Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Our job, simply put, is to invent or discover our connection to "God".
nicely done. But we argue the traits you assign to it, not that something is there. I feel the biosphere is life, it is not your god. It explains, predicts, and offers a mechanism for greyland's, mystic's, yours, miss hep's and even tran's perspective.
When the big three (explanation, mechanism, and prediction) are deployed and supported by measurements, its at that point we see who is wishing or wanting a personal emotional need to be real.
I'd think it more likely that any aspect of the universe that supports or acts as some sort of substrate for consciousness simply provides consciousness "potential" or, if you will, matter / energy to be organized in particular ways for that purpose. I would look for such substrates to be organized in new or increased ways but not for new substate to be generated. Besides, that would beg the question of whether this currently undetected "je n'sais quoi" is produced by consciousness or is a prerequisite for it or simply some kind of catalyst. If consciousness forms your hypothetical "organizational mass", then it's a byproduct, not a prerequisite. And that, I think would raise bigger questions than the answers it would provide.
he is saying there is a smallest unit that can support his claim. That smallest unit could be a brain. In other words, if quantity of interactions dips below that "critical number" qualia will not be an influence at that point.
Like a room full of tables acts like a room full of tables until you get to a point where there is no tables, Like one table or broken tables, then its not a room full of tables. or remove the ceiling and floors and we can't interact with it like a room full of tables. Its something else.
of course it raises bigger questions. And every question we answer leads to "bigger" complexity and 'bigger life". It will lead to atheists and theists having parts correct and parts incorrect. No god, thats for sure, but "deny anything because I am afraid." will be just as childish.
of course it raises bigger questions. And every question we answer leads to "bigger" complexity and 'bigger life". It will lead to atheists and theists having parts correct and parts incorrect. No god, thats for sure, but "deny anything because I am afraid." will be just as childish.
Yes like in gaylen's primitive tribe which was absolutely certain "no math thats for sure"
I really admire your explanatory skill, Gaylen. It is clear from your posts that you DO understand where I am coming from. I understand your resistance to my ultimate conclusion because you lack the experience of it. I assure you, if you DO experience it, you will have no further doubts about it whatsoever.
As you know, Mystic, I don't deny or doubt the reality or the impact of the experience you talk of. I often wonder whether it could happen to me and whether (if so) it would sweep away all doubts or not. Until then, The doubts remain.
I have no doubt, however about the falsity of organized religion or even the invalidity of the records of religious books. That's all I claim to be Sure about.
I accept that Qualia exists as an effect rather than exist as a discrete new thing in matter (e.g an unknown particle). They are physical of course as an effect. But saying that the is within the physical rather tends to eliminate it as subjective, does it not? Unexplainable in terms of physicalism is not the same as saying it is not physical - which you may not be doing in any case.
Excellent! I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I wouldn't expect qualia to be explained in terms of any new "particle" - in fact I'd say that anyone trying to identify qualia as a new particle is profoundly confused and misguided.
But I disagree with your suggestion that the act of characterizing qualia as physical "tends to eliminate it as subjective." Here, again, I need to remind you that I am proposing a dual aspect theory. A pyramid has four triangular sides and a square side, so "triangle-ness" and "square-ness" are both properties/aspects of being a pyramid. My dual-aspect approach claims that objective and subjective are aspects of "being physical" for some physical systems (specifically, "brains" in the broad sense of "highly complex information-processing systems," etc.). Since my brain is such a system, it has this dual-aspect character; it has objective properties (that can be experienced by you, and me, and others "from the outside" as shape, color, texture, weight, mass, processing speed, dynamic electrochemical patterns, etc., and it has subjective properties that can be experienced, as such, only by me because these properties are properties concerning what it is like to BE this particular brain, and I am the only one who has the perspective of being this particular brain. What it is like for me to see red is the classic example. Presumably both of us can experience what it is like to see red because both of us are the types of physical systems that can experience red. Thus "the experience of seeing red" is, itself, a type of physical process that has both objective and subjective aspects. So being physical is complimentary with both "being objectively observable as having properties X, Y, and Z" and "having the subjective experience of being the physical system that you and others observe as having properties X, Y, and Z."
Quote:
Subjective/subjectivity in the sense of matter/energy taking a form (say a soul, or consciousness outside of the physical mind and body) is not something I am persuaded of.
Nor am I, because I don't characterize the feeling of being a particular physical process as being "outside of the physical". The triangular-ness of a pyramid is not "outside" of the pyramid; it is, rather, a constituent property of being a pyramid. The crux of the problem is that, due to historical factors, we fell into the bad habit of emotionally identifying (and, in some cases, explicitly defining) the term 'physical' as "a set of purely objective properties." If we define the word 'physical' in such a way that we limit the essence of a physical system to only its objective properties then, of course, subjective properties would fall "outside of the physical" but my question is: Why should be define physical in such a way? It's just a conventional way of thinking rooted in historical accident, and it sets us up for utter failure and confusion if we want to understand the physical aspects of qualia. There is simply no logical reason why things that have objective properties can't also have subjective properties. So why paint ourselves into a philosophical corner by imposing limits on the definition of 'physical' that serve no good purpose and prevent us - by arbitrary definition - from recognizing the physical nature of qualia? Frankly, I think the emotional attachment that some people have to the idea that 'physical' means purely objective is rooted in a sort of "blind faith" that is no better than the emotional attachments that lead people to religious blind faith.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-01-2017 at 09:42 AM..
Yes like in gaylen's primitive tribe which was absolutely certain "no math that's for sure"
Yeah, its like fairies at the bottom of the well, there are fruits flies. There is not "nothing" and personal needs determining the practical nature of them is irrelevant to the statement that they are there.
Excellent! I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I wouldn't expect qualia to be explained in terms of any new "particle" - in fact I'd say that anyone trying to identify qualia as a new particle is profoundly confused and misguided.
But I disagree with your suggestion that the act of characterizing qualia as physical "tends to eliminate it as subjective." Here, again, I need to remind you that I am proposing a dual aspect theory. A pyramid has four triangular sides and a square side, so "triangle-ness" and "square-ness" are both properties/aspects of being a pyramid. My dual-aspect approach claims that objective and subjective are aspects of "being physical" for some physical systems (specifically, "brains" in the broad sense of "highly complex information-processing systems," etc.). Since my brain is such a system, it has this dual-aspect character; it has objective properties (that can be experienced by you, and me, and others "from the outside" as shape, color, texture, weight, mass, processing speed, dynamic electrochemical patterns, etc., and it has subjective properties that can be experienced, as such, only by me because these properties are properties concerning what it is like to BE this particular brain, and I am the only one who has the perspective of being this particular brain. What it is like for me to see red is the classic example. Presumably both of us can experience what it is like to see red because both of us are the types of physical systems that can experience red. Thus "the experience of seeing red" is, itself, a type of physical process that has both objective and subjective aspects. So being physical is complimentary with both "being objectively observable as having properties X, Y, and Z" and "having the subjective experience of being the physical system that you and others observe as having properties X, Y, and Z."
Nor am I, because I don't characterize the feeling of being a particular physical process as being "outside of the physical". The triangular-ness of a pyramid is not "outside" of the pyramid; it is, rather, a constituent property of being a pyramid. The crux of the problem is that, due to historical factors, we fell into the bad habit of emotionally identifying (and, in some cases, explicitly defining) the term 'physical' as "a set of purely objective properties." If we define the word 'physical' in such a way that we limit the essence of a physical system to only its objective properties then, of course, subjective properties would fall "outside of the physical" but my question is: Why should be define physical in such a way? It's just a conventional way of thinking rooted in historical accident, and it sets us up for utter failure and confusion if we want to understand the physical aspects of qualia. There is simply no logical reason why things that have objective properties can't also have subjective properties. So why paint ourselves into a philosophical corner by imposing limits on the definition of 'physical' that serve no good purpose and prevent us - by arbitrary definition - from recognizing the physical nature of qualia? Frankly, I think the emotional attachment that some people have to the idea that 'physical' means purely objective is rooted in a sort of "blind faith" that is no better than the emotional attachments that lead people to religious blind faith.
I think we went over this before, and this is about Creationism, not about substance dualism. So I'll just say that I fairly content with qualia not being some kind of new thing, I recall that I did qualify that subjective could mean various things.
As you know, Mystic, I don't deny or doubt the reality or the impact of the experience you talk of. I often wonder whether it could happen to me and whether (if so) it would sweep away all doubts or not. Until then, The doubts remain.
I have no doubt, however about the falsity of organized religion or even the invalidity of the records of religious books. That's all I claim to be Sure about.
yes, just like the primitive tribe in Gaylen's example who were just as certain as you that math did not exist
...The crux of the problem is that we fell into the bad habit of emotionally identifying (and, in some cases, explicitly defining) the term 'physical' as "a set of purely objective properties." If we define the word 'physical' in such a way that we limit the essence of a physical system to only its objective properties then, of course, subjective properties would fall "outside of the physical" but my question is: Why should be define physical in such a way?
It's just a conventional way of thinking rooted in historical accident, and it sets us up for utter failure and confusion if we want to understand the physical aspects of qualia. There is simply no logical reason why things that have objective properties can't also have subjective properties. So why paint ourselves into a philosophical corner by imposing limits on the definition of 'physical' that serve no good purpose and prevent us - by arbitrary definition - from recognizing the physical nature of qualia?
Frankly, I think the emotional attachment that some people have to the idea that 'physical' means purely objective is rooted in a sort of "blind faith" that is no better than the emotional attachments that lead people to religious blind faith.
to paraphrase
The crux of the problem is that we fell into the bad habit of emotionally identifying (and, in some cases, explicitly defining) the term 'physical human' as "a set of purely objective properties." If we define the 'physical human' in such a way that we limit the essence of a human to only its physical properties then, of course, "the non physical soul" would not be considered "part of the physical human" but my question is: Why should be define a human that way?
It's just a conventional way of thinking and it sets us up for utter failure and confusion if we want to understand what it is to be a "physical human" with "a non-physical soul". There is simply no logical reason why a physical human body can't also have a non-physical soul. So why paint ourselves into a corner by imposing limits on the definition of "physical human" that serve no good purpose and prevent us from recognizing the physical human body with a non physical soul?
... Frankly, I think the emotional attachment that some people have to the 'physical body and physical universe' while rejecting the "non-physical soul" and "non physical universe" is rooted in a sort of "blindness" that is no better than the emotional attachments that lead people to blindly reject anything that is not physically documented.
Excellent! I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I wouldn't expect qualia to be explained in terms of any new "particle" - in fact I'd say that anyone trying to identify qualia as a new particle is profoundly confused and misguided.
But I disagree with your suggestion that the act of characterizing qualia as physical "tends to eliminate it as subjective." Here, again, I need to remind you that I am proposing a dual aspect theory. A pyramid has four triangular sides and a square side, so "triangle-ness" and "square-ness" are both properties/aspects of being a pyramid. My dual-aspect approach claims that objective and subjective are aspects of "being physical" for some physical systems (specifically, "brains" in the broad sense of "highly complex information-processing systems," etc.). Since my brain is such a system, it has this dual-aspect character; it has objective properties (that can be experienced by you, and me, and others "from the outside" as shape, color, texture, weight, mass, processing speed, dynamic electrochemical patterns, etc., and it has subjective properties that can be experienced, as such, only by me because these properties are properties concerning what it is like to BE this particular brain, and I am the only one who has the perspective of being this particular brain. What it is like for me to see red is the classic example. Presumably both of us can experience what it is like to see red because both of us are the types of physical systems that can experience red. Thus "the experience of seeing red" is, itself, a type of physical process that has both objective and subjective aspects. So being physical is complimentary with both "being objectively observable as having properties X, Y, and Z" and "having the subjective experience of being the physical system that you and others observe as having properties X, Y, and Z."
Excellent! Gaylen, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here.
to paraphrase
I wouldn't expect the human soul to be explained in terms of any new "particle" - in fact I'd say that anyone trying to identify the human soul as a new particle is profoundly confused and misguided.
You are right on target identifying a dual aspect of being human. Your dual-aspect approach recognizes that objective and subjective are aspects of "being human." You as an individual human being have this dual-aspect character; it has objective properties that can be experienced by you, and me, and others "from the outside" as physical body with shape, color, texture, weight, mass, movement, agility, chemicals, nervous system that transmits electrical patterns, etc.
And you have non physical properties that can be experienced, as such, only by you because these properties are properties concerning what it is like to BE your particular non-physical soul inhabiting and using your physical body. Your non-physical soul is the only one who has the perspective of being in your particular physical body.
What it is like for you to see red is the classic example. Presumably both of us can experience what it is like to see red because both of us have the types of physical body that can see red. Thus "the experience of seeing red" is, itself, a type of physical process that has both objective and subjective aspects. So being a human includes both "having a physical body" and also "having a non physical soul inside the physical body"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
