Are Christians nihilists?

It highlights a key problem with the reductionist view of consciousness - namely that it's taking one big step outside of empiricism (which is the official modus operandi of empiricism)..... to reiterate again, I have no problems with empiricism. Its only when it is called upon to explain/justify things beyond its jurisdiction that I call foul.

If you don't know the answer to something, what do you call upon to determine the least amount of additional assumptions?

(One's values/presumptions?)

And how would this have any bearing on the actual nature of things?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In short, why can't you tow the actual line of an empirical examination of consciousness which would be something like "many of the higher functions of consciousness appear to be processed in the brain, but in the absence of a reductionist model of consciousness, we can not say more than that without entering the arena of speculation."

What is the necessity for added assumptions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As long as christians believe in God, and do the right thing and not fall fools to the teachings of "some people" that only want to send everyones souls to hell. I think the nihilism part does not apply, only if they fall fools for the wrong teachings, of those who worship the devil.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I trust you know when you're making an assumption.

You don't want to go there, that can be asked about anything.
The point is, the more assumption you make about something the more change you run of getting some wrong.
Until there is direct evidence the safest thing to do is to go with the explanation that requires the least amount of additional assumptions.

Yes, this is my stance. You on the other hand seem to be claiming that consciousness may reside outside of the brain. If you do that you need some evidence to back that up.

Indeed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nothing wrong with assumptions. They can be true or false.

 

As for me, I am not claiming that consciousness is an empirically reducible phenomena. Trying to see what you are seeing with is kind of like trying to jump over your knees. Instead I argue that consciousness is better investigated through a different methodology. IOW the request to "locate" perception is barking up the wrong tree.

As for you, however, it seems you are making the claim that perception is locatable and reducible to chemical analysis.

I am simply pointing out that yours is an assumption, since empiricism (your modus operandi on the subject) doesn't even lay these subjects on the horizon, what to speak of the table.

 

Well, you are the one that links perception to consciousness. And, frankly, I have no clue why..

 

here's a hint

what do you think of the racist perception of this camera?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How long can a thread started by a banned poster go on?

 

You claim to be Christian???

 

Clueless..

 

You just now realized that???

 

No, but I have hopes sometimes..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You sometimes have hopes that he isn't clueless?

 

Well its an example of something bereft of consciousness that has a perception.

I thought it serves your purposes well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, it's not.

 

don't be daft

of course its perceiving something

(I assume you don't need to be lectured how it doesn't have consciousness)

 

Don't be daffy.

 

Cameras do not perceive anything.

 

Feel free to divulge your idea.
Bonus points if you can explain it in a fashion that doesn't link perception with consciousness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Its "jurisdiction" being anything which can be observed, directly or indirectly.