Page 34 of 37 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 366

Thread: Are Thoughts Causal?

  1. #331
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,636
    Amen (Given)
    5601
    Amen (Received)
    23885
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    I've said that, but we've strayed off of the causal topic onto whether or not consciousness is reducible to physics.

    Tassman is basically saying that he won't accept anything that isn't already a physical (ie scientific) explanation that justifies why consciousness is physically (ie scientifically) explainable! I've tried to explain to him why that's circular reasoning, and he just says that's "philosophical gobbledegook" and won't accept anything other than empirical evidence for why only empirical evidence is admissible in this case. And around and around we've gone for the past 6 weeks! Wheeeee!
    Have him imagine a chair. Then ask him to show you that chair in his head.

  2. #332
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,722
    Amen (Given)
    2171
    Amen (Received)
    5744
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Have him imagine a chair. Then ask him to show you that chair in his head.
    Right, that is a simple, direct way of making the point. Which is obvious, there is a private first person experience that is not public, nor can it be.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  3. #333
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    918
    Amen (Given)
    30
    Amen (Received)
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    It is the only evidence available “in this case”.

    Unlike your academic philosophical arguments, metaphysical naturalism in which science is grounded can be tested by conducting empirical scientific experiments and studies. Whereas your examples of philosophical conclusions that are believed as “uncontroversially true” and “accepted as settled truths” have not been tested by experiments nor shown to be true. In actuality they have often been shown to be false as Aristotle discovered. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science turned out to be wrong and misguided – including the geocentric universe.
    But you're assuming once again that your interpretation is the only possible way of looking at things. You're assuming that empirical validation is the only possible type of epistemic validation. That's why you're arguing in a circle. When the question is "What is the epistemic scope of metaphysical naturalism?" you cannot appeal to metaphysical naturalism ITSELF as your criterion without coming off as seeming like a clown who doesn't know how to think. You can hide behind the authority of science all you want, but if you don't know how to think, it avails you not in the slightest.

  4. Amen MaxVel amen'd this post.
  5. #334
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    918
    Amen (Given)
    30
    Amen (Received)
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Right, that is a simple, direct way of making the point. Which is obvious, there is a private first person experience that is not public, nor can it be.
    Tassman is probably not sophisticated enough to argue this, but guys like Dennett might say that it only seems private for now, but when neuroscience is complete, nothing will be private in principle.

  6. #335
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,722
    Amen (Given)
    2171
    Amen (Received)
    5744
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Tassman is probably not sophisticated enough to argue this, but guys like Dennett might say that it only seems private for now, but when neuroscience is complete, nothing will be private in principle.
    Doesn't Dennett say that our first person experiences are illusions?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  7. #336
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,270
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1921
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    But you're assuming once again that your interpretation is the only possible way of looking at things. You're assuming that empirical validation is the only possible type of epistemic validation.
    This as opposed to YOUR philosophical epistemic validations believed to be “uncontroversially true” and “accepted as settled truths” (JimB#322) without evidence. In actuality such “beliefs” have often been shown to be false when subjected to empirical testing. Your epistemic validation of say, ‘consciousness’ as separate from the physical brain is a commonly accepted subjective belief – i.e. ‘it IS true because it FEELS true’. But there is no evidence for consciousness separate from the physical activity of the brain.

    You can hide behind the authority of science all you want, but if you don't know how to think, it avails you not in the slightest.
    The “authority of science” is that it can validate or invalidate commonly accepted subjective beliefs. Metaphysical arguments cannot.
    “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.

  8. #337
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    This as opposed to YOUR philosophical epistemic validations believed to be “uncontroversially true” and “accepted as settled truths” (JimB#322) without evidence. In actuality such “beliefs” have often been shown to be false when subjected to empirical testing. Your epistemic validation of say, ‘consciousness’ as separate from the physical brain is a commonly accepted subjective belief – i.e. ‘it IS true because it FEELS true’. But there is no evidence for consciousness separate from the physical activity of the brain.



    The “authority of science” is that it can validate or invalidate commonly accepted subjective beliefs. Metaphysical arguments cannot.

    You look really silly when you use metaphysical arguments to 'demonstrate' that metaphysical arguments can't demonstrate anything. And when that's pointed out to you, you just double down on your foolishness. Don't ever go to a casino, OK?
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  9. #338
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,270
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1921
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    you use metaphysical arguments to 'demonstrate' that metaphysical arguments can't demonstrate anything.
    No, I use the scientific method to examine such arguments. And the modus operandi of the scientific method is ‘methodological naturalism’ which is the logical correlate of ‘metaphysical naturalism’.

    Conversely, metaphysical arguments put forward to explain how “thoughts are involved with the brain and neuronal activity” (#205) are airily listed as “Radical emergence. Neutral monism. Substance dualism”. But these are merely speculative possibilities, they’re only testable by academic arguments which cannot demonstrate anything for certain.
    “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.

  10. #339
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,871
    Amen (Given)
    1470
    Amen (Received)
    2037
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No, I use the scientific method to examine such arguments.

    Great. Cite the scientific experiment that demonstrates that 'metaphysical arguments cannot validate or invalidate commonly accepted subjective beliefs'. I expect links to published, peer-reviewed papers by credentialled scientists.


    Note your claim was not 'it can be shown that X', but that 'We know that X'. Therefore there must be scientific papers already out there to support that. I want to know what apparatus was used, what physical material was tested and how, how the results were measured, what the physical parameters of the experiment were - all the ordinary things we find in real science experiments that give us your beloved empirically verifiable knowledge.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  11. #340
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,270
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1921
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Great. Cite the scientific experiment that demonstrates that 'metaphysical arguments cannot validate or invalidate commonly accepted subjective beliefs'.
    Are you claiming that 'metaphysical arguments’ CAN validate or invalidate subjective beliefs’? Examples please starting with how you validate “Radical emergence”, “Neutral monism” and “Substance dualism” which were put forward as means of validating subjective beliefs.

    Note your claim was not 'it can be shown that X', but that 'We know that X'.
    Note: My claim was that metaphysical arguments can only speculate because unlike science, they have no mechanism for arriving at tested conclusions – just academic argument.
    “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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •