Originally posted by Sparko
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 PostObviously, 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.
It is you
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAll 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWhy do you keep arguing with these simulated people?"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 PostMy 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...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat do you mean not necessarily non-natural?
Do you want to get back to the point, which is the hard problem?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostUnder "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 PostUnder "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?Last edited by JimL; 03-20-2020, 01:44 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAll 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 PostAh. So, you are referring to an indeterminate sort of naturalism neither strict naturalism nor super-naturalism but something in-between.
'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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI 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?
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.'
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
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