The Second Apocalypse

Other Titles => Through the Brain Darkly => Topic started by: Madness on July 22, 2013, 03:22:12 pm

Title: The Crux
Post by: Madness on July 22, 2013, 03:22:12 pm
The Crux (http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-crux/)

The first (and only) instance where Bakker mentioned Through the Brain Darkly. He also attempts an offer of brief synopsis describing the various principle notions of BBH (which I yet refuse to call BBT, though I've done so in the past).
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Callan S. on September 11, 2013, 01:55:10 am
Yeah, we went from BBH and skipped BBQ entirely on the way to BBT...
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Callan S. on September 14, 2013, 01:12:02 am
So what does this (http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/man-the-meaning-faker/#comment-23482) mean?
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Madness on September 17, 2013, 04:03:11 pm
Possibly that publication is sooner than TUC?
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Wilshire on March 11, 2014, 06:11:15 pm
Through The Brain Darkly is mentioned in the beginning of Neuropath as "the first and last book I published" from the POV of the main guy (only read like 10 pages, sorry I don't remember the name :P).
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Madness on March 12, 2014, 12:48:57 am
Gall, Wilshire.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Wilshire on March 12, 2014, 01:55:21 pm
Bible, yeah thats the name :). Just thought I'd be irritating and point out another reference to the book, even though it was fictitious.
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Madness on March 16, 2014, 10:39:44 am
Lol - you know I don't find this irritating :P.

(click to show/hide)

I don't want Bakker to not publish something again, should life mirrors fiction.
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Callan S. on March 17, 2014, 01:48:38 am
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Madness on March 17, 2014, 11:50:59 am
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: The Sharmat on September 03, 2014, 06:18:07 am
Did Bakker ever get any lengthy consulting from anything like a neurologist, psychiatrist, systems theorist, or any sort of actual scientist to refine his Blind Brain Theory (theory incidentally meaning something very different within the philosophy of Science than in other philosophy; in the case of scientific philosophy I don't believe Blind Brain Theory actually qualifies as a theory) with actual peer reviewed, falsifiable data?

Otherwise, even if it makes perfect sense internally...there's no reason whatsoever to put any more faith in it than the ideas of thousands of other thinkers on the nature of human consciousness. Internal logic is not enough. The ancient Greeks had a perfectly internally consistent and mathematically elegant model for our universe. It was geocentric and composed of celestial spheres with intensely complex orbits and had no bearing on reality whatsoever.

A theory without verifiable predictions and without observational evidence is simply a guess. Scientifically, we call it a hypothesis. Which is a good start, but that's all it is.

I know he's very popular on this site, and he's a fantastic writer, and probably a good philosopher too (though I have no real philosophy training outside of science), but I'm really not sure he's qualified to talk about this issue at all.
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Madness on September 07, 2014, 02:41:48 pm
Since I'm cloven in twain academically, I tend to think about it as BBH and BBT.

Regardless, Dr. Dan Mellamphy is the academic compiling Bakker's writings into Through the Brain Darkly. I'm not sure how much input Mellamphy is having himself.
Title: Re: The Crux
Post by: Callan S. on June 30, 2016, 09:27:03 am
Possibly that publication is sooner than TUC?
Ah, such lols from the past...