How do we know that places like Narnia do not exist?

[Belz...]

None of this gives any indication whatsoever that mind is a function of the brain.

What you're trying to argue is that consciousness, the self, and the mind are a product of the brain.

Tis true that this data gives evidence that mind/self/consciousness is a product of the brain. No argument from me there.

But it does not give any evidence, any suggestion, that mind is a function of the brain.

Is anybody aside from you stupid ? You keep calling everyone else stupid and then refuse to listen to what anybody else has to say. It seems to me that, for you, thought has more weight than evidence simply because you WANT to believe in a disproven idea.

 

[juninho]

How do you know you live there and that it isn't your consciousness giving an illusion of being in Thornaby but in reality you are standing naked in Leicester square with a big 'I am twat' sign around your neck ?

Believe me, because he comes from Thornaby, the 'I am (a) twat' sign is superfluous.

 

[Lothian]

Believe me, because he comes from Thornaby, the 'I am (a) twat' sign is superfluous.

Indeed the smog has gone to his head.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Qualia freak.

Yes I am. Very much so. The physical world consists of absolutely nothing else apart from qualia.

 

[Correa Neto]

Or qualia are a way to interpret the world?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Oops. You got thrashed again, didn't you Ian. This happens with a great degree of regularity. Does this tell you anything?
Actually, it was. I feel more educated now.

PixyMisa simply doesn't understand anything about philosophy. I have been arguing with him for 2 years now and he just doesn't understand anything whatsoever.

And BTW neither do you. If there were any doubt in this conclusion it is laid to rest in your contention that PixyMisa and Stimpson have ever managed to outargue me.

To tell you the truth, regarding the subject matter of materialism, I don't think anyone has the remotest idea what I'm talking about. Everybody still makes the schoolboy mistake of supposing that if brains elicit consciousnes, that materialism is by definition true. This demonstrates that they do not understand what materialism actually means. The hypothesis that brains elicit consciousness is perfectly compatible with dualism, indeed even interactive dualism. It is even compatible with a "life after death" in the form of reincarnation (although of course I do not believe that brains elicit consciousness). Actually reincarnation is even compatible with materialism. But I digress.

I'll complete my website. I would be pleased if you went to the trouble of reading it because I am attempting to explain myself as clearly as I possibly can on it. If after reading it you still think I'm stupid, then so be it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Or qualia are a way to interpret the world?

The qualia, what we experience through the 5 main senses, is already interpreted -- think of perceptual illusions.

 

[Belz...]

For Jesus's sake, learn some philosophy. That goes for the author of the article too.

Philosophy ? What the... oh, yes. That old, useless thing.

Edited to add: Oh! Now he's changed his mind yet again.

Gunderscored forbid! Someone who changes his mind. Ian's worst nightmare.

Necessarily if one rejects the existence of qualia, they reject the existence of any consciousness (including their own).

Even if that were true, it does not follow that qualia are not explainable in materialistic terms.

Irreducible? Well they certainly can't be reduced no. I don't define them that way, it's just a fact about them.

Facts ? You know this 100% ?

Materialism necessarily entails consciousness doesn't exist. But it does exist. Therefore materialism cannot possibly be a correct characterisation of reality.

How absolutely ignorant of you. Read the damn link instead of complaining about its length.

Anyway I can't be bothered to talk about this. You're completely off your trolley. You are an utterly stupid individual and I simply have no interest in talking to you. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

You're on ignore.

Of course, Ian. No one who disagrees with you could possibly be smart.

I should spend my time writing it up for my website where I explain myself in detail rather then wasting my time on here on a patchy job where no one understands what I'm talking about.

Yep, that's what I thought.

 

[Z]

I really can't be bothered to discuss this subject. I'm writing about it extensively for my website which I haven't contributed to for about 2 months. If people wish I can paste in what I've put so far on this particular issue (certainly not the 8,000 words I've done so far, just part of it). But I'm not going to discuss it on here. I should spend my time writing it up for my website where I explain myself in detail rather then wasting my time on here on a patchy job where no one understands what I'm talking about.

Translation:

Having been thoroughly trounced yet again, I will run away to my website, which can't talk back, can't prove me wrong, and can't challenge my bubble world of idiotic notions.

Or...

Nya! Nya! Nya! I can't hear you!!!

 

[Belz...]

And BTW neither do you. If there were any doubt in this conclusion it is laid to rest in your contention that PixyMisa and Stimpson have ever managed to outargue me.

The fact that you never give anyone an inch or ever change your own opinions does not mean that you are right.

To tell you the truth, regarding the subject matter of materialism, I don't think anyone has the remotest idea what I'm talking about.

By simple force of numbers, I should think it more likely that YOU are the source of the confusion.

This demonstrates that they do not understand what materialism actually means.

Seeing as how you misrepresent it, yourself, I don't think you understand it at all.

 

[Taffer]

*sigh*

II threads are like black holes, even from which Taffer cannot escape.

II: Since consciousness can be explained by simple materialistic concepts, and you are the one trying to prove them wrong, do you have any actual evidence to support your claims?

Opps, wait a second, I almost forgot who I was talking to.

Never mind.

 

[petre]

All from the same post:

I am not saying that we can interpret Dawkins as saying it is impossible that such worlds exist.

So, Ian states that he[Ian] does not claim that it is his[Ian's] interpretation that Dawkins claims that "it is impossible that such worlds exist"

Yes it does seem to be that Dawkins is giving a definitive statement that Narnia type worlds do not exist, or in other words we know that they do not exist (but not know with certainty or that it is impossible such worlds could exist).

So Dawkins claims that it is definitive that Narnia type worlds do not exist, without certainty. So his interpretation of Dawkins statement is "Narnia type worlds definately don't exist, probably" ?

So, it appears to be he is giving a definitive statement that none of these type of things exist. This equates to a statement of knowledge.

You forgot to add that he's not certain. And if he's not certain, how can it be a statement of knowledge?

Perhaps Ian's interpretation of the original statement is something like: "No Narnia type worlds exist, though I agree that there's a slim chance they might, but I'm going to claim definitively they don't anyway"

So, apart from Dawkins true belief about the matter, does your interpretation of the statement itself leave for the possibility of the existance of such worlds, and if so what then are you arguing against?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Everybody still makes the schoolboy mistake of supposing that if brains elicit consciousnes, that materialism is by definition true.

Huh? I don't make that mistake, so your universal statement is false.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

PixyMisa simply doesn't understand anything about philosophy. I have been arguing with him for 2 years now and he just doesn't understand anything whatsoever.

I've been watching. And before him I watched you debate Stimpy. It was quite clear to almost everybody here who understood whom.

And BTW neither do you. If there were any doubt in this conclusion it is laid to rest in your contention that PixyMisa and Stimpson have ever managed to outargue me.

LOL. Yes, I've been around long enough to be called "stupid" by you a few times as well. So where Pixy and Stimpy countered and smashed your every contention while you repeated or contradicted yourself, actually you were winning? Is that what you mean by dualism?

To tell you the truth, regarding the subject matter of materialism, I don't think anyone has the remotest idea what I'm talking about. Everybody still makes the schoolboy mistake of supposing that if brains elicit consciousnes, that materialism is by definition true. This demonstrates that they do not understand what materialism actually means. The hypothesis that brains elicit consciousness is perfectly compatible with dualism, indeed even interactive dualism. It is even compatible with a "life after death" in the form of reincarnation (although of course I do not believe that brains elicit consciousness). Actually reincarnation is even compatible with materialism. But I digress.

Sure, reincarnation could be compatible with materialism, but of course, the disembodied soul would have to be a material thing, something that even the wildest of woos avoid saying.

Anything is compatible with anything else, provided you are allowed to change the definitions. But then, you know that, don't you?

I'll complete my website. I would be pleased if you went to the trouble of reading it because I am attempting to explain myself as clearly as I possibly can on it. If after reading it you still think I'm stupid, then so be it.

The only thing your website will do is to allow your ranting to be uninterrupted. Most of us have seen your act by now. I don't expect any fresh material from you just because you've moved to a new stage. But I will miss you. As I say, I've learned a lot from your threads, thanks to those who take the time to answer you.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Sure, reincarnation could be compatible with materialism, but of course, the disembodied soul would have to be a material thing, something that even the wildest of woos avoid saying.

No i didn't mean that. If we have souls, or more accurately are souls, then it seems to me to be unreasonable to suppose they are physical.

What I meant was to suppose that the materialism that you guys believe in is true. Reincarnation is certainly possible because it would necessarily follow that if some person living sometime in the future after you had died happens to have a very similar brain to you now, then by definition he would be the reincarnation of you.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Huh? I don't make that mistake, so your universal statement is false.

~~ Paul

Yes, you're the only exception I can think of at the moment.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes I am. Very much so. The physical world consists of absolutely nothing else apart from qualia.

Interesting Ian,
I've always taken you to be asserting that
1. qualia exist, and
2. the physical world does not exist.

But it's hard to see how the constituents of the physical world can exist when the physical world itself doesn't. So where do you stand on 1 and 2?

 

[Correa Neto]

The qualia, what we experience through the 5 main senses, is already interpreted -- think of perceptual illusions.

The brain creates qualia by proccessing data acquired by our senses and the data that is stored within it. In other words, qualia are created by interactions of the brain with the physical world, right?

Sounds a bit different from the statement

The physical world consists of absolutely nothing else apart from qualia.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What I meant was to suppose that the materialism that you guys believe in is true. Reincarnation is certainly possible because it would necessarily follow that if some person living sometime in the future after you had died happens to have a very similar brain to you now, then by definition he would be the reincarnation of you.

WTF? Sometimes I just don't understand you, Ian.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

No i didn't mean that. If we have souls, or more accurately are souls, then it seems to me to be unreasonable to suppose they are physical.

I don't see then how this could be compatible with materialism.

What I meant was to suppose that the materialism that you guys believe in is true. Reincarnation is certainly possible because it would necessarily follow that if some person living sometime in the future after you had died happens to have a very similar brain to you now, then by definition he would be the reincarnation of you.

I don't know of anyone here who would agree that a person with a similar brain to you would be "by definition" the reincarnation of you. That is downright silly. Suppose two people with very similar brains are living contemporaneously? Are they the reincarnatioins of each other, only without the nasty dying part? No, that is simply a ludicrous proposition. Even if we casually speak of, for example, Bono being the reincarnation of Beethoven, no-one takes that literally.