Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2017, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2017 04:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(31-03-2017 07:47 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The days of science aligning nicely with "common sense" are long gone.

^^^^^^^^
That right there, is why most all religious "arguments" fall on their ass, and many others (philosophical) are suspect. Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive.
The ONLY thing left is evidence.

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-04-2017, 06:53 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(31-03-2017 12:56 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 03:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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?

I'll respond to this and all of the other comments about emergent properties when I get back to my computer. I'll even make a video of it. Might be a few days though.

"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
02-04-2017, 03:37 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Thumbsup @ Naielis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2017, 04:11 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(31-03-2017 04:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 07:47 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The days of science aligning nicely with "common sense" are long gone.

^^^^^^^^
That right there, is why most all religious "arguments" fall on their ass, and many others (philosophical) are suspect. Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive.
The ONLY thing left is evidence.

[Image: quote-i-have-no-doubt-that-in-reality-th...-98-46.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-04-2017, 04:31 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(01-04-2017 06:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(31-03-2017 12:56 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  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?

I'll respond to this and all of the other comments about emergent properties when I get back to my computer. I'll even make a video of it. Might be a few days though.

Take your time. No need to make a vid tho. I care more about the content than about format.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2017, 07:14 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(02-04-2017 04:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  No need to make a vid tho. I care more about the content than about format.
Yeah, in point of fact I usually just bypass videos, they are too low-bandwidth and have an even harder time of getting to the damn point than does simple prose. I'll take the transcript of a video over a video anytime because it's far easier to skip all the bloviation, setup, posturing, sidebars, rabbit trails and blather. I don't see video as a particularly effective medium for making concise and clear points. It's great for illustrating certain points, but not so much for making them, unless you have time for a one-hour deep dive of some sort. But that's not the mode I'm in when perusing forums, and I suspect this is true for most people.

Also ... videos tend to be put out by people who like to hear the sound of themselves holding forth. In that situation almost no one shares that sentiment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
03-04-2017, 06:04 PM
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.

Edit : BTW, saying this or that experience cannot be accounted for, by what is known about brain function (science) in inadequate. If one is going to say the "experience of bla bla bla is not accounted for" then one must SPECIFY EXACTLY what it is one is talking about, IN PARTICULAR, about the experience.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-04-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
[Image: roz-chast-the-mind-body-problem-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg]

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
[+] 10 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-04-2017, 08:41 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-04-2017 08:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  [Image: roz-chast-the-mind-body-problem-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg]

That's the "too many brains" problem.

Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2017, 11:23 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Ok, let's say I believed in this dualism business.

So what? What difference does it actually make, to anything?

I'm guessing the answer is still "nothing". I remember before vague notions being mentioned about eating plants and "science finding things out faster", which were then totally not backed up by facts. This is not science, and if you want to study reality in any shape or form, you need science. Of course philosophy is an integral part of science. You need both, or else you're pissing in the wind.

This is all rather like guessing what is going on under the hood of a car we cannot open.

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
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: