I will read his comments and if his reasoning is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism then he will be appreciated.You two should be friends. — bert1
-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).Actually, I don't think I'm anything more than organic chemistry, except maybe space as well. — bert1
-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology.But as a panpsychist I think all chemistry is conscious. — bert1
Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious.My evidence for this is that I am conscious. — bert1
-I can not find any earlier comments of mine in this thread so I don't think your comment is relevant to my thesis on the subject..at least I don't understand your point. If not, please elaborate.I don't think you've quite grasped the point about non vagueness. Your brain farts and such are experiences and therefore do not constitute states that are indeterminate as to whether or not they are conscious. — bert1
I can not find any earlier comments of mine in this thread so I don't think your comment is relevant to my thesis on the subject..at least I don't understand your point. If not, please elaborate. — Nickolasgaspar
Penrose always says the Universe is not conscious, but that proto-consciousness is a fundamental property of it. Now I'm a bit confused.
1. What is proto-consciousness?
2. How is proto-consciousness differentiated from matter?
3. What is the difference between consciousness and proto-consciousness? — Eugen
-I don't understand your point because you are saying that you aren't anything more than two abstract concepts (Chemisty or space).
Chemical processes are a basic condition necessary for our physical existence. Depending from the scale we choose to observe this phenomenon our description also changes. From a molecular to the scale of biological systems and behavior we can identify many different processes responsible for our existence. — Nickolasgaspar
-You are committing a logical error. Your position SHOULD be induced by your premises. Its shouldn't be your conclusion product of a tautology. — Nickolasgaspar
Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious. — Nickolasgaspar
Arguing from the general to the specific is a fallacy and its in direct conflict the the most successful Scientific paradigm. — Nickolasgaspar
Our practice to remove Agency from nature was the single most important thing we ever did to enable the run away success of our epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar
Advanced high level features are contingent to specific Low Level Mechanisms. — Nickolasgaspar
In order to overturn this Paradigm you will have to offer far more convincing evidence than "your self being conscious". — Nickolasgaspar
You must suffer from some kind of masochism. Otherwise, I can't explain why you're torturing yourself trying to refute non-arguments presented by persons/bots like — Eugen
My panpsychism is the conclusion to a bunch of premises. I just haven't given them here. I have done so at length in the past on this forum, and everyone is bored of me doing so, apart from you, so maybe I'll do it again just to annoy everyone. No right now though I don't have time. — bert1
Of course it's not wrong. If you generalize a quality just because of your condition its a text book fallacy.Being conscious can only be evidence of the ability of a biological process(you) to be conscious. — Nickolasgaspar
No, that's wrong. — bert1
"I'm arguing from the specific (me) to the general (everything). That's a different fallacy, no doubt, I'm sure someone will point it out in a minute. 3....2....1.... — bert1
Agency needs to be demonstrated not assumed. Your premises need to arrive to the conclusion...not to start from it.Luckily for nature it's agency is still there regardless of what we think about it. Yay for realism. — bert1
Special pleading is a fallacy....how about digestion...why don't you argue about that, after all we find neurons in our guts...Sure, in many many ways. Just not with regard to consciousness. — bert1
-No you won't find Panpsychism as a conclusion in a since publication of neuroscience. TryI won't accomplish anything, I'm too puny and my dick is too small. But there is plenty of support for panpsychism across fields, including neuroscience. — bert1
It depends from your definition of "Consciousness".1) 'Consciousness' is not vague — bert1
-Again you will need to define consciousness and what vagueness has to do with the phenomenon.2) The structure and function of systems generally thought to realise/cause/be (pick your verb) consciousness are sufficiently complex to be highly vague. — bert1
-I am not sure that you use the word "consciousness" in a meaningful scientific way....but to be sure, I will have to listen to your definition.3) Therefore there is unlikely to be non-arbitrary way to decide at what point in the development of these systems consciousness emerges. — bert1
-Its a fact that conscious states emerge from the function of the ARAS and the ability of the Central Lateral thalamus to introduce content to any stimuli that has met the threshold of attention, by connecting to areas of the brain responsible for Logic, memory, symbolic language, emotions,pattern recognition, prediction etc.4) It is far more likely that consciousness does not emerge — bert1
-Consciousness is a state, its real but it doesn't exist as an entity on its own. It;s the emerging result of an on going process like life, digestion, combustion. When the conditions are right they just manifest in reality.5) Nevertheless consciousness exists (I know it does in me, that's the datum of evidence) — bert1
-I am not interested in Philosophical worldviews.There are three possibilities: eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism
All of these are problematic.
Eliminativism is false because I am conscious.
Emergentism is false for a number of reasons depending on the version of it. E.g. functionalism is false because it has no answer to 'Why can't that happen in that dark?'
Panpsychism is the least problematic and is the only theory standing, even though that has problems too (the combination problems most famously).
Therefore, provisionally, panpsychism — bert1
And no comparing Pseudo philosophical worldvies (like eliminativism, emergence or panpsychism) doesn't change the Default Position on the subject. — Nickolasgaspar
Stop hoping! :lol:I'm hoping to bring him into the fold a little. If he carries on like that he'll be banned eventually, but we all have to start somewhere. — bert1
But you're an emergentist! And a functionalist as far as I can tell. These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science. — bert1
-I am a Methodological Naturalist. Methodological Naturalism(MN) is not a Philosophical Worldview but an Epistemic Acknowledgement. My claims end where my ability to observe and verify ends. My current accepted Scientific knowledge is Tentative and based on what we can currently observe and falsify. That limits me within this realm forcing me to reject any indemonstrable realms or agents.These are philosophical positions. You haven't escaped into science. — bert1
methodical and systematic findings of Science and the rules of Logic. — Nickolasgaspar
-It doesn't have to do with personal preference. It has to do with the need to Demarcate Philosophy and Science from pseudo philosophy and nonsense.....that's all.If you do not like this idea that is your choice. Not liking something should not really be a singular guiding principle when tackling any complex problem. — I like sushi
Then why are you disregarding both on your reply to me about Penrose? His thought is based PURELY on logic and known physical mechanisms. — I like sushi
Emergence in Science is nothing more than a Classification label of phenomena with observable differences between their mechanisms and their properties....nothing magical there. — Nickolasgaspar
bert1, I've recently had this type of debate and I think this is a trend. From a philosophical point of view, they kind of realize one cannot defend materialism. So here's what they do: they deflect the topic into the scientific realm, falsely implying:
a. that this is science, not philosophy
b. science is all-powerful
c. science hasn't proven yet that consciousness is fundamental, therefore we shouldn't believe that
Then, they come back to philosophy and say:
d. therefore, materialism must be true — Eugen
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.