Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2017, 02:50 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...

Learning is hard. Admitting that one still need to learn is even harder - not everyone can be Socrates who knew that he knew nothing.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
06-03-2017, 10:17 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-03-2017 02:50 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(04-03-2017 12:18 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  If Nails spent as much time learning things as he does making assertions...

Learning is hard. Admitting that one still need to learn is even harder - not everyone can be Socrates who knew that he knew nothing.

What is with you people? I never said I couldn't learn. I only said I had epistemic certainty at my foundation. I know with certainty that I exist and that my reasoning is reliable. That's a solid foundation and it can be known with ceratainty. I know I need to learn more than I have. But your last statement is self-contradictory.

"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
06-03-2017, 10:18 AM
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 spend more time learning than I do on here. Perhaps it is you who needs to learn.

"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
06-03-2017, 10:28 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-03-2017 10:55 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-03-2017 11:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The entire video discusses the hard problem.
Which is not an issue for materialism.

Provide more than just assertions please.

Quote: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.

Or perhaps you haven't explained any issues at all. The most you ever write it two sentences in response to my points. Rarely have I seen a full explanation of your stance or your counterarguments.

Quote: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.

Are you joking? The point was to get you to actually reduce subjective experience to brain function. I shortened it to "the brain". I thought that was pretty easy to understand.


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

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

How is this an argument from incredulity? And are you serious about refuting Leibniz's Mill? When the hell did you even address Leibniz's Mill? Stop repeating that you've refuted things and actually refute them.

Quote:We don't know.

They still demonstrably do.

What? Are you serious? You think the physical nature of neurons contains subjective experience? How do you know this? When was this demonstrated?

[/quote]
Bare assertion, argument from incredulity, incoherent.

Try harder.
[/quote]

This was not a bare assertion. I supported it with Leibniz's Mill and the knowledge argument. You may disagree with those arguments. That doesn't mean you can just dismiss them as not being arguments. And again, how is this an argument from incredulity? Explain yourself instead of just writing one sentence.

"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
06-03-2017, 11:00 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-03-2017 04:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Totally 110% FALSE.
Brain functions can entirely account for the complex experiences of seeing colors and every single thing in consciousness.

Well I'd love for you to show that brain functions can account for subjective experience instead of asserting it.

Quote: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.

When was it debunked? How was it debunked? And what little man are you talking about? Leibniz's Mill is a problem where the brain is enlarged so one may walk inside it and see all of its parts. Tell me, if you are thinking about the color red, and I look inside your brain, will I find the color red somewhere?
If you are not "sold on Dualism", then all that crap on epistemic certainty was a lie, now wasn't it ?

Quote: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.

The naturalist has no responsibility to explain anything? I think some metaphysicians might get a chuckle out of that statement. Also, it has been stated that I use arguments from incredulity and arguments from ignorance. And yet it hasn't been shown to be true.

Quote: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.

I haven't learned much about neuroscience. But the point about neurons firing rather than moving is irrelevant to the problem. You brought it up only to service your ad hominem. Now I'm perfectly aware of how the human eye sees red and how the brain interprets it. But as Chalmers points out constantly, this is not the hard problem. This is the easy problem: brain function. The hard problem is explaining how the physical photons and neurons lead to a certain perception. You know what it is like to see red. The question is how the neurons and photons lead to your the "what it feels like to see red". If you fail to explain this, then you fail to fully reduce the qualia to the physical and materialism is false.

Quote: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.

Yes I know that I learned what red was. Sometimes I get the sense you have no idea what is going on in this conversation. The issue is not about how the brain begins to see red. The issue is how the "what it is like to see red", or the qualia of red, can be explained by only the material. Pay attention.

Quote: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".

The knowledge argument is designed to show that this type of reduction isn't enough. If you gain knowledge when you see color for the first time, then you have gained knowledge about qualia. How do you get from neurons firing to qualia?

Quote: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.

Good god do your research. Qualia isn't an answer to anything. It's a term. It simply refers to specific instances of subjective experience. How is this bullshit? You have consistently missed the point. You repeat neuroscience when it simply isn't the issue. You need to show how you can get qualia from mere physical things. All you've done is show that brains can interpret colors and other sensory inputs. This doesn't necessitate consciousness. It can't explain consciousness. So what does under a materialist worldview?

"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
06-03-2017, 11:57 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(04-03-2017 10:55 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is not an issue for materialism.

Provide more than just assertions please.

Backwards again.

You assert that the hard problem of consciousness indicates a flaw with materialism. It is your responsibility to establish that this is so.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Or perhaps you haven't explained any issues at all. The most you ever write it two sentences in response to my points. Rarely have I seen a full explanation of your stance or your counterarguments.

I post brief, succinct rebuttals because that is all that is required to refute the nonsense that you post.

If you want a lengthier response, post something that merits one.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The point was to get you to actually reduce subjective experience to brain function.

Which is easily done.

We know that minds are brain function, because the mind is associated with the brain. The two options, then, are that the brain is either the producer of or a receiver for consciousness. The former is the null hypothesis. The latter is not. The former is supported by everything that we know about minds. The latter is not.

Minds are brain function. No coherent objection to this has yet been formulated.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  How is this an argument from incredulity?

Leibniz merely asserts, because he cannot think of any way in which it could be true, that brain function could not result in perception. This is the argument from incredulity.

And this is ignoring all the actual evidence for brain function resulting in perception, as above.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  And are you serious about refuting Leibniz's Mill? When the hell did you even address Leibniz's Mill?

Pay attention.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Stop repeating that you've refuted things and actually refute them.

Stop ignoring the responses given to you simply because you do not understand them.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What? Are you serious? You think the physical nature of neurons contains subjective experience? How do you know this? When was this demonstrated?

See above. The brain is either the producer or receiver of consciousness. The former fits the evidence. The latter does not. The former is coherent. The latter is not.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  This was not a bare assertion.

Yes, it was.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I supported it with Leibniz's Mill and the knowledge argument. You may disagree with those arguments. That doesn't mean you can just dismiss them as not being arguments.

Yes, I can. Because they are invalid. They are fallacious. They are not supportive of the conclusion that you wish to draw.

They are dismissed.

"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
06-03-2017, 12:02 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 11:00 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I'd love for you to show that brain functions can account for subjective experience instead of asserting it.

Perceptions, thoughts, memories, and everything else associated with consciousness are demonstrably neurochemical reactions taking place within the brain. This is firmly established, to the point that we can pull images out of your brain as you visualize them.

No aspect of consciousness that possesses a coherent definition can be shown to not be accounted for by brain function.

(06-03-2017 11:00 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Tell me, if you are thinking about the color red, and I look inside your brain, will I find the color red somewhere?

If you enlarge a computer that is running a game of Starcraft II and walk around inside it, will you find a little Zergling somewhere?

No. But you will find the information being processed which represents that Zergling.

(06-03-2017 11:00 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The question is how the neurons and photons lead to your the "what it feels like to see red".

We don't know.

We still know that they do.

"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
06-03-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 11:00 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I'd love for you to show that brain functions can account for subjective experience instead of asserting it.

I already did.
It went over your head, as you know nothing about Neuro-science and how brains work.

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
06-03-2017, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 04:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 11:00 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The naturalist has no responsibility to explain anything? I think some metaphysicians might get a chuckle out of that statement. Also, it has been stated that I use arguments from incredulity and arguments from ignorance. And yet it hasn't been shown to be true.

LMAO. Yes you do. Every time you say materialism can't account for this or that, you do.

Quote:The hard problem is explaining how the physical photons and neurons lead to a certain perception. You know what it is like to see red. The question is how the neurons and photons lead to your the "what it feels like to see red".

It's not even a problem AT ALL. When you see red, it's more than just the visual perception of red, (obviously you read NONE of the links I provided, and then you bitch we don't watch your crap). Besides just "seeing" red, all sorts of other things happen, chemicals are released, and memories are referenced. Stop being such a simpleton. All together they are seeing red. There is NOTHING missing there. You are just too simple-minded and uneducated to get it.

Quote:The knowledge argument is designed to show that this type of reduction isn't enough. If you gain knowledge when you see color for the first time, then you have gained knowledge about qualia. How do you get from neurons firing to qualia?

I don't. Qualia is your bullshit, not mine. Neuro-sience doesn't give a shit about qualia, and doesn't have to. The experience of seeing color is explained without that crap.

You gained no knowledge of anything the first time you saw color. You didn't even know what you were perceiving. It would REALLY help if you bought yourself a picture book about how infants/children learn.

Quote:This doesn't necessitate consciousness. It can't explain consciousness. So what does under a materialist worldview?

There you go again ... arguments from ignorance.
Come back child in 10 years when you have learned some science. Consciousness emerges from sensory input referenced to memory. It exists NOWHERE except in healthy functioning physical brains, with their functions intact. The fact you are so ignorant that you can't get that is not my problem. IF there were something else going on, then injured human brains would continue to function just as well as before. They don't. They die. Get over it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-03-2017, 12:37 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 11:57 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is easily done.

Lol this should be good.

Quote:We know that minds are brain function, because the mind is associated with the brain.

... the most pitiful non sequitur of my life

Quote:The two options, then, are that the brain is either the producer of or a receiver for consciousness. The former is the null hypothesis. The latter is not. The former is supported by everything that we know about minds. The latter is not.

Minds are brain function. No coherent objection to this has yet been formulated.

No coherent objections... except for Leibniz's Mill, knowledge arguments, Kripke's argument, the possibility of zombies argument, the failure of Identity Theory to adequately reduce subjective experience. But if we just ignore or dismiss all of those as incoherent, you're completely right.

Quote:Leibniz merely asserts, because he cannot think of any way in which it could be true, that brain function could not result in perception. This is the argument from incredulity.

And this is ignoring all the actual evidence for brain function resulting in perception, as above.

Leibniz doesn't mention anything about not being able to think of a reduction. Leibniz's Mill shows that, if you zoom in on the physical brain, you won't find experiences. You find brain matter.

Quote:
(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  This was not a bare assertion.

Yes, it was.

(06-03-2017 10:28 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I supported it with Leibniz's Mill and the knowledge argument. You may disagree with those arguments. That doesn't mean you can just dismiss them as not being arguments.

Yes, I can. Because they are invalid. They are fallacious. They are not supportive of the conclusion that you wish to draw.

They are dismissed.

No they aren't. But even if they were, that doesn't warrant you calling my statement a bare assertion. I provided arguments for my statement. It doesn't matter if you think they are fallacious or don't support the conclusion. They are arguments. If you make an argument for a claim it cannot be a bare assertion.

"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: