• 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

Pixel42 said:
What about when personal experience is contradicted by science? For example, if your personal experience tells you that the people you know are more likely to be accurately described by their astrological horoscope than you would expect them to be by chance, but statistical analysis and blind tests say otherwise?
Click to expand...
Science 1, astrology 0 . . . science for the win
 
As it pertains to this thread - if science tells me that what is real is a physical world 'out there' someplace, and secondly, everything I've ever seen, tasted, loved, rejected, adored is less than real, is a computation occuring within my physical skull (also out there someplace) . . . Well that has a bunch of implications and I want to be doubly and triply sure that is correct, and so science has to tell me how that happens. This has to be more than an 'emergent property of matter' cuz that's code for we don't have a clue.
 
LarryS said:
As it pertains to this thread - if science tells me that what is real is a physical world 'out there' someplace, and secondly, everything I've ever seen, tasted, loved, rejected, adored is less than real, is a computation occuring within my physical skull (also out there someplace) . . . Well that has a bunch of implications and I want to be doubly and triply sure that is correct, and so science has to tell me how that happens. This has to be more than an 'emergent property of matter' cuz that's code for we don't have a clue.
Click to expand...

"This can't be all there is because then I won't feel special" is not a very convincing argument.

A sunset doesn't become less beautiful just because it's not a flaming chariot being driven across the sky by Apollo.

The same is true for your sense of self. If accepting the reality of who and what you are lessens you in your own mind, deal with it. Don't deny reality to get out of it.
 
LarryS said:
if science tells me that what is real is a physical world 'out there' someplace, and secondly, everything I've ever seen, tasted, loved, rejected, adored is less than real, is a computation occuring within my physical skull
Click to expand...

What do you mean? That things exist only in your skull?
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
So you don't give personal experience the highest veracity then - you recognize that your perception can be mistaken, and accept its correction by science?
Click to expand...

"Science is right as long as it tells me what I want to hear."
 
LarryS said:
For myself, a very small portion of what I know re reality came from science. The vast majority came from the simplicity of being present, and perceiving. I give personal experience the highest veracitry, and temper it with science where science can add value . . . astronomy, evolution, etc. holy **** that is some good stuff.
Click to expand...

Really? I'd say that a great deal of what I know came from science, admittedly I didn't formally write it up

Hypothesis: Touching the hot stove looks like fun
Method: Wait until Mum's back is turned then touch stove during preparation of dinner.
Result: Oh ****, oh ****, oh ****
Conclusion: Touching the hot stove hurts. Do not repeat

I will subject these results to peer review from my teddy bears later. I am confident they will uphold my findings
Click to expand...

But I've learned much from observing the results of repeatable real world tests. I think theres even a word for people that don't.
 
arthwollipot said:
The most well-known thought experiment involves a bat (pdf link to Nagel's paper). Bats are a little more complex than bees, so it is more meaningful to say that they have a subjective experience than it is for a bee.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the reason I chose a bee, is because it is an insect, and does not fall in our evolutionary branch with bats (mammals).

I know a bat probably has conscious experience (albeit different), but a bee? I am not sure.
 
shuttlt said:
Nowhere is it written that all questions about the world can be answered. Why would it be a problem if the nature of qualia/consciousness or what ever we are talking about was such a case? Mathematics has plenty of unanswerable questions.
Click to expand...

Physics does too. But I'm not sure Darat was claiming that all questions about the world can be answered.
 
RedStapler said:
What do you mean? That things exist only in your skull?
Click to expand...

Materialism/Physicalism claims that reality, what is real, is a physical world independent of and outside consciousness. And, secondly, consciousness is produced by this physical world, consciousness is a computation produced by a physical world we can never experience directly.
 
LarryS said:
Materialism/Physicalism claims that reality, what is real, is a physical world independent of and outside consciousness.
Click to expand...

That's correct. Do you disagree? If so, why?

LarryS said:
And, secondly, consciousness is produced by this physical world, consciousness is a computation produced by a physical world we can never experience directly.
Click to expand...

Explain the highlighted part, please.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Honest best guess.

You have to have a split brain (i.e distinct left and right hemispheres or something functionally equivalent) to have (what we generally are talking about on a practical, non-philosophical day to day level) a "consciousness."
Click to expand...

Why are you giving an "honest best guess"? Three pages ago you were telling us that consciousness was "as easy as piss to explain".
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Why are you giving an "honest best guess"? Three pages ago you were telling us that consciousness was "as easy as piss to explain".
Click to expand...

Good gotcha. Like I said just waiting for me to use the term in a slightly different context and spring the trap.

The split brain explains all the philosophical hairsplitting people have over the feeling that "they" and "their mind" are separate things. You'd know that if you had quoted the parts of the post where I specifically talk about that instead of dishonestly taking one line out of context for the gotcha I already knew was coming.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Good gotcha. Like I said just waiting for me to use the term in a slightly different context and spring the trap.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep using the term in different contexts then? Why were you trying to make an honest guess about consciousness in the context of "what we generally are talking about on a practical, non-philosophical day to day level"? Those are all your words, not mine.

It seems like you think there's another aspect of consciousness that isn't as easy as piss to explain. One that you have to "guess" about.

I thought this was all settled by "science", or something.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Why do you keep using the term in different contexts then?
Click to expand...

Because I didn't invent the language and discussion that are nothing but defining the terms never work because one side in them is never honest. If you speak English you can deal with ambiguity and read for context unless you have an ulterior reason not to. That's why you went "Aha I caught you in a linguistic trap!" instead of just asking for clarification.

- Everything about the normal mental state of human awareness is easily explained within the context a modern understanding of neuroscience, with no space needed to invoke philosophical question.

- I think the left right hemisphere setup of more evolved brains is a potential reason for the perception of a difference of "mind" and "self" that is so often the core of philosophical hand-wringing about "duality" and "the mind/body problem" and stuff like that.

One statement is explaining the parts of "consciousness" that actually exist, the other explaining the parts of "consciousness" that don't exist but so often thought to be there.

There, happy now? I kind of bet you aren't going to be and are going to demand "more clarity" forever until we're in the weeds talking about nothing and the discussion goes on forever.
 
JoeMorgue said:
- Everything about the normal mental state of human awareness is easily explained within the context a modern understanding of neuroscience, with no space needed to invoke philosophical question.
Click to expand...

Everything except for "what we generally are talking about on a practical, non-philosophical day to day level"?"

Well...gee. What kind of "everything" is that? If it doesn't explain what are talking about on a practical, non-philosophical day to day level when we refer to consciousness then it doesn't really address much of what those nutty philosophers, and regular old everyday people are talking about.

Now you've introduced a new category:

I think the left right hemisphere setup of more evolved brains is a potential reason for the perception of a difference of "mind" and "self" that is so often the core of philosophical hand-wringing about "duality" and "the mind/body problem" and stuff like that.
Click to expand...

So here's you explanation for what people have been discussing for the last several pages, and it is an uneducated "honest best guess". Well, welcome to the discussion, I guess. Better late than never.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom