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.
Similarly, asteroids (which i presume do not have molten cores) are the same Stuff as stars, but, by Hermes, they are not doing the particular things that stars do, and indeed DNA is the same 'stuff' (at base) that water is, but by Horus, Life is a very particular form of what it does. Thusly, consciousness is the same stuff (or so I argue) as my Sunday Lunch, but it is a very particular type of that stuff. None of which requires that we drag a cosmic intelligence into it.
It seems that most of us in this thread have a "One Stuff" view or, at least, we think that we do. But, just for the record, I think that conceiving of a true, logically consistent One Stuff view that does not boil down to a form of theistic idealism is way more difficult that any of you non-theists seem to realize. By "theistic idealism" I mean something along the lines of Bishop Berkeley, who proposed that everything is essentially thoughts in the Mind of God. In other words, the One Stuff is God's Mind - sorta like, when you are sleeping and having a dream, you think you are seeing and touch solid objects but, upon awakening, you realize they were all just "mind stuff" the whole time. It's a bit like we are all living in "The Matrix" but, in this case, the "Matrix" is not alien technology feeding input signals into our brains but, rather, God's Mind sustaining experiences of a physical world within which we interact with each other, exercise our free will, etc.
Someone who proposes that the "One Stuff" is physical and that "mental stuff" (i.e., subjective qualitative experiences) emerge from this fundamentally physical stuff (or is just a particular form of physical stuff) discovers that they have a really tough row to hoe if or when they ever genuinely comprehend the powerful philosophical arguments aligned against them. The problem is not the emergence of complex intelligent behavior. Yeah, we still don't know precisely how complex life emerged from the pre-biotic Earth, nor do we know precisely how such high-level human intelligence emerged, but there are no significant logical roadblocks to explaining these things; it's just a matter of explaining the biochemical processes in greater and greater detail and/or explaining the principle of chaos and complexity in more powerful ways. There is simply no good basis for claiming that life metabolism or the evolution of human intelligence is "magical" in the sense of requiring anything other than natural laws more or less along the lines of what we already know.
The Hard Problem - the truly baffling problem that I (and most other philosophers) see as the fly in the ointment of physicalism - a problem that involves deep logical roadblocks - is the existence of what we all experience in every moment of our waking lives - the qualitative "raw feels" of our subjective experiences. As I see it, way to many non-theists dismiss this problem way too carelessly. Just as theists all too often end up offering some form of the "God works in mysterious ways" defense of theism, atheists all too often end up offering some form of the "promissory note" defense and/or straight-up philosophical denialism along the lines of "Problem? What problem? I don't see a problem!" As someone "in the middle" trying to find the "sweet spot" between the two extremes, I am often frustrated by the cavalier dismissals that theists and atheists both offer against the toughest arguments offered by the other side.
Based on what science offers, so far, in terms of objectively-verifiable explanations for the emergence of life and intelligent behaviors, we should all be zombies. But the word "zombies" confuses people, so let me try to be as clear as I can. A "zombie" in this sense acts just exactly like we act. Zombies invent technology, worship in churches, praise the Lord, cry at funerals, create great works of art, rage at the idiocy of politicians, debate the nature of qualia...; zombies do ALL of that stuff just like we do. And ALL of this behavior is, in principle, perfectly explainable in terms of fundamental particles forming atoms with chemical bonds, self-organizing into biological systems, nervous systems, etc. The only difference is that zombies don't have any qualitative "raw feels" of what it is like to be complex chemical systems of the sort that we are. Chemicals don't need feelings of "desire" or "pain" etc., in order to do what they do. Chemicals just do what they do because they are breaking and forming bonds, etc., in accordance with abstract objective natural laws.
But I can say with absolute certainty that I am not a zombie and I can say with FAPP certainty that the people reading this are not zombies either. I also believe, with a very high level of confidence, that zombies are naturally impossible. Zombies are logically possible, but naturally impossible. Why are zombies naturally impossible? Good question! This is where the fundamental "brute fact" nature of proto-qualia (or something along the lines of MPhD's "Consciousness Field" or, I would say "Unconsciousness Field"??? or some such thing) comes into play.
There is nothing in the fundamental laws of current physics or chemistry to indicate that qualia have to exist but, presumably, everything "macro-scale" somehow emerges from the level of fundamental physics in accordance with natural laws. So if there is nothing in physics to serves as the explanatory basis for qualia, then we have "Poof! A miracle!" somewhere between physics and neurobiology. As a physicalist, I am not happy with "Poof! A miracle!" We have an explanatory gap - a Hard Problem - and I refuse to be a denialist about it. If we can't find a way to solve this problem, then the next best logical solutions are variations of Theistic Idealism or Panpsychism. (Technically, substance dualism is still in the running, but I personally believe that Theistic Idealism/panpsychism are more probable that substance dualism.)
My own solution, as ya'll know by know, is Dual-Aspect physicalism - which is awfully darn close to what Trans is suggesting in the quote above, and also close to MPhD's approach as well.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-05-2018 at 12:07 PM..
So science is open to "different interpretations."
Just like a holy book is open to different interpretations.
So science "open to different interpretations" includes chi, 12 strand DNA, chakras that correspond to the adrenals, and electromagnetic properties of DNA. You want to dismiss other ideas as woo while expecting your own woo to carry the lofty label of "different interpretations of science."
And you say don't call it lies "different interpretation" but then you do just that....
Same with religious beliefs. You repeatedly tell others their religious beliefs are wrong they are mistaken. Instead of recognizing there are different interpretations.
You demand and expect from others that which you are unwilling to extend. Its called a double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.
"It is most commonly seen as a decisive psychological tool used to defend one’s ego or subconscious from the shortcomings of one’s own set of values or contrasting principals. It is the employment of a hypocritical and biased standpoint, with which to separate the seemingly bad in others from the bad in oneself by having two sets of rules for the same concept. Margaret Eichler, author of The Double Standard, explains that a double standard “implies that two things which are the same are measured by different standards” (Eichler 1980:15). " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Smart people don't talk like this either
This is exactly what annoys most people when dealing with you religious scolds. Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion or are you going to insist on berating and attacking me while unnecessarily "explaining" obvious definitions of words with your particular derisive spin on them?
Last edited by MysticPhD; 06-05-2018 at 04:51 PM..
It seems that most of us in this thread have a "One Stuff" view or, at least, we think that we do. But, just for the record, I think that conceiving of a true, logically consistent One Stuff view that does not boil down to a form of theistic idealism is way more difficult that any of you non-theists seem to realize. By "theistic idealism" I mean something along the lines of Bishop Berkeley, who proposed that everything is essentially thoughts in the Mind of God. In other words, the One Stuff is God's Mind - sorta like, when you are sleeping and having a dream, you think you are seeing and touch solid objects but, upon awakening, you realize they were all just "mind stuff" the whole time. It's a bit like we are all living in "The Matrix" but, in this case, the "Matrix" is not alien technology feeding input signals into our brains but, rather, God's Mind sustaining experiences of a physical world within which we interact with each other, exercise our free will, etc.
Someone who proposes that the "One Stuff" is physical and that "mental stuff" (i.e., subjective qualitative experiences) emerge from this fundamentally physical stuff (or is just a particular form of physical stuff) discovers that they have a really tough row to hoe if or when they ever genuinely comprehend the powerful philosophical arguments aligned against them. The problem is not the emergence of complex intelligent behavior. Yeah, we still don't know precisely how complex life emerged from the pre-biotic Earth, nor do we know precisely how such high-level human intelligence emerged, but there are no significant logical roadblocks to explaining these things; it's just a matter of explaining the biochemical processes in greater and greater detail and/or explaining the principle of chaos and complexity in more powerful ways. There is simply no good basis for claiming that life metabolism or the evolution of human intelligence is "magical" in the sense of requiring anything other than natural laws more or less along the lines of what we already know.
The Hard Problem - the truly baffling problem that I (and most other philosophers) see as the fly in the ointment of physicalism - a problem that involves deep logical roadblocks - is the existence of what we all experience in every moment of our waking lives - the qualitative "raw feels" of our subjective experiences. As I see it, way to many non-theists dismiss this problem way too carelessly. Just as theists all too often end up offering some form of the "God works in mysterious ways" defense of theism, atheists all too often end up offering some form of the "promissory note" defense and/or straight-up philosophical denialism along the lines of "Problem? What problem? I don't see a problem!" As someone "in the middle" trying to find the "sweet spot" between the two extremes, I am often frustrated by the cavalier dismissals that theists and atheists both offer against the toughest arguments offered by the other side.
Based on what science offers, so far, in terms of objectively-verifiable explanations for the emergence of life and intelligent behaviors, we should all be zombies. But the word "zombies" confuses people, so let me try to be as clear as I can. A "zombie" in this sense acts just exactly like we act. Zombies invent technology, worship in churches, praise the Lord, cry at funerals, create great works of art, rage at the idiocy of politicians, debate the nature of qualia...; zombies do ALL of that stuff just like we do. And ALL of this behavior is, in principle, perfectly explainable in terms of fundamental particles forming atoms with chemical bonds, self-organizing into biological systems, nervous systems, etc. The only difference is that zombies don't have any qualitative "raw feels" of what it is like to be complex chemical systems of the sort that we are. Chemicals don't need feelings of "desire" or "pain" etc., in order to do what they do. Chemicals just do what they do because they are breaking and forming bonds, etc., in accordance with abstract objective natural laws.
But I can say with absolute certainty that I am not a zombie and I can say with FAPP certainty that the people reading this are not zombies either. I also believe, with a very high level of confidence, that zombies are naturally impossible. Zombies are logically possible, but naturally impossible. Why are zombies naturally impossible? Good question! This is where the fundamental "brute fact" nature of proto-qualia (or something along the lines of MPhD's "Consciousness Field" or, I would say "Unconsciousness Field"??? or some such thing) comes into play.
There is nothing in the fundamental laws of current physics or chemistry to indicate that qualia have to exist but, presumably, everything "macro-scale" somehow emerges from the level of fundamental physics in accordance with natural laws. So if there is nothing in physics to serves as the explanatory basis for qualia, then we have "Poof! A miracle!" somewhere between physics and neurobiology. As a physicalist, I am not happy with "Poof! A miracle!" We have an explanatory gap - a Hard Problem - and I refuse to be a denialist about it. If we can't find a way to solve this problem, then the next best logical solutions are variations of Theistic Idealism or Panpsychism. (Technically, substance dualism is still in the running, but I personally believe that Theistic Idealism/panpsychism are more probable that substance dualism.)
My own solution, as ya'll know by know, is Dual-Aspect physicalism - which is awfully darn close to what Trans is suggesting in the quote above, and also close to MPhD's approach as well.
It seems to me that you are creating problems where none exist. I don't mean that we have all the answers. I hate to say it but your post smacks of "It is so big an wonderful that it can't have come about by chance!" I'm sue in the course of obtaining your master's degree you must have come across the idea that complexity is not proof of intelligent design, which is really what you are talking here.
I may find it almost impossible to explain how i feel that qualia might work with particles that would not perhaps surprise nuclear physicists even if they were new, but I don't find a problem with the idea of matter, life and consciousness, including qualia emerging over time from a soup of proto matter. Chemical evolution even gives us a mechanism.
I have looked at your objections to physicalism via the hard Question, and I remain where I was - it isn't hard at all, and the efforts to point out the obvious (I can't experience your experiences) seem irrelevant rather than not a problem. And I don't think we need to visit the zombie -zoo yet again. Whether you make it a zombie, an android or a computer, the analogy is flawed and thus whatever it is designed to prove, (because it is assuming what it is it supposed to be illustrating - that a zombie cannot have raw sensory experience - if it doesn't it is because something is wrong with it) is proof of nothing, and I remind you of the video you posted where the argument from lightning should have been seen by a schoolboy as flawed.
So, in the end, there is no great problem for my in constructing mental models of an emergence of everything from nothing (or damn near) including Life, consciousness and qualia. Which is not to say that it is true, but that such a sequence of events is to me comprehensible, and moreover, fits the evidence, rather than a goddunnit -hypothesis, means that there is no logical reason to suppose a god needed to be involved, and the problems to this idea that you speak of, really despite my best efforts, I fail to see them, and only see where they appear to logically collapse. I don't want to be impudent but that something seems to be an impossible problem for doesn't entitle you to claim that it has to be an impossible problem for others.
Unknowns or unexplaineds certainly do not require that we postulate a miracle, but we await an explanation. I can only say that you may have a masters' degree in philosophy by countering Theist apologetics seems to be a discipline it doesn't cover.
It may be that philosophy and practical reasoning are on different planets. . Take Bertrand Russel, who proposed the teapot in orbit. Now this is a famous illustration of a logical fallacy, and in philosophical terms could be perfectly sound. But in Practical terms such as we atheist apologists have to think of, it is not actually an analogy with the god claim. In explaining that you cannot disprove it but that doesn't make it true illustrates the point by the absurdity of the teapot in orbit. But in terms of using the analogy as a disproof of God (which wasn't the intention) it fails utterly because in fact what we know about teapots makes on in orbit improbable, whereas what is claimed about God is not, by it's nature, so improbable as an orbiting teapot.
So both are right in different ways, rather than conflicting. Maybe that is why I am not Getting you. Though I may be Getting your Goat.
You are certainly getting mine! I had to type that between 11 and midnight, when I should have been having a cider and a pipe and a Vaughan Williams CD!!
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-05-2018 at 04:43 PM..
It seems that most of us in this thread have a "One Stuff" view or, at least, we think that we do. But, just for the record, I think that conceiving of a true, logically consistent One Stuff view that does not boil down to a form of theistic idealism is way more difficult that any of you non-theists seem to realize. By "theistic idealism" I mean something along the lines of Bishop Berkeley, who proposed that everything is essentially thoughts in the Mind of God. In other words, the One Stuff is God's Mind - sorta like, when you are sleeping and having a dream, you think you are seeing and touch solid objects but, upon awakening, you realize they were all just "mind stuff" the whole time. It's a bit like we are all living in "The Matrix" but, in this case, the "Matrix" is not alien technology feeding input signals into our brains but, rather, God's Mind sustaining experiences of a physical world within which we interact with each other, exercise our free will, etc.
Someone who proposes that the "One Stuff" is physical and that "mental stuff" (i.e., subjective qualitative experiences) emerge from this fundamentally physical stuff (or is just a particular form of physical stuff) discovers that they have a really tough row to hoe if or when they ever genuinely comprehend the powerful philosophical arguments aligned against them. The problem is not the emergence of complex intelligent behavior. Yeah, we still don't know precisely how complex life emerged from the pre-biotic Earth, nor do we know precisely how such high-level human intelligence emerged, but there are no significant logical roadblocks to explaining these things; it's just a matter of explaining the biochemical processes in greater and greater detail and/or explaining the principle of chaos and complexity in more powerful ways. There is simply no good basis for claiming that life metabolism or the evolution of human intelligence is "magical" in the sense of requiring anything other than natural laws more or less along the lines of what we already know.
The Hard Problem - the truly baffling problem that I (and most other philosophers) see as the fly in the ointment of physicalism - a problem that involves deep logical roadblocks - is the existence of what we all experience in every moment of our waking lives - the qualitative "raw feels" of our subjective experiences. As I see it, way to many non-theists dismiss this problem way too carelessly. Just as theists all too often end up offering some form of the "God works in mysterious ways" defense of theism, atheists all too often end up offering some form of the "promissory note" defense and/or straight-up philosophical denialism along the lines of "Problem? What problem? I don't see a problem!" As someone "in the middle" trying to find the "sweet spot" between the two extremes, I am often frustrated by the cavalier dismissals that theists and atheists both offer against the toughest arguments offered by the other side.
Based on what science offers, so far, in terms of objectively-verifiable explanations for the emergence of life and intelligent behaviors, we should all be zombies. But the word "zombies" confuses people, so let me try to be as clear as I can. A "zombie" in this sense acts just exactly like we act. Zombies invent technology, worship in churches, praise the Lord, cry at funerals, create great works of art, rage at the idiocy of politicians, debate the nature of qualia...; zombies do ALL of that stuff just like we do. And ALL of this behavior is, in principle, perfectly explainable in terms of fundamental particles forming atoms with chemical bonds, self-organizing into biological systems, nervous systems, etc. The only difference is that zombies don't have any qualitative "raw feels" of what it is like to be complex chemical systems of the sort that we are. Chemicals don't need feelings of "desire" or "pain" etc., in order to do what they do. Chemicals just do what they do because they are breaking and forming bonds, etc., in accordance with abstract objective natural laws.
But I can say with absolute certainty that I am not a zombie and I can say with FAPP certainty that the people reading this are not zombies either. I also believe, with a very high level of confidence, that zombies are naturally impossible. Zombies are logically possible, but naturally impossible. Why are zombies naturally impossible? Good question! This is where the fundamental "brute fact" nature of proto-qualia (or something along the lines of MPhD's "Consciousness Field" or, I would say "Unconsciousness Field"??? or some such thing) comes into play.
There is nothing in the fundamental laws of current physics or chemistry to indicate that qualia have to exist but, presumably, everything "macro-scale" somehow emerges from the level of fundamental physics in accordance with natural laws. So if there is nothing in physics to serves as the explanatory basis for qualia, then we have "Poof! A miracle!" somewhere between physics and neurobiology. As a physicalist, I am not happy with "Poof! A miracle!" We have an explanatory gap - a Hard Problem - and I refuse to be a denialist about it. If we can't find a way to solve this problem, then the next best logical solutions are variations of Theistic Idealism or Panpsychism. (Technically, substance dualism is still in the running, but I personally believe that Theistic Idealism/panpsychism are more probable that substance dualism.)
My own solution, as ya'll know by know, is Dual-Aspect physicalism - which is awfully darn close to what Trans is suggesting in the quote above, and also close to MPhD's approach as well.
Arq seems to see some of the implications of our "one stuff" views but is amazingly intransigent on the hard problem. It is possible that his tenacious revulsion to religion and ANY theist possibilities has colored his perspective and blocked any acknowledgment of the very "center of being" that his consciousness represents, probably because he takes it as something given in the inner consciousness and not to be explained.
Arq seems to see some of the implications of our "one stuff" views but is amazingly intransigent on the hard problem. It is possible that his tenacious revulsion to religion and ANY theist possibilities has colored his perspective and blocked any acknowledgment of the very "center of being" that his consciousness represents, probably because he takes it as something given in the inner consciousness and not to be explained.
hey mystic, I was thinking.
If you time lapse a city just fast enough to not see people, the city would look alive.
Its kind of like your field. But the unseen people are a set of fields.
It seems to me that you are creating problems where none exist.
In a sense, you are right. The Hard Problem is only a "problem" for people who want to explain the qualitative nature of conscious experience via objective/quantitative concepts. For the rest of us, there is simply acknowledgement of the fundamentally qualitative aspects of reality. "Fundamental" (aka "brute") facts don't require explanation; they are the concepts we use in order to explain other things.
Quote:
I hate to say it but your post smacks of "It is so big an wonderful that it can't have come about by chance!" I'm sue in the course of obtaining your master's degree you must have come across the idea that complexity is not proof of intelligent design, which is really what you are talking here.
If my words come even remotely close to suggesting that I am taking any such position, then I have utterly failed in a most spectacular fashion. I have - or so I thought - explained in numerous posts over many threads why complexity does not require a prior consciousness or intelligence. I have explained that not only is it possible for highly complex patterns of physical activity to emerge from chaos, but it is virtually inevitable. And the whole point of my reference to "zombies" in my previous post was precisely to emphasize this basic point yet again. Based on what we now know about the origins of complexity, it is, in principle, logically possible (although, I would emphasize, not naturally possible) for creatures as complex as we are to emerge from the muck of the prebiotic Earth, but not actually have any qualitative experiences (i.e., "be zombies"). Complexity is not the problem. The qualitative "raw feels" or "what it's like to be" nature of subjective experience is the problem for materialism. THAT is what cannot, even in principle, be explained by the abstract/objective concepts available to classic materialism. The logical implications are easy: Reality is fundamentally qualitative or, at least, proto-qualitative. My main point is that this raw fundamental fact of reality could suggest something like "God" but not necessarily. There are other options. The only thing that is not a logical option is classic materialism.
What you call moving the goalposts is simply using different perspectives on the science. You are using the perspective of a user or teacher of the science.
My goodness here we go again! No I am not...instead I am using the emergent objective truths that come out of scientific research and discoveries about what is observed in our Universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am using the perspective of a philosopher looking for clues to the ontology of our Reality.
It does not seem that you are looking but rather ascribing what you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
As a teacher or user, you have to accept the terminology and jargon as adopted in the field.
Rather we must acknowledge what is scientifically valid as well as the predictions that have been validated from experiments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But to ignore the fact that mass is measured differently in low energy physics from that in high energy physics despite using the same name is just bogus.
Again you seem to lack some very fundamental understandings. Perhaps you can think of it this way: Condensed matter is non-relativistic (recall that E = mc² is true only for an object that isn’t moving = Galilean relativity), whereas high-energy physics is relativistic = Lorentz-Poincare relativity.
These well established objective scientific truths don't support your claims that everything in the Universe nothing but energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
When we ask what are we really measuring and what is its significance for the ontology of our Reality, the equivalence and measurement differences just cloud the issue.
If you are going to claim that what science observes and tests is not reality then please come up with a better method for validating our reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
When you pretend that mass or matter is the "one stuff," it is or should be clear from the composition of the measurements that energy more accurately describes the vibratory field that comprises the "one stuff."
But that's not only what the measurements reveal. They reveal that Higgs boson is what gives particles mass. The measurements also allow us to understand matter and it's building blocks.
You understand that a proton contributes to an atoms mass right? How so? Protons are made up of baryons which are massive particles which are made up of three quarks. Quarks are the building blocks which build up matter.
These are well established objective scientific truths that make up the Standard Model. What is the Standard Model? The Standard Model explains how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I think it would behoove us to refrain from describing our different interpretations of the science as lies.
You stated blatant false claims based on your interpretation. I stated facts based on the well established and well tested experiments which resulted in these discoveries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If you genuinely think I am not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough about the science, THAT would hurt me...
Please don't feel hurt as I in no way think any such thing about you. I am puzzled as to why you are trying to dispel well established science. I am disappointed in the number of people in the world today who are taking science and trying to dispel the emergent scientific objective truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Nevertheless, I have extensive and accurate knowledge of most of the science that impinges on questions about the ontology of our Reality and most of the philosophy as well.
To be honest with you I think instead of us thinking we have it all figured out with respect to how the Universe works to create our reality/spirituality we should instead be asking questions.
The Standard Model only describes the 4% of the known universe, and many questions remain.
Will we see a unification of forces at the high energies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?
Why is gravity so weak?
Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Is there more exotic physics waiting to be discovered at higher energies?
Will we discover evidence for a theory called supersymmetry at the LHC?
Or understand the Higgs boson that gives particles mass?
From my own personal experience of Lucid Dreaming (a place where my consciousness experienced a different reality and what seemed like a different dimension) and from reading the many accounts of NDE's I come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as the "god" described in religions or humans who create their own personal "god".
I will never play "God of the gaps" because science has shown time and time again how wrong believing in a "God of the gaps" proves to be. Science will continue to make leaps and bounds and as it does our understanding of the Universe is going to evolve more and more. If we don't evolve with it...we are no different than the ignorant peasants who created religious texts to try and explain what they failed to know about the world they exist in.
Our brains are hard wired to easily evoke "spiritual" experiences. I will not ascribe a "God of the gaps" to these experiences. Doing so blocks you from truly understanding all the wonderment that is in our Universe. Humans need a paradigm shift away from the human created concept of a "god" and all stigma associated with believing in such a "god".
I think we would start to see an improvement in the human species if humans approached the world from a cosmic perspective instead of from the perspective of human created "gods" and the fluff that goes along with that.
Arq seems to see some of the implications of our "one stuff" views but is amazingly intransigent on the hard problem. It is possible that his tenacious revulsion to religion and ANY theist possibilities has colored his perspective and blocked any acknowledgment of the very "center of being" that his consciousness represents, probably because he takes it as something given in the inner consciousness and not to be explained.
Not to be explained -yet, but that doesn't mean that it can't be. In fact the 'center of being' - which suggests to me the feeling of identity or perhaps the feeling of something more out there or both, can be explained in terms of how the mind works and has an evolutionary /survival aspect to it. The start of an explanation seems to remove the objection that you have. If indeed that is what the Hard Problem is about. It sounded from Gaylen's exposition that it was more about me not being able to experience you experiences, but given that you and I are biologically manufactured to do the same job, my experiences are logically to be supposed to be akin to yours.
In a sense, you are right. The Hard Problem is only a "problem" for people who want to explain the qualitative nature of conscious experience via objective/quantitative concepts. For the rest of us, there is simply acknowledgement of the fundamentally qualitative aspects of reality. "Fundamental" (aka "brute") facts don't require explanation; they are the concepts we use in order to explain other things.
If my words come even remotely close to suggesting that I am taking any such position, then I have utterly failed in a most spectacular fashion. I have - or so I thought - explained in numerous posts over many threads why complexity does not require a prior consciousness or intelligence. I have explained that not only is it possible for highly complex patterns of physical activity to emerge from chaos, but it is virtually inevitable. And the whole point of my reference to "zombies" in my previous post was precisely to emphasize this basic point yet again. Based on what we now know about the origins of complexity, it is, in principle, logically possible (although, I would emphasize, not naturally possible) for creatures as complex as we are to emerge from the muck of the prebiotic Earth, but not actually have any qualitative experiences (i.e., "be zombies"). Complexity is not the problem. The qualitative "raw feels" or "what it's like to be" nature of subjective experience is the problem for materialism. THAT is what cannot, even in principle, be explained by the abstract/objective concepts available to classic materialism. The logical implications are easy: Reality is fundamentally qualitative or, at least, proto-qualitative. My main point is that this raw fundamental fact of reality could suggest something like "God" but not necessarily. There are other options. The only thing that is not a logical option is classic materialism.
I suppose that could be logically possible, but given how evolution works, i find it hard to imaging increasingly complex creatures that wouldn't evolve to develop perception, reaction, co -operation with other like being and thus a feeling of identity and position within the pack. It may be a methodological position rather than a philosophical one, but I prefer to argue from what we actually have than from what it is not logically impossible there could have been.
This is exactly what annoys most people when dealing with you religious scolds. Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion or are you going to insist on berating and attacking me while unnecessarily "explaining" obvious definitions of words with your particular derisive spin on them?
they are entirely relevant and pertinent to this thread because the opening post and your entire stance is based supposedly on logical rational thinking. I am pointing out the many ways that you do NOT demonstrate logical rational thinking. You claim to be smarter than others yet your posts clearly demonstrate that you are not smarter than others. Entirely relevant and pertinent and essential in showing the many many flaws in your arguments, and the lack of credibility in both what you argue and how you argue.
You claim to have a superior way of doing religion yet you treat people like crap. An essential part of religion and spirituality is morality, ethics, integrity, and how we treat others. If your behavior is the advertisement and poster child for "how to treat others" based on the beliefs you hold and the beliefs you promote, then your personal behavior is extremely relevant. It is the outpicturing of your religious beliefs. A large part of why people reject your "religious beliefs" is entirely because of how you treat others. That is an essential part of religion. One you consistently say is not important. Which itself speaks volumes.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-05-2018 at 06:44 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 am puzzled as to why you are trying to dispel well established science. I am disappointed in the number of people in the world today who are taking science and trying to dispel the emergent scientific objective truths. 