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

[David Mo]

If science is not the only tool for investigating reality, what other ones are there?

Science=natural sciences?
Science includes human sciences also?
In any case: common sense, philosophy, art are alternative ways to knowledge.

 

[RedStapler]

Science=natural sciences?
Science includes human sciences also?
In any case: common sense, philosophy, art are alternative ways to knowledge.

Ok, please give a detailed explanation how "There HAS to be more to consciousness" is a way to knowledge.

 

[Robin]

Ok, please give a detailed explanation how "There HAS to be more to consciousness" is a way to knowledge.

Again, who said "There HAS to be more to consciousness" is a way to knowledge???

I have done a search and you seem to be the only person who has used those words.

So, please quote the person who said that.

Thanks.

 

[David Mo]

But under what odd regime does the fact that rules are not eternal mean that everything is allowed?

I didn't mention eternity.
But if you want to avoid the total arbitrariness of the resolution of conflicts between rules, you will have to provide a criterion that allows you to decide above them. This leads to the definition of an objective good or a convention that is accepted by all parties.

 

[David Mo]

I'll take that as a final refusal to answer the question. Let me remind you of the question:

That's a very absurd interpretation of my settlement offer. My offer was reciprocal. You're avoiding doing your part anyway. What are you afraid of?

 

[Robin]

What is the conclusion, and how do we know it's reasonable?

Dave

The conclusion is that theoretical reductionism is false and the reasoning is given in Fodor's “Special sciences, or the disunity of science as a working hypothesis”

In fact all that was really necessary was to clarify what theoretical reductionism would mean and the issue melts away.

I have never met anyone who will insist that theoretical reductionism is true.

Ontological reductionism, on the other hand is a matter for science.

The issue is important here because the OP basically says "Nagelian Reductionism is false therefore Materialism is false" and hence is rather straightforwardly a non-sequitur.

Materialism might depend on ontological reductionism, but not theoretical reductionism.

 

[David Mo]

"There HAS to be more to consciousness"

I don't understand the phrase. "More" what?

 

[Robin]

Tell me which premise you don't agree with, and we are done, instead of just repeating the same old story : "I hate such or such questions".

Premise 1 needs to be supported.

I don't see how you can argue about the whole based on properties of the parts.

It is like saying that if you cannot tell that a simple two particle system obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics then you cannot tell that a heat engine obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Bumping this again because it seems to be the only on-topic part of the discussion.

 

[Sideroxylon]

And yet, as we can see in this thread, philosophy allows a random person to claim "There HAS to be something more to consciousness" and when asked to just repeat the claim as if that would help.

So, you're wrong, again..

A random person (literally anyone) is given license to make unsupported metaphysical claims. Damn you philosophy.

•eyes skating about their sockets like deranged marbles*

 

[David Mo]

Again, who said "There HAS to be more to consciousness" is a way to knowledge???

Not me, of course.I don't even think that phrase refers to a method of knowing.
It seems to me that some people confuse philosophy with spiritism.

 

[shuttlt]

If science is not the only tool for investigating reality, what other ones are there?

Didn't Aristotle discuss whether the Universe could be infinitely old or infinitely vast? That sounds like investigating reality, but he certainly wasn't doing science in the sense of conducting experiments.

 

[shuttlt]

A random person (literally anyone) is given license to make unsupported metaphysical claims. Damn you philosophy.

•eyes skating about their sockets like deranged marbles*

Don't worry, pretty soon such posts will be autodeleted by our Silicon Valley overlords and only verified philosophical sources will be allowed.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Don't worry, pretty soon such posts will be autodeleted by our Silicon Valley overlords and only verified philosophical sources will be allowed.

I for one welcome our new microprocessor epistemological overlords.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Didn't Aristotle discuss whether the Universe could be infinitely old or infinitely vast? That sounds like investigating reality, but he certainly wasn't doing science in the sense of conducting experiments.

Observe what happens when sunbeams are admitted into a building and shed light on its shadowy places. You will see a multitude of tiny particles mingling in a multitude of ways... their dancing is an actual indication of underlying movements of matter that are hidden from our sight... It originates with the atoms which move of themselves [i.e., spontaneously]. Then those small compound bodies that are least removed from the impetus of the atoms are set in motion by the impact of their invisible blows and in turn cannon against slightly larger bodies. So the movement mounts up from the atoms and gradually emerges to the level of our senses so that those bodies are in motion that we see in sunbeams, moved by blows that remain invisible.​

Lucretius “On the Nature of Things” 60BC

Reading that one gets the blood pumping every time.

I will be in my bunk with some Cosmos clips of Carl Sagan on some Mediterranean island telling tales of Greek metaphysicians.

 

[RedStapler]

I don't understand the phrase. "More" what?

This is getting beyong ridiculous. How about you ask the person who made the claim? And by the way this is the current topic being talked about.
For someone who wants to be seen as the wise old man on the mountain you are having serious problems following the current topic...

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is getting beyong ridiculous. How about you ask the person who made the claim? And by the way this is the current topic being talked about.
For someone who wants to be seen as the wise old man on the mountain you are having serious problems following the current topic...

Look at all the baggage spilling out in this post.

 

[RedStapler]

Again, who said "There HAS to be more to consciousness" is a way to knowledge???

I have done a search and you seem to be the only person who has used those words.

So, please quote the person who said that.

Thanks.

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.

There you go. You could have found it yourself, if you put in some effort instead of barging into the thread and mindlessly flailing just to defend your precious philosophy.

Of course you will now apply the "he did not LITERALLY say 'there has to be more' therefore blablabla" defense..

 

[RedStapler]

Look at all the baggage spilling out in this post.

Look at the "philosopher" mindlessly flailing to defend his precioussssssssss.

 

[The Common Potato]

Such as "Are all facts about any phenomena reducible to facts about lower level principles?"

Sometimes stated "Is reductionism true?"

He asked for a method.

 

[Sideroxylon]

There you go. You could have found it yourself, if you put in some effort instead of barging into the thread and mindlessly flailing just to defend your precious philosophy.

Of course you will now apply the "he did not LITERALLY say 'there has to be more' therefore blablabla" defense..