tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930028682625884191.post5251663042524483106..comments2024-03-15T03:12:50.534-04:00Comments on Thoughts Explained: B. Alan Wallace and his Criticism of SkepticsStephen Machanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00889420142382665461noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930028682625884191.post-62179514190850111642017-09-29T02:18:18.063-04:002017-09-29T02:18:18.063-04:00That's fine he can question the whole material...That's fine he can question the whole materialist paradigm, but he has to explain how the materialist paradigm makes so many damn fine predictions and why those predictions would hold so reliably if there was another unknown but confounding effect to account for. Stephen Machanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00889420142382665461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930028682625884191.post-71975741691143865762012-05-24T14:13:43.253-04:002012-05-24T14:13:43.253-04:00Wallace questions the materialistic view point, wh...Wallace questions the materialistic view point, which all sientific evidence is based on. So, obviously he will not be convinced by evidence drawn from methods based on this materalistic view point. <br /><br />Sorry for the poor English, btw, I'm Norwegian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930028682625884191.post-56247129072062271422012-02-14T10:55:34.813-05:002012-02-14T10:55:34.813-05:00Well said, Mr Odds. Very good summarized fight bet...Well said, Mr Odds. Very good summarized fight between Novella and Wallace. What is intriguing at the beginning of that podcast is re-thinking about those basis skeptics take and, from my point of view not knowing where he came from, Wallace seem to begin shaking the whole structure but he fails miserably in the end.Caue C M Regohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15301064425869305243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930028682625884191.post-72101027537653787132010-07-05T15:32:29.800-04:002010-07-05T15:32:29.800-04:00Yeah I think they also didn't want to talk aft...Yeah I think they also didn't want to talk after the podcast and make it seem like they were keeping the conversation going without including Wallace in it. <br /><br />They were kind of accused of doing that with Neil Adams, so I think they wanted to avoid it. <br /><br />Thanks for the lengthy and well written comment.Stephen Machanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00889420142382665461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930028682625884191.post-33376762795212291302010-06-30T09:54:09.226-04:002010-06-30T09:54:09.226-04:00Indeed. I really enjoyed the B. Alan Wallace inter...Indeed. I really enjoyed the B. Alan Wallace interview in SGU podcast #73. Mostly because I love a good fight.<br /><br />Wallace is clearly very intelligent and articulate. He didn't run rings around Steve, but the digression was painful at times, trying to follow the shifting claims and rebuttal. Actually I think around 3/4 of the way through the interview either I lost track or Steve lost track of what was being argued, and it went a bit downhill from there. That guy is slippery as a snake, and close to the end I heard somebody saying "Oh, man!" in frustration. I think it was either Jay or Bob (hard to tell the difference between Jay, Bob and Evan on the podcast).<br /><br />The root of Wallace's argument is that there's some component to consciousness which is non-physical, and our physical brains use that. Steve's point, quite rightly, was that there is no evidence out there which indicates this, and that the evidence we do have indicates that such a duality is unnecessary.<br /><br />I'd go further and say that we don't yet understand how functioning neurons (and the other brain structures) result in consciousness and sentience but there is no indication yet that we won't eventually understand that, and furthermore we believe the neuronal model is powerful enough to implement the observed features.<br /><br />Steve Novella did respond much more thoroughly on his Neurologica blog than I have done above. It's a good read.<br /><br />I was surprised in Podcast 73 after the interview nobody commented. One reason may have been that the interview ran way too long, and there wasn't time to talk about it any more. Another reason may be that Steve edited out all the post-interview swearing and, at the end, nothing was left!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com