This is a failure to adhere to a rigorous definition of "system", — Metaphysician Undercover
Not necessarily, that's the point. When the apparatus is faulty, or in some way deficient in its capacity to be what it is supposed to be, it cannot be said to be a system. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is because a "system" is an artificial thing designed for a purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover
we cannot simply assume that the apparatus comprises a system — Metaphysician Undercover
You can't argue with a zombie. — Marchesk
This is why we need a rigorous definition as to what constitutes an "observation". — Metaphysician Undercover
It's clear that the arguments in the article are successful in removing from reasonable discourse qualia that are both ineffable and private. The reasonable folk who defend qualia have followed the only course open, which was to shift the definition of one or more of the concepts involved. — Banno
That's a dubious proposition. I would say it is more of an assertion than an observation. — Metaphysician Undercover
But I see from your discussion with Luke, that you are free and easy as to what qualifies as an "observation". — Metaphysician Undercover
But of course they are only detecting what they are designed to detect, and everything else goes right past them. So they cannot be claimed to be making valid "observations". — Metaphysician Undercover
What can it really mean to detect, when knowledge of having doubted is given immediately from it. It is impossible to doubt without doubt being known as that which has occurrence. There is no need for the one to test for the other.
No different than saying a spinning wheel detects its own roundness. It spins because it is round, it couldn’t spin if it wasn’t. Being round is a necessary condition for wheel spinning, hence, if there is spinning, roundness is necessarily given. There is no requirement or admission of detection. — Mww
In the same way, I know I doubted because I doubted; I couldn’t know I doubted without having doubted. That which is known about is a necessary condition for knowing; upon doubting, knowledge of doubt follows necessarily, without requirement or admission of detection. — Mww
What are you on about? If you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of "mind" that I quoted, feel free to spell out where you disagree.
If you don't want to explain what you meant by "in principle" or to discuss it further, that's fine. — Luke
OK, this is a good start. By what means does one "detect" the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Doesn't empirical verification require direct observation? — Luke
It doesn't require any special definition. — Luke
As Descartes made abundantly clear, the reality of one's own mind, at least, is what is described as an apodictic truth, 'apodictic' meaning 'cannot reasonably be doubted', for the simple reason that doubt requires a mind capable of doubting. — Wayfarer
I’m asking how do you verify a mind or mental states? — Luke
What about the distinction between mind/matter or mental/physical? Is there such a distinction, or do minds/mental states not exist? — Luke
So a physical architect's brain and hand produces plans for a house, and the plans are physical, but there is no house. A natural way of talking would be to say that the builders will realise the architect's plans when they build the house that is imagined. — unenlightened
The best case, it seems to me, is the one you are making where if it affects something physical than it is physical. Which ends up, it seems to me replacing properties with relations. — Coben
And it's not just the exotic things like quarks that are exotic since everything is made up of exotic stuff that is not physical in the way we used the word about things like rocks and chairs and as opposed to spiritual or ideal. — Coben
Further we must assume that all that matters is the impingement on things that we already consider physical (despite whatever we my have found out about their make-up). — Coben
But real seems more appropriate. — Coben
Now granting that the ducks are physical, is the row physical? Do I have 4 physical things - 3 ducks and a row? Or 3 physical things - the ducks in a non-physical row? — unenlightened
No. For the umpteenth time, I'm asking what observable difference is between conscious and unconscious processes are. — Harry Hindu
Personally, I agree with you although I think that many of a scientific persuasion would like to claim that there path is the most accurate and valid. — Jack Cummins
All we're dealing with is your refusal to believe that there are non-physical effects or things. — Wayfarer
If it's physical, how so? — Marchesk
Which is why psycho-somatic effects ought not to exist. — Wayfarer
And the placebo is only considered an anomaly in medicine because of its apparently non-physical nature. — Wayfarer
It appeared to be what you had written. — Wayfarer
Physicalism and empiricism are different principles. — Wayfarer
Besides there are vast areas of conjecture in current physics which are beyond empircal verification in principle, such as the multiverse conjecture and string theory. — Wayfarer
Patients get sick, and are also sometimes cured, by what they believe. Placebos have a measurable affect on patients, even though they're physically inert. In those cases a psychological (mental) cause has a bodily (physical) effect. — Wayfarer
The image in our eyes is identical to the image in a camera. — TheMadFool
When people linked to genetic science say that there is only a 3% difference between man and chimpanzee, they show an ignorance about the validity of knowledge of genetics. Between human intelligence and animal intelligence there is a global difference that only appears in real experience and anyone can attest to that. — Rafaella Leon
That is what I've been asking this whole time -- how human beings learn things. How is a scribble about unconscious processes, and what is the observable difference between conscious processes and unconscious processes? — Harry Hindu
I only doubt that we can learn things based on what you have said, not what I have said. You are the one that can't explain the difference between conscious and unconscious processes. If what you said works for you, then good for you. — Harry Hindu
The problem which I see with relativism itself is that it can be seen as implying that we all have different perspectives and there can be no way of discerning truth at all. — Jack Cummins
I prefer the idea of pluralism, which suggests competitive rather than necessarily equal truths, because it has less of a reductive slant towards comparisons — Jack Cummins
'The idea that science and religion are enemies is false: they concern distinct, if overlapping, spheres of human experiences. But the presumption has proved extremely hard to overcome.' — Jack Cummins
Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins
Everything you said is to be doubted because you can't explain the observable difference between conscious processes and unconscious processes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. — Harry Hindu
So to believe in the soul is to be creationist? — Wayfarer
I'll state the physicalist argument for your consideration.
1. To exist -> To be perceivable [Has to be true for physicalism]
2. To be perceivable -> To exist [True]
3. To exist -> To be physical [??? necessary for 4]
4. To be perceivable -> To be physical [from 2, 3 and necessary for 5]
Ergo,
5. To exist -> To be physical [Physicalism] — TheMadFool
Its an effort to get you to back up your own statements. — Harry Hindu
Imagine being burned at the stake as you keep telling yourself the pain is an illusion. — Marchesk
How does consciously observing scribbles on a page provide knowledge of unconscious processes? — Harry Hindu
Asking questions stems from trying to understand others' bizarre statements. Why don't you just answer the questions? — Harry Hindu
How does one come to consciously know that they are unconscious of many processes occurring in the brain? :brow: It sounds like a meaningless contradiction to me. — Harry Hindu
Its nature remains unknown, and until it is discovered, it still remains a conjecture. — Wayfarer
Minds don't process binary units. — Wayfarer