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

PixyMisa said:
No.

Consciousness is real.

Qualia are a construct of immaterialism or dualism, and have no meaning at all under materialism. They are certainly not required for consciousness.
Click to expand...

Consciousness and qualia are one and the very same thing.

Qualia is consciousness.

Consciousness is qualia.

They are different names for precisely the same existent.

Philosophers introduced the word "qualia" because scientists and skeptics were defining consciousness as certain brain activity.

You see?

;)
 
PixyMisa said:
Ian, I don't see how it is possible to read my posts and come to the conclusion that I agreed with you. I really don't. Could you explain?
Click to expand...

You agreed that if consciousness exists (qualia) then materialism is by definition false.

This is indeed the case :)
 
Interesting Ian said:
Consciousness and qualia are one and the very same thing.
Click to expand...
No.

Qualia is consciousness.
Click to expand...
No.

Consciousness is qualia.
Click to expand...
No.

They are different names for precisely the same existent.
Click to expand...
No.

Philosophers introduced the word "qualia" because scientists and skeptics were defining consciousness as certain brain activity.
Click to expand...
Not quite. We have been pointing out that all observable aspects or effects of consciousness are directly tied to brain activity, and that we therefore have very good reason to believe that consciousness is generated by brain activity.

Qualia were invented as a denial of this, based on no evidence whatsoever.
 
Interesting Ian said:
You agreed that if consciousness exists (qualia) then materialism is by definition false.
Click to expand...
No.

I said that if qualia were to exist, then materialism would be false, because qualia are defined that way.

I added that there is no reason to believe that qualia exist, or even that it is a meaningful concept.

You ignored that part.

This is indeed the case :)
Click to expand...
And your evidence for the existence of qualia is?
 
PixyMisa said:
Originally Posted by Belz... :
I prefer this link, myself:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

Great link. One of the things I've argued with Ian (and others) about is that its the failure modes of the brain that give us our best evidence that mind is brain function.

Only problem is that some of those failure modes give me the creeps. Permanent severe anterograde amnesia - eeek! :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

I haven't read that link. But it seems rather lengthy. Could you quote the bits that you agree with? Could you also elaborate on why you agree with these extracts? I promise you I will respond to them. If they convince me that I am in error I give you my absolute word that I will concede this. If they don't convince me I'm in error I shall do my best to explain why.

Honestly.
 
Interesting Ian said:
I haven't read that link. But it seems rather lengthy. Could you quote the bits that you agree with? Could you also elaborate on why you agree with these extracts? I promise you I will respond to them. If they convince me that I am in error I give you my absolute word that I will concede this. If they don't convince me I'm in error I shall do my best to explain why.

Honestly.
Click to expand...
I'd be delighted to! :)

As I said, it covers one of the areas that provides us with our strongest evidence for a material basis for consciousness, and all in one neat bundle, not requiring me to run back and fourth to various sources.

Would you like to continue here, or start another thread?
 
I'm half-way through that article, and have yet to find anything I disagree with. I would suggest that you read the whole thing, but we can take it a piece at a time if you insist.
 
WOW! I've just read the first 2 paragraphs -- all of 4 sentences. Sorry, the guy hasn't got a F**king clue!

I mean really!

OK let's give the poor guy a chance.
 
PixyMisa said:
I'm half-way through that article, and have yet to find anything I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this is because your stupidity is beyond all measure.

I would suggest that you read the whole thing, but we can take it a piece at a time if you insist.
Click to expand...


Certainly.

First of all this does not follow:

the mind is not separate from the brain, but that it arises from and is produced by neural activity within the brain. Simply stated, the mind is what the brain does.
Click to expand...

The fact (if it is indeed a fact) that the mind or consciousness arises from the brain, gives absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that the mind is what the brain does.

I've only read up to that point, but this strongly suggests that this guy simply has no idea, whatsoever, what he's talking about.
 
The thing is, Ian, he gives a short introduction to why he thinks mind is brain function, followed by reams of evidence backing this up.

Let's do the opposite; let's begin with some evidence and work towards the conclusion.

Let's start with amnesia. And remember, this is just one of dozens of examples presented; others provide considerably stronger evidence, but we'll build up to those.

The best-known type of amnesia is the inability to remember past events due to a blow on the head or some other brain trauma. This condition is known to neurologists as retrograde amnesia, and in most cases is transient, encompassing only the most recent memories and lasting only a brief period of time. However, the type this essay will deal with is less well-known and more severe in its repercussions: anterograde amnesia, the inability to form new memories.
Click to expand...
Sufferers from anterograde amnesia cannot form new memories. They retain access to things they already know, but anything new simply falls out of their world in the space of a few minutes.

In 1985, a professional musician named Clive Wearing fell ill with a severe case of encephalitis - a viral infection that attacked his brain, producing inflammation and substantial brain damage. With the aid of modern medicine, he survived and made a recovery, but it soon became apparent that he had not survived unscathed. [His] hippocampi had been destroyed, leaving him with a permanent case of total anterograde amnesia.
Click to expand...
Note that this was caused by physical damage to the brain. Let's look at the effects:

Superficially, Wearing seems unchanged. His emotions are intact, as are his intellectual and rational faculties, and his musical abilities are unaffected. He still recognizes his wife and greets her with happiness and affection when he sees her, and he can still play the piano or harpsichord with all the skill he had before his illness. But something about him is deeply and fundamentally wrong. So dense is his amnesia that he can literally remember nothing from more than a few minutes before, and as a result, he continually believes that he has only just recovered consciousness.
Click to expand...
Wearing is stuck in an eternal Now. Nothing that happens to him leaves any permanent effect. He is aware; he is fully conscious, but:

He fills his journal with pages and pages of the same entry, repeated endlessly: "Now I am completely awake, for the first time in years".
Click to expand...
That's what you'd expect, but then it gets scary:

He does not recognize or remember making any earlier entries, denies being the author if asked, and rapidly becomes angry if it is pointed out that they are in his handwriting.
Click to expand...
This is all obvious and straightforward when you consider mind to be brain function. But if your are an Idealist or a Dualist, it is bizarre and inexplicable. But it is very real, and there are quite a few cases similar to Wearings.

How can this happen, if mind is not a function of the physical brain?
 
The next paragraph:

As a practical matter, it should be easy to judge between dualism and materialism, because unlike most religious doctrines, the notion of the soul is an idea that would seem to have testable consequences. Specifically, if the human mind is the product of a "ghost in the machine" and not the result of electrochemical interactions among neurons, then the mind should not be dependent on the configuration of the brain that houses it. In short, there should be aspects of the mind that owe nothing to the physical functioning of the brain.
Click to expand...

Jesus! What a load of complete and unadulterated *****!

Ummmm . . . is this author being serious?? :confused:

I'm seriously impressed with the awesome stupidity.
 
PixyMisa said:
The thing is, Ian, he gives a short introduction to why he thinks mind is brain function, followed by reams of evidence backing this up.

Let's do the opposite; let's begin with some evidence and work towards the conclusion.

Let's start with amnesia. And remember, this is just one of dozens of examples presented; others provide considerably stronger evidence, but we'll build up to those.


Sufferers from anterograde amnesia cannot form new memories. They retain access to things they already know, but anything new simply falls out of their world in the space of a few minutes.


Note that this was caused by physical damage to the brain. Let's look at the effects:


Wearing is stuck in an eternal Now. Nothing that happens to him leaves any permanent effect. He is aware; he is fully conscious, but:


That's what you'd expect, but then it gets scary:


This is all obvious and straightforward when you consider mind to be brain function. But if your are an Idealist or a Dualist, it is bizarre and inexplicable. But it is very real, and there are quite a few cases similar to Wearings.

How can this happen, if mind is not a function of the physical brain?
Click to expand...

No no no no no no no no no no no no no!

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.

In as much as mind implies consciousness, then it's transparently false that mind is a function of the brain.

Think about it!

What is a function??

For Jesus's sake, learn some philosophy. That goes for the author of the article too.
 
PixyMisa said:
I'm not the one who says things like that to people and then expects to engage in a purposeful discussion.

But I'll ignore it. Again.
Click to expand...

I don't want you to ignore it. I want you to understand that I think that you, and anyone else who is a materialist, are unbelievably stupid.
 
Interesting Ian said:
What you're trying to argue is that consciousness, the self, and the mind are a product of the brain.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Tis tue that this data gives evidence that mind/self/consciousness is a product of the brain. No argument from me there.
Click to expand...
Good.

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

In as much as mind implies consciousness, then it's transparently false that mind is a function of the brain.

Think about it!

What is a function??
Click to expand...
A function is what something - some system - does. In this case, it is exactly the same as a product.

If you think otherwise, you will need to explain it.
 
PixyMisa said:
A function is what something - some system - does. In this case, it is exactly the same as a product.

If you think otherwise, you will need to explain it.
Click to expand...

I think Ian is trying to argue that a working brain is a necessary but not sufficent criterea for consciousness.
 
(from Interesting Ian)EH?? What's happened to the word sh**????
Click to expand...
Rule 8 of the Membership Agreement, Poseur-Boy. Can we ban him now?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom