Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2017, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 06:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Quote:
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.

Facepalm
Wrong.
He didn't even bother to try to define "the rules of brains". Weeping
He never told us what "the *rules* of qualia are, or why one should pay any attention to that gibberish. Perhaps he ought to actually find out what he's even talking about.
There are no "rules of qualia". Nice try at moving the goal-posts. Fail.
He answered NONE of the questions asked of him. Until he does, he is dismissed. No

"Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like, experientially, to see a red rose is different from what it feels like to see a yellow rose."

I've explained this TOTALLY. Science can explain this TOTALLY. He is too ignorant to get it. There is no fundamental difference between the ways ANY "experience" (is perceived, in general) AT ALL.
He FAILED to tell us EXACTLY what is not explained. If an aspect of subjective experience is thought to be unexplained, they must say EXACTLY what is unexplained. They never have. They lump it all together, and say "you can't explain that". In fact, Neuro-science CAN. He can't as he has NO science education. It's an attempt to create a "distinction with no difference" http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools...Difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction...difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Experiences are experiences. There is no difference in experiencing a color (and "what it is like" to experience a color which is a DESCRIPTION of an experience).
It's an attempt at making an
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html etymologically fallacious argument, by the (dishonest/ignorant) way the words are used.

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
05-04-2017, 06:05 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(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.

I'm sorry but one-liners are almost always for likes. And I don't think I'm here to stroke my own ego. If I wanted to do that, why not go to a dualist forum and share my paper? If I wanted to stroke my ego, it seems I picked a very bad place to do so.

Quote: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.

I never said gravity was an emergent property and I've always held that consciousness is an emergent property. I don't think you're understanding. I've been saying consciousness is an emergent property the entire time. The question is how we account for this emergence.

Quote: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.

Well if you have no interest in the subject, that's one thing. But I am curious as to what data you're looking for. Metaphysical positions do not require data as justification. They certainly can use data, but it's not a necessity. Why demand it's use?

Quote: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.

No... Chalmers is not shifting the burden of proof at all. The reductive materialist is the one who claims that all phenomena can be reduced into one substance and fully explained in terms of that substance. The materialist must support this position. It is you that seems to have shifted the burden of proof. Why would Chalmers have the responsibility of showing that the materialist claim is wrong? Furthermore, even though he doesn't have this responsibility, he does a good job of demonstrating materialism's failure anyway.

Quote: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.

So now we're back to philosophy vs science. I'm probably always going to maintain that philosophy comes before science. To me, this is as simple as saying your basic reasoning comes before complex methodology. I don't think it's arrogant for philosophers to take this approach. Also, there are a great deal of philosopher who don't necessarily take this approach. This view is a more internalist and rationalist mindset. There are plenty of empiricists and externalists who would disagree.

Quote: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.

Both empirical data and abstract thought are necessary for humans. We simply disagree on their respective roles.

Quote: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.

Why is the default position materialism? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Quote: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.

No they certainly don't qualify as data, but you assume that data grants more warrant than a priori arguments. Why?

Quote: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'm sure there was more to it than just trying to collect likes. But I don't think you can separate certain sects of philosophy from science. Saying you are interested in science is saying you are interested in metaphysics and epistemology. You are concerned with the nature of reality and our ability to know it.

"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, 06:10 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 05:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:
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.

Facepalm
Wrong.
He didn't even bother to try to define "the rules of brains". Weeping
He never told us what "the *rules* of qualia are, or why one should pay any attention to that gibberish. Perhaps he ought to actually find out what he's even talking about.
There are no "rules of qualia". Nice try at moving the goal-posts. Fail.
He answered NONE of the questions asked of him. Until he does, he is dismissed. No

"Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like, experientially, to see a red rose is different from what it feels like to see a yellow rose."

I've explained this TOTALLY. Science can explain this TOTALLY. He is too ignorant to get it. There is no fundamental difference between the ways ANY "experience" (is perceived, in general) AT ALL.
He FAILED to tell us EXACTLY what is not explained. If an aspect of subjective experience is thought to be unexplained, they must say EXACTLY what is unexplained. They never have. They lump it all together, and say "you can't explain that". In fact, Neuro-science CAN. He can't as he has NO science education.

Ok so the qualia of the feeling of happiness would be what it feels like to be happy. The question is how you explain what it feels like to be happy in terms of only material mechanism. The same goes for color. How do you explain what it is like to see red with only material mechanism? You've explained how humans come to see color. But the knowledge argument shows that this is not enough. One could know all you have just explained, but when they see the color red for the first time, they learn something. This is because the "what it is like" is not contained in the material explanation. It is an emergent property of the brain.

"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, 06:13 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 05:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Experiences are experiences. There is no difference in experiencing a color (and "what it is like" to experience a color which is a DESCRIPTION of an experience).

Then how do you bypass the knowledge argument? It was designed specifically to combat this point that there is no distinction.

"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, 06:25 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 06:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 06:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 05:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Facepalm
Wrong.
He didn't even bother to try to define "the rules of brains". Weeping
He never told us what "the *rules* of qualia are, or why one should pay any attention to that gibberish. Perhaps he ought to actually find out what he's even talking about.
There are no "rules of qualia". Nice try at moving the goal-posts. Fail.
He answered NONE of the questions asked of him. Until he does, he is dismissed. No

"Qualia are the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences. What it feels like, experientially, to see a red rose is different from what it feels like to see a yellow rose."

I've explained this TOTALLY. Science can explain this TOTALLY. He is too ignorant to get it. There is no fundamental difference between the ways ANY "experience" (is perceived, in general) AT ALL.
He FAILED to tell us EXACTLY what is not explained. If an aspect of subjective experience is thought to be unexplained, they must say EXACTLY what is unexplained. They never have. They lump it all together, and say "you can't explain that". In fact, Neuro-science CAN. He can't as he has NO science education.

Ok so the qualia of the feeling of happiness would be what it feels like to be happy. The question is how you explain what it feels like to be happy in terms of only material mechanism. The same goes for color. How do you explain what it is like to see red with only material mechanism? You've explained how humans come to see color. But the knowledge argument shows that this is not enough. One could know all you have just explained, but when they see the color red for the first time, they learn something. This is because the "what it is like" is not contained in the material explanation. It is an emergent property of the brain.

No, no and no. Where are the "rules" ? The knowledge argument is bullshit. It is the WRONG question to ask. It's MEANINGLESS. It's an attempt to create a difference (in perceptions) where there IS NONE.

Tell EXACTLY the difference between :
**** seeing red **** (for the person seeing red) (with ALL the brain pathways that fire when that happens)
**** what it is LIKE seeing red **** (for the person seeing it) (with ALL the brain pathways that fire when that happens).

Nothing.
The ANSWER is "nothing".
You're attempting to make up a category that is non-existent, and is NO DIFFERENT than one science has the answers for.

You do not understand ANYTHING about how humans LEARN, and all the components that go into it. That remains your problem. The first time you saw red, you didn't know what you were seeing. You LEARNED many things about many colors. Along with JUST the color, your memory lays down all kinds of OTHER information. Continuing to assert "what it is like" is WRONG for all the reasons you HAVE BEEN TOLD, and FAIL to grasp. Emergent properties emerge from MATERIAL brains. Without a material brain, nothing emerges. NOTHING is missing here.
You are also (along with all the other fallacies above, committing the fallacies of composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
and the reification fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

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
05-04-2017, 07:05 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 06:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No, no and no. Where are the "rules" ? The knowledge argument is bullshit. It is the WRONG question to ask. It's MEANINGLESS. It's an attempt to create a difference (in perceptions) where there IS NONE.

You're just dismissing it. You need to engage it.

Quote:Tell EXACTLY the difference between :
**** seeing red **** (for the person seeing red) (with ALL the brain pathways that fire when that happens)
**** what it is LIKE seeing red **** (for the person seeing it) (with ALL the brain pathways that fire when that happens).

The difference is that one is qualitative and the other is merely mechanical process. One is an emergent property of the other.


Quote:You do not understand ANYTHING about how humans LEARN, and all the components that go into it. That remains your problem. The first time you saw red, you didn't know what you were seeing. You LEARNED many things about many colors. Along with JUST the color, your memory lays down all kinds of OTHER information. Continuing to assert "what it is like" is WRONG for all the reasons you HAVE BEEN TOLD, and FAIL to grasp. Emergent properties emerge from MATERIAL brains. Without a material brain, nothing emerges. NOTHING is missing here.
You are also (along with all the other fallacies above, committing the fallacies of composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
and the reification fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

This is the same tired ad hominem about how I don't know neuroscience. For the last time, you're right. I haven't studied neuroscience. That's not the point. Either deal with the arguments I present or stop responding.

"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, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 08:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 07:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You're just dismissing it. You need to engage it.

I did. You are too ignorant to get it.

Quote:The difference is that one is qualitative and the other is merely mechanical process. One is an emergent property of the other.


TOTAL FAIL. You're simply naming them AGAIN with the same names you used BEFORE. You have NOT answered the question. WHAT EXACTLY is the DIFFERENCE in the EXPERIENCE. (Not only do you have no evidence for your claim, you can't even DEFINE the difference you are attempting to make).

Quote:This is the same tired ad hominem about how I don't know neuroscience. For the last time, you're right. I haven't studied neuroscience. That's not the point. Either deal with the arguments I present or stop responding.

THAT IS THE POINT. You are too ignorant to even BEGIN this discussion, much less try to explain a distinction with no difference you have constantly made here. The REASON it's a tired (but true) CRITICISM is you are "in over your head here". You HAVE no arguments. You can't even TELL us WHAT the difference is you're claiming (falsely) exists. TELL US THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EXPERIENCE, and HOW you know it's one or the other, and what this knowledge is based on, or STFU.
Who the hell would try to make a convoluted CLAIM (not an argument) about something he had never studied ? Facepalm

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
05-04-2017, 07:15 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
So this thread is about Nutella misunderstanding stuff?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
05-04-2017, 07:18 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 07:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So this thread is about Nutella misunderstanding stuff?

It's about someone who knows nothing about the subject he's trying to make claims about, argue from incredulity and ignorance for his non-existent "woo".

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2017, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2017 08:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 07:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The difference is that one is qualitative and the other is merely mechanical process. One is an emergent property of the other.

NO. (Again, not even an attempt at definitions).
How do you KNOW what you are stating here ? How do you know what you are experiencing is "qualitative" or "purely mechanical". WHAT EXACTLY is the difference.
Do they not BOTH "emerge" if they are BOTH present in your consciousness ?
You're actually contradicting yourself, and don't even get that. What you claim BOTH are present in consciousness. Many "mechanical processes" are present to consciousness. So what are you even talking about ?
DRUGS can make you qualitatively "happy". Is that NOT in your consciousness ? How is that not purely mechanical ?

What qualifies you to make ANY comment on this subject ?

There IS NO difference (in brain chemistry, and NO ONE defines them) between "qualitative experiences" and "purely mechanical" ones. There is ONLY ONE brain, and one set of chemical pathways that explains ALL experiences. You, Naellis, have NEVER proposed a pathway for one, and why the "other" brain pathway operates when one doesn't. Apparently you don't get what "emergent" means. It does NOT mean "emerges from woo". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: