If you don't understand that, you do not have a place in this discussion. — Garrett Travers
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
You mean the one-sided discussion you're having with yourself? Oh shucks, what a loss! — Aaron R
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. — ZzzoneiroCosm
If thoughts are X it follows that there are thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm
"Thoughts" is just the spook term used for the recognition of neuronal computational activity on the part of frontal cortex executive function — Garrett Travers
Not if x is being mistaken for y. — 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. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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
If thoughts are y but taken to be x, there are thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Again, that isn't what I am doing. — Garrett Travers
the disregard of established science fallacy — Garrett Travers
Not at all. I'm not disregarding the science. — ZzzoneiroCosm
My focus is on the way you're using language. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I accept the science and reject your use of language. — ZzzoneiroCosm
It's been fun. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm
Egocentric absolutism. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Epithets — Garrett Travers
Your tone has the ring of the dogmatist — ZzzoneiroCosm
Ego and dogmatism can inhibit your philosophical development. — ZzzoneiroCosm
You may find you're mistaken about a great many things. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I agree. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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
a position that clearly has no evidenc — Garrett Travers
You say there are no thoughts. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Are there sensations? Emotions? Feelings? Or do you prefer a terminology that reduces these, as well, to physical interactions? — ZzzoneiroCosm
No, I say that what you understand to be "thoughts," are actually preceived functions of the brain by the brain. — Garrett Travers
There are not thoughts. — Garrett Travers
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
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
There are not thoughts. — Garrett Travers
Consistency is a philosophical virtue. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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.