• 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

Dave Rogers said:
This is a bit more obvious, though; David Mo is pretending that he doesn't have to define his own terms but that I have to define them for him. For all I know, when he says "science," he may mean a variety of small cake typically served with mid-morning coffee in southern Austria, and is therefore utterly unable to comprehend why that should be a means of investigating reality. Since he not only won't say what he means by "science", but refuses to admit that he's using any definition of the word at all, I have to just assume he's semi-literate and is posting whatever random words he thinks will sound clever at the time.
Click to expand...

Is this your first time dealing with "Philosopher?"

This is their whole shtick.

Clarity is not their friend.
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is a bit more obvious, though; David Mo is pretending that he doesn't have to define his own terms but that I have to define them for him. For all I know, when he says "science," he may mean a variety of small cake typically served with mid-morning coffee in southern Austria, and is therefore utterly unable to comprehend why that should be a means of investigating reality. Since he not only won't say what he means by "science", but refuses to admit that he's using any definition of the word at all, I have to just assume he's semi-literate and is posting whatever random words he thinks will sound clever at the time.

Dave
Click to expand...

I understand: it is not true that I have defined science anywhere nor do you have the slightest idea how to do it. I'm going to walk the dog now. See you tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Can you quote my exact words? Because you keep walking around without offering a concrete answer. When did I define science?
You certainly haven't quoted a line of mine.
Click to expand...

OK, you just jumped the shark. Clearly your belief that there may be other methods than science of investigating reality is rooted in an inability to perceive reality, or at best to read. This level of dishonesty is no longer worth responding to.

Dave
 
David Mo said:
The problem with the relativist is that he stops being a relativist when someone steals his wallet. So he asks for justice to act.
Click to expand...
A cute turn of phrase if you don't bother to think too hard about it. If it's a crime to steal wallets in your society, then you are correct to allege that a crime has happened. House rules or universal rules, they're still rules. Relative values are not no values at all.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Before I present my proof, can you please tell me what you mean by the word "dog"?

Dave
Click to expand...

No. Just keep making arguments and I'll tell you if you get it right. I promise to not constantly change my definition of dog to always not apply to whatever argument you are making. This is a type of philosophy and therefore if you argue against it you will also be using a type of philosophy which will make your argument invalid. In Latin.
 
Robin said:
I love the deliberate point missing

"A printer can't print itself"

"Yes a printer can print another printer"
Click to expand...

Well, it's perhaps because the point is irrelevant. Sure, a 3D printer as we know them can, at best print a copy of itself. However, this is a discussion, not of printers and other machines, but of real life. And an organism CAN print itself. In fact, most organisms do just that. And they do it without magic of any kind.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, it's perhaps because the point is irrelevant. Sure, a 3D printer as we know them can, at best print a copy of itself. However, this is a discussion, not of printers and other machines, but of real life. And an organism CAN print itself. In fact, most organisms do just that. And they do it without magic of any kind.

Hans
Click to expand...

Well, that type of thinking would sure make things easy for scientists trying to explain the origin of life. Sort of makes Darwin obsolete though. Everything just printed itself into existence!
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh applesauce and nonsense on toast.

"Yeah but you can't prove the universe isn't going to magically just start operating under totally new rules tomorrow, or that it doesn't do that whenever we're not looking. No it's totally valid philosophy look it has a name and everything."
If you add 2 and 2 together a hundred thousand times and get 4 every time, you are not some deep wise old man on the mountain by going "Aha grasshopper... but can you prove 4 will equal 2+2 the next time we add them?" And giving a fancy name to the idea that 2+2 might not equal 4 the next time we add them up doesn't mean "Look, look it's a valid philosophy, you can't say anything because it's a valid philosophy."
Click to expand...


I can't by you missed the point.

The point is not that I can't prove that.

The point is that science makes use of the best thing we can have.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, it's perhaps because the point is irrelevant. Sure, a 3D printer as we know them can, at best print a copy of itself. However, this is a discussion, not of printers and other machines, but of real life. And an organism CAN print itself. In fact, most organisms do just that. And they do it without magic of any kind.

Hans
Click to expand...

Well no, organisms have parents (or in some cases parent), no magic required, but neither organisms nor 3D printers spontaneously generate.
 
If you add 2 and 2 together a hundred thousand times and get 4 every time, you are not some deep wise old man on the mountain by going "Aha grasshopper... but can you prove 4 will equal 2+2 the next time we add them?" And giving a fancy name to the idea that 2+2 might not equal 4 the next time we add them up doesn't mean "Look, look it's a valid philosophy, you can't say anything because it's a valid philosophy."
Click to expand...


No, that's not philosophy.

But there is a branch of philosophy that questions mathematical truths : Philosophy of Math.

I don't understand what makes you despise that, but we can agree that people who ask those questions , are asking them because they are interested, not in the pragmatic side of things, but in the ontological : what makes them real .

That's why they are asking those questions, which seem like utter nonsense to you
 
"Look, look it's a valid philosophy, you can't say anything because it's a valid philosophy."
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I consider philosophy as a free field, as long as your question doesn't have, not only an answer, but even a way to imagine a good candidate for an answer : it can be qualified as philosophy.

The point is, as long as the questioner is interested, there is no way you can impose your judgments on them : they are free to ask whatever questions they want.

And you are free to say that it is nonsense. So everyone is exercising their freedom. As long as they agree on the fact that they are in a philosophy forum.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, it's perhaps because the point is irrelevant. Sure, a 3D printer as we know them can, at best print a copy of itself. However, this is a discussion, not of printers and other machines, but of real life. And an organism CAN print itself. In fact, most organisms do just that. And they do it without magic of any kind.

Hans
Click to expand...

Yes, cells can print themselves, but the copies are not perfect ..Telomers decrease in size, which makes us age.

But my point in this analogy is that consciousness cannot perfectly explain itself, just as an imaginary printer cannot perfectly print itself, with 100% accuracy.

There must be some loss of information, the tip of the device that does the printing would be lost in the copy.

I was trying to give an analogy as to why we cannot explain how neurons give rise to conscious experience : there must be an element (no matter how slight it is), that is forever lost and hidden from our subjective view.

And that element is the part that connects the subjective and the objective. It is there, but we cannot see it. Consciousness cannot give a full account of itself.
 
Last edited:
MohamedTaqi said:
Yes, cells can print themselves, but the copies are not perfect ..Telomers decrease in size, which makes us age.

But my point in this analogy is that consciousness cannot perfectly explain itself, just as an imaginary printer cannot perfectly print itself, with 100% accuracy.

There must be some loss of information, the tip of the device that does the printing would be lost in the copy.

I was trying to give an analogy as to why we cannot explain how neurons give rise to conscious experience : there must be an element (no matter how slight it is), that is forever lost and hidden from our subjective view.

And that element is the part that connects the subjective and the objective. It is there, but we cannot see it. Consciousness cannot give a full account of itself.
Click to expand...

My consciousness is a product of the neurons in my brain. Huh, wasn't that hard at all. :)
 
MohamedTaqi said:
I know that you know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

I know you are intentionally ignoring a reasonable explanation for consciousness just because you want a soul to exist. A small tip: Just repeating that there has to be something else is not very convincing.
 
MohamedTaqi said:
I know that you know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

Ah there is it is.

The "Oh come on you know what I'm talking about!" thing.

We went through this with Jabba as well. He tipped his hand rather early as that he wasn't just arguing for a soul, he was arguing that the soul was just as obvious to us as it was to him but we just wouldn't admit it. His game was as much to get us to admit we knew there was a soul in our heart of hearts all along as it was to prove one existed.

No. We don't all look into the gaps in our understand and just feel there has to be a soul there. We're not all having your existential crisis as I already said. So the volumes of "Oh come on don't tell me you see yourself as nothing but a bunch of neurons firing! You don't just see yourself a 4lbs of wet meat with electricity firing through! You see more of yourself!" argument I'm sure you have ready... no. No I don't. Do not put your philosophical hairsplitting fetish on me as an argument.

Oh and if we are going to do the whole "OMG show me where I'm arguing for a soul" thing just go read the "Dragon in the Garage Thread" and replace "God" with "Soul." If you're looking for a magical non-material thing needed to make the complete human mental experience work, it's a soul.
 
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Well, that type of thinking would sure make things easy for scientists trying to explain the origin of life. Sort of makes Darwin obsolete though. Everything just printed itself into existence!
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, and you know it.

Hans
 
I see the "But scientist don't know every / aren't as smart as they think they are" becomes less the subtexts and more the texts with every new posts from the Philosophers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom