I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

LarryS said:
there's much 'woo' going on here - to declare that consciousness and subjective experience is a product of a brute machine, a Turing equivalent computer - I'm not suggesting this is a right or wrong notion, but there's a boxcar load of 'woo' here.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but it's not at all woo to declare that that's the conclusion that all the available evidence points to.
 
LarryS said:
there's much 'woo' going on here - to declare that consciousness and subjective experience is a product of a brute machine, a Turing equivalent computer - I'm not suggesting this is a right or wrong notion, but there's a boxcar load of 'woo' here.
Click to expand...

Why is a theory that explains the empirical evidence using explanations that work accurately to predict the world around us “woo“?
 
LarryS said:
there's much 'woo' going on here - to declare that consciousness and subjective experience is a product of a brute machine, a Turing equivalent computer - I'm not suggesting this is a right or wrong notion, but there's a boxcar load of 'woo' here.
Click to expand...

Except that literally every piece of evidence we have points to that conclusion.

So no. Not woo.
 
Belz... said:
Not really. "Detection" and "interaction" are one and the same. If information cannot be detected then for all practical purposes it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I just think there's a colloquial aspect to the word detection is all.
 
LarryS said:
there's much 'woo' going on here - to declare that consciousness and subjective experience is a product of a brute machine
Click to expand...

And now we get to the crux of your objection, don't we ? You cannot fathom that a mere sack of organic matter could possibly generate consciousness. But your lack of imagination is not a valid argument against the idea.
 
LarryS said:
there's much 'woo' going on here - to declare that consciousness and subjective experience is a product of a brute machine, a Turing equivalent computer - I'm not suggesting this is a right or wrong notion, but there's a boxcar load of 'woo' here.
Click to expand...
And your basis for this assertion is... What, exactly?

We know that consciousness is brain function. We know that the brain is a computer.

What exactly is it that you are offering to counter these incontrovertible facts?
 
JoeBentley said:
I don't think a lot of people get that the functioning of the human brain isn't this huge mystery anymore.
Click to expand...
It's not a mystery. It's a puzzle.

We know what it does; we are working out the details of how.

As we've seen, those asserting mystery aren't arguing about the how, they're trying to cram in a huge load of counterfactual whats.
 
Indeed we come, at last, beyond all the semantics and definitions and terms and labels the absolute core of the matter, the base difference that all the rational v. woo arguments are really about in essense.

Are you the kind of person that things become less or more interesting when you understand them? There has not been a Woo argument, on this board or ever, that has not be distillable down to that difference in how people view the world.

At the end of the day that's all Woo is, ever has been, or ever will be. A fetish for glamorizing ignorance, trying in desperation to make not knowing or understanding something noble and wonderful.

As a great man a lot smarter than I once said, I'll take the wonder of knowing over the wonder of not knowing any day.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
No it isn't. I can plug you into a machine and detect the entire process of you tasting beer or feeling the sun.

If somehow those experiences cannot be detected, then they do not exist, and you don't actually have them, either.
Click to expand...


…this is complete, utter, unqualified B.S.

…woo…IOW.

...unless, of course, you have some variety of evidence to support the claims.

Do you?

Keep in mind that your good friends Nonpareil and Pixy made identical claims quite some time ago (‘we can detect everything’). They were subsequently established to be unconditional garbage.

Seems that Larry's observations are accurate yet again. Not only are we dealing with a bunch of ‘true believers’…but this thread is buried in woo.

...but I am probably being too hasty. No self-respecting skeptic would make claims that extraordinary without evidence to back them up.

Not to mention that not a single one of your compatriots has challenged this craziness. Further proof that you must have something up your sleeve.

Lets have it then. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
JoeBentley said:
Indeed we come, at last, beyond all the semantics and definitions and terms and labels the absolute core of the matter, the base difference that all the rational v. woo arguments are really about in essense.

Are you the kind of person that things become less or more interesting when you understand them? There has not been a Woo argument, on this board or ever, that has not be distillable down to that difference in how people view the world.

At the end of the day that's all Woo is, ever has been, or ever will be. A fetish for glamorizing ignorance, trying in desperation to make not knowing or understanding something noble and wonderful.

As a great man a lot smarter than I once said, I'll take the wonder of knowing over the wonder of not knowing any day.
Click to expand...


...and as another smarter man once said...

" I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. "
 
annnnoid said:
…this is complete, utter, unqualified B.S.

…woo…IOW.

...unless, of course, you have some variety of evidence to support the claims.

Do you?
Click to expand...

What do you want us to do Google the word "Neuroscience" for you?
 
JoeBentley said:
What do you want us to do Google the word "Neuroscience" for you?
Click to expand...


....admittedly...this is a religion thread. So abject nonsense can be expected. But Belz made an explicitly scientific claim. He can either support it with evidence, or he can withdraw it (I don't realistically expect either).

You will discover that there is a grand total of zero evidence to support his claims.

How do I know this?...because I've been over this stuff innumerable times. But do feel free to encourage Belz to make every effort to find something. Better yet, give it a try yourself. I would suggest you narrow it down a bit though. Googling 'neuroscience' is a bit broad. Maybe look under fMRI...neural scanning ... that kind of thing.
 
PixyMisa said:
And your basis for this assertion is... What, exactly?

We know that consciousness is brain function. We know that the brain is a computer.

What exactly is it that you are offering to counter these incontrovertible facts?
Click to expand...


…and your basis for this assertion is what, exactly?

At present…there does not exist anything remotely resembling a consensus about what consciousness even is.

Prove…me…wrong (go ahead…I’ll wait!)

At present…there does not exist anything remotely resembling a consensus on how the brain produces consciousness. In fact…we have numerous credible researchers who explicitly state that we have no idea how the brain produces the mind.

All you have to do to prove ‘them’ wrong…is answer the questions. Here they are again:

- What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of the portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality? When you’re done explaining that, provide equivalent explanations for every other significantly differentiated brain region (modularity of mind, remember, what you’re all claiming is evidence that we know how the brain works).

So…science cannot come anywhere close to a definitive representation of either consciousness, the brain, or the relationship between the two.

Since there is nothing remotely resembling an explicit scientific explanation for / definition of the relevant conditions…it is therefore scientifically incoherent to claim that there is a definitive relationship between them. All that can be said is that there is an ostensive relationship.

As for the brain being a computer. As Wowbagger pointed out at another thread, that conclusion is nothing more than metaphysical fairy dust.

Woo…IOW.

Produce a computer that can do what the brain does, then it will be relevant. At present, that isn’t even a remote possibility.

PixyMisa said:
It's not a mystery. It's a puzzle.

We know what it does; we are working out the details of how.

As we've seen, those asserting mystery aren't arguing about the how, they're trying to cram in a huge load of counterfactual whats.
Click to expand...


We know what it does?????

…another point for Larry’s conclusion.

…unless, of course, you have evidence.

So where is the evidence that we ‘know’ (explicitly, definitively, comprehensively) what the brain does.

…oh…hang on. I get it! You’ve got that machine that Belz is talking about.

C’mon. Out with it. Your Nobel prize is waiting!
 
Last edited:
annnnoid said:
…this is complete, utter, unqualified B.S.
Click to expand...

Which part ? The part where you can (and please remember what I already told you about that last word) map neural patterns and associate them with specific sensations; or the part where something that cannot be detected does not exist ?

…woo…IOW.
Click to expand...

Woo and BS are two different things.

...unless, of course, you have some variety of evidence to support the claims.

Do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually.
 
annnnoid said:
Your Nobel prize is waiting!
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should familiarize youself with this topic before sounding off your ignorance. You may find that some people here are more knowledgeable about it than you, and dial it back on the incredulity. Just because YOU are ignorant, does not mean every one else is.
 
Belz... said:
http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity

You're welcome.

Care to retract that last sentence, now ?
Click to expand...


Tell you what Belz…I’m going to let you in on a little secret. When I (and, presumably, every other human being on the planet) look at a red parrot, I actually see a red parrot. I do not see something that looks like a piece of road kill from a hundred feet away in the middle of a blizzard.

Your claim was there is a machine that can detect everything that I experience it. That you think that machine is it is beyond a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom