does the psychology of Scientists.
If you want to pursue this level of discussion, I'm happy to do so. However it would be a complete waste of my time to pursue it with you at your current level of ignorance. Read my three chapters on Darwinism, do the math I've proposed above, peruse both of Behe's books, explain why you think that Darwin's finches represent different species, study Paul Martin's essay on codons, and come back on a separate thread when you've done some thinking instead of parroting.
Frankly is there any point given the sheer nonsense you have provided as evidence so far, including the specious maths, claims that Uri Geller confirms that psychic powers are possible.

And if the sort of mathematical nonsense and spurious citations you have given are "evidence" I think we and our respective Scientists would be better off not reading your material because it sounds like you haven't the requisite learning to make a case against evolution, say some sort of PhD or Masters Degree in biology, genetics so I would be very wary of reading your book, since I am at an early stage of the learning process and my understanding of DNA encoding is only degree level, ie know how transctiption and enzyme encoding works and I am well aware of the genetics in humans. The number of genes is loosely related to the age of ancestry of previous species, for example ferns have over 1260 chromosomes, which is probably because it is one of the earliest plant species to have differentiated after the existence of monocoteledons, relative to humans 46 it shows our ancestry is relatively recent ie in the low millions rather than hundreds of millions of years; so the accumulations of errors or mutation only make sense if you take account of the species that preceded us which clearly you don't. There are thousands of books just like yours and frankly the science community is better served reviewing peer reviewed experiments than wild speculative novels by amateurs with no experimental evidence.


Thanks for reading if you made it this far which is doubtful. I think you don't need me all you need are some fans to further stoke up your confirmation bias and utter disregard for scientific method, so I'll leave you to your proselytising.

Religious people arm waving is not my cup of tea thanks all the same.
Last edited by Blaggard on Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:07 am, edited 12 times in total.

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Blaggard » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:23 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:... conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. ...
Where did Uri Geller demonstrate this? Please don't say the spoons.
Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.

Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?
Geller has claimed his feats are the result of paranormal powers[14] given to him by extraterrestrials,[30] but critics such as James Randi have shown that Geller's tricks can be replicated with stage magic techniques.[16]

In the early 1970s, an article in The Jerusalem Post reported that a court had ordered Geller to refund a customer's ticket price and pay court costs after finding that he had committed fraud by claiming that his feats were telepathic.[12] In addition, a 1974 article also hints at Geller's abilities being trickery.[31] The article alleged that his manager Shipi Shtrang (whom he called his brother at the time)[clarification needed] and Shipi's sister Hannah Shtrang secretly helped in Geller's performances.[31] Eventually, Geller married Hannah and they had children.[32]

In 1975, two scientists (Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff from the Stanford Research Institute) said they were convinced that Geller's demonstrations were genuine.[33] Since that time, however, notable scientists, various magicians, and skeptics have suggested possible ways in which Geller could have tricked the scientists using misdirection techniques.[16][34] These critics, who include Richard Feynman, James Randi and Martin Gardner, have accused him of using his demonstrations fraudulently outside of the entertainment business.[35][36] Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, who was an amateur magician, wrote in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985) that Geller was unable to bend a key for him and his son.[37] Some of his claims have been described by watchmakers as restarting stopped mechanical clocks by moving them around.[38]

Geller is well known for making predictions regarding sporting events. Skeptic James Randi and British tabloid newspaper The Sun have demonstrated the teams and players he chooses to win most often lose.[39] John Atkinson explored "predictions" Geller made over 30 years and concluded "Uri more often than not scuppered [i.e., destroyed] the chances of sportsmen and teams he was trying to help."[39] This was pointed out by one of Randi's readers, who called it "The Curse of Uri Geller."[40]

During the Euro 96 football game between Scotland and England at Wembley, Geller, who was hovering overhead in a helicopter, claimed that he managed to move the ball from the penalty spot when Scotland's Gary McAllister was about to take a penalty kick,[41] something that, if true, would be against the rules of Association football, as the ball would then have been "Out of Play". The player ended up missing the chance to equalise for Scotland.

In another notable instance, in 1992, Geller was asked to investigate the kidnapping of Hungarian model Helga Farkas; after he predicted she would be found alive and in good health, she was found to have been murdered by her kidnappers.[42][43] Geller was a friend of Bruce Bursford and helped him "train his mind" during some cycling speed record-breaking bids in the 1990s.[44]

In 2007, skeptics observed that Geller appeared to have dropped his claims that he does not perform magic tricks. Randi highlighted a quotation from the November 2007 issue of the magazine Magische Welt (Magic World) in which Geller said: "I'll no longer say that I have supernatural powers. I am an entertainer. I want to do a good show. My entire character has changed."[45]

In a later interview, Geller told Telepolis, "I said to this German magazine, so what I did say, that I changed my character, to the best of my recollection, and I no longer say that I do supernatural things. It doesn't mean that I don't have powers. It means that I don't say 'it's supernatural', I say 'I'm a mystifier!' That's what I said. And the sceptics turned it around and said, 'Uri Geller said he's a magician!' I never said that."[46] In that interview, Geller further explained that when he is asked how he does his stunts, he tells children to "Forget the paranormal. Forget spoon bending! Instead of that, focus on school! Become a positive thinker! Believe in yourself and create a target! Go to university! Never smoke! And never touch drugs! And think of success!"[46]

In February 2008, Geller stated in the TV show The Next Uri Geller (a German version of The Successor) that he did not have any supernatural powers, before winking to the camera.[47]

In 1978, Yasha Katz, who had been Geller's manager in Britain, said that all performances by Geller were simply stage tricks, and he explained how they were really done.
Or you could just read the wiki which is at least likely to be unbiased by Gellers lawyers or Gellers own claims.

Gellers an entertainer you can hardly use his claims to stand as evidence of mystical powers it's absurd.

marjoramblues
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by marjoramblues » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:13 am

M: Thanks for answering the question re alleged misuse. I have replied - disagreeing with your position.

However, I remain curious as to how the novel was used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when. Perhaps too long ago to remember...?

GE: You are a researcher. So get back to work, do your thing.

M: Thanks for telling me what you think I am and what I should be doing, O Great Avoider.

marjoramblues
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by marjoramblues » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:04 pm

GE: If there is a way of removing off-topic and irrelevant posts that does not involve whining to a moderator, please let us know.

M: No whining involved; reasoned requests are listened to. Action taken when necessary.

GE: Of course this knowledge might come around and bite you in the backside, and I trust that many of my own late night rantings would appear high on many poster's hit list.

M: :) Not worried about a few harmless bites...

GE: Your posts have not discussed mind or consciousness, but have been focused upon history and credibility. I wonder what post it is in which you addressed the content of Beon Theory or even sought a clarification? You may have missed your calling as a gossip columnist.

M: Yes, I choose what I wish to respond to; as and when.

GE: Or, perhaps you missed your calling as a great philosopher for fear of its consequences and thought that becoming a gossip monger on a philosophy site would be safer. :cry: Alas. You've learned otherwise.

M: Alas, ah lack, a lackadaisy.

GE: ... So here you are on a philosophy forum, where looks or camera presence are irrelevant. Only your mind counts. So why not gather up your ideas and put them out there?

M: Thank you for your interest, your thoughts and advice. I do what I can do.

GE: Sure you'll be criticized, but if your ideas are interesting, the criticism of nitwits is high praise. And if you persist and find acceptance, you'll find that the acceptance of your opinions is the booby prize.

M: Constructive criticism is always welcome; I don't seek prizes, boobies or sparklies.

GE: Gee was pointing out the truth, not being rude. You haven't written a word about consciousness or the properties of beon, so kill that silly story.

M: The rudeness was in the confrontational style, attempting to exclude others whose posts were deemed 'garbage' and/or simply looking for a fight. It is rude behaviour to discourage participation in a public conversation, a philosophical forum. It might also be considered rude when questions are avoided or ignored. I was following up a concern which was of particular interest to me.

GE: Wait a week, have a nice dinner and bottle of 8-year old Zinfandel with a cherished friend, or go out for burgers, beer, and good dancing; then go home, sleep it off, and over the next morning's coffee and aspirin, ask yourself honestly how your posts might apply to her OP, gather up your images of personal integrity, then apologize for implying that she was being rude and acknowledge that she represents the epitome of polite restraint.

M: :) Yeah, on it.

GE: Then, if you wish to become a certifiable philosopher, read some stuff and come on back.

M: Back already. And seriously off-topic. Your writing. It's fun.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:18 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.
You do mean the spoons and Uri admitted a long-time back that this was a trick.
Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?
Nope, as I followed Geller when he first appeared and it was obvious that he was a good magician but a charlatan with respect to what he was punting.

Your little book is way too expensive for my tastes as I can get Kant, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, et al for free now-a-days. Why don't you try POD or make it an e-book and drop the price if you want your message to get out?

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Blaggard » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:46 pm

I came here to learn about philosophy and certainly didn't expect to find that the scientific sophistication of most of these philosophers is out of date. Not all there do seem to be a lot of people making a well motivated attempt to keep up with the times, science moves fast though, don't bend down to tie your shoe laces the wagon may be out of reach sooner than you expected. ;)

But please let me know if anything I have said about where science is now is out of line, by pm is fine.

I am surprised by the ludditism or post post modern bent of philosophy now that seems to have become a trend to turn on science, when they should be allys, but I guess I shouldn't be the view that science is some sort of ivory tower, the willingness of philosophers to attack things that they haven't even studied in depth. It all seems a bit sad to me. So if you want to wave your pitchforks and torches at science that is fine, science thrives on criticism, hell it is its life blood, but please make sure the science you are talking about is not 20 years out of date or 10 years for that matter, if you have been out of education 10 years chances are at least 50% of what you learnt is now obsolete, 20 and you can probably discount most of what you learnt especially in medicine and biology.

All I am saying is you need to keep up with relevant science, not where you thought science was 20 years ago, it's like attacking your relations because in the past 20 years ago they said I aint evolved from no damn ape, without taking account of what they are saying now assuming of course they are not spouting the same absurdities. It's sophistry and I don't think questioning faulty reasoning in any form is a crime on a philosophy forum.

If you don't like where science is now, or you don't like people who point you to relevant modern scientific information, that's fine just put me on ignore and go about your merry business, but don't slag me off for pointing out you need a little more than 20 year old information to make a relevant contribution to science. It's kinda sad. And I am not going to indulge people who have not done their research and should not be expected to, frankly.

If questioning faulty science and faulty reason based on it is a bad thing so be it...

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:05 pm

Blaggard wrote:I came here to learn about philosophy and certainly didn't expect to find that the scientific sophistication of most of these philosophers is out of date. Not all there do seem to be a lot of people making a well motivated attempt to keep up with the times, science moves fast though, don't bend down to tie your shoe laces the wagon may be out of reach sooner than you expected. ;)

But please let me know if anything I have said about where science is now is out of line, by pm is fine.

I am surprised by the ludditism or post post modern bent of philosophy now that seems to have become a trend to turn on science, when they should be allys, but I guess I shouldn't be the view that science is some sort of ivory tower, the willingness of philosophers to attack things that they haven't even studied in depth. It all seems a bit sad to me. So if you want to wave your pitchforks and torches at science that is fine, science thrives on criticism, hell it is its life blood, but please make sure the science you are talking about is not 20 years out of date or 10 years for that matter, if you have been out of education 10 years chances are at least 50% of what you learnt is now obsolete, 20 and you can probably discount most of what you learnt especially in medicine and biology.

All I am saying is you need to keep up with relevant science, not where you thought science was 20 years ago, it's like attacking your relations because in the past 20 years ago they said I aint evolved from no damn ape, without taking account of what they are saying now assuming of course they are not spouting the same absurdities. It's sophistry and I don't think questioning faulty reasoning in any form is a crime on a philosophy forum.

If you don't like where science is now, or you don't like people who point you to relevant modern scientific information, that's fine just put me on ignore and go about your merry business, but don't slag me off for pointing out you need a little more than 20 year old information to make a relevant contribution to science. It's kinda sad. And I am not going to indulge people who have not done their research and should not be expected to, frankly.

If questioning faulty science and faulty reason based on it is a bad thing so be it...
Perhaps we might all do Gee the courtesy of getting back on track. I'm happy to address ancillary subjects such as Uri Geller, who bent a spoon upward within six inches of my face, twice, in front of skeptical witnesses at close range, but such subjects belong on separate threads.

I apologize to Gee for assisting in a thread hijacking.

Your comments about science are valid to some extent, but there are some old problems in physics that have yet to be resolved. (Perhaps on another thread and different section?) Here, the science we indulge should be related to the question of consciousness, keeping the thread on track. My theories are derived from physics, specifically a combination of classical thermodynamics, QM, and the properties of dark energy. If you feel that these aspects are out of date, well, go ahead and share your opinions with someone who agrees with your foresightful physics instincts, but please do so on a separate thread. So far you're doing a lot of whining and zero contributing. You are capable of contributing, I believe.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Pure Consciousness?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:40 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.
You do mean the spoons and Uri admitted a long-time back that this was a trick.
Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?
Nope, as I followed Geller when he first appeared and it was obvious that he was a good magician but a charlatan with respect to what he was punting.

Your little book is way too expensive for my tastes as I can get Kant, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, et al for free now-a-days. Why don't you try POD or make it an e-book and drop the price if you want your message to get out?
I'm delighted to know about your extensive library of old books by philosophers who failed to solve the consciousness problem. Good for you! Do you also drive an old used car? Atta-way to save money! Do you treat your body as frugally as you do your mind? If so, according to TV street people, lots of fine, nutritious food with a few bites left can be had from dumpsters behind 4 and 5-star restaurants.

So, knowledge and insights into a subject you appear to be interested in is not worth 19 bucks. Hey, your choice. Perhaps you are one of those guys whose parents paid for his education, so you don't value it. Suit yourself and stay ignorant.

And if that's your choice, perhaps you might consider limiting your conversations to like-minded participants who also prefer ignorance over insights. I would prefer to converse with individuals who took the trouble to examine alternative ideas.

Kindly recall that this thread is about consciousness, and contribute accordingly. I'll get my own posts back on track as well. Thanks! :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests