Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Are Thoughts Causal?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA philosophical argument cannot be shown to be true and factual at all unless it is a sound argument. But to be shown as true such an argument must have a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion; philosophy is not equipped to arrive at a true, testable premise only science can do this.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
But setting the matter of premises aside, I was referring to philosophical conclusions, which is what you and I are drawing constantly. A conclusion of one chain of inference becomes a premise for another and so on. Philosophical inference, observation, intuition, etc are inextricably interwoven except when laid out formally as argumentation. Once again, 'philosophy'is an integral part of 'science' and vice versa.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNOT
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou seem to have missed my post, Jim. So I'llm ask again. What exactly do you think thoughts are? Are they products of the physical brain, or products of an immaterial mind?Last edited by Jim B.; 04-02-2020, 06:01 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm not sure. My main point is that consciousness is not reducible to physical concepts. So I would tend to say that thoughts have an immaterial aspect, the aspect that's involved with conscious experience, and a material aspect, the aspect that's involved with the brain and neuronal activity. And maybe an ideal, normative aspect, that's involved with their content.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"Physical" understood as "causal dispositions" was perfectly conceivable to people before electrostatic discharge was understood, "physical" in the sense of the way they would have understood a ball bouncing or a rock falling to the ground.
Even though the correct physical explanation might not have been filled in, a physical explanation of some sort was conceivable.Last edited by Tassman; 04-03-2020, 12:40 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostExcept that lightning wasnt perfectly conceivable in practice, which is why it was attributed to a god. Just as illness was attributed to 'divine wrath' or demons before germ theory was developed and etc. etc. etc.
Indeed, it was. You are arguing against yourself. You said above (#201): consciousness is not reducible to physical concepts. So, I would tend to say that thoughts have an immaterial aspect. But this is an assumption. There is no evidence of consciousness except for the activity of the brain and this is being investigated by the neurosciences currently. Science does not deal with immaterial reality and philosophy is not equipped to test such assumptions.
Once again, please try to learn about the "Hard Problem" or admit that you will not or that you cannot.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut when you say that thoughts are involved with the brain and neuronal activity, do you mean to say that they are the effects of neuronal activity? Or would you say that the neuronal activity is the effect of thoughts? What comes first, the chicken, or the egg, the thought, or the neuronal activity?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThere are various possibilities. Radical emergence. Neutral monism. Substance dualism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostPhysical explanations for phenomena such as lightning were perfectly conceivable as well as actually occurring in the eighteenth century, which is when the underlying physical mechanism of lightning was discovered.
Philosophy can test its results through reason and logic.
Some thought content is demonstrably "immaterial" such as "1+1=2". They all support the position that thoughts, in some respect, are "immaterial".
[Once again, please try to learn about the "Hard Problem"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostJust as neuroscience is currently searching for physical explanations for phenomena such as consciousness in sentient creatures like us.
But philosophy cannot arrive at testable new conclusions about the natural world; its conclusions are merely restatements of existing knowledge.
Not so. Numbers represent a physical reality; they are the language in which physical reality can be described.
Your hard problem is merely an unresolved scientific problem; it will never be satisfactorily resolved by academic philosophical argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd have you tested, by reason and logic, and come to a conclusion? Would you also argue that memories, which are thoughts stored in the physical brain are immaterial?Last edited by metacrock; 04-04-2020, 04:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd have you tested, by reason and logic, and come to a conclusion? Would you also argue that memories, which are thoughts stored in the physical brain are immaterial?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
608 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment