So, fundamentally, we don't know what the brain is, how it does what it does...at all...yet we know all there is to know about consciousness.

History will expand your mind beyond its current girth, guaranteed. You do not have the explanation, nor do you understand in the least what's happening here.

Just sayin. Maybe stop calling people stupid while making declarative statements on a subject matter that isn't even in its infancy.

If you don't understand that, you do not have a place in this discussion. — Garrett Travers

You mean the one-sided discussion you're having with yourself? Oh shucks, what a loss!

Everyone knows that things happen in brains in correlation to thoughts.

And everyone knows there are thoughts.

If you hope to be a philosopher, your language should reflect what everyone knows: there are thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I am a philosopher whether I hope for it or not. In fact, I am what one would call a neurophilosopher. As far as thoughts go, no, that is not the case. Brains do not have thought correlates, brains are the causal factor in thought. Which is to say, thoughts are really just a vast and complex neuronal process across numerous structures of the most sophisticated computational entity in the history of the known universe. A process that your pattern-seeking executive function notices; which is also a brain product. That's it.

You mean the one-sided discussion you're having with yourself? Oh shucks, what a loss! — Aaron R

No, I mean established neuroscience that everyone keeps fallaciously disregarding and not getting away with on my account. But, nice try. You got an argument in there somewhere?

brains are the causal factor in thought. — Garrett Travers

If "brains are the causal factors in thought" then there are thoughts. Your language should reflect that.

If "brains are the causal factors in thought" then there are thoughts. Your language should reflect that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, "thoughts" in how you're using the term. They don't exist, the brain simply is operating, nothing more. "Thoughts" is just the spook term used for the recognition of neuronal computational activity on the part of frontal cortex executive function that we've only recently been understanding with greater clarity. I don't fault the existence of the word, I am denying it's truth value.

If thoughts are X it follows that there are thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not if x is being mistaken for y.

"Thoughts" is just the spook term used for the recognition of neuronal computational activity on the part of frontal cortex executive function — Garrett Travers

So reductionism, like I quoted above(and you rejected). Here it is again:

In the context of physicalism, the reductions referred to are of a "linguistic" nature, allowing discussions of, say, mental phenomena to be translated into discussions of physics.

Wiki


Your preference for physicalist language is precisely the reductionism I accused you of. It's the only thing at work here. You prefer physicalist terminology.

Not if x is being mistaken for y. — Garrett Travers

If thoughts are y but taken to be x, there are thoughts.

So reductionism, like I quoted above(and you rejected). Here it is again:

In the context of physicalism, the reductions referred to are of a "linguistic" nature, allowing discussions of, say, mental phenomena to be translated into discussions of physics. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Again, that isn't what I am doing. This reductionism here is in the context of a particular philosophy, as I already explained to you that I do not share, or subscribe to. And reductionism as a fallacy does not apply to the person providing an explanation of something via the most complex system in the universe, that applies to those of you employing the disregard of established science fallacy, which you have presented ad nauseum and needs to stop. Not once have you addressed anything from ANY of the journals I have sent you. This is an anti-scientific, anti-philosophical, multi-fallacious approach at debate, and I won't stand for it.

Your preference for physicalist language is precisely the reductionism I accused you of. It's the only thing at work here. You prefer physicalist terminology. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Give whatever name you need to in the pursuit of the apprehension of established science. As long as you apprehend it, that's all that matters. For what it's worth, I am not coming from any perspective other than my own. Call it what you wish, you're still wrong.

If thoughts are y but taken to be x, there are thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If can is being mistaken for rock, does rock exist?

Again, that isn't what I am doing. — Garrett Travers

I'm afraid you're not understanding what you're doing.

I don't see anything productive ahead in this exchange so I'll leave it here. Good chatting! :smile:

the disregard of established science fallacy — Garrett Travers

Not at all. I'm not disregarding the science. My focus is on the way you're using language.

I accept the science and reject your use of language.

It's been fun. :smile:

Not at all. I'm not disregarding the science. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I can't read this over your other statements and assertions that have disregarded the science.

My focus is on the way you're using language. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, accurately, clearly, and no ambiguity.

I accept the science and reject your use of language. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, you reject my using the term correctly.

Thoughts: an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind. This is all dependent on neuronal activity and is encapsulated by those material functions.

It's been fun. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, I suppose it has, old chap. I really do encourage you to read those articles though, for real. You'll be mind-blown, I swear.

No, you reject my using the term correctly. — Garrett Travers

Egocentric absolutism.

Take care.

Egocentric absolutism. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Epithets are neither an argument, nor a proper way to characterize correct usage of langague to describe established science, as I have demonstrated.

Epithets — Garrett Travers

More a warning. Your tone has the ring of the dogmatist. The absolutist.

Ego and dogmatism can inhibit your philosophical development. Take care.





You may find you're mistaken about a great many things.

Your tone has the ring of the dogmatist — ZzzoneiroCosm

And? I'm either correct, or not. I don't care about how you perceive my tone.

Ego and dogmatism can inhibit your philosophical development. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, they can't. Irrational ego and dogmatism can. I employ neither, so I'm all good.

You may find you're mistaken about a great many things. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I sure might, Lord Sidious. But, much like the last Lord Sidious to say that to someone, tis indeed you who will find he has already demonstrated his mistaken views. Last one got completely yeeted, I won't do that to you, not my jive.

I'm either correct, or not. — Garrett Travers

I agree.

I agree. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And, whereas I am the only one of the two of us that relayed an opinion that was derived from numerous up-to-date research journals on the subject, you understand that things aren't looking so good for anyone who hasn't, right? That'd be you I'm talking about. It's looking like I'm correct, and you're not correct. You noticing that, as well?

It's looking like I'm correct, and you're not correct. — Garrett Travers

It's very important for you to be correct. To win.

It's very important for you to be correct. To win. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, I'm just remarking on what has the most evidence to supprt itself. I actually value being wrong, as that produces a pathway for learning the correct view on a subject, which is virtuous and good for the Human Consciousness. However, it does seem important that you hold onto a position that clearly has no evidence for which to provide support. Is there a reason for that?

However, it does seem important that you hold onto a position that clearly has no evidence for which to provide support. Is there a reason for that? — Garrett Travers

My position is that it's acceptable to say there are thoughts.

Is there no evidence to support such a claim?

a position that clearly has no evidenc — Garrett Travers

You say there are no thoughts.

Are there sensations? Emotions? Feelings? Or do you prefer a terminology that reduces these, as well, to physical interactions?

You say there are no thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain. Meaning, thoughts don't exist, the functions of the brain do.

Are there sensations? Emotions? Feelings? Or do you prefer a terminology that reduces these, as well, to physical interactions? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Same thing. All of this is neural function. And, I already explained how it is actually you doing the reducing, I am highlighting the operations of the most complex system ever to exist. But, you keep trying with that one, pal. You could just quit that shit and present evidence that supports your claims. Let's try that moving forward.

No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain. — Garrett Travers

The above is what's known as a walk-back.

Here you said:

There are not thoughts. — Garrett Travers

Consistency is a philosophical virtue.

Same thing. All of this is neural function. And, I already explained how it is actually you doing the reducing, I am highlighting the operations of the most complex system ever to exist. But, you keep trying with that one, pal. You could just quit that shit and present evidence that supports your claims. Let's try that moving forward.
8mReplyOptions — Garrett Travers

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying.

No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain. Meaning, thoughts don't exist, the functions of the brain do. — Garrett Travers

Okay.

So considering a thought we have:

1. Neuronal functioning.

2. The experience of a thought.


1. I accept the existence of neuronal functioning. Of course. It's obvious. It's science.

2. I accept that we experience thoughts.


Our only positional difference is this:

I think it's acceptable to say my experience of a thought justifies my saying there are thoughts. My experience of a thought justifies saying thoughts exist. Further, my experience of pain, joy, discomfort, justifies my saying pain, joy and discomfort exist.


Is this really an unbridgeable gap?


P. S. I started a thread called "are there thoughts?" so you can hear what the town square has to say. As I mentioned, I don't believe there's anything constructive ahead for us.

There are not thoughts. — Garrett Travers

This above is what is known as a cherry-picking fallacy. You chose a quote from me, and didn't incorporate my explanation of what I meant by thoughts not being real. They do not exist, I have said that this entire time.

Consistency is a philosophical virtue. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And something you don't seem too interested in employing, given the nature of the above explicated fallacy you produced as an argument.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Okay, fair enough. What are you saying?