If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" — RogueAI
I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. — RogueAI
ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains. — RogueAI
This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” — khaled
Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. — khaled
You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever — khaled
2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. — khaled
But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with. — khaled
But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge. — khaled
Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error” — khaled
Ok so I now propose to you a theory:
Pens never run out ink
I have just written a line with a pen
Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect
Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time. — khaled
At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time? — khaled
If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could not have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They thought the brain cooled the blood. Therefore, brains aren't identical to minds. — RogueAI
And what does this mean exactly? — khaled
And again, how does one know they’re unbiased — khaled
When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”? — khaled
So why are we having this conversation? — khaled
That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in — khaled
This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. — khaled
Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. — khaled
Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)? — khaled
How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? — khaled
At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory? — khaled
I think it's sort of a chicken and egg effect. Suffering causes a desire for things to be different than they are, and a desire for things to be different than they are causes suffering — Pfhorrest
Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? — khaled
There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on. — khaled
Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right? — khaled
That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong. — khaled
Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it? — khaled
But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate? — khaled
When you think of your mind, do you think in terms of physical properties? What color is your mind? What shape is it? What's its volume? What does it smell like? What's it made out of? How heavy is it? These are nonsense questions because your mind isn't a physical thing. — RogueAI
How does materialism survive such a failure? — RogueAI
When did I do that? I didn't utter the word "objective" once before you did. I honestly don't know where you got "So I take it you don't care about objectivity" from. — khaled
I don't. I care about obtaining ideas that seem true. I can't test if they're true or not (because I don't have a hotline to truth) but I can select the ideas that provide the most accurate models. That is my criteria. That is not everyone's criteria. That's all I said. — khaled
By setting up an actually testable standard. For example: Makes the best predictions, Has the fewest words, Most intuitive, etc etc. — khaled
I can't be wrong about the existence of mind and thought. — RogueAI
Might as well make thought the building blocks of reality, instead of inanimate non-conscious stuff. — RogueAI
Idealism does not fall prey to the Explanatory Gap/Hard Problem of Consciousness, which imo, is catastrophic for materialism at this point in time. — RogueAI
Not necessarily. I don’t know if it exists or not but even if it did there is no point at which we can be sure we have found it so I don’t care if it exists or not. — khaled
This in turn makes me consider if bodily pleasures should win out over some sort of "higher order" happiness. — Aleph Numbers
However, the addict using a substance might still result in the greatest amount of bodily pleasure — Aleph Numbers
However, most people, I think, would argue that some sort of lasting happiness would be preferable to an addiction. — Aleph Numbers
I'm asking if in such a situation it can be said that the person can be said to be satisfying their preferences with respect to how they want to act in those specific circumstances if they drink the soda. — Aleph Numbers
If someone does something differently than you, that doesn’t automatically make them wrong; but neither does it automatically make you wrong. — Pfhorrest
Neither of you has the burden to justify your ways to the other, nor any obligation to do as the other does if you can’t justify doing otherwise. — Pfhorrest
Both ways of doing things are initially to be presumed fine, until something can be shown to be wrong with one; — Pfhorrest
That implication is intended and warranted. — Pfhorrest
How does that work? — jamalrob
So for the case at hand, we don’t have to worry about the mere POSSIBILITY of solipsism being true; sure, it might be, but so might its negation. Both of those are possibilities. Which seems more likely to be true to you? — Pfhorrest
What determines whether an idea is worth considering is largely personal preference. — khaled
You personally seem to prefer the idea that offers the most explanatory power, that may not be the case for others. — khaled
This is backwards. If you reject every possibility until it can be proven, then you reject everything by default and then have nothing with which to prove anything from, leaving you rejecting everything forever. — Pfhorrest
Is such a service possible? Can we transfer our stress to someone else? How much are you willing to pay for such a service? — TheMadFool
Or has anyone produced some refutations to all is mind that are just as difficult to disprove as the position they refute? — Chaz
What is strange is why do we feel the need to take someone down from a high. Why do we not permit excessive happiness? — Benj96
My follow on consequence is; consider a device that can be implanted in everyone which regulates mood just as we do to each other on a daily basis. If you get a little too happy it triggers an increase in negativity and if you get a little to depressed it provokes an increase in positivity. That way no one ever suffers from depression or self harm however can probably never enjoy the most profound of emotions either. Would this be better or worse than total (and possibly destructive) freedom? — Benj96
I don't agree with this. I think that each experience is novel. I've never had two experiences the same before, though I've experienced deja vu, but I really can't even imagine the possibility of living through the same thing twice. I recognize deja vu as just a feeling, and not really having the same experience twice. With the nature of time and spatial existence being as it is, it seems completely impossible to have the same experience more than once. So quite clearly, coherency must be based in something other than prior observations of the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem I see here is that you do not seem to be differentiating between experience, and observation. Observation is to take note of what has been experienced, so it requires a task of memorizing. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you contradict yourself here? First you say that if consistency cannot be produced, the only thing to do is to discard the observation as illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then you say when observation and reason clash, "it is reason that must become flexible" to accomodate observations. — Metaphysician Undercover
As it stands, the word "chair" is applied to various objects but what's missing is a unifying essence in these objects and that's bound to lead to confusion, no? — TheMadFool
Too broad, a stool satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool
I beg to differ: I think that if a policy unfairly targets any racial demographic it is racist. The intent behind the policy just might be difficult to demonstrate sometimes, however. — Aleph Numbers
Furthermore, I think that yours is a false distinction because what you call material things, like bricks, have what must be according to your distinction, an immaterial aspect, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics. — Metaphysician Undercover
Computers can do pattern recognition. They can even (mostly) do bad pattern recognition: I asked Google Lens to identify a bush the other day and it told me it was a "plantation", then I asked it to identify a flower and it told me it was "marine life". — Pfhorrest