• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

LarryS said:
The claim by the Physicalist "I am my physical brain/body" is strenuous.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's strenuous at all. In fact, it's a fairly obvious statement.

First one has to abstract a physical reality outside experience, a reality devoid of any mental precepts.
Click to expand...

That would be like an asteroid floating alone in space. Ok, done. It wasn't strenuous.

Then, claim that I am an emergent property of this abstraction.
Click to expand...

Ok, done. You are an emergent property of our physical universe. Again, not really strenuous.

I am an emergent property of a physical world I can only imagine.
Click to expand...

I take exception to the word "only" in there. Instead, all you have done is show that "you are an emergent property of a physical world that I can imagine". Not that you can ONLY imagine, as it's entirely possible that I can both imagine a physical world which can give rise to consciousness while simultaneously living in a physical world which can give rise to consciousness.

Which means that all your 2 steps have accomplished is for you to demonstrate that materialism is possible, which is sort of the opposite of showing it to be fake, right?
 
Dave241 said:
I disagree that it's strenuous at all. In fact, it's a fairly obvious statement.

That would be like an asteroid floating alone in space. Ok, done. It wasn't strenuous.

Ok, done. You are an emergent property of our physical universe. Again, not really strenuous.

I take exception to the word "only" in there. Instead, all you have done is show that "you are an emergent property of a physical world that I can imagine". Not that you can ONLY imagine, as it's entirely possible that I can both imagine a physical world which can give rise to consciousness while simultaneously living in a physical world which can give rise to consciousness.

Which means that all your 2 steps have accomplished is for you to demonstrate that materialism is possible, which is sort of the opposite of showing it to be fake, right?
Click to expand...

Well said Dave.:thumbsup:

What we're seeing is either the result of contemplating one's navel too long or from the use of drugs.

I don't find it strenuous at all imagining the world around me is physical. Frankly it requires more imagination to believe it is not. Otherwise, we are denying our senses.
 
devhdb said:
No. The fact that to you it is obvious that the red is red does not mean that it explains materialism: it is actually the other way around. You have to explain how is it posible that from something as “concrete “ as a brain (matter) can arise something as “abstract” as a feeling or the experience of the redness of red.
Click to expand...

Why do we have to do this?
 
devhdb said:
No. The fact that to you it is obvious that the red is red does not mean that it explains materialism: it is actually the other way around. You have to explain how is it posible that from something as “concrete “ as a brain (matter) can arise something as “abstract” as a feeling or the experience of the redness of red.
Click to expand...

Clearly, there is no other way. An "abstract" is a brain state. So is every experience we have. And this is only possible with a brain. Red is merely the label we use to describe light between 625–740 nanometres.

Why is this so difficult?
 
David Mo said:
I do not know why you recommend things to us that not only you have not read but you are unable to quote correctly.
Click to expand...

It's because he does keyword searches and quote mines. Had he actually read anything from either Sagan or Hawking, he'd have kept well clear of both.
 
acbytesla said:
Science is not a myth :rolleyes: I love lots of things by the way. I love art, the outdoors, literature, science, golf, sports in general and people. What I don't love are backwards superstitions.
Click to expand...

Love is a very special and intense emotion.

I love my wife and children, my parents, my aunt and cousins, my friends, my dog and my cat. Maybe I've forgotten someone else.
I can't love my couch, my car or my garden.
I can't love a gun or a plane or a storm.
I can't love violence.
First of all because they are things. In my conception love is a very special word that implies some kind of personal interaction (yes, with my dog too).
Secondly, it implies some kind of valuation (yes, with my cat too). Love is related to a positive vision. I can't like anything that is bad or can be good and bad at the same time. Therefore I cannot love weapons, violence or science.

Love of science is fetishism, because it hides the bad side of science and personifies one thing. This is the myth of science.

Perhaps you think of love in a more superficial sense than I do. Something like "I like it"= :thumbsup: You should have warned us.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Science also makes bombs and gas chambers.
Don't substitute one myth for another.
Love people, not things.
Click to expand...
You do realize that people also made all those things, right?
If you can't love anything that's bad, even in part, then you can't love people as EVERYONE has some degree of bad in them.

Somehow I don't feel like you've really thought this philosophy of yours out.
 
You can love the sea, the hillsides. You can love music and other arts (although they also have inspired people to horrific acts at times) and that is not fetishism.

So I don't see why love of science should be considered fetishism.
 
Irony said:
You do realize that people also made all those things, right?
If you can't love anything that's bad, even in part, then you can't love people as EVERYONE has some degree of bad in them.

Somehow I don't feel like you've really thought this philosophy of yours out.
Click to expand...

There are irrational loves. Even pathological ones. A logical love forgives little evils. Not dropping atomic bombs or gassing people.

Of course, science is made by men for good or bad. This is trivial. We're talking about the goodness of science as an instrument, I think.

I don't know what makes you think I haven't thought. I think it's a presumption on your part.
 
Robin said:
You can love the sea, the hillsides. You can love music and other arts (although they also have inspired people to horrific acts at times) and that is not fetishism.

So I don't see why love of science should be considered fetishism.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're talking about two kinds of love. English language probably doesn't distinguish them like Spanish. A limitation, then.
In Spanish "amo al mar" is fetishism or poetry. "I love the sea" is usually translated by "me encanta" or "me gusta".
 
David Mo said:
I suppose you're talking about two kinds of love. English language probably doesn't distinguish them like Spanish. A limitation, then.

In Spanish "amo al mar" is fetishism or poetry. "I love the sea" is usually translated by "me encanta" or "me gusta".
Click to expand...
Therefore no actual distinction.
 
David Mo said:
I suppose you're talking about two kinds of love. English language probably doesn't distinguish them like Spanish. A limitation, then.
In Spanish "amo al mar" is fetishism or poetry. "I love the sea" is usually translated by "me encanta" or "me gusta".
Click to expand...

We sometimes refer to the difference between the Greek words eros and agape, if that helps. But disambiguation of "love" is usually contextual.
 
There is no other love as deep and as complete as the love between a CPU and its compatible GPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom