• 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

Roger Ramjets said:
And drugs. Another great alternative way to 'knowledge'.
Click to expand...

The use of drugs in the history of human civilisation is a fascinating thing. How did they contribute to the understandings of ourselves and the world around us?

But that word put in scare quotes, “knowledge.” What approaches would we take to thoroughly explore what that word means?
 
Last edited:
RedStapler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually I have attacked philosophy quite a lot in this forum. But I have done it with reference to what philosophy actually does instead of attacking a daft straw man the way you do.

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

Long story short no one said what you claimed they said.

And now you are going to try to defend your inaccurate paraphrasing by attacking me.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Actually I have attacked philosophy quite a lot in this forum. But I have done it with reference to what philosophy actually does instead of attacking a daft straw man the way you do.



Long story short no one said what you claimed they said.

And now you are going to try to defend your inaccurate paraphrasing by attacking me.
Click to expand...

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

Called it. :rolleyes:

Can I assume you will now start to quibble that his claims are totally not that there has to be more to consciousness?
 
Last edited:
RedStapler said:
Posting funny pictures= I admit my mindless flailing. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
OK, so you are admitting that your funny picture of rolling eyes = you admit your mindless flailing.

We are making progress after all.
 
Robin said:
OK, so you are admitting that your funny picture of rolling eyes = you admit your mindless flailing.

We are making progress after all.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between posting only a funny picture and some picture and text.

But I see you are also out for cheap gotchas only. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
RedStapler said:
There is a difference between posting only a funny picture and some picture and text.

But I see you are also out for cheap gotchas only. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Posting some mindless flailing text with the funny picture makes it better?

Your only position is "Philosophy makes me angry for some reason".

Of course you will now apply the "I did not LITERALLY say 'Philosophy makes me angry for some reason' therefore blablabla" defense..
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Posting some mindless flailing text with the funny picture makes it better?

Your only position is "Philosophy makes me angry for some reason".

Of course you will now apply the "I did not LITERALLY say 'Philosophy makes me angry for some reason' therefore blablabla" defense..
Click to expand...

There is a reason for this anger. You knew if you had chosen to read the thread instead of barging in in the middle just because you wanted to rush to philosophys rescue

But I guess cheap gotchas is all you got :rolleyes:
 
RedStapler said:
There is a reason for this anger. You knew if you had chosen to read the thread instead of barging in in the middle just because you wanted to rush to philosophys rescue
Click to expand...
My first post was #28. Current post #933. Funny idea of "middle".
 
Anyway, away from the derails and back to the topic. Maybe those who want to tell us how much they hate philosophy could get themselves a thread of their own, it is difficult to keep track of this with the noise.

MohamedTaqi said:
Premise 1 : IF you cannot know that a simple system is not conscious just by observing it , THEN you cannot know that a complex system is conscious by observing it.

Premise 2 : You cannot know that a simple system (two atoms) is not conscious by observing it.

Conclusion : Therefore, you cannot know that a complex system is conscious by observing it.
Click to expand...
From now on, I will ignore anything that does not address this argument. My argument's sole purpose is to show that consciousness is forever unknown for us, we can never explain this phenomenon, in other words, we can never infer the quality of an experience just from looking at neurons.

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".
Click to expand...

My response:
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
Click to expand...
 
Robin said:
Premise 1 needs to be supported
Click to expand...

And what made you think I claim something else? :confused:

ETA:

Guy claims that there has to be more to consciousness, I ask him to explain how and what and why, he repeats that there has to be more to consciousness. And somehow to you it looked like I'm "angry for some reasons"...
 
Last edited:
RedStapler said:
And what made you think I claim something else? :confused:
Click to expand...
The post is addressed to MohamedTaqi, not you. I am just bumping it because all of the noise has put the on-topic stuff pages back.

As I said, why don't you start a "I hate philosophy" thread if you want to keep on with this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom