• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why dualism?

marplots said:
That is an extremely odd question. I can't make sense of it at all.
Click to expand...

Agree. It is a logical contradiction because we can't point to or prove that something exists outside of our being aware of it. Because any measurement even by proxy instrumentation lies within our being aware of it.
So why even bother speculating that a "physical" exists? Well, we think it answers some questions - but it really doesn't.
This is important to this discussion because the paradigm is that a physical brain creates consciousness - but we can't even demonstrate the brain exists as a physical object.
 
LarryS said:
Agree. It is a logical contradiction because we can't point to or prove that something exists outside of our being aware of it. Because any measurement even by proxy instrumentation lies within our being aware of it.
So why even bother speculating that a "physical" exists? Well, we think it answers some questions - but it really doesn't.
This is important to this discussion because the paradigm is that a physical brain creates consciousness - but we can't even demonstrate the brain exists as a physical object.
Click to expand...

If you follow your own paradigm, then nothing is physical; not even you. Take one step beyond that and science begins.

If you want to stick to hard solipsism, you will remain stuck on level zero, in a deepity so shallow it has no room for you.
 
LarryS said:
Agree. It is a logical contradiction because we can't point to or prove that something exists outside of our being aware of it. Because any measurement even by proxy instrumentation lies within our being aware of it.
So why even bother speculating that a "physical" exists? Well, we think it answers some questions - but it really doesn't.
This is important to this discussion because the paradigm is that a physical brain creates consciousness - but we can't even demonstrate the brain exists as a physical object.
Click to expand...

Even if it's just a linguistic hook and convention, it seems to work fairly well in that role. If the "really" real is unreachable, does it matter?

There's a problem with being a strong skeptic (in the old meaning). What's to say? Nothing really. There's no place to stand at all.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that money has no inherent value, just a pretend value that arises from agreement. That said, I work hard to earn this thing not grounded beyond simple convention. What would I do otherwise?

Whatever the hell is going on (with money and with "physical"), I can't seem to bring myself to see things differently. But more importantly, I don't really see much fun in trying to do so.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
IanS said:
Larry; it's hard to know what you meant to say there. Because the English does not really make sense. .... Because the genuine published science shows that what we call "conciousness" (or "awareness", if you prefer that word), most definitely is the result of chemical and/or electrical/physical
Click to expand...



Since we are speaking of words, could you explain what you mean by "physical" - and could you please reify "physical" in a meaningful way?
Click to expand...



OK, well I just checked again what Larry just quoted above from my previous post, and it turns out the reason for his feigned confusion is that by judicious omission he (deliberately?) misquoted my post!

As shown above, Larry chose to truncate what I had written in mid sentence immediately after the word "physical". Whereas my actual post said the following -

IanS said:
Larry; it's hard to know what you meant to say there. Because the English does not really make sense. .... Because the genuine published science shows that what we call "conciousness" (or "awareness", if you prefer that word), most definitely is the result of chemical and/or electrical/physical responses in the cells that make-up the human brain
Click to expand...


Notice that my actual words said "chemical and/or electrical/physical responses in the cells that make-up the human brain". Which actually left no doubt that I said "physical responses" in the cells of the brain, and did not just say "chemical and/or electrical/physical".

And to make that even clearer for Larry, in that same post and in my very next sentence I said this to Larry -

IanS said:
If by that highlighted sentence you again mean to say that the "mind" is something different from, and independent of, the physical structure that we call the human brain, then ....
Click to expand...


That makes it crystal clear (and it was crystal clear from the previous sentence anyway), that I am talking about "the physical structure that we call the human brain".

OK, so we now seem to have reached a stage where Larry is defending his beliefs by making single-line questioning replies in which he alters the quoted words of what people have just carefully said to him. :rolleyes:
 
I will admit there are parts of the world for which the notion of "physical" doesn't seem to fit very well. But that's not a contradiction necessarily. In fact, these areas highlight (by their rarity) how well "physical" fits generally.
 
marplots said:
I will admit there are parts of the world for which the notion of "physical" doesn't seem to fit very well. But that's not a contradiction necessarily. In fact, these areas highlight (by their rarity) how well "physical" fits generally.
Click to expand...


...so basically...'physical' has no actual empirical ontology, it is merely an arbitrary normative convention. Everyone is happy with it...so it exists. At least, it exist until someone asks what it actually means. At which point we discover that it doesn't mean anything.
 
IanS said:
OK, so we now seem to have reached a stage where Larry is defending his beliefs by making single-line questioning replies in which he alters the quoted words of what people have just carefully said to him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


...except that your 'carefully' stated concepts are typically nothing but contradictory crap!

All current research concludes consciousness is created by the brain... except no one has a clue what consciousness is, no one has a clue if it is a thing, no one has a clue how the brain creates it, and no one really has a clue how a brain works in the first place.

Congratulations. Smoke and mirrors wins this argument!
 
IanS said:
OK, well I just checked again what Larry just quoted above from my previous post, and it turns out the reason for his feigned confusion is that by judicious omission he (deliberately?) misquoted my post!
Click to expand...

and all this is a distinction that makes no difference
 
annnnoid said:
...so basically...'physical' has no actual empirical ontology, it is merely an arbitrary normative convention. Everyone is happy with it...so it exists. At least, it exist until someone asks what it actually means. At which point we discover that it doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Now why would this be troubling at all if the alternative assumption is no reachable reality?

It's a serious question.
 
LarryS said:
Comparing the unlimited nature of space to awareness (and only appearing to be parceled) is used as an analogy.
To somehow extend to blood or cheese sorta blows.
I am simply asking if awareness could (like space) could be unlimited and only appears to be parceled?
(To me) it is not a far-fetched question because while the contents of my mind are limited and bound; the awareness that knows my experiences is contiguous and continuous, it's the same today at age 62 as when I was 5 or 45, the same when I'm experiencing pleasantries or unpleasantries, awake or dreaming, drunk or lucid, etc. Awareness also has no boundary or edge - only the contents of awareness are changing, bound and limited.
Click to expand...

Can you see better with your eye gouged out?

(Question of the alleged historic buddha)

There appears to be a body, attendant within it are thoughts, feelings, sensations, perception and habits

What is your awareness aware of absent your body?
 
LarryS said:
I am not sure if awareness happens because of neural activity or not - research seems the demonstrate the contents of the mind are. Re your stroke question - awareness happens in the present moment, remembering objects are the contents of the mind, which are seemingly effected by brain activity.
As you can gather, I am making a distinction between awareness and the contents of the mind . . . and from this point on, I'll use the term 'consciousness' to mean the awareness of an object(s), being aware of the contents of the mind.
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of that awareness absent a body?
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom