You won’t get an argument from me — Mww
be-all-end-all domain is utterly irrelevant to the guy wondering what to do about his neighbor’s dog digging up the carrot patch. — Mww
I grant the science, and acknowledge the authority of brain machinations. But I am, at the end of the day, just a regular ol’ human being, and as such, philosophy has much more impact on me, than your science, of which I have no conscious need in my intellectual performance. — Mww
You actually might be better off, if you acknowledged the fact that everybody thinks, but not a single human ever, is aware of their phosphorus ion count, activation potentials, nor the span of his synaptic clefts for the color “blue”. — Mww
where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww
So if everybody does this, but nobody does that....where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww
O, the tragedy of a brain that doesn't understand itself... — Janus
That claim itself is anything but an empirically falsifiable one. — Janus
These sorts of claims are made by those of a fundamentalist spirit that fails to realize the importance of perspective and context. — Janus
Which would seem pretty hard to explain, methinks. — Mww
So if everybody does this, but nobody does that....where should the productive emphasis reside? — Mww
Neuroscience hasn't figured out how a conscious experience is produced. They somehow know...or I shouldn't say they, but sycophants like Garrett know that neuroscience has proven its the product of the amalgamation of the brain.
So, three things they don't understand:
1. The complete function of the brain.
2. Consciousness.
3. The environment in which said consciousness exists.
And yet...they kNoW tHeRe Is nO mystery. Ie. There cannot be ANY surprises. — theRiddler
And no, it's pretty well asserted in neuroscientific community, even if there are still many mysteries to solve. — Garrett Travers
No, fundamentalists say that the mind and body are separate, — Garrett Travers
You guys just keep either insulting me, or just saying I'm wrong. Which is weird. — Garrett Travers
Ya know....and I know you do....it was said many moons ago, that human reason is very good at contradicting itself. So if brain machinations are the be-all-end-all, and human reason is the conscious manifestation of the be-all-end-all of brain machinations, then it is the case that the brain both adheres to the absolute necessity of natural law, and at the same time, ensures the inevitability of contradicting itself. Which would seem pretty hard to explain, methinks. — Mww
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for either side; I am neither atheist nor theist. dualist nor monist; I like to keep an open mind on undecidables. That said I do have my leanings, but they are something I'd not care to argue for, being as how there is no objective measure of mere plausibility. — Janus
I've merely thrown you some problems for your position which you've utterly failed to address. — Janus
but where you are definitely wrong, in my view, is over-zealously overstepping the bounds of scientific warrant in regard to your claims. — Janus
And if you read back over the threads you've participated in with an honest eye, I think you'll find that the move to insult has generally been initiated by you. — Janus
Insulting me just makes you look more like someone who doesn't have an argument. — Garrett Travers
No, I don't think so. Had that been the case, you would have addressed something I've asserted with the data. — Garrett Travers
You "don't think so" what? I don't need to see the data to know that it cannot support the kind of claim you are making. Yours is a metaphysical or ontological claim. Empirical data has no bearing on those.
What you are claiming is undecidable, pure and simple. If not it could be demonstrated by experiment. Only philosophically uneducated people take scientific results to prove anything about ontology. I've raised questions and you've refused to even attempt to answer them. — Janus
For example I asked you whether you thought that conscious awareness was prior or subsequent to its correlated neural process. Libet's experiment seem to show that it is subsequent; which, if true, would mean that the nature of conscious awareness may be completely determined by neural processes, — Janus
You want to claim that people are morally responsible, but such a claim would be absurd if we are nothing more than a natural process. From a purely rational perspective our moral status would be the same as any other natural process, notwithstanding the brain/body's much greater complexity. — Janus
You have no answer for this objection, apparently, and so try to deflect the question, so as not to show the weakness of your position. At least the Churchlands are consistent in their eliminativism. And so is Dennett for the most part, although he too does not want to admit that there is no free will, and hence moral responsibility, even though everything he writes points to that conclusion. You can believe whatever you like, but at least be intellectually honest enough to be consistent. — Janus
If you take pointing out inconsistencies in your position as insult then that's your problem, not mine. — Janus
You guys just keep (....) saying I'm wrong — Garrett Travers
Ethics perhaps? — Merkwurdichliebe
I mean....how can “we hypothesize....” be argued? — Mww
How will science know what it is like to be something?
How will science objectively know a subjective experience?
Or is this what science is even hoping for? — Watchmaker
The neuroscientific community doesn't even dispute that the brain is the source of consciousness. — Garrett Travers
Bowser's theory of consciousness is that it is entirely digital, — unenlightened
Paves a way from physiology to the subjective experience of consciousness with which it has seemed so incompatible. — Enrique
It's a complicated world, and I do not think it can be adequately addressed with one kind of thinking. — SatmBopd
I don't think photons are superpositioned with electrons in orbitals. How do you envision this? — EugeneW
I'm under the impression that the role these particle interactions play are supplementary to the global structure of the brain. Have you discovered data that would suggest otherwise? — 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.