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
See more
See less

Are Thoughts Causal?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Why do you keep arguing with these simulated people?
    Because he's determined!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Because he's determined!
      woah the simperson made a funny!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Obviously, what I mean is that consciousness and intellect are solely determined by the physical activity of the brain. And you have no actual evidence to argue otherwise.
        All this time and you still apparently have no understanding of the 'hard problem'. Wouldn't you have at least some curiosity about what the other side is talking about, if for no other reason than to be able to refute it and to not seem so clueless?



        It is you making a special exception for consciousness with no justification. Modern science has steadily dismantled such presumptions of non-natural explanations for ALL phenomena. There is no good reason why ‘consciousness’ should be an exception.
        Once again, it is not necessarily 'non-natural.' It is your refusal and/or your inability to try to understand even the basics of the issues that block any substantive discussion. Even scientific reductionists who discuss this issue go to the trouble of at least learning about the basic issues involved in order to be able to dismiss them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          All this time and you still apparently have no understanding of the 'hard problem'. Wouldn't you have at least some curiosity about what the other side is talking about, if for no other reason than to be able to refute it and to not seem so clueless?





          Once again, it is not necessarily 'non-natural.' It is your refusal and/or your inability to try to understand even the basics of the issues that block any substantive discussion. Even scientific reductionists who discuss this issue go to the trouble of at least learning about the basic issues involved in order to be able to dismiss them.
          And how is the hard problem of consciousness solved by the incorporating of a distinct consciousness or soul? How do you explain qualia with respect to an immaterial soul?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post




            Once again, it is not necessarily 'non-natural.'
            What do you mean “not necessarily” non-natural?
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Why do you keep arguing with these simulated people?
              My calculator can reliably solve a number of mathematical functions. It's always possible that one of these simulacra may have something worthwhile to say. Being a soulless golem is does not necessarily correlate to uselessness. Although in Jim's case...
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                My calculator can reliably solve a number of mathematical functions. It's always possible that one of these simulacra may have something worthwhile to say. Being a soulless golem is does not necessarily correlate to uselessness. Although in Jim's case...
                I have suspected that JimL and Tassman were just bots for a while now.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I have suspected that JimL and Tassman were just bots for a while now.
                  Dennett says in a sense we're all zombies.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    What do you mean “not necessarily” non-natural?
                    Under "strict naturalism," which is apparently what you're referring to, meaning that nature is all that exists and nature itself is whatever will be disclosed by the ideal sciences, especially physics. "Non-natural" would mean 'as opposed to strict naturalism,' not 'supernaturalism.' There are other forms of naturalism that are non-reductive when it comes to consciousness and values.

                    Do you want to get back to the point, which is the hard problem?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Under "strict naturalism," which is apparently what you're referring to, meaning that nature is all that exists and nature itself is whatever will be disclosed by the ideal sciences, especially physics. "Non-natural" would mean 'as opposed to strict naturalism,' not 'supernaturalism.'
                      Ah. So, you are referring to an indeterminate sort of “naturalism” – neither “strict naturalism” nor “super-naturalism” but something ‘in-between’.

                      There are other forms of naturalism that are non-reductive when it comes to consciousness and values.
                      'Non-reductive naturalism' is merely metaphysics and not testable other than by an opposing philosophical argument. In short, they cannot be shown to be true.

                      Do you want to get back to the point, which is the hard problem?
                      Your “hard problem” with ‘consciousness’ is wanting to believe, without actual evidence, that consciousness and intellect are more than the physical activity of the brain. There is no good reason to think that they are.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        Under "strict naturalism," which is apparently what you're referring to, meaning that nature is all that exists and nature itself is whatever will be disclosed by the ideal sciences, especially physics. "Non-natural" would mean 'as opposed to strict naturalism,' not 'supernaturalism.' There are other forms of naturalism that are non-reductive when it comes to consciousness and values.

                        Do you want to get back to the point, which is the hard problem?
                        I would! How does a distinct consciousness, a soul, solve the hard problem? Does your immaterial soul, your idea of consciousness, experience qualia? How does that work?
                        Last edited by JimL; 03-20-2020, 01:44 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          All this time and you still apparently have no understanding of the 'hard problem'. Wouldn't you have at least some curiosity about what the other side is talking about, if for no other reason than to be able to refute it and to not seem so clueless?





                          Once again, it is not necessarily 'non-natural.' It is your refusal and/or your inability to try to understand even the basics of the issues that block any substantive discussion. Even scientific reductionists who discuss this issue go to the trouble of at least learning about the basic issues involved in order to be able to dismiss them.

                          Par for the course with Tassman. Willfully ignorant, and supposes that therefore makes him a superior person.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Ah. So, you are referring to an indeterminate sort of “naturalism” – neither “strict naturalism” nor “super-naturalism” but something ‘in-between’.
                            No, it's the kind of naturalism you yourself subscribe to in practice by your very presence here on this message board. I've been trying to point out the contradictions between what you say and what you actually do. For instance, under strict naturalism, which is what you say you subscribe to, reasons as such could not exert any causal influence. Therefore, the movement of your fingers on your keypad could not be caused by the reasons that you think you believe you are trying to express but rather by physical forces in your body and/or environment. So if strict naturalism is true, we cannot know it to be true and nothing you say can mean what you think it means. You're arguing for your own irrelevance and for us to ignore what you write.



                            'Non-reductive naturalism' is merely metaphysics and not testable other than by an opposing philosophical argument. In short, they cannot be shown to be true.
                            And that, once again, is a philosophical observation which, by your own criteria of knowledge, 'cannot be shown to be true.' Thus, more muddled verbiage to be disregarded...



                            Your “hard problem” with ‘consciousness’ is wanting to believe, without actual evidence, that consciousness and intellect are more than the physical activity of the brain. There is no good reason to think that they are.
                            Please explain what you mean by "more than the physical activity of the brain." In what sense? Please give me some evidence that you understand the 'hard problem,' and we can proceed from there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              I would! How does a distinct consciousness, a soul, solve the hard problem? Does your immaterial soul, your idea of consciousness, experience qualia? How does that work?
                              I don't have to have an "idea of consciousness" to argue that physical reduction of consciousness doesn't work. How does a physical thing being conscious work? No one has any idea. Science can solve the "easy problem," not the "hard problem" which is conceptual in nature, not empirical, imho.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post





                                And that, once again, is a philosophical observation which, by your own criteria of knowledge, 'cannot be shown to be true.'
                                As I have repeatedly acknowledged scientific methodology is grounded in the “philosophical observation” of Metaphysical Naturalism and its correlate of Methodological Naturalism. What CAN be shown to be true is the empirical testing and resultant technology grounded in the laws and constants of nature as revealed NOT by philosophy but science.

                                Please explain what you mean by "more than the physical activity of the brain." In what sense? Please give me some evidence that you understand the 'hard problem,' and we can proceed from there.
                                Again: There is absolutely no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain. You can witter on all you like about solving your “hard problem” but philosophy alone does not have the methodology to do this. It is unable to test whether or not its conclusions are true.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X