The physical world is only as strong as the string. — theRiddler
The truth is, something so abstract can't be meaningfully defined by its physicality. — theRiddler
Your usage of "Empirical" seems to go beyond the literal meaning, to include Theoretical inferences. So, we are, as usual, talking past each other ; using different vocabularies (Science vs Philosophy). Empirical evidence would be a list of observed facts (theory-neutral raw data). But an interpretation of those facts (pro-or-con-Mind) would be a conjectural postulation, since no "load" of reductive empirical data will prove the physical existence of something holistic & hypothetical. So, the electro-chemical activities of neurons would be empirical, but attribution of a thought, connected to that behavior, would be theoretical. (Until MRIs can read minds directly, rather than by human inference, that is) Therefore, as non-specialist non-scientists, we can only discuss various theories about Brain & Mind, not empirical facts.No, you misunderstand, I have loads of empirical evidence of that — Garrett Travers
The body cogoverns with assistance from the outside world. The brain isn't just some powerhouse that wanted a cool body. The flesh keeps the blood warm; the brain tells the heart to pump because it receives blood from the heart, and without a skeleton your organs would rebel against you. — theRiddler
It isn't saying anything to say the brain produces consciousness. All the evidence points to us not having a comprehensive understanding of the insides of or what is outside the body. It's very shortsighted to draw conclusions about all the properties of consciousness at this juncture. — theRiddler
We don't know what energy or the physical are. — theRiddler
People have been taking the most myopic approach and calling that reality for thousands of years, and nine times out of ten they're wrong. — theRiddler
And you disgruntle me by saying the brain produces consciousness. That tells us nothing about the brain or consciousness and there are a myriad of forces that could be at play here. — theRiddler
Perhaps it is produced by the brain. — theRiddler
It bothers me when people claim to have solved these mysteries with no concrete proof, as if there could even be concrete proof, and is a hurdle to open-minded, scientific exploration. — theRiddler
You're just claiming to know how everything works. — theRiddler
Theoretical inferences. — Gnomon
(Science vs Philosophy) — Gnomon
So, the electro-chemical activities of neurons would be empirical, but attribution of a thought, connected to that behavior, would be theoretical. — Gnomon
Since I'm not a specialist, I can only say that in my skeptical opinion, the "loads of evidence" you refer to does not add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans -- an explanation for the phase transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter. — Gnomon
But, the current wave of Holistic theories (e.g. I.I.T) are looking beyond the bare facts toward a rational inference, that actually explains the distinction between a thinking brain, and an isolated brain-in-a-vat. — Gnomon
PS___If we took a vote of all Brain-Mind experts right now, I suspect that your side would win. But my experts are "on the side of the angels" — Gnomon
The brain manages, not governs. — theRiddler
The abstraction of the body can't be found inside of the brain. In fact it's barely aware. — theRiddler
We are, out of our minds, as is self-evident.... is ... We're system... No brain... barely aware .... whole bodies nervous.... abstraction found inside.... — theRiddler
Just wondering how many forum members are prepared to say there are no thoughts. Thanks for playing! — ZzzoneiroCosm
GT, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a principled philosophical exchange of views on a controversial topic, without resorting to (much) name-calling and ad hominem aspersions. At least you mostly attribute my "numb & dumb" explanations to mere ignorance & stupidity instead of intentional malice.By this standard, empirical evidence provided to you that would explain the "transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter," would " add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans," because you're a "numb & dumb," "explanation" "specialist." — Garrett Travers
empirical Science, theoretical Philosophy is not progressive but circular. — Gnomon
Science vs Religion. — Gnomon
Materialistic Scientism and Spiritualistic Religionism. — Gnomon
My purpose for exposing my heterodox worldview to opposing orthodox views is to help me weed-out my own ignorance & misunderstandings. — Gnomon
But my moderate stance places me in the middle of a circular firing squad. — Gnomon
My religious family think I have gone over to Satan's side, while my scientific friends suspect that I may be a closet New Age nutcase. — Gnomon
Thanks for playing the philosophy game of Virtual Dialogue. :smile: — Gnomon
The brain and the body are so codependent that the brain is a part of the body. — theRiddler
This attempt to dwindle people down to a singular body part sounds like it was invented by a sociopath. — theRiddler
It's sociopathic to try and force people to believe all that they are is an organ in the vat of the body. We are whole people, found out here, out of our minds, in the cosmos. Not inside some dying brain. — theRiddler
You can find the Black vs White critics replying to my BothAnd posts all over this forum. They try to push me to their side of the absolute Truth spectrum. Fortunately, most posters are somewhat humble & flexible in their philosophical opinions. Only a few are absolutely certain of their scientific or religious Truth.As far as New Age nutcase, what views are they specifically criticizing? — Garrett Travers
absolute Truth spectrum — Gnomon
Note -- There's an old saying : "I must be doing something right, if I get criticized from both extremes". — Gnomon
Both/And Principle : — Gnomon
The last part of this assertion belies the first part. The "absolute category" would be inherently all-encompassing & Holistic, hence not piecemeal & Reductive. Which reminds me that these politically polarized threads (e.g. FreeWill vs Determinism : Mind vs Brain) tend to begin as philosophical dialogs with sharing of information & opinions. But they quickly devolve into political sniping across the dividing line. The opposing poles can be labeled as either Reductive or Holistic. But the BothAnd philosophy crosses the no-man's-land to unite those disparate worldviews. Unfortunately, the politicization of the discussion forces each participant to retreat into an Either/Or stance. :angry:Any truth that could be found in the not absolute category, would at that moment constitute a place in the absolute state of truth. It's completely reductive. — Garrett Travers
To "complement" your mis-understanding, you could check-out the BothAnd Blog to discover how Systems Theory and Information Theory are integrated into the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity. You may be surprised that your interlocutor is not quite as ignorant as your political jibes make him out to be. Of course, your Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy might be offended by the fraternization of opposing worldviews, such as Religion and Science. The moderate BA position doesn't accept the dogma of either side, but it does try to understand how they became entrenched in their defensive postures. :cool:Go check out General Systems Theory, and Informationa Integration Theory to compliment some of the understandings you placed underneath this banner. — Garrett Travers
The last part of this assertion belies the first part. The "absolute category" would be inherently all-encompassing & Holistic, hence not piecemeal & Reductive. — Gnomon
Which reminds me that these politically polarized threads (e.g. FreeWill vs Determinism : Mind vs Brain) tend to begin as philosophical dialogs with sharing of information & opinions. But they quickly devolve into political sniping across the dividing line. The opposing poles can be labeled as either Reductive or Holistic. But the BothAnd philosophy crosses the no-man's-land to unite those disparate worldviews. Unfortunately, the politicization of the discussion forces each participant to retreat into an Either/Or stance. — Gnomon
To "complement" your mis-understanding, you could check-out the BothAnd Blog to discover how Systems Theory and Information Theory are integrated into the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity. — Gnomon
You may be surprised that your interlocutor is not quite as ignorant as your political jibes make him out to be. Of course, your Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy might be offended by the fraternization of opposing worldviews, such as Religion and Science. — Gnomon
The moderate BA position doesn't accept the dogma of either side, but it does try to understand how they became entrenched in their defensive postures. — Gnomon
Individuals may have strong beliefs & principles. But interpersonal endeavors require more flexibility. So, this blog is an argument for Relativism, Negotiation, Compromise, & Cooperation.
* The usual alternative to these wavering wimpy ways is the unyielding dominant stand-point of Absolutism, Conflict, and Competition. Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values.
* Nationalism is a modern pseudo-democratic off-shoot of Royalism, with its divine right to rule a nation of pawns. Democracy and Socialism are imperfect attempts to accommodate the needs & wishes of all citizens from top to bottom.
* The Blog assumes that we will always have people on both sides of every issue. Yet, we can still have our private beliefs, even as we make public concessions to necessity.
BothAnd Glossary — Gnomon
BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature. — Gnomon
I referred to political polarization because you seem to be defending an ideological position, which some refer to as "Scientism". I'm reluctant to use such categorical labels, but your insistence on empirical evidence --- for Philosophical concepts that are not amenable to reductive dissection --- is a mis-application of a good policy. You portray my not-yet-orthodox cutting-edge "evidence" as in-admissible. But a Mind is not a lab rat.I have no place in this analysis. I don't give a shit about politics, except where it violates my freedom. — Garrett Travers
I referred to political polarization because you seem to be defending an ideological position, which some refer to as "Scientism". I'm reluctant to use such categorical labels, but your insistence on empirical evidence --- for Philosophical concepts that are not amenable to reductive dissection --- is a mis-application of a good policy. You portray my not-yet-orthodox cutting-edge "evidence" as in-admissible. But a Mind is not a lab rat. — Gnomon
yet you demand empirical evidence for its existence. — Gnomon
Since, after 2500 years of speculating, there is no hard evidence forthcoming; from your ideological perspective this thread is an exercise in futility -- except as a political arena to display the superiority of the Scientism party. — Gnomon
I apologize for using a shorthand label for your view. But, it omits the very essence of Philosophical Evidence : subjective experience & rational appraisal, in cases where objective testing is not applicable. Unfortunately, that includes most of the topics that politicians come to blows about. — Gnomon
PS__Even on Scientific forums, pioneering theories, such as Strings & Loops, are hotly debated, because the only evidence is mathematical (mental), not empirical (material). — Gnomon
Some opponents say such theories are "not even wrong", but that's also true of all perennial philosophical questions. — Gnomon
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces. — Gnomon
That's subjective, not empirical evidence.
To mirror your apolitical expression above : I don't give a sh*t about medical politics, except where it marginalizes what works subjectively as non-empirical. — Gnomon
That is a pretty good summary of the authoritarian worldview called "Scientism". Technically, it's not a religion, but a dogmatic philosophical position, based on the absolute authority of some intangible entity called "Science". However, it may be described as "puritanical", in that it rejects such unreal impurities as "theories" and "opinions". Scientism may be considered political, in that it is identified mostly with Left Wing political views. Until now, I had never concerned myself with Scientism, partly because those who espouse the gospel of materialistic Science, don't think of themselves as political or religious, just as Orthodox believers in scientifically revealed Truth.I don't know what any of this means. Science, as per basic philosophical understanding, is never to be dismissed and should inform one's philosophical theories. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts. — Garrett Travers
That is a pretty good summary of the authoritarian worldview called "Scientism". Technically, it's not a religion, but a dogmatic philosophical position, based on the absolute authority of some intangible entity called "Science". However, it may be described as "puritanical", in that it rejects such unreal impurities as "theories" and "opinions". Scientism may be considered political, in that it is identified mostly with Left Wing political views. Until now, I had never concerned myself with Scientism, partly because those who espouse the gospel of materialistic Science, don't think of themselves as political or religious, just as Orthodox believers in scientifically revealed Truth. — Gnomon
If you are going to insist on referring to "known science", you should at least cite book, chapter & verse. Where is it written that "there are no Thoughts or Minds, only Neural Nets & Brains"? Is that from the Authorized Version, or the Revised Standard Version? The non-specific Appeal to Authority is also a fallacy.No it's just not making a "disregard for known science fallacy" — Garrett Travers
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.