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

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Uh, both will depend on how you define consciousness.

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Exactly 27 angels are currently dancing on the head of the pin. Or do I need to say it Latin and quote someone from before the New World was discovered?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Uh, both will depend on how you define consciousness.

Which we will never do because not defining it is the point.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

I think this "no direct experience" is nonsense. We are our bodies. Our bodies are part of the world and experience it directly. The part that reach our awareness has been through a number of processing steps, but saying that we don't experience it directly is like saying a house does not stand on the ground because the foundations are in between.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which we will never do because not defining it is the point.

Quite.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so quick question. If someone tells you "Your fly is down?" do you go into an existential crisis, because you don't know if they mean the act of moving through the air, the front flap of a man's trousers, or a small winged insect?

No? You don't do that? *Shocked* But the term is.... ambiguous! How do you keep track? How do you know?

You just pick up the context being used and move on? What madness! It's as if understanding what people are saying when the use a term in a different way in an honest way is something we all do a thousand times a day in normal conversation.

Philosophy gets called on its word salad, so it pretends it can't follow anything said to it that's not in machine code.

 

[LarryS]

I think this "no direct experience" is nonsense. We are our bodies. Our bodies are part of the world and experience it directly. The part that reach our awareness has been through a number of processing steps, but saying that we don't experience it directly is like saying a house does not stand on the ground because the foundations are in between.

Hans

what you are describing is a nuanced dualism

 

[JoeMorgue]

And, to go ahead and cut it off before it's even asked.

"oH so Ur saYINg we undERSTand everTINg abut da Mind!?"

No, we do not. We also don't understand everything about the pancreas, but nobody is trying to shove a soul or a "Hard problem of Insulin Production."

We don't know why "handiness" is a thing. We don't know why we have blood types. We don't know how anesthesia works. But nobody is invoking deep philosophical questions about those unknowns. Neurology is no different.

There's a difference between "We've answered every question" and "We've identified the framework on which these questions are going to be answered."

 

[JoeMorgue]

what you are describing is a nuanced dualism

Giving ideas a name doesn't make them more or less valid.

If people who think "2+2=5" start calling themselves TwoPlusTwoFiviest and present it as a valid alternative to what they call TwoPlusTwoFourest... news flash two plus two still equals four.

 

[LarryS]

Okay so quick question. If someone tells you "Your fly is down?" do you go into an existential crisis, because you don't know if they mean the act of moving through the air, the front flap of a man's trousers, or a small winged insect?

No? You don't do that? *Shocked* But the term is.... ambiguous! How do you keep track? How do you know?

You just pick up the context being used and move on? What madness! It's as if understanding what people are saying when the use a term in a different way in an honest way is something we all do a thousand times a day in normal conversation.

Philosophy gets called on its word salad, so it pretends it can't follow anything said to it that's not in machine code.

Yes you got my point - no one, absolutely no one lives in a maner described by materialism/physicalism. We live as though what we are experiencing is real and not a calculation/emergent property of a thing that is real

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes you got my point - no one, absolutely no one lives in a maner described by materialism/physicalism. We live as though what we are experiencing is real and not a calculation/emergent property of a thing that is real

Or... and keep up because this gets complicated... because reality actually exists outside our head and we all know that, even those of us that pretend we don't.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Okay so quick question. If someone tells you "Your fly is down?" do you go into an existential crisis, because you don't know if they mean the act of moving through the air, the front flap of a man's trousers, or a small winged insect?

No? You don't do that? *Shocked* But the term is.... ambiguous! How do you keep track? How do you know?

You just pick up the context being used and move on? What madness! It's as if understanding what people are saying when the use a term in a different way in an honest way is something we all do a thousand times a day in normal conversation.

Philosophy gets called on its word salad, so it pretends it can't follow anything said to it that's not in machine code.

And you claim philosophers are incoherent.

 

[RedStapler]

And you claim philosophers are incoherent.

And you claim to be in a discussion while not even explaining what you found incohorent

 

[MohamedTaqi]

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?

Science itself uses perception , but the reason why we prefer science, is because it sticks itself only to the kind of perception that is stable, based on Uniformitarianism as a principle.

Dreams, hallucinations, ghosts..etc can be qualified as perception, but they are unstable (i.e they vanish, get distorted or changed) compared to the kind of perception that science deals with , i.e : our perception of the day to day world.

 

[Giordano]

And you claim to be in a discussion while not even explaining what you found incohorent

Sir-drinks-a lot in my experience often just asks questions or makes short comments on other peoples’s posts.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Sir-drinks-a lot in my experience often just asks questions or makes short comments on other peoples’s posts.

I think he is using the Socratic Method, just from the few exchanges I had with him. Which is good in fact.

 

[MRC_Hans]

what you are describing is a nuanced dualism

No.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think he is using the Socratic Method, just from the few exchanges I had with him. Which is good in fact.

The Socratic Method is just contrarian trolling with pretensions.

No.

I would suspect nothing less from a post-modernist reformed nuanced dualiest with sprinkles.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Sir-drinks-a lot in my experience often just asks questions or makes short comments on other peoples’s posts.

Gee, that was a helpful contribution. Keep Red Stapler going, he's certainly been contributing many helpful insights and topics for discussion in the thread.

Yes, I tend to ask questions. Especially since everyone around here is so certain about things that apparently haven't asked many questions about. Glad to help.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes you got my point - no one, absolutely no one lives in a maner described by materialism/physicalism. We live as though what we are experiencing is real and not a calculation/emergent property of a thing that is real

In what sense is an emergent property not real?

Dave