<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>AgnosticWeb.com - Atheist meeting now</title>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/</link>
<description>An Agnostic&#039;s Brief Guide to the Universe</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>Atheist meeting now (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/10/from-naturalism-workshop-part-ii.html&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt;">http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/10/from-naturalism-workshop-part-ii.html&am...</a> &amp;#13;&amp;#10;&gt; I suggest following the discussion as recounted by Pigliucci-All three sessions are now on line. It is interesting that contributions by Dawkins are not mentioned by Pigliucci. could be his input wasn&amp;apos;t that profound.-http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/</p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=11357</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=11357</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Atheist meeting now</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean Carroll is having a meeting in Stockbridge, Mass. Dennett, Dawkins, Weinberg, etc. included.  Pigliucci is taking notes:-I offer bits and snatches:-&amp;quot;In the midst of all of this, Jerry mentioned the (in)famous Libbett experiments, even though they have been taken apart both philosophically and, more recently, scientifically. Which Dennett, Flanagan, and Goldstein immediately pointed out.&amp;quot;-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;&amp;quot;I asked, provocatively, if people around the table think that consciousness is an illusion. Jerry immediately answered yes, but the following discussion clarified things a bit. Turns out &amp;#226;&amp;#128;&amp;#148; and Dennett was of great help here &amp;#226;&amp;#128;&amp;#148; that when Jerry says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain functioning he actually means something remarkably close to what I mean by consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. We settled on &amp;quot;phenomenon,&amp;quot; which is the result of evolution, and which has functions and effects. This, of course, as opposed to the sense of &amp;quot;epiphenomenon&amp;quot; in which something has no effect at all, and which in this context leads to an incoherent view of consciousness (but one that the &amp;quot;mysterians&amp;quot; really like).&amp;quot;-&amp;#13;&amp;#10;http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/10/from-naturalism-workshop-part-ii.html-I suggest following the discussion as recounted by Pigliucci</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=11354</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=11354</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
<category>Introduction</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
