22 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfOh, no, I did not mean to give you the incorrect impression that I was not sure. I meant to simply give you the industry standard definition of 'noesis', separate from and regardless of what this organization claims.
If you're not sure, you could start by looking at The Institute of Noetic Sciences.
22 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneYou said you were not sure about something. Are you not sure whether The Institute of Noetic Sciences have named themselves correctly, is that it?
Oh, no, I did not mean to give you the incorrect impression that I was not sure. I meant to simply give you the industry standard definition of 'noesis', separate from and regardless of what this organization claims.
22 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneIt might get us nearer to understanding the mechanics of it, sure, but if the ultimate "comprehensive" explanation is a supernatural one, science is not going to provide it.
No, I must disagree. While philosophy and religion may exist as "conjecture about consciousness", it's fairly clear that science holds the only paths toward "comprehensive explanations" about consciousness.
22 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeNo. They can't.
"We can't even make decent walking robots yet."
They can in Japan.
25 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @fmf"if the ultimate "comprehensive" explanation [of consciousness] is a supernatural one"
It might get us nearer to understanding the mechanics of it, sure, but if the ultimate "comprehensive" explanation is a supernatural one, science is not going to provide it.
Now I'm not sure if you actually believe this rather insubstantial waffle, or if you're just "taking the piss".
25 May 18
FMF: It might get us nearer to understanding the mechanics of it, sure, but if the ultimate "comprehensive" explanation is a supernatural one, science is not going to provide it."Insubstantial waffle"?
Originally posted by @suzianne
Now I'm not sure if you actually believe this rather insubstantial waffle, or if you're just "taking the piss".
26 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfThe more you go on here about something "supernatural" being the "ultimate explanation" of ANYthing, especially given how many times you sit up here in this forum (on your leatherette?) condemning ANYthing with a "supernatural" explanation, the more you can't be taken seriously.
"Insubstantial waffle"?
So, yeah, you're just "taking the piss", as I thought.
originally posted by @Ghost-of-a-Duke
Here's one that runs.
Meh, that's a little better than the last one I've seen. Ok. We're getting there. Thumbs up for you sir.
26 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianne"Supernatural" here refers to a creator being, like your Christian God. It's as if you don't actually understand what was said but are determined to be publicly upset about it regardless.
The more you go on here about something "supernatural" being the "ultimate explanation" of ANYthing, especially given how many times you sit up here in this forum (on your leatherette?) condemning ANYthing with a "supernatural" explanation, the more you can't be taken seriously.
So, yeah, you're just "taking the piss", as I thought.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
27 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfThank goodness you’re back, Kiddo. We were all worried sick. No more of these long absences again without informing tiger, amigo, Heartpence or me ahead of time.
"Supernatural" here refers to a creator being, like your Christian God. It's as if you don't actually understand what was said but are determined to be publicly upset about it regardless.