Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2017, 09:31 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(03-03-2017 09:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  On the contrary. You overestimate my patience with your dismissals and laziness.

Oh, no. I don't overestimate anything.

I simply don't care.

If you want a discussion on this subject, you need to establish that it is worth the time. Thus far, nothing you have brought up has been worth the pixels it's been printed on, and, as I said, I am not bothered with indulging you any further. Neither am I impressed by your attempts at insult.

You have used up our reserves of patience. You can either answer the questions put to you or leave. I do not care which.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-03-2017, 11:54 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(03-03-2017 09:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-03-2017 09:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  On the contrary. You overestimate my patience with your dismissals and laziness.

Oh, no. I don't overestimate anything.

I simply don't care.

If you want a discussion on this subject, you need to establish that it is worth the time. Thus far, nothing you have brought up has been worth the pixels it's been printed on, and, as I said, I am not bothered with indulging you any further. Neither am I impressed by your attempts at insult.

You have used up our reserves of patience. You can either answer the questions put to you or leave. I do not care which.

The entire video discusses the hard problem. Start at the beginning. They start explaining there. But the fact that you have lost patience does not indicate that you are correct about my arguments being flawed. You simply have yet to actually do the reduction of the mind to the brain. It is the responsibility of the materialist to perform the reduction if that is what they claim can be done. Keep Leibniz's Mill in mind. How do neurons moving around being interpreted contain what it is like to see the color red? Their material substance alone is not enough to account for the qualia .

"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
03-03-2017, 11:59 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(03-03-2017 07:23 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(03-03-2017 07:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Everything going on in brains is explained by neuro-chemistry.

We have never known more about the brain/mind than we do now, thanks to the methodological naturalistic approach of science. One might therefore ask, where are all the breakthroughs of the dualists? Why hasn't their approach yielded similar progress?

I'm not completely sold on dualism. I'm a property dualist now because I think it leaves the least difficult problems and it has no unsolvable problems. But panpsychism , idealism and supervenience physicalism are all possibilities. What is relatively certain is that materialism is false. It doesn't provide enough substances or properties to adequately explain the phenomena of consciousness. Also, note the difference in methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism. This is crucial.

"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
04-03-2017, 04:58 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2017 01:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-03-2017 09:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Oh, no. I don't overestimate anything.

I simply don't care.

If you want a discussion on this subject, you need to establish that it is worth the time. Thus far, nothing you have brought up has been worth the pixels it's been printed on, and, as I said, I am not bothered with indulging you any further. Neither am I impressed by your attempts at insult.

You have used up our reserves of patience. You can either answer the questions put to you or leave. I do not care which.

The entire video discusses the hard problem. Start at the beginning. They start explaining there. But the fact that you have lost patience does not indicate that you are correct about my arguments being flawed. You simply have yet to actually do the reduction of the mind to the brain. It is the responsibility of the materialist to perform the reduction if that is what they claim can be done. Keep Leibniz's Mill in mind. How do neurons moving around being interpreted contain what it is like to see the color red? Their material substance alone is not enough to account for the qualia .

Totally 110% FALSE.
Brain functions can entirely account for the complex experiences of seeing colors and every single thing in consciousness.

Leibnitz's Mill is a debunked assertion with no evidence. I would never have imagined what he describes. The "little man" was a notion someone had, and then projected onto others.

If you are not "sold on Dualism", then all that crap on epistemic certainty was a lie, now wasn't it ?

It is not the responsibility of a naturalist to explain anything. It is the responsibility of a Dualist to provide EVIDENCE. You have have none. There is no need to invoke it.
As has been pointed out to you, your QUESTIONS are arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity.

Neurons do not "move around". Thanks for demonstrating, as I have been saying all along, you know NOTHING about Neuro-science. Neurons stay "right where they are", and "fire" (are triggered) under certain circumstances, and we can watch that happen, in various ways. The perception of "red" (for some people, -- who are not color blind, or otherwise do not have visual impairments) is caused by the photons of a certain wave length in the spectrum hitting the back of the eye, and that sensation being interpreted by the brain. When infants have developed enough language skill, they "name" that sensation, and LEARN what word to use, to call it by the same name as others do, because the naming correctly gets reinforced. http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/1.html
It is an entirely physical experience which you LEARNED as an infant/toddler to "call red", as you developed language skill and memory.

You LEARNED as an infant what "red" was, by trial and error. You don't remember it, but infants LEARN how to describe their perceptions, and what to "call red".
You saw something, and you LEARNED to call and name it red, when your visual system was (the photoreceptors in your eyes) hit by photons with a certain wave range.
http://www.livescience.com/32559-why-do-...color.html
It's testable. It's called LEARNING. You tested your perceptions and LEARNED that what your brain was interpreting when your visual system was hit by certain wave lengths (seeing) is "called red" by others in your environment. There is nothing missing here. Some people don't see red when the same wavelengths hit their eyes. The majority of people do, and agree they will call that sensation "seeing red".

You created memories, stored the memories you had when your visual sensory system fired in a certain way, and light waves of a certain wave length produced what your brain (IN KNOWN WAYS BY SCIENCE) was similar to what others were telling you they called "red", and you consented you also would call the experience "red", as you received reinforcement when you got it right. . Red is not "red". The sensation you have when your brain sees "red" could be called "green". You LEARNED to call the sensation (red is a SENSATION), "red" because others around you did, and there is no further explanation needed here. You're making up a problem, where none exists, and then answering that problem with woo. Whit is "like to see red" is a complex, multi-factorial experience. Every single component in the experience that can be identified, can be explained.

There is no "hard problem". The subject is a "solution in search of a problem".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#The...2_argument

The concept of "qualia" is bullshit. It is not helpful. There is nothing that needs explaining, that "qualia" answers. It's a red herring. It's meaningless.
Seeing red is seeing red, because we have agreed to use language the way we do to name a common experience. Humans name a sensation "seeing red".
After billions of humans, whom we interact with, also name other sensations consistently, the same way we think we do, we find it useful to communicate and assent to use the word "red" and common learned definitions, in the same way. We agree (after trial and error) we will call the sensation by the same name we think others do, and it seems to work for us.

There is nothing left to explain. Woo ("Dualism") is left with no job to perform. It's useless and unnecessary.
Seeing red is "like seeing red". Period. Seeing red is not like seeing black. Science knows why we see color. It is nothing more than photons in the spectrum hitting photo-receptor cells, and them reacting chemically, and those reactions being interpreted and integrated, after memory is referenced to determine the correct name for the sensation.

Edit :
In addition to referencing the memory of what the brain has learned to call "red", there are additional (electrical) pathways which (can) fire, subconsciously which are part of an individual ''experience" of seeing a color or anything for that matter. For example we are told than the sight of a "green lawn" is calming, that the sight of a vast mountain view can induce "awe" and many other complex emotional states (which are all mediated by chemicals in the brain). So say for example one has learned to associate red with horror or blood, photons in the red range of the spectrum, entering the eyes could induce the emotional response of fear. There are other sights that evolution has built in responses to some things that are seen. Some people instinctively fear spiders and snakes. Others are born fearing the sight of other things.
http://discovermagazine.com/galleries/20...nary-fears

There is no such thing as a "mind". It's an outdated meaningless undefined term, in 2017. Philosophy has nothing to offer brain research. The BRAIN is a complex organ, which evolved to allow humans to survive successfully in it's environment. Every single thing that brains do, or cannot do, can be explained physically. Consciousness is sensory input, and many other complex inputs, referenced rapidly to memory, integrated, and processed to output. In general we know where the processing of various inputs happen, what is affected if they are damaged or not working.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_processing

There is no job left over to ascribe to woo activity (Duality).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkaS5JWZ1hY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSkfHDdZZ3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-03-2017, 05:26 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 10:19 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What he said is more interesting in Australian.


Bold mine.

[Image: giphy.gif]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2017, 10:55 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The entire video discusses the hard problem.

Which is not an issue for materialism.

(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Start at the beginning.

Still don't care.

(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But the fact that you have lost patience does not indicate that you are correct about my arguments being flawed.

No. Your repeated and consistent failure to address, understand, or even recognize the very simple issues with your arguments that have been explained to you multiple times throughout these threads indicates that.

(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You simply have yet to actually do the reduction of the mind to the brain.

Quite right. Because the mind does not reduce to the brain, in the same way that running does not reduce to a pair of legs.

Minds are brain function, not brains. You consistently fail to grasp this, and have yet to show any actual issue with it.

(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Keep Leibniz's Mill in mind.

Argument from incredulity and bare assertion, as previously pointed out.

You really need to stop repeating already-refuted nonsense like this.

(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do neurons moving around being interpreted contain what it is like to see the color red?

We don't know.

They still demonstrably do.

(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Their material substance alone is not enough to account for the qualia .

Bare assertion, argument from incredulity, incoherent.

Try harder.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-03-2017, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2017 11:11 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-03-2017 10:55 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Quite right. Because the mind does not reduce to the brain, in the same way that running does not reduce to a pair of legs.

Minds are brain function, not brains.

Among other scientists, sleep and dreaming researcher Dr. Allan Hobson correlated specific electrical signatures and chemical releases in the brain to specific brain states, supporting the idea that consciousness is a brain function. He discussed this in some detail in his book The Chemistry of Conscious States: How the Brain Changes its Mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2017, 11:13 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-03-2017 11:06 AM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  Among other scientists, sleep and dreaming researcher Dr. Allan Hobson correlated specific electrical signatures and chemical releases in the brain to specific brain states, supporting the idea that consciousness is a brain function. He discussed this in some detail in his book The Chemistry of Conscious States: How the Brain Changes its Mind.

Yes. And then there's the fact that we can actually build rudimentary mind-reading machines to pull images right out of your brain as you visualize them.

As I said, it's still in its early stages, and the images are rough, limited by the processing power and sensitivity of the machinery, but it does work.

Fascinating stuff.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-03-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
If Nails spent as much time learning things as he does making assertions...

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
04-03-2017, 02:46 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-03-2017 12:18 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  If Nails spent as much time learning things as he does making assertions...

I take it he's still young. It took me so many years to admit the evidence was very much against dualism that I can't criticize him myself.

Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: