• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 11

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Constance said:
Lots of lower echelon academics tend to stick to the theoretical structures they've worked hard to learn and thus repeatedly consume and excrete them like food past its sell-by date. Here's a paper by the French sociologist Bruno Latour, the original theorist of 'social constructivism', that you might read. Maybe it would be productive for all of us to read it and discuss it here.

"The promises of constructivism"
Bruno Latour
Paper prepared for a chapter in Don Idhe (editor), Chasing Technology : Matrix of Materiality, Indiana Series for the Philosophy of Science, Indiana University Press, pp. 27-46 (2003)

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/87-CONSTRUCTIVISM-GB.pdf
Click to expand...

What a great word:

mastabas
 
USI Calgary said:
That's because the content of the thread hasn't provided sufficient reason for me to change the views that were developed early in the thread. BTW I'm not the only one who has restated their position here more than once. We're all up against the same wall, just looking at it from different angles. Also, I still don't see an explanation for what you think I missed because I took what you said literally. If you think it was something important, then getting that figured out might help. But I don't want to wast time on it if it was just an offhanded expression of frustration. If that's the case, we can move on. It's fine.
Click to expand...

smcder
"That's a good way to put it - you say you've read this thread from the beginning, but your responses read as if you are starting over every time, there doesn't seem to be an accumulated knowledge of the thread or the posters ... so the responses seem generic and subject to what I think of as a kind of "logic chopping" - and if you are literally parsing the text and only the text in each present message, that would help explain it - so there is no flow to it, and that's why it feels oddly stilted and like each exchange is the first!"

No, what I mean is that others seem to me to respond not just to the immediate content of my posts but to the overall content of my posts over time ... and they also seem to me to often have considerable subject matter content and understanding.
 
smcder said:
No, what I mean is that others seem to me to respond not just to the immediate content of my posts but to the overall content of my posts over time ... and they also seem to me to often have considerable subject matter content and understanding.
Click to expand...
You were on my ignore list for a long time, which probably explains the lack of immediate responses. Hopefully we're past any need for that and things will smooth out. I'm not sure where else the discussion can go from here, but I suppose the continued collection of source material by others isn't a total waste of time, and @Constance has good taste in music. I'll probably do more observing than participating for a while because I've got so much other stuff to do, and the stuff here eats up a lot of my time.
 
USI Calgary said:
You were on my ignore list for a long time, which probably explains the lack of immediate responses. Hopefully we're past any need for that and things will smooth out. I'm not sure where else the discussion can go from here, but I suppose the continued collection of source material by others isn't a total waste of time, and @Constance has good taste in music. I'll probably do more observing than participating for a while because I've got so much other stuff to do, and the stuff here eats up a lot of my time.
Click to expand...

And...still no answers to my questions...
 
USI Calgary said:
You were on my ignore list for a long time, which probably explains the lack of immediate responses. Hopefully we're past any need for that and things will smooth out. I'm not sure where else the discussion can go from here, but I suppose the continued collection of source material by others isn't a total waste of time, and @Constance has good taste in music. I'll probably do more observing than participating for a while because I've got so much other stuff to do, and the stuff here eats up a lot of my time.
Click to expand...

That's up to you, but it seems, as I suspected, that Staff Members can't be ignored... (no, I wasn't planning to put you on ignore, I was just curious) which could/should mean Staff Members shouldn't be able to ignore?

An interesting situation. Maybe Staff Members should be required to post with a separate, ignorable account from their staff account?

Doesn't seem quite cricket otherwise.
 
USI Calgary said:
I'm not sure where else the discussion can go from here, but I suppose the continued collection of source material by others isn't a total waste of time. . .
Click to expand...

If you'd followed the thread all this time, you would know how little is understood about the nature of consciousness and how much remains to be investigated and discovered.
 
smcder said:
That's up to you, but it seems, as I suspected, that Staff Members can't be ignored... (no, I wasn't planning to put you on ignore, I was just curious) which could/should mean Staff Members shouldn't be able to ignore? An interesting situation. Maybe Staff Members should be required to post with a separate, ignorable account from their staff account? Doesn't seem quite cricket otherwise.
Click to expand...
Requiring mods to participate in discussions as non-elevated participants who can be ignored is a reasonable request, but I'm not sure if members can have more than one account, and it's not on my priority list to figure it out. In the meantime, if you'd like a thread where you can control who can participate, you can always start a private conversation and invite only those you want. You're also free to complain to the forum owner if you feel a mod has overstepped their bounds.
 
USI Calgary said:
Requiring mods to participate in discussions as non-elevated participants who can be ignored is a reasonable request, but I'm not sure if members can have more than one account, and it's not on my priority list to figure it out. In the meantime, if you'd like a thread where you can control who can participate, you can always start a private conversation and invite only those you want. You're also free to complain to the forum owner if you feel a mod has overstepped their bounds.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know ...
 
USI Calgary said:
Requiring mods to participate in discussions as non-elevated participants who can be ignored is a reasonable request, but I'm not sure if members can have more than one account, and it's not on my priority list to figure it out. In the meantime, if you'd like a thread where you can control who can participate, you can always start a private conversation and invite only those you want. You're also free to complain to the forum owner if you feel a mod has overstepped their bounds.
Click to expand...

We have a moderator or moderators in this forum thread? News to me.
Have you been claiming, Randel, that as a Paracast moderator somewhere at this website you have special privileges here?
 
We have several moderators with full privileges throughout the forum. Always have.

And I own the license.

But Randall promised he’d let you be and I will too so long as you’ll obey the rules.
 
Constance said:
We have a moderator or moderators in this forum thread? News to me.
Have you been claiming, Randel, that as a Paracast moderator somewhere at this website you have special privileges here?
Click to expand...
Yes. I can edit, move, and delete posts as well as other stuff on the CMS backend. BTW, because of that I had a very interesting experience with one of your recent posts. I thought that rather than simply replying, I would try to edit your post to illustrate what I was trying to say. In the process I realized that your content could have been taken in a different context, so I left it as is, and replaced my original response with something I felt was more positive that worked either way. That being said, I have no idea what Gene means when he says I made a promise to leave you be. I rarely make promises to anyone, and don't believe my participation has broken any rules here ever. Therefore I don't see why I or anyone else shouldn't be able to participate. Regardless, as I mentioned to smcder, I have other things that need more attention and I doubt I'll be missed, so by all means rejoice in my absence if that's what you would all prefer :p.
 
Last edited:
Constance said:
Your argument rests on assumptions and speculations concerning the black box of consciousness and mind in humans. It appears to me that you will never begin to understand the multiply-leveled and integrated complexity of consciousness and mind if you continue to approach it from the basis of 'objectivity', of what can be objectively and mechanically measured in human experience. You cling to objectivist, materialist, presuppositions and presumptions as if your life depended on them.

Black box - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that you criticize Randall for making an assumption by making an assumption about what he bases his argument on, instead of attacking that argument directly.

While claiming that he will never begin to understand something that you clearly also do not understand.

You are making an emotional argument where there is no emotional component to argue.
 
Constance said:
The brain facilitates thinking and the expression of thoughts; it does not generate thinking from within itself. Thinking arises from prereflective consciousness and is developed by reflective consciousness. Consciousness is the mystery.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top