Knowledge is just a humanistic term for data... data points organized into patterns at a level of summary that's useful to the conscious mind.

Philosophy and introspection are fine, just so long as they're not claimed to trump science. Legislating their trumping of science is particularly going too far.

oh and *quality community aided introspection

Marijuana should be decriminalized, and subsequently legalized for several reasons. 1. If marijuana were made legal, then that lifts the restrictions on hemp, of which the benefits are enormous. Alternate fuel, cloth, manufacturing, the list goes on and on. 2. Marijuana is not a "gateway" drug; if anything, alcohol contributes to more people moving on to harder drugs than anything. Using marijuana as the scapegoat for the progression to other drugs is downright ludicrous. 3. I have yet to see aggression linked to marijuana in any way, shape or form. Want a bar fight? Add alcohol. Want to see everyone relaxed? Add marijuana. 4. Artists, philosophers and the like have used marijuana for centuries to aid in introspection and critical thinking. Yeah, I went there. Why would anyone want to stop you from examining yourself and your own reality? Either those who can't, those who are unwilling or those who want control.
I could go on and on regarding the benefits. With all that said, I do agree that operating machinery of any kind should not be tolerated as accidents can occur due to slower reaction times, less focus and inattention directly attributed to marijuana when under its influence. A "breathalyzer" or instant test would be imperative in order to determine if a user were under the influence simply due to marijuana's different morphology. I also believe that 100 grams is excessive. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have almost 1/4 pound of marijuana. Even those who would use to medically. One ounce (28g) is plenty enough.

I'm all for it. It certainly would be a boost to our sagging economy.

Indeed, we cannot completely remove the subjective part of knowledge, because all our knowledge are in the end sensed through our individual senses. Even the seemingly objective results: a thermometer can show 10 degrees, but I have to read it right; if I have a vision disorder that makes me see 0 as 8, my subjective observation of the evidence would disrupt it. In a way all evidence is corrupted by our limited senses, but the point is to minimize the corruption, which is why multiple tests are tried.

When it all comes down to it, I'm not sure there is such a thing as consciousness; it could be that we think we have a consciousness, but it's actually an illusion. As far as I know, there have only been theories about this and no real "hard" evidence of it. That doesn't mean that there can't be evidence of it ever, though. There is no strong evidence for a consciousness apart from the subjective introspective view we all have. I can assume that there is a consciousness, and this is what I believe. Do note that belief and faith are not the same thing.

Whether we accept the evidence (believe in it) or not doesn't really change its validity. I can say I don't believe in gravity, but that won't make me fly all of a sudden. The very fact that we don't fly is continually supporting evidence of the theory of gravity.*

Emergence can be discussed far more (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) but my (ahem) belief is that consciousness is an example of strong emergence, which is sort of like a synergy effect where we are more than the sum of our parts. A virtual machine running on our biological hardware, if you will.

*That gravity is a much more strange force than Newtonian physics is another matter.

>> ^gwiz665:
^The Philosophical Zombie argument, which you've described, bluecliff, is an old philosophical classic. There's a difference between "can't know" and "don't know". There are many theories as to consciousness, but how to find out which is right and wrong is pretty difficult. Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology seems to be the best way forward, because it covers all the bases we have available at this point in time, the multiple drafts theory is in my mind the best explanation to date about consciousness, but there's no "hard evidence" to point in any direction.
The "proof" we have that there IS a consciousness is based on our personal introspective; I know I have a consciousness, because I'm thinking right now; this explanation, however, is unverifiable, as far as I know, and is not really enough to make a claim one way or the other. If I were a philosophical zombie - a being that does exactly what a "real" person would do, but with no "inner life" - I would still act as if I HAD an inner life and thoughts and so on.
It may very well be that there actually is no consciousness as a thing in itself, but only an emergent behavior caused by our brain's different parts, and that we are all philosophical zombies without knowing it.
The point I'm trying to make, is that subjective evidence is not good evidence. Your mind can be tricked very easily, which is why the scientific method involves multiple tests and controlled environments. Uri Geller may SEEM like he can bend spoons with his mind, so the subjective evidence is that he can; in a controlled environment, however, he is a fraud as all "magicians" who claim they aren't making illusions.




Yes but you said you needed evidence...
What I was trying to point out is that there is no evidence for many such matters, and that "belief" is, in a way, part of "knowing".

You still have to believe in the evidence, and you can never remove the subjective part of knowledge

... and even if you could, it would, in my mind, be actually detrimental to the knowledge we have

(also, the problem I see with - emergent behavior, is the problem of - who observes the behavior, and what exactly, makes this behavior "emergent")

^The Philosophical Zombie argument, which you've described, bluecliff, is an old philosophical classic. There's a difference between "can't know" and "don't know". There are many theories as to consciousness, but how to find out which is right and wrong is pretty difficult. Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology seems to be the best way forward, because it covers all the bases we have available at this point in time, the multiple drafts theory is in my mind the best explanation to date about consciousness, but there's no "hard evidence" to point in any direction.

The "proof" we have that there IS a consciousness is based on our personal introspective; I know I have a consciousness, because I'm thinking right now; this explanation, however, is unverifiable, as far as I know, and is not really enough to make a claim one way or the other. If I were a philosophical zombie - a being that does exactly what a "real" person would do, but with no "inner life" - I would still act as if I HAD an inner life and thoughts and so on.

It may very well be that there actually is no consciousness as a thing in itself, but only an emergent behavior caused by our brain's different parts, and that we are all philosophical zombies without knowing it.

The point I'm trying to make, is that subjective evidence is not good evidence. Your mind can be tricked very easily, which is why the scientific method involves multiple tests and controlled environments. Uri Geller may SEEM like he can bend spoons with his mind, so the subjective evidence is that he can; in a controlled environment, however, he is a fraud as all "magicians" who claim they aren't making illusions.

>> ^blankfist:
Oh come on, people, stop praising every person for being introspective and deep for making a cartoon set to weepy music. It's a fun little cartoon, I'll give you that, but am I the only one that thought he was quick to give up on his dreams? The guy graduates in 2001 and by 2001 he's ready to throw in the towel and become a school art teacher because of 9/11. Way to give it the ol' Canadian try there buddy. Pansies. That's why they never gained their independence from England until 1982!
Oh wait, is this not still Zifnab's roast? No? Oh. Shit.


It really is a shame that a fan of Peter Sellers and marijuana could be such a "tawdry" chap. Then again, my brother is a fan of Douglas Adams and retains the Christian upbringing instilled upon us from birth. Humans are such silly creatures.

Oh come on, people, stop praising every person for being introspective and deep because they made a cartoon and set it to weepy music. It's a fun little cartoon, I'll give you that, but am I the only one that thought he was quick to give up on his dreams? The guy graduates in 2001 and by 2001 he's ready to throw in the towel and become a school art teacher because of 9/11. Way to give it the ol' Canadian try there buddy. Pansies. That's why they never gained their independence from England until 1982!

Oh wait, is this not still Zifnab's roast? No? Oh. Shit.

*introspective

^ Yes, right before the Presidential election is a good time for introspective soul-searching about the Democratic party.

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

There will be plenty of time to rip on President Obama.

Under President McCain, we'll be too busy working in the oil-shale mines to discuss much.

If Islam never had a Renaissance, then where did we get algebra and algorithms? Your ignorance hurts me.

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
The important distinction campionidelmondo is that this is 2008, and no-one is killing in the name of Christianity. The Crusades and Christian Emperialism ended quite some time ago.

The Muslim world's drive, however, is still fueled by the ideology of a 6th century sectarian battalion. Islam never had a Renaissance... never had the period of self-doubt and introspection that Europe went through... this may be in part because just question Koranic validity is punishable by death!

Cheers to jwray for going against the grain.

The important distinction campionidelmondo is that this is 2008, and no-one is killing in the name of Christianity. The Crusades and Christian Emperialism ended quite some time ago.

The Muslim world's drive, however, is still fueled by the ideology of a 6th century sectarian battalion. Islam never had a Renaissance... never had the period of self-doubt and introspection that Europe went through... this may be in part because just question Koranic validity is punishable by death!

Cheers to jwray for going against the grain.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheism: the belief that others actually care about one's lack of belief

Quoted for stupidity.


As for the show, it seems to fail at its intent, which is to be an atheist show for non-atheists. Though I agree with the arguments in general, if they are going to talk to non-atheists, they need to gear down to the level of the caller.

For instance, the caller says "Who created everything?" A more appropriate answer would have been "Your question implies that there had to be a conscious mind behind creation. There is simply no evidence for that, and you won't find evidence through introspection or nature appreciation. Science explains a lot about how the world around us came to be, and we're discovering new things all the time. There is absolutely no evidence for a single all-powerful creator, and I don't need to believe in one to be able to appreciate the wonderful world we live in."

Address the poorly worded question if you must, but the idea behind the question is what is really important if you want to teach people about a different way to live. They get caught up in semantics and make themselves look like arrogant assholes who are lording it over the uneducated.

I am a graduate student in transpersonal psychology which, from my perspective, is one of the best scientific approaches so far for the empirical study of consciousness. One of the major questions that has emerged in this field has to do with the means of scientifically supporting the methods of diligence that are necessary for an adequate introspective exploration of the mind that have, until now, been generally associated with a kind religious (e.g., Buddhist) discipline and considered anathema to the scientific (e.g., secular) method of research. The "work" in this case has been in developing empirical evidence that establish so-called "religious" practices (e.g., medititive techniques) that may eventually lay the groundwork for the what must ultimately become a radically subjective approach to the examination of mental processes.

Fox is absolutely right. Bush is almost exactly like Lincoln. The only differences are that:

-Bush has no facial hair
-isn't very tall
-isn't a good president
-isn't smart
-isn't introspective
-isn't wise
-is indifferent to his constituents
-chokes on pretzels
-falls off of Segways
-not good at operating doors
-doesn't wear hats
-isn't gay
-is alive
-is a poor writer
-and a poor speaker
-is vain-glorious
-has no value for human life
-is OK with slavery of the wage variety
-born with a silver spoon up his ass
-and rather than being the best president in history, is the worst

Other than that, Bush is much like Lincoln's twin (more congenital than fraternal that is).