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

[MohamedTaqi]

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.

That's a strawman ! I don't believe a soul exists.


To say there is an immaterial soul is to say that consciousness is dependent of the physical world.

I don't say that

I say that probably, consciousness emerges from the physical .. this has nothing to do with a soul.

 

[Thermal]

That's a strawman ! I don't believe a soul exists.


To say there is an immaterial soul is to say that consciousness is dependent of the physical world.

I don't say that

I say that probably, consciousness emerges from the physical .. this has nothing to do with a soul.

Welcome to the forum, MohamedTaqi. Get used to strawmen and posters pretending they don't understand you in this particular subforum.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Ah there is it is.

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

I said that consciousness is a product of neurons, the subjective phenomena we call "red' is produced by neurons firing in my brain.

And I said that we cannot know how that happens, because "a printer cannot fully print itself" and "consciousness cannot fully understand how it emerged"


he said : "My consciousness is a product of the neurons in my brain".

That was stupid of him, I know that consciousness is a product of neurons?

But How?

that is what I was talking about.. And he knows it.

And what is his answer : "You only want for there to be a soul"

Who said anything about a goddamn soul ?

 

[RedStapler]

That's a strawman ! I don't believe a soul exists.


To say there is an immaterial soul is to say that consciousness is dependent of the physical world.

I don't say that

I say that probably, consciousness emerges from the physical .. this has nothing to do with a soul.

You also say this:

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.

Stop pretending. You are trying to sneak in a soul without saying it directly.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Welcome to the forum, MohamedTaqi. Get used to strawmen and posters pretending they don't understand you in this particular subforum.

Thank you Therman ... Don't worry my friend, I adapt .

Best !

 

[RedStapler]

Welcome to the forum, MohamedTaqi. Get used to strawmen and posters pretending they don't understand you in this particular subforum.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

You also say this:



Stop pretending. You are trying to sneak in a soul without saying it directly.

You clearly have a problem.

 

[RedStapler]

You clearly have a problem.

Says the guy who comes to the web, claims:

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.

and never explains why his 'element' even had to exist. I said it multiple times already: You keep repeating and rewording your claim and never offer any thought about why we should take this claim seriously. "Because I think so" is a bit thin.

The most amusing part for me is this:

You did not create an account in a science forum to claim "Yeah, well, ok, the sun creates helium through fusing hydrogen under extreme pressure and temperatures but why? There has to be an element responsible for the fusing which we cannot comprehend"

Same goes for the sun seemingly rising but physically not rising at all. Do you lose sleep over this? Don't think so. Water changing it's properties at very low or very high temps? Yeah, me neither.

My point: There are literally thousands of phenomena in this universe which definitely appear odd, yet you and the philosophers don't start to scream about them. For some reason it's only the consciousness where this missing, well-hidden, property-less thingy MUST be hiding in plain sight and is only remotely tangible by citing some bloke who died 500 years ago

 

[MohamedTaqi]

I will restate what I said :

1) I said that our brain produces consciousness.

2) I said that we can never consciously imagine or know how it does that. Why ?!

3) Because , trying to trace what neurons do when producing consciousness, this attempt also involves the same conscious experience we are trying to explain : Just like a printer trying to print itself.

4) In doing so, we lose an element of knowledge , particularly the mechanism through which the firing of neurons translates into an inner subjective experience.

5) That element of knowledge is forever lost, forever unknowable.

6) This has nothing to do with a soul, because a soul is an immaterial substance that resides in our body and leaves it after death : I don't believe in such a thing. All I am saying is that our brain produces consciousness, and that we can never know how it does that : because the key to that is lost, we have a blindspot between the physics of the brain, and the emergence of consciousness.


I will ignore anything beyond what I said.

That's it.

 

[RedStapler]

I will restate what I said :

1) I said that our brain produces consciousness.

2) I said that we can never consciously imagine or know how it does that. Why ?!

3) Because , trying to trace what neurons do when producing consciousness, this attempt also involves the same conscious experience we are trying to explain : Just like a printer trying to print itself.

4) In doing so, we lose an element of knowledge , particularly the mechanism through which the firing of neurons translates into an inner subjective experience.

5) That element of knowledge is forever lost, forever unknowable.

6) This has nothing to do with a soul, because a soul is an immaterial substance that resides in our body and leaves it after death : I don't believe in such a thing. All I am saying is that our brain produces consciousness, and that we can never know how it does that : because the key to that is lost, we have a blindspot between the physics of the brain, and the emergence of consciousness.


I will ignore anything beyond what I said.

That's it.

What's wrong with you? I call you out for mindlessly repeating your claims over and over again and all you do is repeating your claims? Holy moly.



ETA:

Please comment on this:

You did not create an account in a science forum to claim "Yeah, well, ok, the sun creates helium through fusing hydrogen under extreme pressure and temperatures but why? There has to be an element responsible for the fusing which we cannot comprehend"

Same goes for the sun seemingly rising but physically not rising at all. Do you lose sleep over this? Don't think so. Water changing it's properties at very low or very high temps? Yeah, me neither.

My point: There are literally thousands of phenomena in this universe which definitely appear odd, yet you and the philosophers don't start to scream about them. For some reason it's only the consciousness where this missing, well-hidden, property-less thingy MUST be hiding in plain sight and is only remotely tangible by citing some bloke who died 500 years ago

 

[MohamedTaqi]

What's wrong with you? I call you out for mindlessly repeating your claims over and over again and all you do is repeating your claims? Holy moly.

Saying that something is unknowable, does not make it a soul my friend. I can repeat it if you don't get it.

ETA:

Please comment on this:

You did not create an account in a science forum to claim "Yeah, well, ok, the sun creates helium through fusing hydrogen under extreme pressure and temperatures but why? There has to be an element responsible for the fusing which we cannot comprehend"

Same goes for the sun seemingly rising but physically not rising at all. Do you lose sleep over this? Don't think so. Water changing it's properties at very low or very high temps? Yeah, me neither.

My point: There are literally thousands of phenomena in this universe which definitely appear odd, yet you and the philosophers don't start to scream about them. For some reason it's only the consciousness where this missing, well-hidden, property-less thingy MUST be hiding in plain sight and is only remotely tangible by citing some bloke who died 500 years ago

Yes, there is an element which we don't know ... what are the quantum fields , what is time and space through which all of this happens?

None of that we know for sure. The best we can say about quantum fields is that they are quantum fields and that they give rise to what we perceive as particles, when disturbed.

I see the fact that reality is unknowable and ungraspable fascinating ? It looks like a puzzle I cannot solve.

that's why I sleep at night, because I know I cannot solve it, no matter how hard I try.

There are questions with answers, and questions without answers. Nothing of this bothers me.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

I just can't believe how you are in a philosophy subforum , and not realize that the questions you hear from me, and from other members here, are expected.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

My point: There are literally thousands of phenomena in this universe which definitely appear odd, yet you and the philosophers don't start to scream about them. For some reason it's only the consciousness where this missing, well-hidden, property-less thingy MUST be hiding in plain sight and is only remotely tangible by citing some bloke who died 500 years ago

Yes, philosophers probe all those phenomena you are talking about :

What is time? what is matter? what is space? why is there something rather than nothing? all of these are questions in ontology, a branch of metaphysics.

They certainly don't ask how does Hydrogen turn into Helium, because physics answered that particular question.

But they ask what is the fundamental nature of reality? What is existence? and whether nothingness is logically possible or not?

These are questions that are as puzzling to philosophers as consciousness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I said that consciousness is a product of neurons, the subjective phenomena we call "red' is produced by neurons firing in my brain.

And I said that we cannot know how that happens, because "a printer cannot fully print itself" and "consciousness cannot fully understand how it emerged"

Yeah you said one true thing and then turn around and said some nonsense unrelated nonsense that directly contradicted the true thing you pretended to agree with.

I've played the...

Philosopher: "Oh I'm totally not saying that I don't think the the mind is a natural process..."

Me: "Wait for it. Wait for it..."

Philosopher: "But..."

Me: "There it is."

...game before.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I just can't believe how you are in a philosophy subforum , and not realize that the questions you hear from me, and from other members here, are expected.

Oh they are very expected, they just aren't valid.

This is a subform not a "Everyone agree with me and tell me how deep and wise I am" safe space.

Yes this is a philosophy subform. We have a Conspiracy Theory subforum as well and it's not a place for Conspiracy Theorists to spout off stuff unchallenged.

So you and everyone else sod off with the "Well if you don't want to talk philosophy why are you here?" arguments.

 

[RedStapler]

Yes, philosophers probe all those phenomena you are talking about :

What is time? what is matter? what is space? why is there something rather than nothing? all of these are questions in ontology, a branch of metaphysics.

They certainly don't ask how does Hydrogen turn into Helium, because physics answered that particular question.

But they ask what is the fundamental nature of reality? What is existence? and whether nothingness is logically possible or not?

These are questions that are as puzzling to philosophers as consciousness.

Intentionally missing my point once again. Repeating your claims. That's it for me. I tried.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, philosophers probe all those phenomena you are talking about :

What is time? what is matter? what is space? why is there something rather than nothing? all of these are questions in ontology, a branch of metaphysics.

They certainly don't ask how does Hydrogen turn into Helium, because physics answered that particular question.

But they ask what is the fundamental nature of reality? What is existence? and whether nothingness is logically possible or not?

These are questions that are as puzzling to philosophers as consciousness.

Okay.

The topic is the human brain. Why are you asking these questions here and not when talking about the heart pumping blood or the pancreas producing insulin?

That's the dishonest weaselness of Philosophy's "Hey were just asking questions here..." mentality. They pretend its just about esoteric questions but these existential crises only exists when certain topics come up.

Again because nobody looking for God or a Soul in the details we still don't understand of how the endocrine system works but they damn sure are looking for them in the details we still don't understand of how the brain works.

That's the difference and pretending you don't understand the difference is intellectually dishonest, not "looking at me being a deep ole' wise old man on the mountain."

 

[Robin]

Building a straw man and then getting really angry at the straw man and getting even angrier at the people who are pointing out that you are getting angry a straw man.

Makes sense.

 

[Robin]

This is a subform not a "Everyone agree with me and tell me how deep and wise I am" safe space.

No one is saying "Everyone agree with me and tell me how deep and wise I am"

No one is saying "Everyone agree with me and tell me how deep and wise I am"

Stop getting angry at your straw man

 

[abaddon]

Yes it is. Because whenever nonsense questions like "But what about the hard problem of consciousness" get asked it's always defended as "But it's philosophy."

Again do you actually have a problem with anything outside of the fact that I'm not showing proper reverence to philosophy? But I still have zero idea what you want from me.

Right.

It is rather simple. There is a crapton of rubbish "philosophy" bandied about as though it meant anything. And it is rightly rejected for the navel gazing BS that it really is.

There is plenty of valid philosophy about, but it appears to be in a minority in the philosophy field.
To demonstrate that, one only has to look at the charlatans who fall under the umbrella of "philosophy"

Deepak Chopra, David Wilcox, Jim Fetzer all fall under the umbrella of philosophy. And they are utter cranks. Yet they are philosophers.

OTOH, Dennet and Sagan also fall under that umbrella and are not cranks at all.

The fundamental problem is that the other sciences have tools to eliminate the cranks.

Philosophy has no such tools.

And absent such tools, it is not a science.

It is possible that some time in the future that philosophy will find some reliable method to separate the wheat from the chaff. But until philosophers come up with that, it remains "not a science".