Are Christians nihilists?

Enmos said:
What does that have to do with anything ?
But, if you want to pursue this, I have a few questions for you.
Click to expand...
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.


Then where would it be sourced ? What would be the explanation with the least amount of additional assumptions ?
Click to expand...
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?

:confused:

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?
 
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.
 
lightgigantic said:
If you don't know the answer to something, what do you call upon to determine the least amount of additional assumptions?
Click to expand...
I trust you know when you're making an assumption.

lightgigantic said:
And how would this have any bearing on the actual nature of things?
Click to expand...
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.

lightgigantic said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.

lightgigantic said:
What is the necessity for added assumptions?
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Enmos said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lightgigantic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, you are the one that links perception to consciousness. And, frankly, I have no clue why..
 
Enmos said:
Well, you are the one that links perception to consciousness. And, frankly, I have no clue why..
Click to expand...

here's a hint

what do you think of the racist perception of this camera?
racist-camera-9870-1242398565-6.jpg
 
-ND- said:
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.
Click to expand...


You claim to be Christian???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top