... but I do just *love* this film review site.

They way they can manage to find something to take offence at in almost every film ever shown and link it all back to the bible is just wonderful. It's a damn shame that this is a serious site, because it would work just as well as satire.

Oh, for best effect you have to imagine some boderline sex case reading out the review to you, getting increasingly louder and more shrill, with bits of spittle flying everywhere towards the end.

All the best bits of the film listed......and then (shout it) DAMNED!!!

They didnt even review Bad Santa, i would love to have known what they would have said about Billy Bob and the fat girl in the changing room!

Ohh.... my.... god....(I will go to hell now for typing God by the CAP people no doubt)

That is absolutely hilarious. You can just imagine them watching a film and cringing every 2 seconds, then tutting about the CAP rating going up.

And the one which I read was 101 dalmations!

"Programming presenting questionable material warranting the loss of minumum level points included:


realistic trauma and injury
inappropriate dress
punk/hood manerisms, purse snatching
"Take care of #1"
sadness from loss of caregiver
gunfire at a story character
threats to achieve good favor
the use of God's name in vain without the four letter expletive
imagery of animal control police as brutal
imagery of out of body experience, resurrection
adult underwear twice
hanging onto an ambulance while riding a bike"

And this evil film was......Babe: Pig in the City!!!

Also nice to see that the Simpsons Movie is one of the most evil, degrading, damaging films ever made.

Also note with interest that the story of Jonah on a kids dvd loses marks for showing violence of "Jonah being eaten by a whale", and "Jonah disobeying God". You see that book they keep banging on about is just full of this kind of stuff and should be banned!

I like the references back to the bible passage.

"Also note that one of the boy guests tried to touch mom's backside [Ruth 2:9, 15]"

Very thorough.

Picking on ET has got to be hard work though.

For maximum cognitive dissonance compare the reviews of Bruce Almighty and Dogma

They didn't like Dogma much did they! LOL

Twistin' my words? that's the devil's work.

besides, are you saying that a book has a bum?

Sorry, I guess I'm even more likely to burn in hell now......

I think if you've even seen The Simpson's Movie you should get you asbestos underwear on now.

Even worse, I've seen American Psycho. They most evil film ever made, getting 0/100.

I note there is no entry for the Life of Brian!

Heh, I've just read the review of Zathura: A space adventure where he bitches about how he's got so little time to review movies, what with looking after his 7 kids and then docks the movie points because you can see a *bra strap*.

Oh, the immorality. I let my daughter watch that, not knowing it was going to be like Soddom on a Saturday night.

"I'm not one to mock deeply held beliefs ..."

Jimmy chin chin

It's not surprising to me that some issue can be taken at every secular film, but I am a bit baffled if the Jonah film was marked down for showing Jonah as being disobedient to God, as this is a matter of scriptural integrity as he was disobedient. I therefore wonder if their aim is rather more of an academic exercise rather one of criticism. It does look to be quite serious.

That said, can't say I'll be paying a return visit, but I guess for parents who want to know what lies behind a certificate it could be useful; certainly more useful than that other Christian film site I remember you finding.

Was there another one? I've probably just posted this one before - I'm nothing if not unoriginal.

As for their reviews - The passion of the Christ seemed to give them some problems as well. They approved of the film for 'accurately' showing the suffering that Jesus endured on our behalf, but then weren't happy that it showed the suffering that Jesus endured.

Andrew, isn't this a repost, by you in the first place?

Would have loved to have seen their reviews of "I spit on your grave" or "Debby does Dallas".

What will happen to the people writing the reviews or do they have protective powers?

Censors (and would-be censors) throughout the ages have had powers that make them imune to things that would morally damage others, so it's alright.

Plus, of course, God knows that he doesn't really want to have to watch that filth, so won't punish him for it.

You load of heathens, say your hail mary's now!

Oh, and whilst you're there, have a look and see if you can find a review for Ken Russell's "The Devils" (Oliver Reed, Vanessa Redgrave). Now that would be one LONG review

Hail Mary, Mother of God
Blessed art thou amongst women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus
erm, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
um, no - that's all I've got from memory.

Although quite why you'd want to pray to some strumpet who doesn't let her bloke get any, but is happy to take it off a stranger just because he's got wings and claims that god sent him is a mystery to me.

I thought you knew your Bible a little bit better than that!! That suggests to me that you've never read it, which I find very surprising!

Or I may just have been mocking deeply held beliefs ... just like I never do

Although, of course, if you're a Catholic (like wot I am, technically) then Mary did remain a virgin all of her life and Biblical reference to Jesus having brothers and sisters are meant in a purely fraternal, rather than literal, way.

Honest. If you think that the bible quite clearly uses the literal sense then there's a bloke in Rome you need to talk to.

Ha ha, yeah whatever. Before you know it, you'll be telling me that the human race, in all it's shapes, sizes and colours, and on the many different continents it appeared, wasn't started by two people in a garden somewhere!!

Nice red herring!

It was your account your understanding of the incarnation that was dodgy even tongue wedged firmly in cheek - confusing the Holy Spirit with an angel - I was and am genuinely surprised about that

Not aware of any reference to Jesus having sisters - but you could be right. I'm a catholic myself - rather than a Roman Catholic, and there may be something from Rome covering that (has the papacy been wrong before? )

If you haven't read it, you ought to.

Oh, right, now I'm with you.

I was more referring to the fact that it's an angel that turns up to tell Mary that she's with Messiah. The actual method of the Holy Spirit getting in to her isn't covered in detail and 'hand' delivered is as good as any.

Jesus' sisters get a brief mention in Matthew 13:56, although they aren't named individually as his brothers are.

As for the papacy being wrong - as I'm sure you know the Pope is entitled to be wrong about as much as he likes, as long as he's not speaking ex cathedra and as, so far, they've always had the sense to speak infallibly only on matters which are beyond earthly proof it's a pretty safe bet.

The angel came to Mary before she conceived (he came to Joseph after). Actually the hand-delivered point is interesting because that is one of the issues with Rome, whether Mary was the "bearer" or "mother". There is a translation issue underlying this which escapes me for the moment. I guess embryonic implantation would go with the former, whereas sperm would go with the latter (which is not something you can say in every restaurant).

Thanks for the Matthew reference, I'll look that up when I get home.

Apologies for going off topic.

well apparently, 2 fast 2 furious contains lies, suggestive eye movement, and massive tatoos

They seem to have something against facial piercings as well....what's that all about?

nothing against limb piercings though.

I am sorry father, for I have sinned. Not only have I watched a film that included 'anatomical references' and cohabitation, but I have even watched a film that had drinking!!! May I be forgiven.

And I don't like the way homosexuality is listed in the 'bad things'.

<Rev Lovejoy>Have you ever read this thing? Technically we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom</Rev. Lovejoy>

But I thought that's what religion in it's entirety was!

And I'll be sticking this straight on IIDB, after checking it's not already there somewhere.

btw, I went straight for devils advocate (top film).

but Offense to god, there was the obivous-
""God likes to watch. He's a prankster""
"daring God and arrogance toward His authority"

The weird -
"ghosting of female anatomy through clothing"
"at least 11 instances of full female nudity and many instances of lesser nudity " So what's lesser nudity?
"nude statues coming to life in a swirling mass of bodies"
"multiple gunshot hits on a man with no injuries" - lol!

and the downright laughably insane -
"doors opening and closing inexplicably"
"Voodoo-looking scenery"
"out-of-body visions of self"
WTF?! lol

If you want to be safe, watch "The Gospel of St. John".

Rated highly

hahahaha

now that would be a popular decision. an outright ban on 95% of everything ever made? let them decide!

Billy Elliot - "..instance of rear male nudity"

Err.. am I maybe the only one never to have seen an image of Adam with a fig leaf stuck to his arse!?

The 'review' for scary movie is classic

I like the line from the review of Shawshank Redemption

"Muder/suicide (M) lost a few points because of a murder and a suicide".

Well dur!

I am. I'm to the right of Richard Dawkins, I am, when it comes to dangerous superstition, but hey, live and let live.

And anyway, where are all the good films? Where're:

Tampopo?
The Seven Samurai?
Last Man Standing?
The Man in the White Suit?
Passport to Pimlico?

just to name a few off the top of my head. Tsk, these people aren't protecting me at *all*!

Tampopo? - Please tell me its a horror
Tag Line: "Tampopo - Very nearly a bloody mess"

Man in the White Suit is a cracker.

Never mind Tampopo where's The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover.

Now *that's* an interesting combination... two completely different films about sex and food

I don't know, I found Dawkins' book rather annoying. His whole argument about non-overlapping majesteria* was flawed, IMHO.

* Is that spelled right? It looks wrong. I suppose I could have checked it ... in less time than it's taken to write this footnote ... but there you go. The devil made me do it.

I wish they had reviewed Twin Town


This would have had them genuflecting behind the sofa.

Needless to say, not safe for work link, like anyone's netcopping IT admins are allowing Youtube these days. Goits!

Email sent to them asking to CAP rate "Anal Intrusion VI"

Oh god, this can only end badly

Well are you going to elaborate? I'd be interested, for one.

'Spelt' would have been better.

I'm not sure what Andrew didn't like about the argument; seems to me (from memory; it's a while since I read it) that religious apologists maintain disparate majesteria of faith and science; Dawkins seems to hold - and I agree with him, so he's in good company - that there are *no* majesteria; i.e. that the claim of 'proof by faith' is non-existent.

To me personally, after over twenty years of concerted research into the subject, the 'magisterium of science' seems equally groundless. People like Dawkins and Dennett just dogmatically assume that if something is the case then science will eventually encompass it. They seem to think that there is no need for them to justify this assumption.

Apparently not. Human (and animal) consciousness has persistently and completely evaded scientific explanation or understanding, over the entire period of philosophical and scientific enquiry. We are nowhere near understanding how a biological lump like a person, or person's brain, can be conscious, or why. And yet, faced with this undeniable fact, the dogmatic materialists of this world just project their dogmatism with ever more zeal.

One familiar manoeuvre is to proclaim that their opponents in the debate are being dogmatic if they begin to form the opinion that science will never succeeed in this respect. I disagree. Science has set itself up as having the objective world as its domain - whereas what we are discussing here is subjective. No objective description of a person's brain states can encompass consciousness, because consciousness is subjective. If the materialists were correct, there could be no subjective domain.

So, in a nutshell, I find Dawkins and Dennett as frustratingly dogmatic as their Bible-thumping counterparts.

I don't quite agree; I would hold that science is not the question of whether something is understood but a method by which it might be understood.

Basically; propose a theory; provide a mechanism by which the theory can be tested; then test it. Make the methodology available to others so that they can test it. If alternate information comes to light which invalidates the theory, then drop it and grow a new one.

The fact that we cannot explain consciousness is immaterial to the argument; we may never be able to. But the answer to the question is 'we don't know' not 'we can't know'. Religious thought (I use the term advisedly) holds that not only can we not know but that we should not even try.

My views - which are likely to get me flamed - are basically that religion is dangerous in *all* its forms; its adherents behave in a way which in any other context would have them classed as insane (talking to an invisible friend that only they can hear; repeated behaviour which has been shown to have no effect; obsessive compulsive behaviour; antisocial behaviour; permitting others to control their behaviour). Worse, it's a social virus... if you have it, you'll likely infect your kids, too. I *don't* like it.

As for religious behaviour; let's have a quick look at the ten commandments: are you suggesting that because I do not profess the christian (or jewish) faith, I will:
- fail to honor my parents?
- murder?
- commit adultery?
- steal?
- bear false witness against a neighbour (bit specific, that one?)
- covet my neighbours house/wife/ass (take your pick)?

Are you suggesting that the only reason people *don't* break all those commandments is because god told them not to? Pish, and likewise, tosh.

Each and every one of those commandments is entirely designed to stop local social trouble. Follow them, and your neighbours won't find it necessary to throw rocks at you...

I leave out the first four, all of which are to do with keeping the priesthood in power, and which give this amusing air of authority to the whole thing... amazing what the human can believe.

(This argument is best discussed over beer, but I'm not allowed beer at the moment for medical reasons )

Neil

Is this all directed at me? I am not suggesting anything about religion. My interest is in the assumed magisterium of science.



This is where we really disagree. You seem to be reflecting the general consensus pro-scientific movement in saying that we should never reach the point where we are entitled to pronounce science incapable of explaining certain phenomena. I agree that it is appropriate to try, until an unavoidable reason for giving up emerges. In the case of consciousness, I would say that is about where we are now.

The reason for giving up is this: science by its own definition attempts to understand the world in an objective sense - in terms of third-person observables. Consciousness is not in that domain, and so doesn't even stand as a candidate for scientific understanding.

Consciousness is *not presently* in that domain. Which is why it should most definitely be a candidate for understanding.

The conceit that 'we can't understand it' leads to 'some things man is not meant to know' and that leads to the idiocy of religious superstition.

I won't hold any truck with such a view; if we don't know, and the question interests us, then we should try and find out. The fact that previous attempts to find out have not succeeded are no reason to stop trying.

(The religion wasn't aimed at you, just a generic rant.)

Neil

I once coveted my neighbours ass, it was very pert though!

Sorry.

All religion is bunkum and we're better off without it.

Well, obviously, I disagree with you. The recognition that we can't understand consciousness in terms of objective science is not conceit, and it is not unwarranted. It is simply the recognition that consciousness, in the sense we are referring to it, is a subjective phenomenon. It will not become an objective phenomenon, however much work scientists do to uncover its objective correlates. Consciousness per se is subjective.

When you say not objective yet I think you pinpoint the source of our disagreement. As I understand it, science is not in the business of rendering subjective phenomena objective. The most it even aspires to is the determination of the objective correlates of consciousness. Scientific study of the brain can only have as its final goal an exact and complete description in objective terms of the state of the brain which is present if and only if a particular state of consciousness is present. That is an exercise in correlation - not identification.

Sorry, busy weekend.

My objection to Dawkin's anti-NOMA argument was that his whole stance is that religion is the product of woolly thinking, and I'd agree with him on that, and then he rejects the idea that religion and science could be said to have no overlap because religious people would reject it if science could be used to prove their faith.

So, in fact, what's he's arguing is NOMA should be rejected because a bunch of woolly thinkers would reject it, if it suited them to do so.

I'm no apologist for those who wish to believe that a magic sky pixie loves them all, but I'm still happy to concede that if articles of faith are kept out of the realms of the testable then it should not be the purpose of science to test them.

The consciousness argument is an interesting one. The hardline scientific view is that the brain is a collection of chemicals and, therefore, consciousness is defined by chemical interactions and electrical signals which obey a set of absolute laws. If this is the case then free will is an illusion - we're just responding to a vast number of fairly simple stimuli.

If you believe that isn't the whole story then, effectively, you believe in a soul of some sort, which I personally find somewhat arrogant and distasteful.

Again, I can only see that it would be arrogant if there were no good reason for believing it. In a nutshell, again, my reason for strongly mistrusting physicalism is that science is all about research into the objective world. At no point does it even attempt to introduce a subjective element. Indeed, what would it even mean to aspire to objectify the subjective? It would be arrogant of me, indeed, to cling on to the hope that eventually science might 'objectify consciousness', when I don't even understand what it means.

Souls haven't come into it, at least yet. The point I am at is that the physical account of the person appears not to be the complete account. In principle, this might change if 'the physical' gets redefined to allow in subjectivity. But then we are already having to admit that consciousness is not 'physical', in the original sense of the word.

Why should or would science introduce a subjective element? To do so would be to remove itself from the realm of science.

What science can show is that nothing happens within the brain that is beyond the scope of understood physical rules. Once that determination is made it is clear that self-awareness is the result of a very complex set of physical reactions.

If you believe that is not the case then you believe in, call it what you will, a soul.

I was being liberal. Let's stay with the original sense of 'science', then. I have no problem with that.

So which physical rules incorporate subjective facts?

'Tis true, 'tis true.

Enforcer, *why* do you hold to the belief that there are things 'we are not made to know'? That way, madness lies.

I'm watching with interest to see what happens if we ever meet another intelligent species... should be some interesting discussions then

As long as the Americans don't get there first and blow them to smitherenes!!

(Sorry for any offence caused to any Americans here!!)

Neil, why do you continue to misconstrue what I am saying? It isn't that we are not made to know something - rather that what we know includes some (by definition) non-physical facts.

We cannot know the physical constitution of consciousness if consciousness is not physically constituted.

I would enter this argument with some insightful comments, but I am better at constructing a good science argument (its part of my job) than a good faith-based one, hence I will keep out of this discussion until either:
a) I have constructed a response which will move the argument on and provoke further thoughts and re-analysis of all our belief-sets, or
b) The discussion has moved away from this onto something where I don't feel capable of adding something, or
c) Someone has been compared to Hitler (hopefully won't happen).

Bizarely I find myself mid-way between AndrewR and Enforcer, but clearly not on the same plane is either. How is this?

What is a subjective fact? How can something be true only for a given perspective?

I would venture to suggest that you have answered your own question.

1. Subjective fact. But are you claiming that there is no subjective experience? You can if you like, but that would seem rather bizarre to me. It amounts to pronouncing us non-conscious.

2. How? By not being a physical fact.

So you're claiming that, for example, if I experience, say, happiness then that is a subjective fact, because it is personal to my own experience.

I, on the other hand, maintain that there are physical stimuli which made me feel happy and that even though it may not be feasible at present to isolate them they do, none the less, exist.

The experience, for example, of me recalling a happy memory causes physical reactions in my brain which exist in an objective sense. Just because a scientist can not stick a microscope in my ear and watch the memory play does not mean that it is magically detatched from the physical world.

Subjective facts:

Let's say a group of scientists probe and analyse the brain of Smith until they have completed their enquiry. What they arrive at is a complete description of what has to be going on in the brain - physical facts (P) - for Smith to be having a conscious experience of blue (B).

(P) and (B) have been experimentally correlated.

But still there is the complete set of physical facts (P) and in addition, an experiential fact (B). (B) is subjective in the sense that it is experienced by only the person in that brain state. It doesn't mean anything to say that the other scientists share the experience, because it is the experience of a particular subject - subjective. Because of this, it can never belong to any set (P).

I am claiming that your take on this represents correlation, rather than identification.

So would you say that the reaction between sodium and water is subjective because only sodium and water experience it?

It is not, the reaction can be observed and its causes explained.

Likewise the vast number of reactions that are required to produce consciousness can be observed and, potentially, even predicted*. There is no subjective magic element which makes us conscious which is not represented in physical reactions.

* Of course, we already do a pretty good job of this prediction at the macro-effect level. For example, we can predict fairly well what will happen if, say, we tell the wife we've been banging her sister.

No, and that is an excellent way to see what I am saying. Physical (objective) events and states of affairs might be thought of as having a 'subjective' aspect to them, in some sense, but not in the sense I mean. Think of an entirely mechanical (and unconscious) robot. You shine a light in its eyes and it processes the information much as we do. Finally, it registers the fact that it is 'seeing' red light. These processes are 'subjective' - they are happening only within the robotic 'subject'.

The difference is that the physical description of what the robot is doing is the complete description. There is nothing about the process that only the robot can experience.

I'm lost now - if we build a robot that can detect when a light is being shone at it and report what colour that light is, which is fairly trivial, do we then have a subjective system?

If we improve it so that it can also recognise music is that subjective?

If it then is enhanced to be able to taste food or hold a conversation or be self-aware where does this become, in your definition, subjective?

My argument is that however cleverly we construct the robot it's still just a clever robot and nothing it does has a mystical element ... and we are also just very clever robots. Our ability to subjectively experience things is an illusion, along with our free will.

Ah - OK. That makes things clearer. You are taking the only possible position a physicalist could reasonably take (in my opinion) by denying the subject matter of the enquiry. Eliminative Materialism is the jargon.

I agree that if it is true that we are no different from these sophisticated robots then we have no subjectivity in the sense I am using the expression. The problem then is what sort of illusion this could be.

Is your experience of pain illusory? If you feel intense toothache - in what respect are you mistaken about that?

Pain is still a physical response within the brain. With the right knowledge one's brain could be stimulated to believe that it was experiencing toothache.

You said that conscious experience (e.g., of pain) is illusory. What does that mean - that when we take ourselves to be consciously experiencing pain we have a false belief that we are doing so? It seems clear that we can be wrong about the physical source of an experience of pain, but about the experience itself?

BTW, back on topic, this is the sort of thing that makes me cringe.

What I am saying is that what you see as a subjective non-physical event I see as an objective physical one, just one of such complexity that it's easier, natural even, to regard it as being beyond the physical.

Whatr a most amusing website! initially he claimed that his score for a partial viewing of Dogma was enough, then after many E-mails he decided to view the whole thing and lowered the "CAP" score. So infact at first he was talking utter rubbish...

So would you say that how you see the colour blue, for example - how it looks to you in your own consciousness - is an immensely complex quality?

What I want to distinguish between is (a) how it looks to you (subjective) and (b) the possible causes of how it looks to you. I can agree with you that the cause might be immensely complex, and objective, but the experience itself is simple and subjective.


Imagine that science has arrived at a complete understanding of the physical state (P) which precipitates a particular conscious experience (B). There would have then to be a law acknowledged which links the two. It would be the (P) <--> (B) Law. That is a correlation law. It doesn't analyse (B) in terms of (P). It just correlates the two. You still have the problem of what constitutes (B). And as physics stands, and as you said, there can't be any physical states which are not objective states.

But the experience is simply a manifestation of the physical complexity.

Seeing the colour blue kicks of certain physical reactions which cause our brain to say, "Hey, that's blue", but nothing takes place outside of normal physical laws.

My original point, 500 posts ago, was that if you believe that, somehow, what happens in the brain does transcend normal physics then you are taking a religious viewpoint.

I think we should probably agree to differ on this, then. Certainly you are not alone in saying that conscious experience is either illusory or purely physical in all respects, so I am not suggesting that I am obviously right and you wrong. All I was doing was trying to explain the way I see things. My view is that conscious experience eludes physics completely. It has a subjectivity which physical phenomena cannot.

Regarding religion, I still haven't said a word about it. Perhaps you are suggesting that in order to support my position I would need to call on a belief in God? I can't see that at all. My only interest is in how complete a physical account of the mind can be.

Sometimes you are one of the funniest people ever Neil



What is this? Barnacle with incorrect grammar? We should try to find out.



I disagree - the experience isn't subjective and it certainly isn't simple. We, as humans, have been taught that the colour blue is called 'blue'. Therefore, when we see blue, certain physical effects happen in our brain, drawing from our memory to remember that the colour is called 'blue'.



Obviously we don't understand this properly, but how do you know we cannot analyse B? The 'conscious experience' is, at the simplest level, a lot of chemical reactions in the brain. That is all it is. If it isn't, there must be some other force, for want of a better word, which causes us to have the experience B. To quote Barnacle, pish, and likewise, tosh.

At the simplest level, all emotions etc. are simply chemical reactions. Just very complicated chemical reactions. Lots of them too.

But you have the continuous assumption that consciousness is *not* physically constituted. Yet the main piece of evidence suggests that it must be; have you ever seen consciousness in the absence of a physical brain?

I'm saying we don't know enough about it; you're saying we *can't* know about it. I don't see why there should be a limit to knowledge.

I admit to amusing myself in my responses; you have not claimed 'not meant to know' but frankly, that's the attitude that your conclusions lead to.

Me: we don't know; keep looking.
You: we can't know; don't bother.

Oh well - time to quit, I think. I started out by drawing attention to a property of conscious experience (as I believe) which by definition physical phenomena cannot have. This leads to the inference that conscious experience is not physical. Nowhere have I assumed that something intelligible cannot be achieved, and nowhere have I brought religion into it.

Interesting how emotive this stuff can be!

I just don't think that's true though? At the end of the day the brain is still a physical thing; albeit it a very complicated thing. Thusly the emotions/experiences are also physical, stored in a chemical form in the brain.

You might turn out to be right, but at this stage you are just assuming that everything is physical. I am trying to present an argument to show that it is not. Anyway, that's it for me.

Not quite, but if you wish to maintain that something in the operation of the brain somehow transcends mere mundane physical interactions then you need to give a name to the state created, and the most likely one is "soul".

I would see consciousness, with the ability to take a subjective view, as an emergent property of a complex physical system. If you wish to make it more than mere physics you are suggesting some kind of mystical aspect to the universe which, by your own statements, can not be explained by science.

This is a religious viewpoint, whether or not you attribute a god to it.

Well I don't want to mock your beliefs, Andrew, but if they are as you indicate you are far closer to acknowledging God than I am. I was thinking more in terms of reviewing our preconception about 'the physical' being restricted to the objective. Much neater.

But here is another possible way to express what I am saying. I have already said it more or less, but here goes:

Suppose a bunch of scientists investigates Smith's brain state when he says he is experiencing pain, and suppose they exhaust the physical details of that state. They then pronounce that this is all there is to the state of pain. By definition, they have established all the physical details by objective investigation, and since they are physicalists that has to be everything, for them. OK, fine.

Now one of them remembers that Smith feels pain, and chips in with "...oh, and this is what it is like to be Smith in pain". He kicks one of his colleagues in the head to induce a similar sensation in him.

My claim is that the moment he introduces the concept of 'what it is like to be ...' he has overstepped the bounds of physicalism. For a physicalist there is the physical brain state to be in, but there is no additional 'what it is like to be' in that state. The concept is meaningless to a physicalist, since he has already exhausted all the facts. That's why he is forced to be an eliminativist - deny that there is any such experience.

I am not denying that there is a subjective experience of feeling pain, I'm saying that experience is based on physical interactions in the brain which are, potentially, discoverable and repeatable.

They are, in fact, based upon entirely objective measures. That they produce a subjective experience ("ow, that hurts a lot", "Arg! That's even worse") does not suggest that to understand or explain *why* they happen requires a subjective viewpoint.

If, for example, our scientists replicate the reactions in Smith's brain that happen when they kick him in the shin and then blindfold him and repeat the reactions then Smith can not tell if they are really kicking him in the shin, or merely making him feel that he is being kicked in the shin because his subjective experience is the same.

That is the scientific point of view. If you believe that there is something inherent in the brain which makes such observation and repetion impossible then you add are adding a mystical dimension which I do not believe exists.

OK, forget the pain that Mr Smith feels when he is kicked in the shin (the "Ow, that hurts a lot" pain) - how about the pain that Mr Smith feels when his best mate AndyW decides to kick him in the shin for no apparent reason? How subjective/objective is that pain?

To Mr Smith he feels betrayed and disolusioned that someone who he regarded as a mate seems hell bent on causing him pain purely for his own pleasure. For AndyW, he sees nothing wrong in what he did as it was just one of those merry japes that mates get up to between each other.

All of the subjective experiences that the brain can provide are the result of physical reactions. Nothing happens in there which is not the result of physical reactions. This is why we can use something as base as chemicals to alter something as 'subjective' as our emotions.

Nope. Physical reactions happen because we have had a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions in the brain are triggered by thought, light/sight. these send a pulse to whichever nerve ending. Emotion then is triggered from the pain.

Andy.

So you're saying that thought is completely removed from physical action which can be observed/explained?

If so then you are suggesting that the consciousness is a mystical element independant of the physical world, are you not?

Andrew - I find it a bit odd that you should be casting me as dogmatically anti-physicalist. I am producing an argument for my position, while you seem to be just repeating your position without offering any support for it. It seems to me that you are ignoring my argument against physicalism, and just repeating your belief in it. I would be much more interested in where you think my argument goes wrong.

If the scientists have established all the physical details of the brain state we call pain, but still there is the question of what it is like for Smith to be in pain, then they have left something out. They have left out the experiential quality of pain. The reason why I think they do leave that out is because by our own definition the physical world is the objective world, and Smith's experience of pain is subjective. But if they have left something out, after having captured all the physical details, then that something cannot be a physical detail.

By the way, I must clarify one point: You say that everything is caused by the brain states, and that is fine. All my argument purports to show is that the conscious experience itself goes beyond our concept of the physical domain, irrespective of how it is caused.

Why would I want to provide a justification for believing that nothing in the brain transcends the physical? I don't suspect that my computer works by magic or god makes my car run, even if I don't know exactly how either of them do work I do know that they are both obeying physical laws.

Just because the brain is orders of magnitude more complex doesn't inspire me to believe that it is somehow above the physical.

Your argument boils down to the brain being beyond the understanding of objective science because it allows subjective experiences, which strikes me as nonsense.

How can thought be physical? Not possible. For physical to happen, you require effort. Effort requires chemicals to send pulses to nerves. It is like the chicken and the egg. Which came first?
Indeed, the brain is mystical. We still are not sure what some parts of the brain does. Average human uses 13% of their brain Einstein used about 21%. If you are right handed, you use the left side.

Andy.

So you *are* suggesting that the process of operation of the brain is beyond the realms of physical science.

That viewpoint is the antithesis of science, because it provides a non-scientific answer and discourages any further investigation. Shoddy thinking.

Oh, and the stuff about humans only using 13% of their brains is rubbish.

There is no firm evidence that mental thought is connected with physical law. It is debated by scientists all the time with various thesis being written. The brain is not mechanical. It uses Neurons. Do they work outside the cycle of the physical law? This is the debate.
It also believed we use between 10-20 % of our brains. Again there are two school of thought here. To say it is rubbish, shows how little you actually think!
Just to believe your own theories, and not even consider others who have written here, like you have on the above posts, makes me think how cynical you are.

Andy.

There are not two schools of *scientific* thought on either of these matters.

I didn't say that the brain was mechanical, I said it was physical and worked within the laws of physical sciences, which it does. I don't think you'll find a serious scientist who believes otherwise, although there are obviously religious advantages to believing otherwise.

We do not use 10-20% of our brains. We use about 5% at at time, because not all areas of the brain are required all of the time and we do have some spare capacity in there, but it's pretty much all required. The only two schools of throught on this are the views expressed by, say, trained neurologists and those expressed by those who believe all of the crap they read on the Internet.

These aren't cynical views, just accurate ones.

Rubbish.
Then why are there thesis papers written about this? Non scientist do not write thesis on this subject!!!
Why is there a debate on the amount of brain power we use, as on a brain scan, all our brain is lit with no dark patches?
Come on, you cannot prove beyond doubt it comes under physical law.
What about the fourth dimension? Does that get included? We all make a decisions and conclusions on things by what we know, and we as humans still don't know it all. What happens if its all wrong And if all thing come under physical law, then explain the parculirarities that is gravity!

Andy.
But no doubt you will disagree like the rest of the following sheep.

My previous post addressed the issue of why everything is not lit up on a brain scan, because we don't use all of our brains all of the time.

The rest of your post is just gibberish - the forth dimension, gravity not being a physical law, "what happens if it's all wrong"? You want a nice wicca web-site or something, you do.

So, yes, I'm disagreeing ... just like the rest of the sheep. But Welformed would have predicted that.

Does understanding established science-fact make you a sheep? Politics is comparitively too much of opinion and vision than fact and proof.

(NB: no, you haven't dragged me in, I was reading anyway and was about to post on your side, but it's not terribly hard given some of the reasonsings above!)

Seeing as I can't be bothered with a big debate right now and with regard to brain-function, reality, consciousness and thought processes (for the latest scientific ideas) you'd do well to read last months Scientific American. I'll get the exact issue number later. There's a superb article on this between the two leading scientists on what makes consciousness both personal and private yet widescale and predictable - entirely physical (and therefore what would constitute subjectivitiy). At £2.20 it really is worth the read, Enforcer and Sumplug really need too...

Seeing that you have tunnel vision, and will not debate anything, i think i will leave this thread.
Just one thing. Gravity does not work properly to physical law. No one really knows why. And what if the fourth dimension is discovered? Einstein said it is there. Will it prove that us humans work outside the physical law?
And like the Church cannot prove that God exists, you cannot prove beyond doubt that we work totally under the physical laws. To dismiss it as gibberish shows your lack of thought.
Go on prove to us beyond doubt we do. If you cannot, then your case is flawed!!

Andy.

My, it's been a long time since we last laughed at movie review in this thread, hasn't it.

What do you mean by "gravity does not work properly to physical law"? To which physical law doesn't gravity work? Do you have reason to suspect that gravity is, somehow, a subjective mystical force rather than an objective physical one?

What I suspect you mean is that the exact physical workings of gravity are not yet understood, but that is far from saying they never will be, or even can be.

As for the forth dimension - what Einstein said was that space and time weren't seperate, but rather bound together in a 4-dimensional object called space-time, where time is not absolute, but is linked to the observer's movements in space. Why you even think that should have anything to say about humans being constrained to physical laws is beyond me.

Finally (dear God*, please let it be finally) why should I have to prove a ridiculous conjecture, i.e. that humans somehow operate outside of physical laws.

If I believed that invisible pixies lived on Neptune then it would fall upon me to prove that they did, not upon my detractors to prove that they did not.

As there is *absolutely no reason* to suspect that humans transcend physical laws it strikes me as pointless to jump through your hoops trying to prove that this is the case.

* If there was a god, which, of course, there isn't.

here
Read this. you might learn something.
So you cannot prove beyond doubt then?
Oh, and prove there is no God! You cannot. All you say is flawed. Go on admit it !!
Until you can prove beyond doubt there is a connection between mental thought and physical law, then i cannot debate with you.
Your reasoning is like looking at an empty jar and saying it is empty. Its not empty due to being full of Air!!
That's why its debatable, because it is not provable beyond doubt.

Andy.

Andy.

Maybe you should try reading what I'm posting. The link you posted says exactly what I just did - that the exact mechanisms of the working of gravity aren't yet known. It doesn't say that gravity is somehow mystical or magical.

The rest of your post is just a rant. I have no interest in proving that the world does not operate by magic. If you would like to believe it does then you go for it.

okaaaaaaaaay then,

interesting to see where this thread has ended up, after starting off in a fairly lighthearted manner.

Andrew.
As gravity does not work to the physical rules, then it blows your theory up that everything does. Proves that your views are flawed. If gravity can work outside physical laws, which it does, then why not the brain?

Andy.

At the risk of being insulting, are you stupid or what?

There is a difference between saying that the physical laws of gravity are not yet understood (which is the case) and saying that gravity operates outside of physical laws (which is what you're saying).

You have proved nothing, other than your inability to comprehend a simple article.

Electricity exists. Chemicals exist. Cells exist. Atoms and energy make up these things. The 4 universal forces of the universe and the laws of thermodynamics make atoms and energy possible. That is all your brain consists of and all of these are real physical entities. It's just the complexity of the connections between these cells, chemicals, eletrical impulses and the number of them, that allows you to think and become conscious.

Do you REALLY need someone to prove these basics to you?

Only idiots and religious fundamentalists think in absolute terms. It's the only way they can handle existence. This may be a barrier you will never be able to breach. Probably worth giving up right now...

Ok then.
Under physical law, to get something to be physical, it needs effort from something. What gives the physical ability of that something? Chicken and egg thing.

Andy.

Let me put it simply. For Physical law to be absolute, there has to be a beginning. But we have no beginning. So something is outside the physical law. If one thing is outside, there will be others. Simple.

Andy.

Yeah, um, goodnight and thanks for playing. If that's your best stab at a reasoned argument then I'm not wasting any more of my time.

Go on then Einstein, tell me were i am flawed. If you cannot, then goodnight sir.

Andy.

Go on then, just for old time's sake ...



Why? And a beginning of what - everything?



So are you here suggesting that the universe is infinitely old?



But this result is based on your previous 2 statements, both of which are absolutely patently nonsense.



1. You have not proved that one thing is outside
2. Even if you did, the existence of one thing does not imply more must exist
3. Even if it did that does not prove that all cases are the same.



Yes. Simple as in "simply gibberish".

You sound like you've read and failed to understand far too many popular science books.

Now can we please end it there?

Please don't lock this thread

The article I mentioned earlier that proof positive or negative of any/all of the above, it should be treated as essential reading. Worth the cover price in itself:- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=F65C0F4E-E7F2-99DF-383DC0B16998C011

As should these for the cover stories:- http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2621.html
and http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2619.html

Come back for a discussion once you've read them...

You see, Andrew, debating with me isn't as bad as you think at times....

I don't know what you're talking about, sorry. Please tell me what you mean by "physical law"?

Are you talking about the law of the conservation of energy, because that only refers to the persistence of total energy in a 'closed system' (the universe) which cannot change under any circumstance*. Remembering of course that matter = energy.

This means it cannot be changed by an inside force (making it impossible for a god to exist as part of this universe as he could not generate something from nothing without breaking this law and causing a paradox that would destroy all existence. In the face of overwhelming evidence, this law is accepted by the Christian Church btw) and therefore can also not be affected by an outside force either (i.e. if there is a god, he can only watch us but do nothing else) and if you like, interaction between a god and this universe would also upset that balance of existing energy should they come into contact.

* still being proven of course, but so far everything holds true.