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.
It's not about trying to shut anyone up or silence their voice or exclude them from contributing to discussion.
But their own behaviors can remove them and disqualify them from "rational discourse."
If a person wants their views to be taken seriously, then they seek to present and interact as a credible source. If they make wild irrational statements like "respect is a crock" or "all religion is false and insane beliefs" or "there is no free will" or "worst person on earth wasted lifetime" or "too dumb to understand my brilliance" then they consign themselves to the fanatic fringe.
I submit that "respect" should include the idea that a person can understand when they are acting irrationally and should be told so.
I submit that "respect" should include the idea that a person can understand when they are acting irrationally and should be told so.
Yes. logically correct debate - or simply being in error as you pointed out my misreading of you, is quite correct. in fact, respectful in stopping me making an ass of myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
It's not about trying to shut anyone up or silence their voice or exclude them from contributing to discussion.
But their own behaviors can remove them and disqualify them from "rational discourse."
If a person wants their views to be taken seriously, then they seek to present and interact as a credible source. If they make wild irrational statements like "respect is a crock" or "all religion is false and insane beliefs" or "there is no free will" or "worst person on earth wasted lifetime" or "too dumb to understand my brilliance" then they consign themselves to the fanatic fringe.
You are yourself indicating the difference between the "respect' censorship I referred to and behaviour that lacks respect - which i concede is something to be considered.
But I also perceive a tendency to use one thing (please play nice) in the service of the other (please do not offend our beliefs) and we can't accept that.
This is merely for information, as those who may complain about our tone, content or method of debate will have their argument considered and, if it is a good point, hopefully it will be taken on board. if not, frankly they can go trundle their hoop.
We will neither be shut up or shut down. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed into silence.
Saying atoms can't explain Consciousness because atoms aren't conscious is like saying atoms can't explain life because atoms aren't alive.
Correct. This is a fairly heated debate about "Emergence" (though no everyone uses the term in the same way) or perhaps "added information" is the same thing, because the denial of life from non life is very much the same as consciousness from none consciousness.
We know that information CAN be added - it happens all the time. It's called growth or even change. The new information may drive out the old information, but it comes in the shape of atoms and energy and is assembled into form and action.
I dn't want to set off the 'Consciousness' debate, yet again, but I see it as related to the 'wetness' argument. Atoms are not wet, but when combined, they become 'wet'. That is merely our sensory perception of the way the atoms work together. And even the instinctive reactions it triggers in us, as surely as the wetness attracts or repels slugs or beetles. It is matter doing stuff, and however consciousness works, I see it as the culmination of evolved reaction from plats, to bugs, animals, higher animals and us. Out reactions are theirs just as our life -force is theirs, and it is just stuff doing stuff. Nothing Mystical about it, though it mysterious, still
This, as you know, is a point on which you and I mostly agree. Insofar as materialism defines the fundamental stuff of reality in terms of objectively measurable properties, it - for profoundly logical reasons - can never fully explain the subjective aspects of experience. I say that you and I "mostly" agree because I do allow for a somewhat broader conception of "physicalism" in which we can accept "dual-aspect theory" - allowing the subjective aspects of reality to be fundamental - i.e., "brute facts". But then you and I part company (I think?) when I insist (as implied by dual-aspect theory) that there are no subjective properties that are not subjective aspects of a physical system. Thus I reject any ontology that allows thoughts or feelings to float around that are not the subjective aspects of a physical system. Thoughts or feeling that are not the mental properties of a physical system would be "non-physical" and I'm basically saying that I do not believe in non-physical things (for lots of various reasons that I have tried to explain in lots of threads here in C-D).
In light of some recent posts about critical thinking, I'd like to take a moment to tie these ideas together.
Do people who believe in non-physical things necessarily expose themselves as lacking critical thinking skills? No! Personally, I don't think their arguments in favor of non-physical entities is as strong as my arguments against them, but this doesn't mean they are being completely illogical or uncritical.
Could I someday change my mind and accept the existence of non-physical entities or properties? Yes! But here is a crucial point: Unless they prove logically that there must be non-physical stuff, then I will probably never believe with certainty that that non-physical stuff exists. In other words, I might someday come to believe that non-physical stuff exists, but I probably won't believe it with certainty - unless, of course, my conversion was based on a realization that the existence of non-physical stuff is logically provable. I'm elaborating on this point because I want to relate all of this to my #1 criteria for critical thinking (see post #2626). I currently feel with high confidence that non-physical entities do not exist, but I'm still open to arguments and evidence. I could still change my mind.
Can I be certain about my belief in the subjective aspects of reality? Yes, but certain subtle distinctions are required: I mostly accept Descartes' proof (concluding with "I think, therefore I am") because of a logical issue: For self-referential reasons, the thought "I don't exist" is, in itself, proof that the thought exists and thus the claim "I don't exist" is logically self-refuting. (There's a bit of wiggle room concerning the nature of the "I", but I'll skip over that for the sake of brevity.) So I feel certain that the contents of my immediate experience exist, and I feel certain that they are in some sense "mine". But the concept of subjectivity implies that these immediate experiences are only "mine". Here things get a bit more messy, and that is how Arq and others (E.g., "eliminative materialists" like Daniel Dennett, Paul Churchland, etc.) can claim that materialism is still a logical possibility. I believe with 99.999% certainty that materialism is wrong, but I have not yet been able to prove, with certainty, that materialism is logically impossible, so I can't say, with certainty, that I will never become a materialist.
I don't want to get into a deep discussion about this as it is rather academic for me, being here to roll back organized religion.
The nature of reality really isn't a matter i want to spend too much time on. I am content to watch (with interest) the discussions of others.
I just wonder whether there isn't a sort of misunderstanding about the 'material'. It is stuff and what stuff does and what it reliably predictably does (which is what material really is, rather than solid chunks of stuff - matter is made of as near nothing as makes no difference) and yet it constantly surprises me and all of us, so it also disproves (quite easily really) the solipsistic universe idea - at least as the preferred hypothesis.
Thus material (aka nature and the physical) being established, we know a lot about what it does. Thus it seems to be the preferred explanation for how stuff works or why it works.
Thus the burden of proof falls on the dualists to prove 'something More' or something other. It is not for materialism to come up with all the explanations now (let alone down to the last Nano -particle - that's just like the anti -evolutionists demanding a sample of every form showing an identifiable change before they will accept 'transition'), but for the dualists to prove or validate or make credible the something more, claim.
To show in philosophical terms that material physicalism can never explain everything was not done (I am obliged to say) in any way that I found convinced me, but the point is, even if it never can (which is quite likely) it doesn't mean that it isn't the (unknown) explanation, and you will certainly know that just disproving one theory doesn't make the Other one automatically true.
That was my position when we (or I) wound up our discussion and to that (you may recall) I added a vague feeling rather than a theory that an emergent property of mind -stuff could result in the effect of perception.
So that's where I am on the material default and where Mystic comes into it is Solidifies rather into "Nature" or "God". Unthinking physical laws or a controlling mind? Mystic says I am a 'concrete thinker"; I think he is a laughing -gas thinker. I go with what we can show; he goes with what he believes.
And which is the more logical hypothesis or explanation is why I got dragged into the argument in the first place.
In case you aren't familiar with the apologetic, while making a creator -god hypothesis credible (First cause and Order in the universe being the favourite arguments) it doesn't matter much to me, as it is organized religions that atheists are practically concerned with, which is why Mystic's hypothesis is actually not a problem, apart from a possibility of throwing in with religion rather than "nones", once it comes down to lock and load at the barriers...shouldn't it be load first and then lock?
But in fact a God as a given is a springboard of the leap of faith to a particular personal god (and religion). Though recent debunks of Bible and Quran have pushed 'em back a bit.
So in fact denying Theists a springboard of a sorta -god, is really saving us so much bother that it makes it worth while doing all this stuff about First cause and something from nothing. And so i had to at least get some idea of how substance dualism and qualia kicked into that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-30-2018 at 10:52 AM..
Pre p s. Ain't this fun, folks? I tried to find a vidclip of two huge, shaggy prehistoric beasts butting heads, but you will have to imagine it...
Despite saying I don't need to respond I find I do, because your rejoinders are so breathtakingly dishonest
"Your description of my view as that of "imperfect human perception" is a straw man version of my explanation of the many limitations of human perception that are not remotely controversial."
This is so blatantly an evasion of the point, a semantic cheat (saying the same thing in different words and pretending that makes them different) and your own strawman - I don't deny human imperfection and delusions. I accept them. I argue that the science method is designed to minimize that (1). Now, whether you accept that or not is not the point, it is that you blatantly misrepresented my point and then claimed that I misrepresented yours
This is not something that was in a post months or years ago, but here, where everyone can see it. This again is very basic stuff that doesn't require a lot of expertise to see that you are doing it wrong.
.
I was NOT referring to your NAME ("imperfect human perception") but your misinformed description of it. So many of your "understandings" of my views are wrong or misstated that it is virtually impossible to get past your inflated view of your understanding and ability to "debunk" You seem to think that merely responding to a point is a "debunk" regardless how inane or misguided the response is. Do you even comprehend the difference between your NAME for a concept and your description and misunderstanding of it?
Quote:
and here:
"::Sigh:: I have no idea how you determine what I tacitly admit or not."
It ought to be clear (as they say) to the meanest intellect. That putting a theory, having an objection made and then changing the theory to overcome the objection, is 'tacit admission' that the objection was right. Again, (whether you accept the point or not) here is an example of you not so much being able to support your case, but not even being able to be honest.
Thus all your expertise is little more than a ploy to buy the argument with claimed authority, but it is at the basics level that anyone with a couple of brain -cells can see (if it is pointed out to them - your supercilious persiflage can camouflage that and I suspect is intended to) that you are wrong. Is it any wonder that your phd cuts no ice with me, nor after this exchange, I suspect, with anyone else.
This seems to point to the actual issue. You actually think that making an objection based on your misunderstanding and my attempt to clarify your misunderstanding is "changing my theory?" I have not "changed my theory" I have tried to change your misunderstanding of it. Your inflated sense of your understanding seems so outrageously out of all proportion to your actual knowledge and understanding that you actually believe clarifications of your misunderstanding are "changes to the theory." Unbelievable!
Quote:
"I am saddened that you feel the need to vent about your perceived grievances" This exhibition of martyred sainthood after you stomped on my face might have been passed over, but your sly attempt to represent my debunking you as invalid because I am supposedly filled with angry bias towards you, will by now fool nobody and just add to the list of debunks you have added here to the ones (that you deny) of the past.
As I said - I don't care, and I only cite them as an example of your rhetoric to try to win the argument by intimidation, not to try to play the injured martyr as you do.
Let's clear something up once and for all, old friend, because this is truly saddening me. Do you ACTUALLY believe that objecting to my explanations based on YOUR misunderstanding of them is a "debunk?" Do you ACTUALLY believe that my efforts to correct your misunderstanding are "changes to my theory?"
Quote:
(1) the point being in case your memory has let you down again, that because human knowledge is unreliable, divine revelation is to be taken as more reliable (Matrix's argument was that religious instinct evolved to enable humans to access divinely revealed truth because human instinct only ensured survival, it was not evolved to impart truth).
That of course cropped up again in the 'revelation' thread, and at least you don't deny that you said that.
It's a poor show when I have to explain your own theory to you after you had consistently avoided explaining it to me.
Please cite any instance where I actually said " because human knowledge is unreliable, divine revelation is to be taken as more reliable. " Clearly you sincerely believe that represents my views so I need to be reminded of whatever caused you to have that misunderstanding. Everything about our human understanding is imperfect even our interpretations of divine inspirations.
Saying atoms can't explain Consciousness because atoms aren't conscious is like saying atoms can't explain life because atoms aren't alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Correct. This is a fairly heated debate about "Emergence" (though no everyone uses the term in the same way) or perhaps "added information" is the same thing, because the denial of life from non life is very much the same as consciousness from none consciousness.
We know that information CAN be added - it happens all the time. It's called growth or even change. The new information may drive out the old information, but it comes in the shape of atoms and energy and is assembled into form and action.
I dn't want to set off the 'Consciousness' debate, yet again, but I see it as related to the 'wetness' argument. Atoms are not wet, but when combined, they become 'wet'. That is merely our sensory perception of the way the atoms work together. And even the instinctive reactions it triggers in us, as surely as the wetness attracts or repels slugs or beetles. It is matter doing stuff, and however consciousness works, I see it as the culmination of evolved reaction from plats, to bugs, animals, higher animals and us. Out reactions are theirs just as our life -force is theirs, and it is just stuff doing stuff. Nothing Mystical about it, though it mysterious, still
Trans, Mystic, and I and a few others have had 100s of pages of debates on this. And I'm still fascinated by what appears to be my on-going failure to explain the central concepts in a way that we can agree upon.
Personally, I do not consider it to be a debate over emergence. I accept emergence. In fact my own theory requires emergence. (Mystic, on the other hand, thinks that emergence is a misguided concept.) But for emergence to occur, the logical possibilities for the emergence must be built into the concepts used when referring to the emergence. The fluidity of water is a classic example. An individual atom does not have most of the properties of water. For "water" to emerge, you need lots of atoms, and those atoms need to be interconnected in the right ways. For example: you need bonds between atoms that can break and re-form relatively easily so that atoms can "slide over" each other (fluidity) or remain intact in the presence of light pressure (surface tension) or become relatively rigid in the absence of sufficient energy (ice), and so on. Atoms and physical laws pertaining to inter-atomic bonding are sufficient to explain the possibility of the emergence of the properties of water.
But notice what you say here: "Atoms are not wet, but when combined, they become 'wet'. That is merely our sensory perception of the way the atoms work together." On a purely behavioral level, sensory perception can (in principle) be explained by the physical properties of atoms. You can (in principle) tell a story that starts with the atomic bonds in oxygen and hydrogen and continues though the biological properties of neurons from skin to brain, etc., until you end up with my lips moving and my lungs expelling air, etc., - all of this has to do with the emergent patterns of multiple atoms. No problem at all. My body moves in certain ways that constitute saying "The water is wet" - thus my body "detects" water, sorta like a thermostat "detects" that the temperature has dropped below 72 degree. If sentience was nothing but behavior, the all would be well. If we use the word 'perceiving' in such a way that my perceiving water was fundamentally no different than a thermostat "perceiving" air temperature, then all would be well. If my pain was just the atoms constituting my body moving in certain ways (frowning, cussing, salty water dripping from my eyes, etc.) - if that was all that pain was, then all would be fine with materialism. But I think that pain is more than pain behavior. Pain is the subjective qualitative feeling of being in pain. And herein lurks the problem. There is nothing in the objective material nature of atoms and physical forces to account for the emergence of the subjective qualitative feeling of pain. The complex biological behaviors associated with feeling pain can be explained by materialism, but the subjective feelings of pain, itself, cannot. Notice that I DO believe that qualia are probably emergent. Yes! Qualia are emergent properties. But to explain this emergence, we need something in physical theory that addresses the logical possibilities for this emergence. Current physics has no conceptual resources for this. It's sorta like trying to derive odd numbers from a mathematics that only allows even numbers.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-30-2018 at 01:12 PM..
There are many definitions of #qualia, which have changed over time.
One of the simpler, broader definitions is:
"The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc."
Examples of qualia include the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.
I believe that there are two types of qualia.
The first type only conveys information.
For example a black and white image or the sensation of touch or a pure tone (without harmonics)
The second type conveys a pleasant or unpleasant sensation.
For example a beautiful color image of a rainbow or the taste of something sweet.
The first type gives us information that we can use to make decisions toward achieving our goals (for example to satisfy our curiosity)
The second type becomes a goal unto itself.
Imagine a computer capable of recognizing shapes and objects and of recognizing actions performed by thoses objects and capable of creating and analyzing complex simulations.
Clearly it is aware of and perceiving some sort of sensation which conveys Information to it.
But it is just information.
Until we figure out how the second type of qualia works our computers will only be able to experience the first type of qualia
Yellow = pleasant white
Red = pleasant grey
Blue = pleasant black
Orange = red + yellow
Purple = red + blue
Green = blue + yellow
I was NOT referring to your NAME ("imperfect human perception") but your misinformed description of it. So many of your "understandings" of my views are wrong or misstated that it is virtually impossible to get past your inflated view of your understanding and ability to "debunk" You seem to think that merely responding to a point is a "debunk" regardless how inane or misguided the response is. Do you even comprehend the difference between your NAME for a concept and your description and misunderstanding of it? This seems to point to the actual issue. You actually think that making an objection based on your misunderstanding and my attempt to clarify your misunderstanding is "changing my theory?" I have not "changed my theory" I have tried to change your misunderstanding of it. Your inflated sense of your understanding seems so outrageously out of all proportion to your actual knowledge and understanding that you actually believe clarifications of your misunderstanding are "changes to the theory." Unbelievable!
Let's clear something up once and for all, old friend, because this is truly saddening me. Do you ACTUALLY believe that objecting to my explanations based on YOUR misunderstanding of them is a "debunk?" Do you ACTUALLY believe that my efforts to correct your misunderstanding are "changes to my theory?"
Please cite any instance where I actually said " because human knowledge is unreliable, divine revelation is to be taken as more reliable. " Clearly you sincerely believe that represents my views so I need to be reminded of whatever caused you to have that misunderstanding. Everything about our human understanding is imperfect even our interpretations of divine inspirations.
You ought to know better than this Whether or not you used those exact words, that was the argument being made,
And what the devil is this reference to my NAME? I am referring to you argument (in the Matrix thread) that human perception is unreliable (in fact you said so in the previous post, while claiming that you had said something else) and while that gave the background to the 'revelation' thread -argument, my point was more that this is irrelevant and the scientific methods is intended to counter that. Again, you may not agree, but you seem incapable of referring to points actually being made.
And you an claim as much as you like that I 'misunderstand'. I certainly didn't misunderstand the attempt to reverse the burden of proof because of belief in a god A priori, And I didn't misunderstand the dropping of a universal cosmic field in our of individual consciousness for each human.
Anyway, old mate I didn't expect that you accept what I say, and people will have to make up their own minds, whether I really haven't the expertise to understand your arguments or whether i understand only too well and you are simply dismissing that as you dismissed every other poster who engaged with you and concluded that your hypothesis was so much bunk.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-30-2018 at 03:24 PM..
Trans, Mystic, and I and a few others have had 100s of pages of debates on this. And I'm still fascinated by what appears to be my on-going failure to explain the central concepts in a way that we can agree upon.
Personally, I do not consider it to be a debate over emergence. I accept emergence. In fact my own theory requires emergence. (Mystic, on the other hand, thinks that emergence is a misguided concept.) But for emergence to occur, the logical possibilities for the emergence must be built into the concepts used when referring to the emergence. The fluidity of water is a classic example. An individual atom does not have most of the properties of water. For "water" to emerge, you need lots of atoms, and those atoms need to be interconnected in the right ways. For example: you need bonds between atoms that can break and re-form relatively easily so that atoms can "slide over" each other (fluidity) or remain intact in the presence of light pressure (surface tension) or become relatively rigid in the absence of sufficient energy (ice), and so on. Atoms and physical laws pertaining to inter-atomic bonding are sufficient to explain the possibility of the emergence of the properties of water.
But notice what you say here: "Atoms are not wet, but when combined, they become 'wet'. That is merely our sensory perception of the way the atoms work together." On a purely behavioral level, sensory perception can (in principle) be explained by the physical properties of atoms. You can (in principle) tell a story that starts with the atomic bonds in oxygen and hydrogen and continues though the biological properties of neurons from skin to brain, etc., until you end up with my lips moving and my lungs expelling air, etc., - all of this has to do with the emergent patterns of multiple atoms. No problem at all. My body moves in certain ways that constitute saying "The water is wet" - thus my body "detects" water, sorta like a thermostat "detects" that the temperature has dropped below 72 degree. If sentience was nothing but behavior, the all would be well. If we use the word 'perceiving' in such a way that my perceiving water was fundamentally no different than a thermostat "perceiving" air temperature, then all would be well. If my pain was just the atoms constituting my body moving in certain ways (frowning, cussing, salty water dripping from my eyes, etc.) - if that was all that pain was, then all would be fine with materialism. But I think that pain is more than pain behavior. Pain is the subjective qualitative feeling of being in pain. And herein lurks the problem. There is nothing in the objective material nature of atoms and physical forces to account for the emergence of the subjective qualitative feeling of pain. The complex biological behaviors associated with feeling pain can be explained by materialism, but the subjective feelings of pain, itself, cannot. Notice that I DO believe that qualia are probably emergent. Yes! Qualia are emergent properties. But to explain this emergence, we need something in physical theory that addresses the logical possibilities for this emergence. Current physics has no conceptual resources for this. It's sorta like trying to derive odd numbers from a mathematics that only allows even numbers.
Excellent. That does point up the question of the nature of perception/experience. You, Gaylen explained about the interaction with sugar molecules (for example) reacting with tongue molecules to send signals to the brain. But what is this perception of sweetiness, or sourness, or pain? I don't mean out evolved reactions to it, but the actual nature of perception.
There is this feeling that the nuts and bolts of biochemistry can't explain it and there must be something more.
An unknown 'quale' - particle? God? (a non -explanation if there ever was one. i can't explain it to myself,but I have a glimmer of an idea of what it could be, and it does have to do with the emergent properties of the particles of matter involved. It becomes somewhat simpler if really unrelated stuff like evolved (or indeed educated) instinctive reactions of like or dislike are not seen as the qualia themselves which are (or is) what causes 'experience'. Not the getting of information or the reaction to it, but the experiencing in between.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-30-2018 at 03:45 PM..
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.
I find I do, because your rejoinders are so breathtakingly dishonest