Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2017, 01:10 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-04-2017 11:23 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  This is all rather like guessing what is going on under the hood of a car we cannot open.

...you dont bother to even try to open, because you are of the opinion, hard guessing, sitting in your armchair in front of the car, is enough.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
05-04-2017, 01:29 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Woo artists are in fact banking on that hood never being opened. If science ever gets that far, then suddenly everyone will be able to examine what they claim to have unique insight into.

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
05-04-2017, 05:08 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 05:19 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-04-2017 11:23 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  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.

Even if dualism could be shown as a fact, it's a hollow claim, ok we have a "ghost in the shell" then what?

How does it maintain itself without an underlining physical substrate?

Where does the ghost go after it leaves the shell? Is it controlled by a higher power?

What does this higher power want? What are it's characteristics? Do we have any advantage from a belief in this alleged higher power? Does this higher power give a shit about any human?

It's a vacuous claim that has no real explanatory power unless a host of other assertions could have evidence to back it up.

So is it all just an attempt to sneak in a certain god behind the base assumption of dualism? Yeah, probably is. Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-04-2017, 07:15 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 05:08 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So is it all just an attempt to sneak in a certain god behind the base assumption of dualism? Yeah, probably is. Drinking Beverage

Dream researcher Dr. Allan Hobson's dual-aspect monism makes more sense than dualism. He said, "Consciousness is the subjective experience of having an objective brain."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
05-04-2017, 05:30 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 07:15 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 05:08 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So is it all just an attempt to sneak in a certain god behind the base assumption of dualism? Yeah, probably is. Drinking Beverage

Dream researcher Dr. Allan Hobson's dual-aspect monism makes more sense than dualism. He said, "Consciousness is the subjective experience of having an objective brain."

Finally got back to my computer. I'd be interested in hearing your defense of dual-aspect monism. As I understand it, this form of monism incorporates emergentism. Do you defend this as well?

"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
05-04-2017, 05:33 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 05:08 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 11:23 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  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.

Even if dualism could be shown as a fact, it's a hollow claim, ok we have a "ghost in the shell" then what?

How does it maintain itself without an underlining physical substrate?

Where does the ghost go after it leaves the shell? Is it controlled by a higher power?

What does this higher power want? What are it's characteristics? Do we have any advantage from a belief in this alleged higher power? Does this higher power give a shit about any human?

It's a vacuous claim that has no real explanatory power unless a host of other assertions could have evidence to back it up.

So is it all just an attempt to sneak in a certain god behind the base assumption of dualism? Yeah, probably is. Drinking Beverage

Well I don't think the link between dualism and religion is as strong today as it was in Descartes' day. Today, at least among philosophers, it's really just an attempt to find the view of reality that best accounts for observed phenomena. I hold to a weak form of dualism though. One might call me a supervenience physicalist rather than a dualist as I think the two are very similar.

"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
05-04-2017, 05:36 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 01:29 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Woo artists are in fact banking on that hood never being opened. If science ever gets that far, then suddenly everyone will be able to examine what they claim to have unique insight into.

Well I hope that's not what you think of me or philosophy in general. I think for philosophers, it's not about dictating reality from your armchair; rather, it's about figuring out the foundation of our knowledge and our reasoning. Philosophers want to have a basic understanding of their foundation before jumping in and claiming knowledge. Philosophy is not at odds with science. It's the basis of science. And it's certainly not "woo".

"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
05-04-2017, 05:38 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(04-04-2017 11:23 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  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.

Well the difference is that we would then have a separate category of properties to explore.

"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
05-04-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(03-04-2017 06:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
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".

But the question was about how you can reduce the rules of the qualia to the rules of brains. You've only partially reduced color.

"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
05-04-2017, 05:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(31-03-2017 07:47 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(30-03-2017 06:57 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

I completely agree that aligning science with common sense is ridiculous. And I agree that actions at a far might be perplexing, but I still don't see how this hole in our understanding of gravity couldn't be solved empirically.

"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: