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

[Bone_Vulture]

Please don't allow that to stop you communicating with me. 13 pages so far, everyone thinks I'm an idiot, yet they also are very anxious to communicate with me anyway.

For your information, Iacchus's "Does matter really exist?" thread spanned for 31 pages, so you're still a stretch from becoming the popular village idiot.

 

[Taffer]

Please don't allow that to stop you communicating with me. 13 pages so far, everyone thinks I'm an idiot, yet they also are very anxious to communicate with me anyway.

Oh dear, how terrible. Cry me a river.

A phrase the metaphysical behaviourist Gilbert Ryle's coined. Metaphysical behaviourists reject the existence of consciousness.

There is a "ghost "in" the machine" in the sense that there is more to a person than their bodies and their behaviour. There is also consciousness.

Wrong. That is the fallacy, Ian. Consciousness is no more a real thing then the colour purple is a real thing. All a person is is their body. Their body dictates behaviour, 'their' feeling of consciousness, everything.

That's true, it is no thing. But neitehr is it a process. A process such as a tap dripping, neurons firing or whatever is not itself conscious even though they arguably elicit consciousness.

Wrong. Once again you are making the fallacy of assuming consciousness is a thing. All there is is the process. The process does not generate consciousness, the process is consciousness. Do you understand now?

How do you know that consciousness is the result of physical processes. Perhaps such physical processes do not result in consciousness. Perhaps your consciousness is just a one off. Not that you know the appropriate physical processes occur in your brain anyway since presumably you have never seen the processes within your own brain.

Still trying this trick, I see. I can scan my own brain, using an MIR or something similar, and see the processes in my brain. I can take drugs, of known physcial properties that effect the brain in known physical ways, and experience a change in my consciousness. I can have someone, if I were brave enough, to physcially manipulate my living brain and my consciousness would change. If it were not a physical process, then this would not happen. I can make a scan of your brain. I can see the same processes...
Do I really need to continue to make you understand?

I don't know anything. I am terribly ignorant of all things.

I am sure there are many things of which you are not ignorant. This, however, is not one of them.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You did your best to address what was said in that post, I was refering to my comments in this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1383298&postcount=432

I should have provided a link to clarify I suppose, the term "last post" could require a bit of effort to discover in a large thread.

ETA: corrected link

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :

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"

Dawkins did not say it is impossible such worlds do not exist and no one is saying he said this. I am certainly not.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :

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" ?

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :

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?

Because to have knowledge does not entail certainty. If we used such a stringent criteria for knowledge, then absolutely nothing would constitute knowledge.

I can't be certain an unsupported object will fall when I release it. The physical laws of the Universe might have changed since I last released an object. Or more worryingly we are not certain whether the Universe existed in a concrete sense more than 15 minutes ago as it is possible that we simply all have mutually consistent false memories.

Therefore, according to you, I do not know something occurred 20 minutes ago even though it actually happened to me. Indeed everything we say we know, we don't in fact know. This certainly includes the whole of science. Indeed it includes absolutely everything.

If we start to use your definition of the word knowledge, then whenever one claims to know something, they are incorrect. We need to exercise a bit of commonsense here and not have such a stringent definition. Otherwise we may as well dispense with the word knowledge since we have the word "certainty" which means precisely the same thing according to you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's true, it is no thing. But neitehr is it a process. A process such as a tap dripping, neurons firing or whatever is not itself conscious even though they arguably elicit consciousness.

This is wordplay. A process that results in events that are given a name is not in itself that name. Neurons firing is not consciousness. Air moving about is not weather. Lots of kissing is not love. A concrete noun is not an abstract noun.

~~ Paul

 

[Jon.]

As I said, no-one ever seems to read my posts. I have already comprehensively refuted everything you have said.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1379330#post1379330

Interesting. You never answered my point that you had not even read the book, let alone took up my challenge to actually do so.

Until you read the book, everything you say about Dawkins' point is taken out of context. The book is the context. How can you put the point in context without reading the book?

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
A phrase the metaphysical behaviourist Gilbert Ryle's coined. Metaphysical behaviourists reject the existence of consciousness.

There is a "ghost "in" the machine" in the sense that there is more to a person than their bodies and their behaviour. There is also consciousness.

Taffer
Wrong. That is the fallacy, Ian. Consciousness is no more a real thing then the colour purple is a real thing.

That's true. Neither are things, but they are both real. They are both real true existents.

All a person is is their body.

No, in addition to the body there is also consciousness.

II
That's true, it is no thing. But neitehr is it a process. A process such as a tap dripping, neurons firing or whatever is not itself conscious even though they arguably elicit consciousness.

Taffer
Wrong. Once again you are making the fallacy of assuming consciousness is a thing. All there is is the process. The process does not generate consciousness, the process is consciousness. Do you understand now?

Indeed I do. I understand the reductive materialist position. What we call "consciousness" is simply a physical process. So we think we have various experiences, but in fact we do not because what we call consciousness is a physical process, not phenomenal experiences.

Perhaps you might object you don't mean this. That consciousness is a physical process in the sense that ther are 2 aspects to physical processes. The 3rd person aspect, or that aspect viewed from without (the tap dripping or neurons firing), and the subjective aspect, or that aspect viewed from within (raw experiences). Let me know if this is what you mean.

II
How do you know that consciousness is the result of physical processes. Perhaps such physical processes do not result in consciousness. Perhaps your consciousness is just a one off. Not that you know the appropriate physical processes occur in your brain anyway since presumably you have never seen the processes within your own brain.

Taffer
Still trying this trick, I see. I can scan my own brain, using an MIR or something similar, and see the processes in my brain. I can take drugs, of known physcial properties that effect the brain in known physical ways, and experience a change in my consciousness. I can have someone, if I were brave enough, to physcially manipulate my living brain and my consciousness would change. If it were not a physical process, then this would not happen.

Complete nonsense. This is equally explicable under interactionist dualism. That's why it's interactionist i.e not only can our consciousness affect the world through the exercise of our free will, but the physical world can affect our consciousness.

You said above. A physical process is literally one and the very same thing as a physical process. Therefore people are indeed "conscious" by definition since you can directly see these physical processes. But to me you're conflating the manifestation of consciousness with consciousness itself.

However I was referring to whether people are conscious in the sense of having experiences. That is to say they have certain characteristic experiences (qualia). They experience greenness, they experience love, they experience pain. That is to say there is more to pain than yelling "ouch" -- there is the raw expereince itself too.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The process does not generate consciousness, the process is consciousness.

Are you sure you want to say that? Consciousness is an umbrella term that we use for a bunch of internal experiences, or internal behaviors. Is it safe to say consciousness is an umbrella term for a set of brain processes?

Perhaps I'm picking nits. I've been doing that lately.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is wordplay. A process that results in events that are given a name is not in itself that name. Neurons firing is not consciousness. Air moving about is not weather.
~~ Paul

But your first example is completely different from your second example. Weather is nothing but lots of air moving about (well ok, rain and stuff as well, but you get my drift). But consciousness is not neurons firing. A hurricane is simply the sum of lots of air moving about. A hurricane is reducible to molecules of air moving, but consciousness is not reducible to neurons firing.

I'll be explaining all this in full on my website.

BTW love is certainly not reducible to lots of kissing. I think you're confusing fancying someone with love.

 

[Z]

You most certainly cannot! You cannot prove that other people are even conscious at all, nevermind they experience emotions! You have no reason to suppose that peoples' bodies are "inhabited" by consciousness since everything we ever do and say is, according to the materialist, due to physical laws.

Reductive materialists cannot hold that emotions exist. They cannot hold that consciousness exists (as I have argued elsewhere) therefore a fortiori they cannot show that emotions exist.

My god, what a total idiot.

Notice, gentle reader, how Ian assumes an immaterialist form of 'consciousness' to begin with. "You have no reason to suppose that peoples' bodies are 'inhabited' by consciousness"... in other words, that consciousness is the immaterial ghost in the machine.

Obviously, the truth is that Ian simply disagrees with a materialist definition of consciousness, that's all.

But the blindingly stupid thing said next... ? "Reductive materialists cannot hold that emotions exist." WTF???

Emotions are physical reactions within the body in response to various stimuli, mental states - which in turn are physical as well - etc. Emotions involve physiological arousal, reaction, etc. So why would any materialist hold that emotions do not exist?

Is it possible that Ian is simply the biggest dimwit genius on these fora?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But your first example is completely different from your second example. Weather is nothing but lots of air moving about (well ok, rain and stuff as well, but you get my drift). But consciousness is not neurons firing. A hurricane is simply the sum of lots of air moving about. A hurricane is reducible to molecules of air moving, but consciousness is not reducible to neurons firing.

Weather is an umbrella term for the results of a bunch of natural processes. I think we would make a mistake to say that it is an umbrella term for the processes themselves, but maybe I'm being overly pedantic. The same goes for consciousness and love. (I did not mean to say that kissing is the only event covered by the term love.)

On the other hand, perhaps distinguishing a set of processes from their results only causes dualistic confusion.

~~ Paul

 

[petre]

Dawkins did not say it is impossible such worlds do not exist and no one is saying he said this. I am certainly not.

I'll take that as a typo, and not intended to be a confusing double negative.

So, then you do not believe Narnia type worlds exist, but allow for the possibility.

Dawkins claims (in the adult world) that Narnia type worlds do not exist, without saying it is impossible such exist.

How are your views inconsistent again?

 

[Belz...]

You most certainly cannot! You cannot prove that other people are even conscious at all, nevermind they experience emotions! You have no reason to suppose that peoples' bodies are "inhabited" by consciousness since everything we ever do and say is, according to the materialist, due to physical laws.

How is consciousness incompatible with physical laws ? Are emotions a metaphysical thing ?

By your logic, it isn't even possible to prove that a table exists, or that gravity has a real effect. Do you even know what consciousness is ? You obviously don't know what materialism is.

Reductive materialists cannot hold that emotions exist. They cannot hold that consciousness exists (as I have argued elsewhere) therefore a fortiori they cannot show that emotions exist.

Idiotic. It's like saying that a certain world view is incompatible with gravity. Emotions obviously exist, and people are obviously self-aware. It's just a matter of finding out HOW. Why, just a few years back, volcanoes were unexplainable. Only people who WANT things to remain mysterious claim what you claim about consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

Please don't allow that to stop you communicating with me. 13 pages so far, everyone thinks I'm an idiot, yet they also are very anxious to communicate with me anyway.

ONE: I don't think you're an idiot. You're just clinging to antiquated beliefs.

TWO: Communicating with idiots is fun, if only because of the feeling of superiority it confers.

There is a "ghost "in" the machine" in the sense that there is more to a person than their bodies and their behaviour. There is also consciousness.

Which, for a materialist, comes back to saying that "there is NO more to a person than their bodies and their behaviour."

That's true, it is no thing. But neitehr is it a process. A process such as a tap dripping, neurons firing or whatever is not itself conscious even though they arguably elicit consciousness.

Yes, just like a magnet is not a magnetic field. The field still exists.

How do you know that consciousness is the result of physical processes. Perhaps such physical processes do not result in consciousness. Perhaps your consciousness is just a one off. Not that you know the appropriate physical processes occur in your brain anyway since presumably you have never seen the processes within your own brain.

I have never seen a molecule. That doesn't mean I don't believe in them.

I don't know anything. I am terribly ignorant of all things.

You're making progress.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Emotions are physical reactions within the body in response to various stimuli, mental states - which in turn are physical as well - etc.

No, emotions are certain characteristic experiences. They are not physical processes even though they are arguably generated by such processes.

And no, I do not assume that consciousness is non-physical. It's non-physical because it does not fulfill the criteria necessary to qualify as being physical.

I'll explain all on my website when I eventually complete it.

 

[Z]

As you can see, Gentle Reader, arguing with Ian is like playing Tetris. Patterns form, goals can be accomplished, but you always return to the start; and no matter how much fun it is, it gets old eventually.

 

[Belz...]

No, in addition to the body there is also consciousness.

You keep repeating that. But that does not make it so. Now, we KNOW that we seem self-aware. However, there is no evidence to lead us to believe that this is any distinct from our bodies. In fact, seeing as how things can affect my consciousness, I'd say it's very much physical. I'd even say that I cannot, for the life of me, see myself as something non-physical. My "mind" is very much physical, thank you.

Indeed I do. I understand the reductive materialist position. What we call "consciousness" is simply a physical process. So we think we have various experiences, but in fact we do not because what we call consciousness is a physical process, not phenomenal experiences.

"Experience" is just a term, Ian. How you can think this cannot arise from physical processes is beyond me.

Complete nonsense. This is equally explicable under interactionist dualism. That's why it's interactionist i.e not only can our consciousness affect the world through the exercise of our free will, but the physical world can affect our consciousness.

Well, the next time you affect the world through the direct exercise of your free will, tape it and send it to Randi. There's a million bucks in store for you.

You said above. A physical process is literally one and the very same thing as a physical process. Therefore people are indeed "conscious" by definition since you can directly see these physical processes. But to me you're conflating the manifestation of consciousness with consciousness itself.

I think you're just adding layers to make your babbling seem significant. Don't take that wrong, of course. That's just what philosophy is. That's why humanity moved on to SCIENCE.

I'll be explaining all this in full on my website.

Well, since you can't expect everyone to go there, I hope you'll at least give us a summary here. Don't expect me to roam the universe trying to understand the mind of Interesting Ian.

 

[Belz...]

No, emotions are certain characteristic experiences. They are not physical processes even though they are arguably generated by such processes.

This is like saying an image projected onto a screen is not a physical process.

And no, I do not assume that consciousness is non-physical. It's non-physical because it does not fulfill the criteria necessary to qualify as being physical.

Which are ? How can you say that since science considers everythint to be physical ?

I'll explain all on my website when I eventually complete it.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

 

[uruk]

I don't agree with this. Well, at least not completely. We know of nothing stopping different physical laws in different universes. In fact, we can imagine some of them right now, such as the mass of an electron being different, or the shape of water not being polar, which would drastically change the universe. I can see no reason why there might be universes where gravity doesn't work, or is reversed (something about universes in quantum foam comes to mind). However, we do not, and possibly cannot, have any direct evidence of other universes. Some quantum theories allow, and sometimes even require, possible alternate universes, but I have doubts over the possibility to reach them.

Well I guess there's nothing to say that a universe with out gravity is not possible. But from what we know stars, planets and so forth would not exist without gravity. There would be no force for which they could form.
That particular universe would be rather empty except for a relativly even distribution of subatomic particles. As far we would know.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well I guess there's nothing to say that a universe with out gravity is not possible. But from what we know stars, planets and so forth would not exist without gravity.

If gravity doesn't exist but all other physical laws remain the same then stars, planets etc would not exist.

True but so what?

I think the original point I made was to suppose that we have an entirely different set of physical laws, or no laws at all i.e the Universe is wholly random and chaotic.

 

[uruk]

I haven't the slightest clue. It's just mathematical likelihood, like saying there is probably life on some other planets out there.

I think the possibility of life on other plantes is more probable than the existance of other universes. Plus we actually have a better chance of detecting extraterrestial life then we do of detecting another universe.
I'm not saying by any means there is no possibility of other universers, just that it is only a possibilty untill we can actually detect it.

I don't know. I don't know what it would be without stars... how molecules, or whatever, would form. I don't know how to define "life" on broad enough a scale to encompass different physical laws, and I don't know how many different parameters are involved, here.

All I'm saying is that, since we don't have a clue, really, we can't say with any certainty WHAT such a universe would be like.

I understand. We can only say that with the laws the way they are in our universe, planets, stars and soforth are possible. It just seemed to me that it is justifiable to assume that if there are stars, planets and soforth that other universe it would have to (in the least) have laws similar to ours.