Where does consciousness fit in physics?

Sorry, but when someone is portraying their subjective opinion as if it were objective science, that is driving more people away from science. The idea that physics needs an overhaul so it can address consciousness is, at best, nonsense.

The reputation method is purely upon you the membership to accumulate positive points and award both positive and negative points to other members as you deem fit. - https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7.html

I never passed off my posts as objective science. This is also a philosophy section, and not the hard science section, where a topic like this fits. Think as you wish, if every time someone disagrees with someone, they will receive a negative rating, that is too negative for me. I always try to be respectful of views, if this was posted in the hard science section, it would make sense.

Thanks for inviting me CC and Secular Sanity, enjoy your forum.

(Oct 2, 2016 06:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: I never passed off my posts as objective science. This is also a philosophy section, and not the hard science section, where a topic like this fits. Think as you wish, if every time someone disagrees with someone, they will receive a negative rating, that is too negative for me. I always try to be respectful of views, if this was posted in the hard science section, it would make sense.

I agree. Therefore, his negative mark was not an objective or rational choice.

Syne is extremely antagonistic. All he knows how to do is quarrel. He doesn’t seek out arguments for their sake. He seeks out arguments for his sake. It’s an immature defense mechanism. It must have worked for him before. Otherwise, he wouldn't continue the behavior. You can either expel a lot of energy on him or ignore him. You can’t reason with him, though. Think of it as an opportunity to learn a few debate techniques or gain confidence in your own views. There is always going to be someone who doesn’t like you or disagrees with you. I like you, little Missy, and so does everyone else. So, stick around, enjoy, and learn to appreciate your individuality.

No need to get your feelings hurt. If you're going to post on the internet, you need a thicker skin than that. If you want an echo chamber, where no one strongly disagrees with you, that's what Facebook is for.

Philosophy does not include unfounded assertions about science. It often questions that foundation for knowledge in a field, but does not seek to expand one field into areas it is not designed to address. Philosophy is not a catchall for musings. And since you seem to be trying to use science to justify your belief, it does seem open to criticism.

(Oct 2, 2016 07:52 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Oct 2, 2016 06:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: I never passed off my posts as objective science. This is also a philosophy section, and not the hard science section, where a topic like this fits. Think as you wish, if every time someone disagrees with someone, they will receive a negative rating, that is too negative for me. I always try to be respectful of views, if this was posted in the hard science section, it would make sense.

I agree. Therefore, his negative mark was not an objective or rational choice.

Syne is extremely antagonistic. All he knows how to do is quarrel. He doesn’t seek out arguments for their sake. He seeks out arguments for his sake. It’s an immature defense mechanism. It must have worked for him before. Otherwise, he wouldn't continue the behavior. You can either expel a lot of energy on him or ignore him. You can’t reason with him, though. Think of it as an opportunity to learn a few debate techniques or gain confidence in your own views. There is always going to be someone who doesn’t like you or disagrees with you. I like you, little Missy, and so does everyone else. So, stick around, enjoy, and learn to appreciate your individuality.

I appreciate this

It's one thing if what he is accusing me of is TRUE, but it isn't. I never use science to back up any opinions, and I've been posting on the SF for a while, so it's just odd that someone is permitted to misread someone's post and abuse the negative rating feature. That's why I don't like negative rating features, because it allows for people to abuse the system. But, in this instance I was replying to CC and I *thought* we were merely having a dialogue.

I guess if I choose to remain, the ignore feature will come in handy. lol Thank you for saying this, it has been helpful to me.

(Oct 2, 2016 07:52 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I agree.  Therefore, his negative mark was not an objective or rational choice.

Syne is extremely antagonistic.  All he knows how to do is quarrel.  He doesn’t seek out arguments for their sake.  He seeks out arguments for his sake.  It’s an immature defense mechanism. It must have worked for him before. Otherwise, he wouldn't continue the behavior. You can either expel a lot of energy on him or ignore him. You can’t reason with him, though.  Think of it as an opportunity to learn a few debate techniques or gain confidence in your own views.  There is always going to be someone who doesn’t like you or disagrees with you.  I like you, little Missy, and so does everyone else.  So, stick around, enjoy, and learn to appreciate your individuality.

Since it's obvious you have erroneous assumptions, I'll tell you. I debate with others to hone my own thinking. I'm not seeking validation, as many on these sorts of forums seem to desire. I'm disappointed when I can't find challenging arguments, and I'm disappointed when I find inconsistent reasoning on a "science" forum.

And I'm not the one who constantly resorts to her feelings as justification in lieu of reason...so it follows that those who can't engage with reason can't be reasoned with. This post is a good example. Instead of offering reasons why Wegs is correct, you are just saying "oh, he's a bad guy...just ignore him". That's called quelling cognitive dissonance. If your primary interest is to "gain confidence in your own views" then you really have no interest in debate from the onset. Ignoring those who disagree with you and seeking to affirm your own views is the definition of confirming your own cognitive biases.

I'm here to have my biases challenged. Maybe that's only possible if you don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. But yeah, it does seem like many people here just want this forum to be a social media platform.

---

(Oct 2, 2016 08:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: ...so it's just odd that someone is permitted to misread someone's post and abuse the negative rating feature.

What abuse? Where are the guidelines you seem to assume exist? I quoted the admin's post:

"The reputation method is purely upon you the membership to accumulate positive points and award both positive and negative points to other members as you deem fit."

"As you deem fit" implies no guidelines.

But overall, I agree. Reputation systems and "like" buttons are features more appropriate to social media platforms. Lucky for you, you're among many more like-minded people here than otherwise, so my negative is really nothing compared to the number of positive ratings you're likely to amass. These systems are nothing more than popularity contests, and I'm fully aware that I'm a minority here.

You're the one Syne, who wishes to have an echo chamber, I guess everyone should automatically agree with you? The truth is though, I wasn't really making solid claims about anything, just discussing. I'm brand new to this site, lol hardly any discussion has really unfolded as of yet, and you are accusing me of things I never posted. If what you were saying is true, then by all means, state your opinion. But, you are misrepresenting my posts to suit why you felt the need to give a negative rating. Maybe this is what you normally do, but I'm new here, so don't know. But as a new member here, it's not welcoming, that's all I'm going to say. And a site should be welcoming, just as much as it is trying to create an environment of intellectual honesty. It's a shame if someone can't manage to have a debate without resorting to becoming negative towards another poster.

---

(Oct 2, 2016 08:22 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 2, 2016 07:52 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I agree.  Therefore, his negative mark was not an objective or rational choice.

Syne is extremely antagonistic.  All he knows how to do is quarrel.  He doesn’t seek out arguments for their sake.  He seeks out arguments for his sake.  It’s an immature defense mechanism. It must have worked for him before. Otherwise, he wouldn't continue the behavior. You can either expel a lot of energy on him or ignore him. You can’t reason with him, though.  Think of it as an opportunity to learn a few debate techniques or gain confidence in your own views.  There is always going to be someone who doesn’t like you or disagrees with you.  I like you, little Missy, and so does everyone else.  So, stick around, enjoy, and learn to appreciate your individuality.

Since it's obvious you have erroneous assumptions, I'll tell you. I debate with others to hone my own thinking. I'm not seeking validation, as many on these sorts of forums seem to desire. I'm disappointed when I can't find challenging arguments, and I'm disappointed when I find inconsistent reasoning on a "science" forum.

And I'm not the one who constantly resorts to her feelings as justification in lieu of reason...so it follows that those who can't engage with reason can't be reasoned with. This post is a good example. Instead of offering reasons why Wegs is correct, you are just saying "oh, he's a bad guy...just ignore him". That's called quelling cognitive dissonance. If your primary interest is to "gain confidence in your own views" then you really have no interest in debate from the onset. Ignoring those who disagree with you and seeking to affirm your own views is the definition of confirming your own cognitive biases.

I'm here to have my biases challenged. Maybe that's only possible if you don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. But yeah, it does seem like many people here just want this forum to be a social media platform.

---

(Oct 2, 2016 08:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: ...so it's just odd that someone is permitted to misread someone's post and abuse the negative rating feature.

What abuse? Where are the guidelines you seem to assume exist? I quoted the admin's post:

"The reputation method is purely upon you the membership to accumulate positive points and award both positive and negative points to other members as you deem fit."

"As you deem fit" implies no guidelines.

But overall, I agree. Reputation systems and "like" buttons are features more appropriate to social media platforms. Lucky for you, you're among many more like-minded people here than otherwise, so my negative is really nothing compared to the number of positive ratings you're likely to amass. These systems are nothing more than popularity contests, and I'm fully aware that I'm a minority here.

I know this much, you attacking me or posters in general, is against the rules. You should attack the topic or posts or what a poster is saying, but not the poster.  I don't want to talk with you, any further.

(Oct 2, 2016 08:29 PM)Leigha Wrote: You're the one Syne, who wishes to have an echo chamber, I guess everyone should automatically agree with you? The truth is though, I wasn't really making solid claims about anything, just discussing. I'm brand new to this site, lol hardly any discussion has really unfolded as of yet, and you are accusing me of things I never posted. If what you were saying is true, then by all means, state your opinion. But, you are misrepresenting my posts to suit why you felt the need to give a negative rating. Maybe this is what you normally do, but I'm new here, so don't know. But as a new member here, it's not welcoming, that's all I'm going to say. And a site should be welcoming, just as much as it is trying to create an environment of intellectual honesty. It's a shame if someone can't manage to have a debate without resorting to becoming negative towards another poster.

LOL! Who said you "should" agree with me? I'm the minority here, so I could never expect an echo chamber for my views here. And as a minority here, I'm not on the welcoming committee or anything. I understand that you may only be looking to socialize...and I believe there are subforums expressly meant for that purpose.

Quote:Because consciousness is a viable thing, it has to originate from something tangible.

Maybe this wasn't meant to be an assertion? I simply told you that the products of consciousness, whether faith or anything else, are just as viable, so it's a bad justification that consciousness "has to originate from something tangible". I may have given you a positive rating had you just come back and addressed that. But instead you've made it about some imagined "abuse". You're that one who took the discussion completely off-topic.

You seem to be imagining quite a bit, but no doubt you'll find plenty of defenders.

---

(Oct 2, 2016 08:29 PM)Leigha Wrote: I know this much, you attacking me or posters in general, is against the rules. You should attack the topic or posts or what a poster is saying, but not the poster.  I don't want to talk with you, any further.

What, exactly, are you calling an "attack"? Is this a "safe-space" whether people are not allowed to express their views if they could possibly upset someone?

So far, I've only said I disagree with you. If that's an attack, you shouldn't discuss anything open to debate. I did argue your points...it is you and SS that are actually attacking me personally. Luckily, I do have a thick skin.

(Oct 2, 2016 08:22 PM)Syne Wrote: [...] I debate with others to hone my own thinking. I'm not seeking validation [...] I'm disappointed when I can't find challenging arguments, and I'm disappointed when I find inconsistent reasoning on a "science" forum. [...] I'm here to have my biases challenged. [...] it does seem like many people here just want this forum to be a social media platform.

Due to its "casual" designation, that's arguably the type of atmosphere which SciVillage does have at least one foot in (with its Rep approach offering tentative management without Mods).

Stryder wanted to clearly define this forum site as "relaxed" so as to avoid the identity issues that SciForums seemed to struggle with at times -- as to whether it should be a strict, online workshop community or have looser, more informal discussion standards. I guess SciVillage would also offer an alternative to Sciforums when/if the Mods over there seemed to go on one of their (supposed) heavy-handed binges via interpreting its nature deeply in the former context.

Which certainly doesn't exclude the "causal stuff" sharing space with provocatively disciplined and arduously competitive discourse. But SciVillage needs regularly participating political, philosophical, and science wonks (preferably either retired or blessed with oodles of free time) to really offer a steady supply of debating / scuffling of the skill-sharpening caliber. (Granting here that an influx of passing, dogmatic eccentrics to battle with -- which SciForums once complained of being plagued by -- would just be classified under yet more relaxed activity or shooting fish in the barrel recreation.)

Quote:These systems are nothing more than popularity contests, and I'm fully aware that I'm a minority here.

I initially didn't like the Reputation system. Due to the way it might scare newcomers off who haven't been around long enough to accumulate substantial points (i.e., by way of just such veteran-ship in itself); and the potential clique-formation voting tactics that might imitate Middle or High School behaviors.

But OTOH a board without Mods has to be regulated in some way; and Stryder's "one gets sent to the Empty Room" (and whatever other restrictions) if the points get too far in the negative range, may be the only option. On the flip-side, SciForums was intermittently a neon advertisement for how wayward the multiple moderator approach can go for classic discussion boards.

To lessen any community fixation over it, the Rep number might be displayed only in a member's profile / user account rather than in the nickname / info box of every post. But given the resulting neglect which that invites in the opposite direction, it would mean the hassle of having to introduce some automatic, private message alert when a member was sinking dangerously low on the negative side. If such is not already in place.

I have no problem with the "casual" designation. But people should be aware that any discussion of unsettled science, pseudoscience, mysticism, speculation, etc. is open to challenge, and they shouldn't take criticism of their ideas as personal attack. The major flaw with a reputation system used as moderation is that any minority voices can easily be ganged up on...tyranny of the majority. Granted, homogeneous ideology among moderators can have much the same effect.

IMO, the Report button should be used for any cases that truly require moderation. That's exactly what it is made for. People found abusing that button could be handled individually. There is no easy way to handle people ganging up to abuse the reputation system. Do you have to go through and remove any negative points given in an abusive manor? That seems more time consuming and problematic to adjudicate.

And having some rating that determines a member's moderation status public just invites others to use that as ad hominem or threat of further negative ratings or reported posts. Unless specifically stated and policed, reputations systems are no more than popularity contests. So when used for moderation it basically just becomes people "voting others off the island."