Ultimately you might note that the people who initially rejected your idea start to defend it. — Olivier5
sometimes they may be unaware of it. — Fooloso4
Are you saying that your gluons can think better than mine? — Olivier5
But this is just materialism. — Protagoras
How does matter go from inorganic to organic? — Protagoras
Are you saying that your gluons can think better than mine?
— Olivier5
Nope — Pfhorrest
My two pennies:
After reading 180's lack of responses, I must say, Golly Geee:
180 tends to use political statements instead of philosophical arguments (I know we all have to be careful there, but c'mon man!). Here you go again 180, projecting your own lack of understanding onto other's. I think most have figured him out, including Hanover. For instance, when he has nothing, he projects in this case, his own straw man and non sequitur fallacies to make himself look like he knows something. When Hanover points it out, 180 then pivots to attacking the 'process' and not the substance. Very 101. It's just a smoke screen and an illusionary budding intellect... .
Oh well, nothing new under the sun there. Another disappointment. Hanover did his homework, where 180 so far did not. (Actually, not sure why 180 even agreed to the debate... .) Hanover also calls him out and corrects his misuse of ad hom's. Sorry for the tough love 180, really, you gotta give us something man; not just the usual smoke and mirrors. :razz:
Anyway, be that as it may, Hanover has been more than gracious, and has offered some other interesting arguments that have real import.
1. I liked the notion of Subjective truth. NICE.
2. SD: " It admits to the obvious metaphysical difference between hats and perceptions of hats, and that the latter cannot be experienced except by the subject." YEP.
3 "we each walk around daily with the freedom to choose, something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in a physically limited universe.That is to say, SD gives a path for a meaningful free will, entirely lacking in a purely physical world." I loved the notion and/or suggestion of Metaphysical Will ala Schop and others! Or how about this, someone explain the Will period, without positing some dualist metaphysical concept.
Also, this is an interesting supposition below. I would like to see both 180 and Hanover exploring this one a bit (180 hasn't touched it yet). This could prove interesting. In the meantime, someone here provide some insight to its implications:
"And there is a critical distinction between not detected and not detectable, with the latter suggesting that no amount of technology can locate its existence. I get that I can't hear extremely high frequencies, but they are detectable, not just not detected. On the other hand, you will never experience my experience. Ever. That is what makes mental states different from physical states."
How does this relate to independent existence?
For example, 180 supposedly said through Hanover's interpretation of same that: "is that I [Hanover]deny specifically that there are physical properties that are completely incapable of being sensed in some capacity and so measured, including dark matter."
Is 180 suggesting there is independent existence?
↪Protagoras
Why would you bother arguing against a claim that you thought had no merit? — Janus
What do you mean by independent existence? — Protagoras
What I wonder is where does your distinction between good and bad thinking originates from? If them gluons (or neurotransmitters for that matter) make all the thinking, what makes for good or bad thinking? Bad gluons? — Olivier5
So life just started randomly from dead matter? — Protagoras
Right. That is my point. Someone who posits substance dualism must first provide an argument with enough merit in order to expect someone else to argue against it. I will leave it up to the members here to decide for themselves whether that has been done. — Fooloso4
So forms of matter that are better at living become more common over time. — Pfhorrest
But you haven't explained how matter turns to life. — Protagoras
Your assertion would have us being better at living than hunter/gatherers, which I think is patently false — Janus
But you haven't explained how matter turns to life. — Protagoras
Better or worse structure and thus function of the really complicated systems built out of them. — Pfhorrest
So you didn't explain you just asserted that life is matter. — Protagoras
Any examples of matter suddenly becoming lifelike? — Protagoras
My subjectivity sure doesn't feel like matter or seperate gluons. — Protagoras
Does all matter have the potential for life? — Protagoras
What drives matter to become more complex?
And why does most matter remain inorganic? — Protagoras
So dualists just have a poorly functioning brain? Is that what you are saying? — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.