T
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
This is insightful of your thinking. Disordered thinking has difficulty in distinguishing between two choices. You have done a good job of providing me that insight. Thank you.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The materialist is determined (in both senses of the term!) to externalise all internal experience, thereby neatly disposing of himself:
- The firing of neurons is regarded as **the sole cause **of all “mental activity”.
- “mental activity” is a misnomer given that it can be equated with physical activity and is a **superfluous **term.
- David Hume was correct to describe the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.
- He failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events - no more nor less.
- The mind is a total illusion and so are all its alleged activities.
S
Sair
Guest
And how, exactly, does this equate to the “disposal” of the self unless you are already assuming the self is a supernatural entity? To quote Daniel Dennett again, if you make yourself really small, you can externalise nearly everything…
The materialist is determined (in both senses of the term!) to externalise all internal experience, thereby neatly disposing of himself:
- The firing of neurons is regarded as **the sole cause **of all “mental activity”.
- “mental activity” is a misnomer given that it can be equated with physical activity and is a **superfluous **term.
- David Hume was correct to describe the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.
- He failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events - no more nor less.
- The mind is a total illusion and so are all its alleged activities.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
Sair
Guest
Sure…and a water molecule doesn’t really have properties different from the properties of hydrogen or oxygen atoms, because when they bond, they just go about their own business. Everything is reducible on a materialist view, right?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
“De fide”? Don’t be pathetic. No, it’s simple logic. If you really can’t see that, I can’t help you.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Touchstone
The point, which you persist in not seeing, is that, given the Big Bang, it is more magical abracadabra to say that the universe of light described by Carl Sagan caused itself than to say that it was caused by the Great Magician.
The central claim of atheism is that there is no God. There is zilch scientific evidence for this claim.
The point, which you persist in not seeing, is that, given the Big Bang, it is more magical abracadabra to say that the universe of light described by Carl Sagan caused itself than to say that it was caused by the Great Magician.
The central claim of atheism is that there is no God. There is zilch scientific evidence for this claim.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- The hackneyed reference to water overlooks the fact that its properties are still restricted to the domain of** material objects **- which are incapable of insight and reasoning.
- A materialist on this forum described truth as an “isomorphism of atomic particles” - which is indisputably reductive.
- That view certainly corresponds to the neuroscientific explanation of mental activity as a series of neural impulses.
V
Viviphilia
Guest
Hi Al,
When you state a conclusion with no premises, that isn’t really logic at all. It’s just a baseless opinion. And when you expect someone to just “see it,” without explaining yourself, it gives the appearance of faithfulness in the conclusion. It makes it appear that you’re not really using logic at all. Also, I see no reason why you would call Touchstone “pathetic” in this case. It’s almost as if you are using the word as some kind of arbitrary pejorative.
Here is the baseless opinion you stated:
“In other words, while science one day may be able to decifer all the physical phenomena (firing of neurons etc.) resulting in an experience, it will never be able to describe what makes a certain experience that experience.”
I’m not sure how you got to that conclusion. I guess that you are assuming some kind of inherent mystery exists in the mind. From my perspective, the trajectory for computing power suggests to us that a virtual brain, accurate to the last photon, will be available in the next 50 years. Given that trajectory, simulations of the entire Human brain will be completely available to us for examination. Therefore, I think it’s safe to say we will understand everything about the Human mind. And if we don’t, the intelligent machines we will create will understand us better than we understand ourselves.
Now, I’m not stating a moral evaluation of that scenario, I’m just stating it as a grounded prediction based on Kurzweil’s law of Accelerating Change. You’re free to disagree all you like, but I’ve provided my logic for you to criticize. Please try to do the same in the future instead of mistaking your faithful opinion for logical reasoning.
- V
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I called his remark about “de fide” pathetic because it suggests that I only think in dogmas. Like many atheists, Touchstone loves to characterize believers in pejorative terms such as believing in “magic”, being “superstitious” and being dogmatic (his condescending “de fide” quip). Probably because like many atheists he thinks he has a monopoly on ‘rationality’ and ‘reason’. By using the term “pathetic” I was only responding to the smugness of Touchstone’s remark.
I will respond to the remainder of your post later.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Viv,
There will be no invented brain that has the ability to self reflect.
There will be no designer uterus for men that want to be women.
If the possibility exists that there will be a brain that is accurate down to the last photon then ask yourself, will that brain be designed to be hetersosexual or homosexual since in the design this can be predicted?
Or will that brain “choose” it’s sexuality?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Viviphilia,
O.k., let me repeat what I said before and then further explain from there, perhaps things become a bit clearer then:
Something like the experience of the color Red (in general, everything that is called ‘qualia’ in philosophy) lies outside science. Yes, we know that it is the result of light of a certain wavelength falling on the retina, which then via nerve pulses transfers a signal to the brain that then is processed etc. But this scientific, technical explanation still does not describe the experience itself. Even if science could map with precision and in the finest detail all the neuronal firings in the brain that are connected with this experience, it would still not describe the subjective experience of the color Red itself.
***Claiming otherwise is confusing the quantitative description of an experience with the experience itself. ***Science can only describe in quantitative terms – if it would want to describe an experience as experience, it could not do so: An experience is a qualitative phenomenon, and describing an experience as experience would thus have to use qualitative (non-scientific) language.
The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel describes the problem of scientific measurement vs. actual experience, and the fact that experiences are subjective while science always describes in objective, third-person language, in quite dramatic terms:
"If a scientist took off the top of your skull and looked into your brain while you were eating the chocolate bar, all he would see is a grey mass of neurons. If he used instruments to measure what was happening inside, he would detect complicated physical processes of many different kinds. But would he find the taste of chocolate?
It seems as if he couldn’t find it in your brain, because your experience of tasting chocolate is locked inside your mind in a way that makes it unobservable by anyone else. . . Your experiences are inside your mind with a kind of insideness that is different from the way that your brain is inside your head.
. . .Suppose a scientist were crazy enough to try to observe your experience of tasting chocolate by licking your brain while you ate a chocolate bar. . . your brain probably wouldn’t taste like chocolate to him at all. But even if it did, he wouldn’t have succeeded in getting into your mind and observing your experience of tasting chocolate. He would have discovered. . . that when you taste chocolate, your brain changes so that it tastes like chocolate to other people. He would have his taste of chocolate and you would have yours."
From his book: What Does It All Mean?
Your assertion:
“From my perspective, the trajectory for computing power suggests to us that a virtual brain, accurate to the last photon, will be available in the next 50 years. Given that trajectory, simulations of the entire Human brain will be completely available to us for examination”,
is irrelevant to the problem. Simulations of the brain can only illuminate the workings of the brain. Yet pay attention to what I said before: Even if science could map with precision and in the finest detail all the neuronal firings in the brain that are connected with this experience, it would still not describe the subjective experience of the color Red itself (see also Thomas Nagel above).
O.k., let me repeat what I said before and then further explain from there, perhaps things become a bit clearer then:
Something like the experience of the color Red (in general, everything that is called ‘qualia’ in philosophy) lies outside science. Yes, we know that it is the result of light of a certain wavelength falling on the retina, which then via nerve pulses transfers a signal to the brain that then is processed etc. But this scientific, technical explanation still does not describe the experience itself. Even if science could map with precision and in the finest detail all the neuronal firings in the brain that are connected with this experience, it would still not describe the subjective experience of the color Red itself.
***Claiming otherwise is confusing the quantitative description of an experience with the experience itself. ***Science can only describe in quantitative terms – if it would want to describe an experience as experience, it could not do so: An experience is a qualitative phenomenon, and describing an experience as experience would thus have to use qualitative (non-scientific) language.
The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel describes the problem of scientific measurement vs. actual experience, and the fact that experiences are subjective while science always describes in objective, third-person language, in quite dramatic terms:
"If a scientist took off the top of your skull and looked into your brain while you were eating the chocolate bar, all he would see is a grey mass of neurons. If he used instruments to measure what was happening inside, he would detect complicated physical processes of many different kinds. But would he find the taste of chocolate?
It seems as if he couldn’t find it in your brain, because your experience of tasting chocolate is locked inside your mind in a way that makes it unobservable by anyone else. . . Your experiences are inside your mind with a kind of insideness that is different from the way that your brain is inside your head.
. . .Suppose a scientist were crazy enough to try to observe your experience of tasting chocolate by licking your brain while you ate a chocolate bar. . . your brain probably wouldn’t taste like chocolate to him at all. But even if it did, he wouldn’t have succeeded in getting into your mind and observing your experience of tasting chocolate. He would have discovered. . . that when you taste chocolate, your brain changes so that it tastes like chocolate to other people. He would have his taste of chocolate and you would have yours."
From his book: What Does It All Mean?
Your assertion:
“From my perspective, the trajectory for computing power suggests to us that a virtual brain, accurate to the last photon, will be available in the next 50 years. Given that trajectory, simulations of the entire Human brain will be completely available to us for examination”,
is irrelevant to the problem. Simulations of the brain can only illuminate the workings of the brain. Yet pay attention to what I said before: Even if science could map with precision and in the finest detail all the neuronal firings in the brain that are connected with this experience, it would still not describe the subjective experience of the color Red itself (see also Thomas Nagel above).
I
inocente
Guest
Yes but supposing you are correct, the commitment was made long ago, leaving metaphysicians unemployed and unemployable.
Debating a question (whether our experience reflects reality) that normal people don’t need answering is a waste of oxygen, especially when metaphysicians can’t agree on the answer even after centuries.
It was about blinkered thinking. If just one philosopher had got his hands dirty by searching for evidence, but no, they all shared the primitive, mystic superstition that all knowledge can be divined out of thin air merely by sitting in an ivory tower and thinking really hard.
Then we’re agreed that it’s pointless. By all means give it a name, call it metaphysics, call it Jimbo, call it a waste of oxygen
, but happily we’re agreed that it’s pointless.Again we’re agreed. When NASA sent a man to the moon, it didn’t first employ metaphysics professors to debate whether the moon is actually there. We’d still be waiting if it had.
I wrote “Science can be defined simply as the systematic study of the universe, where “universe” means everything”. God is not a thing and so the study of God falls outside that definition, and so theology isn’t science.
The problem with trying to limit science only to nature is superstitious people jump in and say aha! science can’t study ghosts or demons or whatever. But obviously science can investigate the balance of evidence and why some people want to believe in such things. Aligning science with a particular school of philosophy brings prestige to the school but doesn’t do anything for science.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much, evidenced by your changing my systematic to systematics. Astrology cannot be said to systematically study the universe, since there is only a fleeting chance that its predictions bare any relationship to what actually happens in the universe, and its practitioners have never shown the slightest interest in improving its methodology.
I
inocente
Guest
Philosophers should always be applauded when they give up on one of their countess schools of thought. I’m sure they can be trained with a clicker and rewards of small biscuits.
S
Sair
Guest
And you know this how, exactly? Given your experience of what you perceive as “insight” and “reasoning”, if it were to be demonstrated that these were the products of material, physical interactions, would you then eschew belief in these things you have experienced?
And so that is an indication of the views of every naturalist, of course - because everything that is not supernaturalist is reductive, on the view you apparently hold. And no, the concept of truth as an “isomorphism of atomic particles” (and I would be interested to know what, exactly, you think that means) is not “indisputably reductive” but is, in fact, a recognition that particular configurations of matter have a significance quite particular to them, and not recognisable in any other configuration. To say otherwise would be like saying that oxygen is the same as ozone, because both are constituted of oxygen atoms and nothing more. But just try inhaling ozone and you would soon become aware of the difference…
As we’ve seen, the idea that mental activity is the result of neuronal impulses offers far greater insight than the idea that it comes from some entity beyond the purview of science. The latter might be appealing, since you can make up any semantically sound explanation you like and pass it off as “truth”, but it won’t get us any closer to actually understanding what’s really going on in terms of real brain activity…
I
inocente
Guest
It’s long been the aim of many to overcome the ego, to become selfless. I heard that’s why Muslims venerate Jesus, they see his teaching in that light.
I guess you’re saying something different though.
B
Bradski
Guest
Anything that hasn’t been designed. Like, I don’t know, the universe for example.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
You said:
"If just one philosopher had got his hands dirty by searching for evidence, but no, they all shared the primitive, mystic superstition that all knowledge can be divined out of thin air merely by sitting in an ivory tower and thinking really hard."
As a matter of fact, this is exactly how Newton hit upon thermodynamics and Einstein hit upon relativity … “by sitting in an ivory tower and thinking really hard.”
Verification only came after practicing the “mystic superstition that knowledge can be divined out of thin air.”
Democritus did the same thing thousands of years ago when he divined out of thin air the existence of the atom, which no doubt others regarded as a “mystic superstition.”
Yet he was right, wasn’t he? The fact that he was right, and so were Newton and Einstein, shows that divining things out of thin air is an honorable practice. It’s only called science when you verify what you have discovered by “mystic superstition.”
Metaphysics also is divining truth by “mystic superstition.” Don’t knock it!
You said:
"If just one philosopher had got his hands dirty by searching for evidence, but no, they all shared the primitive, mystic superstition that all knowledge can be divined out of thin air merely by sitting in an ivory tower and thinking really hard."
As a matter of fact, this is exactly how Newton hit upon thermodynamics and Einstein hit upon relativity … “by sitting in an ivory tower and thinking really hard.”
Verification only came after practicing the “mystic superstition that knowledge can be divined out of thin air.”
Democritus did the same thing thousands of years ago when he divined out of thin air the existence of the atom, which no doubt others regarded as a “mystic superstition.”
Yet he was right, wasn’t he? The fact that he was right, and so were Newton and Einstein, shows that divining things out of thin air is an honorable practice. It’s only called science when you verify what you have discovered by “mystic superstition.”
Metaphysics also is divining truth by “mystic superstition.” Don’t knock it!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**Anything that hasn’t been designed. Like, I don’t know, the universe for example. **
And you know this how?
**Anything that hasn’t been designed. Like, I don’t know, the universe for example. **
And you know this how?
- Status