An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 17 Votes - 3.88 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2017, 10:32 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(11-04-2017 01:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  Is there some kinda prize for which idiot can say the dumbest thing on TTA for the month of April?

I think Slipknot already won first, second, and third place in that competition.

Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
12-04-2017, 12:31 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 09:09 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm giving meaningful terms to help people understand my position. The world does not revolve around your declaration of what is meaningful.

Nor yours.
Did I say it did ?

Quote:But you have no actual issue with the tenets of predicate or property dualism. You merely assigned a negative connotation to the word and now you can't back down on that action.

Yes I do. They are not real categories.

Quote:That's not a complete thought. What about the fallacy? You've accused me of it several times but never fully explained how I committed it.

The link I have provided more than once explains it. You never even read it did you ?

Quote:Please try addressing my arguments without using the word "troll" or typing "LEARNING".

That's no fun.
The process of human learning holds many keys.
You should take a class about it some day.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 12:43 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 12:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nor yours.
Did I say it did ?

You seem to imply it when you continue to ignore arguments and just call terms meaningless without explanation.

[/quote]
Yes I do. They are not real categories.
[/quote]

One major difference in the categories is that mental properties are ones that can be experienced in the first person subjective experience by the brain.

Quote:The link I have provided more than once explains it. You never even read it did you ?

I read the link. But I'm asking for you to explain specifically what I am reifying and how I'm doing it.

Quote:That's no fun.
The process of human learning holds many keys.
You should take a class about it some day.

I actually think I will once I get a free slot to study. I'm currently going through several different areas of math and QM while also researching feminism. But still you say "LEARNING" too much lol.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 12:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One major difference in the categories is that mental properties are ones that can be experienced in the first person subjective experience by the brain.

The use of the term (and concept of) "category" is not "real". It's an organizing-inclusive term that attempts to "describe" something (else) "going on". What is "going on", are millions and billions of chemical reactions that happen in brains. Making the description into the "thing" is reification. That's what you are doing. There is nothing other than physical reactions that ultimately produce what is experienced (cumulatively) as thoughts.

Quote:I actually think I will once I get a free slot to study. I'm currently going through several different areas of math and QM while also researching feminism. But still you say "LEARNING" too much lol.

I could put it in my signature, and you would see it even MORE. Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 01:10 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 12:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm currently going through several different areas of math and QM while also researching feminism.

Uh... are these all part of the same degree? Please tell me you're studying feminist physics or some such wonderful field?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 01:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The use of the term (and concept of) "category" is not "real". It's an organizing-inclusive term that attempts to "describe" something (else) "going on". What is "going on", are millions and billions of chemical reactions that happen in brains. Making the description into the "thing" is reification. That's what you are doing. There is nothing other than physical reactions that ultimately produce what is experienced (cumulatively) as thoughts.

Well I am treating the subjective aspect of thoughts as real, but I'm not reifying them because I'm not giving them substance. The physical reactions have substance by existing in the physical. The mind has no substance, but exists as a property. I don't see that it's a fallacy to claim properties exist. I believe the reification fallacy refers more to assigning properties actual substance when they obviously have none. I'm not sure I could argue that categories have existence, but I certainly do think the term, even if abstract, is useful here. There is a difference between the types of properties.

Quote:I could put it in my signature, and you would see it even MORE. Angel

Lol

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2017 03:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 01:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I am treating the subjective aspect of thoughts as real, but I'm not reifying them because I'm not giving them substance.

What any individual "experiences" (subjective, objective or whatever word you use to "name" it), actually *physically happens* to that individual, as effects of the physical chemical reactions in their brain.

Quote:The physical reactions have substance by existing in the physical. The mind has no substance, but exists as a property.

I don't think so.
The word "mind" is a descriptor, as is "property". The *descriptive (linguistic) constructs* "mind" and "property" exist *as (descriptive) constructs* (only). The THING they describe are the integrated output from physical processes in brains of millions and billions of chemical reactions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2017, 06:48 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-04-2017 01:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What any individual "experiences" (subjective, objective or whatever word you use to "name" it), actually *physically happens* to that individual, as effects of the physical chemical reactions in their brain.

I would say all subjective experience happens, but merely isn't physical.

Quote:I don't think so.
The word "mind" is a descriptor, as is "property". The *descriptive (linguistic) constructs* "mind" and "property" exist *as (descriptive) constructs* (only). The THING they describe are the integrated output from physical processes in brains of millions and billions of chemical reactions.

This is actually a very similar point to one John Searle made in his paper Why I'm Not a Property Dualist. He says this: "On the property dualist view we are supposed to think that consciousness is a property of the brain. But consider actual properties of the brain, like weight, shape, color, solidity, etc. Nobody says that these properties of the brain “arise from”, or are “over and above” the brain. The official claim is that consciousness is a property, not a thing, object or substance. But that is inconsistent with the conception of consciousness as something that is “over and above” the brain, that the brain “gives rise to”. This conception requires that consciousness be a separate thing, object or nonproperty type of entity. The dualism in property dualism forces them to postulate a separate entity. Ironically the very dualism of the property dualist picture makes it impossible to state the theory without oxymoron."

I actually think this quote is valid and Searle certainly has it right. Property dualism is false because it can't avoid substance dualism when it treats consciousness as an emergent property that is over and above the physical. Instead consciousness is the state in which the physical brain is in. As he also says in his paper, materialism and property dualism both attempt to say the right thing but fail.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
13-04-2017, 09:40 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(13-04-2017 06:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I would say all subjective experience happens, but merely isn't physical.

The totality of all experiences RESULT from physical chemical reactions.
The word one choses to use to describe these *results* can vary.

Quote:Instead consciousness is the state in which the physical brain is in.

I think that goes too far. I think there are more accurate ways to say it.
At times, if brains are healthy and functioning well, they (can) produce what we experience as "consciousness". Consciousness is not *a* "thing". It's a total of millions of reactions which are integrated. We "experience" it as a unity, but in fact its very complex and multifactorial. Your "experience" of something takes a few micro-seconds to integrate and reference your memories of past inputs to make sense of the present inputs. You experience the "assemblage", but it's really your brain tricking you into not seeing the parts. Your eyes actually see different things, (two images). Your brain has learned (haha) how to assemble the inputs. Sometimes it fails, (for example many people with stroke have double vision).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2017, 10:54 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(13-04-2017 09:40 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I think that goes too far. I think there are more accurate ways to say it.
At times, if brains are healthy and functioning well, they (can) produce what we experience as "consciousness". Consciousness is not *a* "thing". It's a total of millions of reactions which are integrated. We "experience" it as a unity, but in fact its very complex and multifactorial. Your "experience" of something takes a few micro-seconds to integrate and reference your memories of past inputs to make sense of the present inputs. You experience the "assemblage", but it's really your brain tricking you into not seeing the parts. Your eyes actually see different things, (two images). Your brain has learned (haha) how to assemble the inputs. Sometimes it fails, (for example many people with stroke have double vision).

But I think that's exactly what Searle is saying. He's arguing that the consciousness you experience is not necessarily a product of the brain, but describes a physical state of the brain. This accounts for the unity of experience because any given brain state can be defined by all of the states of all of its physical components. I think Searle correctly compares this to the liquidity of water. It's not something that is produced by water, but is a state water can be in based on temperature.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: