I would say that Mary has complete knowledge of seeing red iff she has seen red. — RogueAI
Learning the physical facts of seeing red alone is not sufficient. — RogueAI
Mary doesn't learn new information, she gains a new ability: what seeing red is. — RogueAI
but this seems too tautological to be considered some new fact about that world. — RogueAI
It also might not be true, since Mary doesn't know what seeing red [in the broad sense] is like. None of us do. We only have access to our own particular experiences. — RogueAI
I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. OP seems to assume the existence of brains. So his question regards the conditional existence of "thoughts" -- e.g. what do they consist of?. If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? Is there more than one way to be? If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? It's a theoretical philosophical query, not an empirical scientific slam-dunk.Now consider where your thoughts come from. What is the source and origin of thoughts? — Garrett Travers
I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. — Gnomon
what do they consist of? — Gnomon
If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? — Gnomon
Is there more than one way to be? — Gnomon
If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? — Gnomon
But some proponents of a separate realm for invisible & intangible Ideas & Thoughts are manifestly of high IQ. — Gnomon
Some are even highly credentialed mathematicians. — Gnomon
s there some philosophical meat to chew on? — Gnomon
"it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is". — Gnomon
"To say there are no thoughts" (which is a thoight) would be as nonsensical as someone saying 'I do not exist'. — 180 Proof
Maybe.Is Wittegenstein relevant? p-zombies? Does a computer that displays the string "I'm not thinking" or plays the prerecorded message "I'm not thinking" thinking? Re: Descartes' cogito ergo sum. — Agent Smith
Maybe.
No.
No. No.
:chin: Rather: cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est. (P. Gassendi?) — 180 Proof
cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est — 180 Proof
cogito ergo sum. — Agent Smith
Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)
You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you. — theRiddler
cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est
— 180 Proof
cogito ergo sum.
— Agent Smith
Ah, Latin classes! Good memories when I was in school.
ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis — javi2541997
Credo quia absurdum." :sweat:
In nomine Patris
et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti ... wtf. — 180 Proof
Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)
You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you. — theRiddler
If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence.Oh, because of Kant, and Heroclitus, and Descartes, and all manner of people who didn't understand that mind and body weren't seprate, but the very same entity. — Garrett Travers
If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? — Gnomon
Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. — Gnomon
The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. — Gnomon
We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence. — Gnomon
But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does — Gnomon
Which is how we know there's such a thing as Energy. It has no physical properties, only physical effects. — Gnomon
That's also why Kant, Descartes, et al, made a categorical philosophical distinction between Mind & Body. — Gnomon
The Mind/Body problem only arises when some people attribute "non-physical" properties to Mind/Soul that are not rationally inferred, but emotionally imputed : such as Immortality & Ghosts. — Gnomon
It's those unverifiable attributions that are debatable, not the intuitive functions such as verbally communicable Thoughts and Ideas — Gnomon
Yet, we can't find physical evidence to support or deny "non-physical" existence. — Gnomon
We simply take other people's thoughts for granted, because of our personal experience with the phenomenon of thinking. But, lacking direct experience with Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs. — Gnomon
We may debate the mysterious hows & whys of Ideal existence, but that's also true of such presumably physical objects as Quarks & sub-quantum Strings. — Gnomon
Red is an experience, not a fact. It is a data integration on the part of the brain. It isn't itself real, it is the representation of a wavelength that brain can detect and differentiate objective fact values with. — Garrett Travers
The experience of seeing red certainly is real. — RogueAI
So is being in pain. — RogueAI
To deny the reality of experience is extremely counter-intuitive, and something I can't get on board with. — RogueAI
I think your claim is more along the lines of experiences are illusions. Is that more accurate? — RogueAI
For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference". :nerd:There is no distinction. — Garrett Travers
Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought.No, photons have mass, what are you talking about? Light and energy are material forces. — Garrett Travers
That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. :worry:"But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does" — Gnomon
No. You need to brush up on cog-sci, this is an utterly unscientific assertion. Yes, we can see it through functional mri. — Garrett Travers
It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. But you could in theory tell Neurobiologist Christof Koch that he's wrong about The Feeling of Life Itself. The "feeling" he refers to is not a physical object, or a neuronal computation, but something else entirely. He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced. He even toys with the notion of Panpsychism (i.e. widespread). Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci". :wink:Yep, and they were wrong, all of them. I wish I could say it to their faces. — Garrett Travers
A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. See the Koch quotes above & below for his opinion on thoughts as computations. In what sense is a computation a material thing? :grin:The thoughts are in fact the functions. There are no "thoughts," just computations which are observed through executive function, another brain function. — Garrett Travers
You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts. :nerd:That's because that which does not exist leaves no evidence of itself having not existed, except the absence of evidence existence itself. — Garrett Travers
If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space? :cool:"Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs." — Gnomon
We actually can't even do that. — Garrett Travers
Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. :joke:Everything but Strings, yes. The domain of ideal existence exploration is here, right here on earth, — Garrett Travers
For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference". — Gnomon
Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought. — Gnomon
Energy-in-general likewise transforms into mass only when it slows from lightspeed into velocities our senses can detect. They are different forms of the same fundamental force, which is neither light nor matter, but the potential for both. Their distinct measurable properties are how scientists distinguish between each form and give it a special name. For example, an electron is intermediate between photon and matter. Hence, deserves its own designation. — Gnomon
Unfortunately, Mind & Thought have no measurable properties apart from their associated material or energetic forms. Their existence must be inferred indirectly. — Gnomon
That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. — Gnomon
It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. — Gnomon
He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced — Gnomon
Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci". — Gnomon
A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. — Gnomon
In what sense is a computation a material thing? — Gnomon
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? . . .
In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations — Gnomon
You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". — Gnomon
If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts. :nerd: — Gnomon
If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space? — Gnomon
Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". — Gnomon
You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. — Gnomon
They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. — Gnomon
Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. — Gnomon
I agree with that last prediction. You won't be getting any empirical evidence for mental phenomena. Not due to absence of evidence, but to categorical rejection of Reasoning as evidential. It's also a rejection of common sense & intuition as evidence of something unseen, but obvious. Such hard-evidence skepticism is a good policy for scientific exploration of classical physical phenomena. But it breaks down at the Quantum level, where the evidence is mostly inference from circumstances. For example, atom-smashers don't directly reveal sub-atomic particles. Instead the existence & properties of such things must be inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g. tracks in a cloud chamber). So, scientific knowledge of such ephemeral entities depends on agreement between the opinions of experts doing the experiments. The rest of us must take their word for the existence of Quarks & Neutrinos. They can't show us the evidence, because it exists only as subjective ideas in their minds.For this "difference that makes a difference," to be anything other than other than fabricated woo, each difference is going to have to be clearly explained, and then shown to exist outside of neural function. I'll wait for any explainer on earth to provide me this information. Hint: I'll not be getting any. — Garrett Travers
You won't be getting any empirical evidence for mental phenomena. — Gnomon
but to categorical rejection of Reasoning as evidential. — Gnomon
But it breaks down at the Quantum level, where the evidence is mostly inference from circumstances. — Gnomon
So, scientific knowledge of such ephemeral entities depends on agreement between the opinions of experts doing the experiments. — Gnomon
The rest of us must take their word for the existence of Quarks & Neutrinos. They can't show us the evidence, because it exists only as subjective ideas in their minds. — Gnomon
Likewise, no-one can show us direct evidence of other minds, because it's circumstantial & inferential. — Gnomon
Since you are holding out for empirical evidence of res cogitans, the only evidence you will find is for res extensa. — Gnomon
That's why nobody doubts the existence of Brains, but a few hyper-skeptics will demand sensory evidence of Minds. — Gnomon
That's what we call Solipsism. — Gnomon
In which case, he is a robot, and has no Will of his own. — Gnomon
Are you self-programmed? Do you think for yourself, or as directed by some outside force, such as Destiny? The Mind/Body problem turns on the question of Free Will. — Gnomon
brain-eating Zombies have equal rights with law-minding citizens. — Gnomon
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Neuroscientists, like all scientists, are quantitatively driven. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Since you can't measure mind, you can't quantify mind—so by definition, it's not physical. . . . — Gnomon
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.