B
Bahman
Guest
What is the answer to those questions?
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
It doesn’t matter, you just want to repeat the same tired response and seemingly derive no benefit from the (name removed by moderator)ut of others.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you think we are biological machines?
E
empther
Guest
Alousium’s post 82
Right on, Aloysium
This thread, and the other one about decision and consciousness,
are nothing but empty words. Apparently it’s possible to keep this going forever.
Right on, Aloysium
This thread, and the other one about decision and consciousness,
are nothing but empty words. Apparently it’s possible to keep this going forever.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Alousium’s post 82
Right on, Aloysium
This thread, and the other one about decision and consciousness,
are nothing but empty words. Apparently it’s possible to keep this going forever.
The more absurd a claim is the more difficult it is to disprove.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Q: What is the use of consciousness?
A: Asking silly questions.
A: Asking silly questions.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Q: What is the use of consciousness?
A: Love.
A: Love.
B
Bahman
Guest
Don’t worry, you don’t need to waist your time. Sustenance dualism has serious issues:
- The Problem of Spatial Location
- The Problem of Conservation
B
Bahman
Guest
First, I am not denying mental, yet I have no prove to show contrary. Second, if we equate consciousness with experiencing a subject, then the question is what is the use of experience? This question is relevant because of one strong reason: if we accept causality then we are tighten to chain of events, some events however arises to what we call experience. The problem here is how experience itself could interrupt the chain of causality? Let assume two events E1 and E2 in which E1 cause the experience e1. The main question is if E1 is sufficient for E2, physical causality, then how e1 could intervene since this leads to overdetermination hence e1 has to be inert.Do you think we are biological machines?
B
Bahman
Guest
There is not such a thing like empty wording! An argument is either false -even if it false is not empty- or true. One can show that an argument is false just by finding a stronger argument so the former eventually dies. This is called constructing knowledge which is done through argument. If you are a woman/man of argument then you are welcome.Alousium’s post 82
Right on, Aloysium
This thread, and the other one about decision and consciousness,
are nothing but empty words. Apparently it’s possible to keep this going forever.
B
Bahman
Guest
Apparently, all mental states -including love- and some natural language are extrinsic properties hence they could not lead to an action since causality, in contrary, is an intrinsic property. You can read more about extrinsic properties in here The Argument from Anti-Individualism
T
tonyrey
Guest
Choices and decisions are not mental states.
B
Bahman
Guest
The subject of argument was love.
E
empther
Guest
tonyrey’s post 85
That’s true.
Of course,
the question is can a claim be not worth disproving?
Is anybody on this board gullible enough to believe the things being said around here? If so, they are beyond help.
It doesn’t matter, you just want to repeat the same tired response and seemingly derive no benefit from the (name removed by moderator)ut of others.
Right on, Aloysium
This thread, and the other one about decision and consciousness,
are nothing but empty words. Apparently it’s possible to keep this going forever.
The more absurd a claim is the more difficult it is to disprove.
That’s true.
Of course,
the question is can a claim be not worth disproving?
Is anybody on this board gullible enough to believe the things being said around here? If so, they are beyond help.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
You are mistaking epiphenomenalism for an empirical fact. It is not. It is a philosophical theory, and a pretty shoddy one at that.
Also, you are misunderstanding what I mean by love. Love, in the Catholic/Christian sense, is not a mental state, but an act of the will. You are thinking of “eros”, or what it is more commonly called “affection.” That is not what I’m talking about.
Of course, you could lump acts of the will right in with mental states if you subscribe to epiphenomenalism. If that’s how you choose to view the world (or do so involuntarily, according to your philosophy), I can only extend my empathy.
B
Bahman
Guest
Sorry for double post.
B
Bahman
Guest
The charge epiphenomenalism is very serious in Contemporary Problems of Mental Causation, related to property dualism. Substance dualism as the only theory left has other problems Traditional Problems of Mental Causation. Apparently there is no theory which is anomaly free and could explain mental causality.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are assuming physical causality is the only type of causality. I wonder why
I didn’t think you’re a materialist but it looks as if you are…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Are your posts included in what is being said around here? If not why not?
B
Bahman
Guest
Mental causality apparently has problems my friend, please read Mental Causation. I wish there was a theory which could resolve the problem of mind-body interaction and its anomaly free, but it seems that that theory does not yet exist. Whether we are cognitively open/close to the problem of mind/body is subject of another thread.You are assuming physical causality is the only type of causality. I wonder why
I am not a materialist nor anything else but I am in favour of truth, wherever it may go.
- Status