My argument against materialism

[laca]

I see your point, its not just my twaddle thats twaddle, everything is twaddle.

Wrong. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

The Hindus have a word for it "chitta", ie, chitta chatta.

Just because you put "Hindu" in a sentence doesn't make it automatically insightful or helpful in ant way. You do realize that, don't you?

Its all a human mind can achieve through thought alone.

While that might be true for you, please stop projecting your limitations onto others.

 

[laca]

I refer you to "now" again, is this "the present"?

Consider your own explanation of "now" and then consider the same "now", if there were no time, or space.

Is it "still there", has it got incredibly small? or has it vanished?

Incoherent gibberish.

 

[PixyMisa]

I picked up this phrase here somewhere, is there a problem or is that one of the falacious arguments.

"Hard problem consciousness" is a term invented by David Chalmers. The problem is that in his argument he assumes his conclusion, so yes, it's fallacious.

I refer you to "now" again, is this "the present"?

Consider your own explanation of "now" and then consider the same "now", if there were no time, or space.

Is it "still there", has it got incredibly small? or has it vanished?

No.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Im not sure that was her point to be honest

Correct! And I realised, when I was out coffee-ing, that I had omitted the word 'wiser' after 'humbly! Ah, well!

 

[Belz...]

Yes I know,

my infinite is formless

my finite has form

Punshhh, that doesn't mean anything.

 

[Belz...]

"The solution to the hard problem in consciousness is to be found in the "now"."

Again, what does that even mean ???

You computationalists will be required to step out of the box of time and space before your to make any progress on this front.

You have a better alternative ?

 

[Dancing David]

I'll have number 9 with prawn crackers.

!!!!!!

Sweet, the Named as a carry out!
We have Ten Thousand Things!

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I know it was 17, the machine(computer) somehow arrived at 11, I didn't check as I thought the computer couldn't make such a mistake

They do have issues...

 

[Dancing David]

Chew on these words in English;

"The solution to the hard problem in consciousness is to be found in the "now"."

You computationalists will be required to step out of the box of time and space before your to make any progress on this front.

Not really, the HPC is really the Problem of Vague Definition.

Try starting a thread about what the HPC is, truth be told, I haven't seen a good reason it is a problem.

It usually goes like his:
So what is the HPC?

'You can't explain why matter is conscious"

Okay, so if it is a set of behaviors in the brain, why is that a problem?

"Because you can't show me the behaviors."

But the medical defintion relies upon observable behaviors.

"You can't explain qualia."

Sure, they are perceptions.

"You can't say why the red of red is red."

 

[Dancing David]

I picked up this phrase here somewhere, is there a problem or is that one of the falacious arguments.

You tell us why it is a problem.

I refer you to "now" again, is this "the present"?

Consider your own explanation of "now" and then consider the same "now", if there were no time, or space.

Is it "still there", has it got incredibly small? or has it vanished?

Um, so I define Fred as having existence in space and time, if I take away space and time, where is Fred?

You are lost in your idiom.

Now is conventionally defined, so you remove the frame of existence.

Some questions have no answer.

Show me something not within space and time?

 

[Robin]

I refer you to "now" again, is this "the present"?

Do you mean now?

Or now?

Or maybe ... wait for it ... now?

 

[dafydd]

Chew on these words in English;

"The solution to the hard problem in consciousness is to be found in the "now"."

You computationalists will be required to step out of the box of time and space before your to make any progress on this front.

More drivel.

 

[dafydd]

I see your point, its not just my twaddle thats twaddle, everything is twaddle.

The Hindus have a word for it "chitta", ie, chitta chatta.

Its all a human mind can achieve through thought alone.

Chitta does not mean twaddle.
chitta (Sanskrit: "memory" — derived from the root chit, "to be conscious". Chitta is the Subconscious mind. It is the mind-stuff. It is the store-house of memory. Samskaras or impressions of actions are imbedded here. It is one of the four parts of antahkarana.

 

[TmoonII]

Show me something not within space and time?

Can you follow me out of time and space to show you?

 

[annnnoid]

We have sense - that's us - and nonsense - that's you and annnoid.

Apparently not!

Every one of those things in your list? We can detect them. Objectively. Scientifically.

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.

Your ignorance is staggering.

Show us the evidence

….which, of course, neither of you ever did (‘google it’ anyone?)

Nonsense anyone?

 

[Dancing David]

Can you follow me out of time and space to show you?

So when did you go?

 

[punshhh]

Do you mean now?

Or now?

Or maybe ... wait for it ... now?

Now then




you may have something here... or there.

 

[punshhh]

Chitta does not mean twaddle.
chitta (Sanskrit: "memory" — derived from the root chit, "to be conscious". Chitta is the Subconscious mind. It is the mind-stuff. It is the store-house of memory. Samskaras or impressions of actions are imbedded here. It is one of the four parts of antahkarana.

Thanks dafydd

I was refering to the activity of the mind which results in twaddle.
I would rather leave the mind and consciousness to one side for now.
I have enough on my plate already.

 

[punshhh]

"Hard problem consciousness" is a term invented by David Chalmers. The problem is that in his argument he assumes his conclusion, so yes, it's fallacious.


No.

Is that the all seeing all noing No again.

 

[annnnoid]

Is that the all seeing all noing No again.

…I figure that would be the omniscient Pixy speaking there..

Actually Pixy, the ability to assume anything IS the argument. But visionaries like you needn’t address the nature/origins of their insight. It is assumed doesn’t exist and therefore is a problem only to those who conclude that they do, in fact, exist.

A suitable quote: "scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study"