The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[Wudang]

My takeaway from this thread is that since the OP can't explain his own ideas then he must be fake, by his own "argument".

 

[Dave Rogers]

The study of electrons in a microprocessor doesn't explain the plusness of 2+2. Microprocessors cannot therefore be explained by science.

Dave

 

[sackett]

Berate this translation

Why would you expect to be able to use the English language to do that?

No merely human language can describe the experience of, say, dropping a concrete block on your toe. Therefore, I have devised a symbolic matrix which provides a completely precise representational modus of the qualia in question. Viz.:

!+#@×●~~~☆☆☆€☆☆¡*÷!

You're very welcome.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Thus mind is emergent from some non-conscious substrate, be it matter or something else.

And we have no reason to believe that it is anything else.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Isn't the ultimate target of science to describe the world?

Why would you think that? Some people might suggest that, but I think any reasonably rational scientist would always know that the human species is never going to run out of questions.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The study of electrons in a microprocessor doesn't explain the plusness of 2+2. Microprocessors cannot therefore be explained by science.

Dave

The 'plusness' of 2+2 is defined by the ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit). A computer could easily be designed to make 2+2 = 5 or some other number. Or it could not even have a '+' operator. You could design a computer that only did individual bit operations, then implement an ALU completely in software. The 'plusness' would then be an emergent property of the system.

But the interesting thing about computers is that they are effectively an extension of the human mind, like tools are extensions of our bodies.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Please explain it to me.

Why am I hearing that in the voice of Charles Dance playing Havelock Vetinari?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes, obviously; I'm participating in this thread.

Dave

Nominated!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As noted in the other thread

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't meant come into a longstanding board and arrogantly disregard it's norms, but I'm new here...

Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And as ever those folk who come out with " can't explain red to a blind person" are decades behind with their knowledge. We are now indeed able to "describe" sight to a blind person.

Here is just one example

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...omise-sharper-artificial-vision-blind-people#

I went to a CofE school with regular assemblies taken by the local vicar, in one he spoke about some describing colours to a person blind since birth and saying "red is the sound of trumpets". This doesn't add anything to the discussion but it's stuck with me for forty years!

 

[David Mo]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/aEtR0mZ.jpg[/qimg]

_{[All impolite comments will be ignored.]}

Nothing without a brain can see red, although some brainless people can write posters.
This is a scientific proof of materialism.

 

[d4m10n]

...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ah, another qualia thread. Well, I'm a little late (six hours or so, but threads like this are usually fast-movers).

I did read the whole thread, but I still feel like asking this of the OP:

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;

1) What is your evidence for this statement?

2) Please state which philosophy does explain it, and how?

Thank you.

Hans

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I don't have enough posts yet to quote the image, but: yes! Dualist criticisms of materialism often seem to trade on the fallacious notion of: "You can't explain this, therefore I can."

It is always fair to ask: "What is your evidence that ghosts can produce these features?"

 

[Crossbow]

And NO, I'm not talking about measurable neurons firing in certain areas in the brain.

When I mean "explain" I mean "describe" how does it FEEL to be in love, or describe an orgasm to someone who haven't had sex ever before.

Again, I really do not think that you know what you are talking about.

After all, there is a vast amount of printed and/or video material available which describes the feelings of love and sex.

 

[JayUtah]

Soon there will be no one left..

Didn't you know? The objective strength of one's conclusions is evidenced by the number of people one has to ignore while drawing them. It only goes to show how many unworthy opponents there are in the world, and therefore how singular is the wisdom of the proponent amidst a sea of perceived animosity.

Studying the atoms of single-malt Scotch with a few drops of water in it does explain its yumminess. Some molecules arrange their atoms so as to be ambiphilic. The aromatics in Scotch are examples of such behavior.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah yeah "Hardy hard lookit the OP he's crazy."

He's not saying anything that coffee shop intellectuals haven't been gushing over the deepness of in philosophy 101 books for almost a thousand years.

I'm so sick of well written stupid being given such a huge pass over poorly written stupid.

 

[JayUtah]

Isn't the ultimate target of science to describe the world?

Yes. That doesn't mean answering every poorly-formed question that some crank poses. The point, which you missed entirely, is one Darat uses often to smoke out such nonsense as yours. The ability to throw natural-language words together into a sentence that superficially makes sense and alludes to lofty ideas does not equate to forming meaningful or answerable questions. It's a great parlour trick if you want to enjoy a brief reputation as a critic -- you know, until someone figures out that you're just babbling. But it has no value in actually advancing knowledge. Describing the world requires first being careful with description, devising new and unambiguous languages such as mathematics to do so, if necessary.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sure some people are interested in what can be understood from studying the brain at the atomic or subatomic level, but that's hardly the most exciting degree of magnification for everyone. At the axion and neuron level, a whole bunch of fun stuff is being done. I have friends in the neuroscience field who play a game called Brain Ball. Their technology allows them to put on "medusa" EEG sensors and literally control the servomotors of a homemade game setup with purpose and competitive skill. That is, some people who play this game are really good at it, manipulating EEGs in a way that the technology they build can act in predictive ways in response. This, of course, is how bionic arms are starting to work. Thinking of red could result in a move that's worth two points. Or spilling your scotch.

I'm sure that reducing the color red or the taste of a well-crafted whiskey to large volumes of scrutable numbers isn't what the OP meant, but the OP doesn't seem interested in anything except the inability of hard science to address vague touchy-feely claims.

 

[theprestige]

Can we get to the punch line already? What should we accept if materialism is fake?

I'm going with "continue to carry on as if materialism is real".

Like Newtonian physics. Unless you're working with inhuman sizes and energies, you can safely carry on as if Newtonian physics is real.

You carry on as if materialism is real. Especially since devhdb can't propose an alternative, nor propose a use case where an alternative would be necessary.