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

[xjx388]

We have perhaps billions of data points of coorelation between personal testimony of subjective experience with specific brain structures . . . with not even a wild hunch of a causal explanation of how it might happen. We hear magic talk like consciousness is a computation or emergent property.

It’s similar to a question I’ve thought about before: take a single-cell organism like an amoeba. There is a difference between the dead amoeba and the living amoeba. We can’t really define that difference outside of the observation of cessation of cellular processes. But what was “animating” the amoeba when it was alive? What exactly changed between life and death?

That’s the way I see the consciousness question. The answer right now is: I don’t know. What I do know is that it seems to be the result of physical processes. We can’t replicate those processes right now. But I see no reason why we can’t eventually, given enough time and advances in technology. I think, one day, we will be able to revive dead cells, create life and create an artificial consciousness.

The only way we wouldn’t be able to do that is if there was something supernatural, metaphysical and beyond our ability to manipulate. Something that science can’t touch or understand. Something we are intertwined with but also completely separate from.

Can we rule out the metaphysical? No. But science has carried on as if it doesn’t exist. Evidence is king and if you can’t detect it, it doesn’t matter.

 

[Sideroxylon]

*Head desk* You don't get to define yourself as "Every possible way of thinking" and then take credit for every possible way of thinking.

What goddamn "Oh but a philosopher invented logic!" gotcha are you shooting for here?

Please, someone, anyone explain this "Aha! You fell into my clever trap! Everything is philosophy!" retort I keep getting various versions of.

It's like standing over someone's hospital bed after they got run through a carbine harvester pointing out that the life support machine keeping them alive is also "a type of machine."

Philosophers while doing philosophy constructed logic as we know it. I wouldn’t be reading your erudite posts without Frege’s contributions in particular.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophers while doing philosophy constructed logic as we know it. I wouldn’t be reading your erudite posts without Frege’s contributions in particular.

Again you can't take credit for everything just by defining yourself as everything. The "Everything is philosophy, therefore your argument is philosophy, therefore you can't say anything bad about philosophy" routine is getting old.

Again you just ran over little Timmy with your car and your response is to argue that the ambulance coming is also a type of vehicle.

Stripped of all the language your argument is that good methods of determining the truth aren't allowed to say anything about bad methods of determining the truth because they are both methods of determining a the truth. That's patently absurd. If like it saying 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are both "kinds of math" so neither of them is wrong.

I get it, you want to drag this down into "Okay now we have to define philosophy, and then we get to define good vs bad philosophy" weeds because you don't actually have a point, you have a chip on your shoulder.

As I said it before. I use the term "philosophy" to describe nonsense because whenever people get called on spouting nonsense they always defend it a vague, generic "But I'm doing philosophy." Jabba was doing philosophy. When what's his face was out beyond the event horizon of the formless, he was doing philosophy. The timecube guy was doing philosophy.

I won't get baited into the hairsplitting weeds of defining the term more the the people using it as an excuse do.

You see red everytime I call it philosophy? Good. Get over it or stop using the term to defend everything.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

The "Everything is philosophy, therefore your argument is philosophy, therefore you can't say anything bad about philosophy" routine is getting old.

It is getting old. And you're the only one posting it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is getting old. And you're the only one posting it.

I most certainly am not.

"Oh you're using logic. Well what if told you HA YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD that logic was discovered by a philosopher what do you say about that smart guy" is literally the argument being presented at em.

Alchemist invented chemistry and astrologers invented astronomy. We don't keep using achlemy and astrology (well most of us).

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I most certainly am not.

"Oh you're using logic. Well what if told you HA YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD that logic was discovered by a philosopher what do you say about that smart guy" is literally the argument being presented at em.

Why are you trying to change to another statement?

The "routine" I quoted you as saying was getting old was people making the following argument:

"Everything is philosophy, therefore your argument is philosophy, therefore you can't say anything bad about philosophy"

If it's getting old, surely you should be able to quickly post a few examples.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Philosophers while doing philosophy constructed logic as we know it.

I'd say it goes well beyond that. Logic is actually a branch of philosophy.

 

[LarryS]

"Therefore soul."

Typical strawman (with a nosh of non sequitor) response of the dumb-founded. Surprised you didn't throw in a 'word salad'

 

[Thermal]

I'd say it goes well beyond that. Logic is actually a branch of philosophy.

If I remember correctly, philosophy is defined as 'the right way of thinking about things'. Doctorates in Philosophy and all that. Seems a stretch to condemn it as mysticism or whatever the current scarecrow is.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'd say it goes well beyond that. Logic is actually a branch of philosophy.

Baby steps here.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

I wanted to stop here, but let me reply to Norseman.

You want to philosophize about consciousness, great! Knock yourself out.

If you really want to find how consciousness arises from matter, you have to use the language of physics which is actually mathematics

I am not philosophizing about consciousness, I am just saying we cannot know what it is. I am not sure mathematics can give you a full description of what red looks like, just from how neurons work .

Sorry but this is gibberish.

I wanted to say that if you want to prove something, you assume the opposite and see if it leads to a contradiction. This is called : Reductio ad Absurdum.

They did not call it "gibberish".

Interesting. Using the scientific method, one actually does presume "it doesn't work" and even has a handy term for that presumption called "the null hypothesis." But they don't simply stop there with the scientific method. Perhaps that's why problems actually get solved in science and never get solved in philosophy.

Problems are not meant to be solved in philosophy. Philosophy's main role is to know the right questions to ask, and how to present sound arguments for one's views.

Science provides solution, philosophy provides right questions.

I am satisfied with questions, we simply don't know what it is, and we probably won't know. That's it ... is this certain? I don't know.

Why?

Why wouldn't you assume Trump doesn't exist and then try to explain what's going on? Heck, I actually do this (I guess you'd then say I'm doing philosophy right?) in order to test my own mental ideas of how I see reality working and how that may apply to government and aspects of social behavior.

Ask yourself why don't you get involved in argument about his existence when you hear one of his speeches on TV.

If you want to question his existence in philosophy, be my guest, you can open a new thread about how to argue for or against the idea that other people exist.

Really? Did you do that prior to posting? I honestly don't recall. How about other threads or other posters in this thread? Shouldn't these other philosophers know of and wish to follow these rules too?

I don't have to , the title of this thread already defined the Universe of discourse : consciousness and materialism.

It didn't ask whether trump exists or not. Trump is a subject in Politics, not here.

"What is the nature of consciousness" -- what does this question mean, exactly? Define your terms, please.

What is the nature of consciousness : as in "is it material or is it a only a product of the material?".

Is panpsychism true? and if that is the case , can we ever know. And that kind of questions regarding consciousness.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

1. Two "L"s not one, if you going to argue through name dropping at least get it right.

Two 't's. One 'l'. Gottlob.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You see red everytime I call it philosophy? Good. Get over it or stop using the term to defend everything.

But the real question is: can you explain the redness of the red he sees when you call it philosophy.

 

[RedStapler]

I am not philosophizing about consciousness, I am just saying we cannot know what it is.

Philosophy's main role is to know the right questions to ask, and how to present sound arguments for one's views.

When can we expect a sound argument for the first highlite?

 

[Steve]

But the real question is: can you explain the redness of the red he sees when you call it philosophy.

Even philosophy cannot explain that.

 

[Robin]

And I think you're demonstrably wrong. There is no "is/ought" dichotomy or whatever it's called, just as there is no "hard problem of consciousness."

I didn't say there was an "is/ought" dichotomy, did I?

I don't think there is an "is/ought" dichotomy, that is nothing to do with what I said.

There is no "ought" at all, other than the conditional "ought", such as "if you want X then you ought to do Y", which is simply equivalent to saying "Y is a way of achieving X"

There is no reason at all to think there is an objective fact of the matter about what is right or wrong, it just comes down to what you want or don't want.

If you think I am demonstrably wrong then please go ahead and demonstrate a method of telling the objective fact of the matter about whether an action is right or wrong.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'd say it goes well beyond that. Logic is actually a branch of philosophy.

A whole field of human knowledge not derived from or in need of support from the scientific method. One that underpins the computing revolution. Golly!

 

[Robin]

*Head desk* You don't get to define yourself as "Every possible way of thinking" and then take credit for every possible way of thinking.

What goddamn "Oh but a philosopher invented logic!" gotcha are you shooting for here?

Maybe it would be better to think things through, rather than giving a knee jerk emotional reaction to everything.

I didn't think it was controversial that the pioneers of formalised logic were figures like Aristotle and Chrysippus and that they were philosophers.

If you dispute this can you provide the details?

 

[Robin]

I know, rite?! Or when other posters make several claims to "start a new thread" about "hating on philosophy" or who make several more statements about how their posts are the only on-topic posts and everyone elses were inappropriate by implication.

So complaining about derails and suggesting that a new thread is started for a new topic is somehow authoritarian now???

 

[Robin]

Not mine.

Roughly thirty years ago, I was teaching microprocessor tech in a private college.

A colleague was teaching C programming in other classes.

Anyhoo, in conversation in the staff room it emerged that his primary degree was philosophy.

So I had to ask the obvious question. "You got a degree in philosophy and ended up teaching programming? How did that happen?"

And his answer was "Philosophy has never put food on anyone's table. I wanted to do something real."

We became friends and had many philosophical discussions. He was a genuinely good bloke. IMHO, he understood where the border between philosophical navel gazing and reality began and ended.

I only ever once saw him get angry, and it was exactly because of threads like this in a different context. I mean real life discussions with a clone of a number of philosophy proponents on here.

The guy never got bent out of shape in any way over any issue. Except when it came to the matter of the pronouncements of the many pretend philosophers. Then he went postal.

Well, TBH, thirty years have passed and I see exactly what so offended him all those years ago. Right now.

What exactly offended him?

The fact that the great unwashed discussed philosophical matters at all?

Or that not all of these discussions were of a high standard?

I don't understand. In discussions like this do we expect a consistent high standard?

The contributions from the anti-philosophy brigade here have not exactly sparkled with intellectual brilliance either.