Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Marcus »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 3:18 pm
Marcus wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:08 am
I would disagree that the observation that the brain is the source of the experience is incomplete, in fact, the most recent research I’ve read points to exactly that. There simply is no reputable current research that concludes supernatural sentient entities exist.

I certainly agree people may believe they exist, which is certainly an acceptable belief to put forward, but there is simply no reliable, factual evidence that they do.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of circularity that results from the insistence that only material results count. Thank you for illustrating that point again. I don't know how to get past that block on either side. The current dominant conclusion is that whatever has insufficient material evidence backing it up does not exist. Hence your comments and beliefs.
:lol: I accept you are explaining the circularity you perceive and so thank you for that, it helps me understand the situation better. But no, you are not describing how I arrive at my beliefs and what underlies my comments. I’ll try to be more clear in my posts.
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Rivendale »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 3:18 pm
Marcus wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:08 am
I would disagree that the observation that the brain is the source of the experience is incomplete, in fact, the most recent research I’ve read points to exactly that. There simply is no reputable current research that concludes supernatural sentient entities exist.

I certainly agree people may believe they exist, which is certainly an acceptable belief to put forward, but there is simply no reliable, factual evidence that they do.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of circularity that results from the insistence that only material results count. Thank you for illustrating that point again. I don't know how to get past that block on either side. The current dominant conclusion is that whatever has insufficient material evidence backing it up does not exist. Hence your comments and beliefs.
Now you are using absurd examples. When given the lost keys analogy or others you claim they are absurd. Things that don't have enough material evidence should be shelved until further evidence. There are things that are so beyond human reach, such as quarks that they should be relegated to the non existent trash bin. But we can't because we have repeatable reasons to verify their existence.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Kishkumen »

Rivendale wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 12:31 am
Now you are using absurd examples.
You didn’t quote an example, so perhaps you can help me know which example was absurd.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 12:16 am
:lol: I accept you are explaining the circularity you perceive and so thank you for that, it helps me understand the situation better. But no, you are not describing how I arrive at my beliefs and what underlies my comments. I’ll try to be more clear in my posts.
No need to correct something that was never attempted. You do an adequate job of explaining yourself, so I don't need to describe it. Not sure what you mean. Maybe that when you think you have been clear it’s everyone else’s job to just agree with you?
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Marcus »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 2:27 am
Marcus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 12:16 am
:lol: I accept you are explaining the circularity you perceive and so thank you for that, it helps me understand the situation better. But no, you are not describing how I arrive at my beliefs and what underlies my comments. I’ll try to be more clear in my posts.
No need to correct something that was never attempted. You do an adequate job of explaining yourself, so I don't need to describe it. Not sure what you mean. Maybe that when you think you have been clear it’s everyone else’s job to just agree with you?
Of course not. Kishkumen, are you angry with me about something? I’ve been putting some serious effort into lightheartedly responding to your jabs while expressing my opinion, but this makes about your 6th attack on me today. Yes, we disagree, but my opinion is a statement about the topic not about you. Your comments to me have been increasingly personal and mean, and you don’t actually respond to my comments other than to do a quickie clip with a personal slam. It’s really getting tiring to have to walk on eggshells around your crankiness while expressing an opinion, hoping to avoid your mean-spirited attacks.

I’m hoping we can get to a place of just responding to ideas, and leave the personal attacks out.
Don Bradley
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Don Bradley »

Marcus wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:08 am
I would disagree that the observation that the brain is the source of the experience is incomplete, in fact, the most recent research I’ve read points to exactly that. There simply is no reputable current research that concludes supernatural sentient entities exist.

I certainly agree people may believe they exist, which is certainly an acceptable belief to put forward, but there is simply no reliable, factual evidence that they do.
Hey Marcus,

Your thoughts on the brain and on evidence for non-material entities have brought to mind a book I think may interest you: philosopher Philip Goff's Galileo's Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness.

Among other things, Goff explores how the boundaries of modern science were set by early modern philosophers of science like Galileo, and how that has led to what is now known as the "hard problem" of consciousness. Galileo and others (such as Bacon) delimited science to exclude phenomena of consciousness (such as "qualia") and metaphysics and include only entities of the sort that can be measured by numbers. As such, it isn't difficult to see why there is a "hard problem" of consciousness in present-day science. Of course that science can't explain the very things it excluded from its explanatory scheme at the outset. The author points toward how consciousness might be more fully explained.

Don
"People can find meaninglessness in just about anything if they convince themselves that there is no meaning in that thing." - The Rev. Dr. Lumen Kishkumen
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Philo Sofee »

Don Bradley wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:42 am
Marcus wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:08 am
I would disagree that the observation that the brain is the source of the experience is incomplete, in fact, the most recent research I’ve read points to exactly that. There simply is no reputable current research that concludes supernatural sentient entities exist.

I certainly agree people may believe they exist, which is certainly an acceptable belief to put forward, but there is simply no reliable, factual evidence that they do.
Hey Marcus,

Your thoughts on the brain and on evidence for non-material entities have brought to mind a book I think may interest you: philosopher Philip Goff's Galileo's Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness.

Among other things, Goff explores how the boundaries of modern science were set by early modern philosophers of science like Galileo, and how that has led to what is now known as the "hard problem" of consciousness. Galileo and others (such as Bacon) delimited science to exclude phenomena of consciousness (such as "qualia") and metaphysics and include only entities of the sort that can be measured by numbers. As such, it isn't difficult to see why there is a "hard problem" of consciousness in present-day science. Of course that science can't explain the very things it excluded from its explanatory scheme at the outset. The author points toward how consciousness might be more fully explained.

Don
Hope I am not out of line, but the subjectivity of what to include and exclude in "the boys club" in order to arrive at objective reality is somewhat interesting and amusing... It's like the kids saying "We are going all out for actual objectivity, however, we don't think or believe anything but objectivity will work, so we are going to exclude from our total real look into objectivity this and that and that, and now we will be able to proclaim what real really is."
Or it is mildly like reading Hamlet with Hamlet left out.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Kishkumen »

Marcus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 2:46 am
Of course not. Kishkumen, are you angry with me about something? I’ve been putting some serious effort into lightheartedly responding to your jabs while expressing my opinion, but this makes about your 6th attack on me today. Yes, we disagree, but my opinion is a statement about the topic not about you. Your comments to me have been increasingly personal and mean, and you don’t actually respond to my comments other than to do a quickie clip with a personal slam. It’s really getting tiring to have to walk on eggshells around your crankiness while expressing an opinion, hoping to avoid your mean-spirited attacks.

I’m hoping we can get to a place of just responding to ideas, and leave the personal attacks out.
Sure, Marcus. You are so wonderfully innocent and sincere. After so many years of this game, you aren't fooling anyone, especially me. Your rancor toward me in particular has not gone unnoticed by many people who post here. So, let's cut the crap, and stop gaslighting me. I get it. It's OK. I can take it, and you really don't need to pretend. Yes, I find you unpleasant to deal with too. We'll live through this.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 12:42 pm
Hope I am not out of line, but the subjectivity of what to include and exclude in "the boys club" in order to arrive at objective reality is somewhat interesting and amusing... It's like the kids saying "We are going all out for actual objectivity, however, we don't think or believe anything but objectivity will work, so we are going to exclude from our total real look into objectivity this and that and that, and now we will be able to proclaim what real really is."

Or it is mildly like reading Hamlet with Hamlet left out.
Great question, Philo. I don't know the answer to this problem. What I do notice is a persistent need on the part of some to exclude the possibility of spirituality or some intelligent order to things that is as yet not susceptible to scientific proof. This is not a knock on anyone. I think I understand where this is coming from, but I also don't poo-poo the need to question this popular stance. In fact, you have hit upon exactly what I meant by "Procrustean idea of fact," which was not, after all, an insult, but what I took to be an accurate description.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Missing Scroll Theory & Catalyst Theory in light of Mormonism Live

Post by Marcus »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 1:18 pm
Marcus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 2:46 am
Of course not. Kishkumen, are you angry with me about something? I’ve been putting some serious effort into lightheartedly responding to your jabs while expressing my opinion, but this makes about your 6th attack on me today. Yes, we disagree, but my opinion is a statement about the topic not about you. Your comments to me have been increasingly personal and mean, and you don’t actually respond to my comments other than to do a quickie clip with a personal slam. It’s really getting tiring to have to walk on eggshells around your crankiness while expressing an opinion, hoping to avoid your mean-spirited attacks.

I’m hoping we can get to a place of just responding to ideas, and leave the personal attacks out.
Sure, Marcus. You are so wonderfully innocent and sincere. After so many years of this game, you aren't fooling anyone, especially me. Your rancor toward me in particular has not gone unnoticed by many people who post here.
Likewise.
So, let's cut the crap, and stop gaslighting me. I get it. It's OK. I can take it, and you really don't need to pretend. Yes, I find you unpleasant to deal with too. We'll live through this.
I’m not pretending, and my statement was sincere. As I posted on another thread
Marcus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 4:23 am
… After some epic tangles, i made a conscious decision a very long time ago to not let things get personal. But kishkumen continues to make personal attacks on me if i disagree with him (only if i am agreeable to the point of obsequiousness will he be polite, but that's not a long term solution.) This isn't the first time i've pointed out his baseless attacks and requested he address the topic without the personal insults.
We seem to have settled on different approaches.
Post Reply