Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2017, 03:57 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 03:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 03:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You don't think we can use the scientific method to determine the mechanism of gravity? I disagree. A physical problem warrants an empirical approach.

The empirical approach (to this particular problem) has already told us all it's ever going to tell us, and all we really need to know. It can't and won't ever tell us the "how". That's a metaphysical question (i.e., a question that can't be answered).

I think you are completely wrong on that. There is no reason to believe that we can't find those answers.

There are no useful metaphysical questions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-03-2017, 04:03 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 03:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The empirical approach (to this particular problem) has already told us all it's ever going to tell us, and all we really need to know. It can't and won't ever tell us the "how". That's a metaphysical question (i.e., a question that can't be answered).

I think you are completely wrong on that. There is no reason to believe that we can't find those answers.

There are no useful metaphysical questions.

I agree completely with your second statement. As for the first one, I admit that I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but for now, I stand by the statement. Even supposing we are able to find a "graviton" that mediates the force, what exactly is the nature of this graviton (for that matter, what exactly is a "photon"?), and how does it do what it does? I think the "how" will always be elusive. Action at a distance will always retain an element of mystery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
30-03-2017, 06:54 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 03:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The empirical approach (to this particular problem) has already told us all it's ever going to tell us, and all we really need to know. It can't and won't ever tell us the "how". That's a metaphysical question (i.e., a question that can't be answered).

I think you are completely wrong on that. There is no reason to believe that we can't find those answers.

There are no useful metaphysical questions.

I agree with your first statement. But there are plenty of important metaphysical questions. Their usefulness is irrelevant to their value.

"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
30-03-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 04:03 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think you are completely wrong on that. There is no reason to believe that we can't find those answers.

There are no useful metaphysical questions.

I agree completely with your second statement. As for the first one, I admit that I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but for now, I stand by the statement. Even supposing we are able to find a "graviton" that mediates the force, what exactly is the nature of this graviton (for that matter, what exactly is a "photon"?), and how does it do what it does? I think the "how" will always be elusive. Action at a distance will always retain an element of mystery.

You're assuming that action actually is occurring from a distance.

"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
30-03-2017, 11:30 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 06:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But there are plenty of important metaphysical questions.

Hey Naielis! Big Grin

Could you perhaps post one that i may ponder upon its nature while whiling away the cold, dark hours at work?

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
31-03-2017, 12:56 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2017 03:00 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 03:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 02:16 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  New theory of gravity might explain dark matter


Please tell us again, how easy and insignificant gravity and our understanding of it is compared to your lack of understanding about the emergent property of a brain.

Honestly I think you're just trying to do a witty one-liner here. Your question doesn't even follow from your previous statement. The whole point was that we don't understand gravity. But in your question you make it seem like I think my lack of understanding is better than an understanding. You have no understanding of how gravity works. And no I don't think understanding gravity is insignificant at all. That's a complete straw man. Stop aiming for likes on your post and try addressing what I actually say.

Please dont tell me what the motivation for my posts (likes) is until you stop coming in here waving your dick..erm thesis arond looking for people to stroke your ego.

And again you didnt get the point at all. While we know that we (possibly) dont really know about the nature of gravity (as an emergent property) you dont seem to know that you (probably) dont know about the nature of consciousness (as an emergent property). I found it ironic, that you claim the issue of gravity to be an emergent property to be able to be solved rather "easily" while you seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp that your own issue the "hard problem" of consciousness and its qualias is probably just that, an emergent property as well.

In general i am not participating in this discussion much and wrote this one liner, is because i am neither very interested in your (or Chalmers´) philosophical armchair exercises in general nor his proposition in particular.
Why? Because he claims to have discovered the "hard problem" of consciousness, but imho hasnt presented enough data to support his assertion. On top of that he is arguing that if you dont subscribe to his proposition you have to argue it away, and that sounds a lot like shifting the burden of proof. It is nobodies duty to explain away other peoples ideas. It the obligation of the one who brings forth his idea to support it with data. I also find it somewhat arrogant, and thats what my one liner was about, but you didnt get the point, to claim a scientific issue like gravity vs quantum physics is "easy" to solve because we have a (scientific) method at least, whereas the "hard problem" of consciousness lacks even the methodology to investigate it. Actually, i think this is pretty arrogant from a philosopher towards scientists in general. Especially since its the philosophers who are nothing but engaged in thinking hard in their armchairs while the scientists have the burden of providing data for all their assertions and theories. As i said, i am sceptical this problem even exists or is as "hard" as you or Chalmers claim it to be. So, unless you or Chalmers present a better case i stick with the default position, and thats materialism. If you want to add metaphysics, fine, show me the data, your thoughts in your armchair dont qualify as data. I accept them as an (interesting) idea, a first start from where we may consider investigating further, not more not less.
As you can see, there is probably more to my one liner than just trying to collect likes.
So, while this may be an interesting intellectual excercise to consider dualism based on this assertion, i am simply more interested in science than philosophy, and thats why i had added the link to my original post.
Was this long enough to be worth your consideration?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
31-03-2017, 03:15 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 06:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think you are completely wrong on that. There is no reason to believe that we can't find those answers.

There are no useful metaphysical questions.

I agree with your first statement. But there are plenty of important metaphysical questions. Their usefulness is irrelevant to their value.

What is their value?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2017, 03:21 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 08:02 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 07:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You've been REPEATEDLY told how what we know about brains / Neuro-science provides a perfectly coherent explanation of this. Your ignorance of LEARING, Psychology and perception is astounding.

You REFUSE to address the questions asked of you.

I've been told that neuroscience solves the hard problem many times yes. That does not make it so. You fail to provide the reduction. Chemistry can be fully reduced to and explain in terms of physics.

Really? Please give the fully reductionist explanation for the properties of water. Or table salt.

Hint: Those properties are emergent properties.

Quote:But subjective experience cannot be reduced in this manner to the physical. How do you get the "what it is like to see red" from merely physical mechanism. You have yet to address this. You don't even understand the problem that you claim to have solved. I'll be listening when you perform a full reduction of consciousness.

Just because you don't have, or can't conceive of, a physical explanation of those experiences does not mean the explanation does not exist.
You are making an argument from ignorance and personal incredulity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
31-03-2017, 07:47 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(30-03-2017 06:57 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 04:03 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I agree completely with your second statement. As for the first one, I admit that I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but for now, I stand by the statement. Even supposing we are able to find a "graviton" that mediates the force, what exactly is the nature of this graviton (for that matter, what exactly is a "photon"?), and how does it do what it does? I think the "how" will always be elusive. Action at a distance will always retain an element of mystery.

You're assuming that action actually is occurring from a distance.

No need for assumption -- it manifestly is. Gravity and electromagnetism (and the strong and weak nuclear forces as well) are all forces by which objects influence each other's motion without touching each other. This, by definition, is action at a distance. Even if such forces are mediated by an exchange of particles (where said particles do "touch" said objects), it is far from clear how such an exchange could result in an attractive force. The days of science aligning nicely with "common sense" are long gone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
31-03-2017, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2017 09:19 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Quote:But subjective experience cannot be reduced in this manner to the physical. How do you get the "what it is like to see red" from merely physical mechanism.

Yes it can. It TOTALLY 110% can.
There is no missing information There is no "problem". (Well there *is* a "problem", but it's nothing more than a lack of information).

There is no universal "what it is *like*" to see anything. It's a TOTALLY individual learned set of neural events, and not even the same event, when it occurs/reoccurs in a human brain. If I see a bloody corpse in the OR which I was not expecting, with blood everywhere, "what it is like to see red" there, is entirely different, than if I look out my parent's windows and see the sun setting over the ocean. What it is like to see red, is entirely contextual, both externally environmentally and internally environmentally. What happens in brains is 100% (and ONLY) chemical.

Every human brain, LEARNS as an infant /toddler, by repetition and positive reinforcement) to name correctly the general sensory experience which happens when photons of a certain wave lengths interact with the visual cortex.

Along with this simple stored information, there are countless other electrical pathways set up (REPEAT .... THIS CAN BE SEEN HAPPENING IN A PET SCAN), as memories that recur and are triggered along with this basic visual sensation, (entirely PHYSICAL). Each time the SET OF EVENTS happens, *red + physical associations + emotional memories associated with "red"* which are first laid down in memory, and then referenced/triggered when "red" is seen, the process is reinforced, and basically reinvented. This new event is then stored AGAIN as a new memory.

Humans LEARN what colors are. Memories are stored in brains. All the various associated events that can/do occur with the perception are a "set".
"Red" is NEVER just seen as "red". We are conscious of only a very small amount of the triggered memory pathways that fire when photons of a certain energy level hit the back of the eye.

The sum total of ALL THESE COMPLEX processes are what humans *name* (think of, or say they think of) when using the human language, the words are used "this is what it is like for ME to see red".

There is nothing missing. There is no problem....ANYWHERE, that goes begging any further explanation.

Still waiting for process descriptions of when and why a "problem" gets invoked, (as opposed to "maybe I should do some more research here" vs "some guy who sets himself up as a paragon of whatever, and sits his ass in a chair at Stanford, is supposed to be smart, and he says there's a *problem*, and it reflects my bias, so I'll go with that" .... etc etc. and what the process was used to determine one's "epistemic certainty".

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: