Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dualism-Emergentism

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:09:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How is this related to dualism or emergentism?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:31:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:09:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How is this related to dualism or emergentism?

It's a dualist-emergentist argument.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:31:39 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:09:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How is this related to dualism or emergentism?

It's a dualist-emergentist argument.

And what's the content of that argument exactly? Besides you not understanding consciousness of course.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:49:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:33:37 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:31:39 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:09:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
How is this related to dualism or emergentism?

It's a dualist-emergentist argument.

And what's the content of that argument exactly? Besides you not understanding consciousness of course.

If you must be given the content, I doubt you have my same level of understanding of consciousness.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:05:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Hence the astonishment.

I think it's astonishing either way. If a mind really could emerge just from a complex arrangement of matter, then that would be incredibly astonishing. But if substance dualism is true, then that's only slightly less astonishing (to me at least).
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity. The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 12:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity. The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.

Not really clear what in the argument you're objecting to but for the most part I'd agree.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 1:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 12:59:51 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity. The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.

Not really clear what in the argument you're objecting to but for the most part I'd agree.

I'm objecting to any argument that utilizes the astonishment of any certain subject or collection of subjects as a reliable indication of the truth of any given argument. So "insist[ing] on the adequacy of our amazement," carries very little value in any setting that uses evidence and argument as its currency.

You could use something like the prime principle of confirmation, wherein you say that such a state of affairs seems more plausibly true on hypothesis A than on hypothesis B, inasmuch as B is more astonishing than A and thus we have a sort of defeater for believing in B. Thus, astonishment is used as a criterion for determining what we are justified believing on face value.

The problem with such metrics is that they ALWAYS need to take into account the prior probability of all intrinsic parts of each hypothesis. For instance, the probability of incredibly intelligent entities (IE) evolving through unguided and objectively purposeless mechanisms of natural selection, gene mutation and genetic drift may be relatively low. We will call this hypothesis E. What if we said that there are hidden evolution fairies that always produce IE through the slow process of evolution? We could call this hypothesis F. According to the abovementioned principle, the existence of IE is more probable given hypothesis F, in fact, according to F, the existence of IE is 100%.

This is absurd, of course, as the prior probability of evolution fairies is probably somewhere in the range of 0. Thus, when we apply similar reasoning to the matter of consciousness, astonishment becomes increasingly less relevant when we have to deal with the very complex issues that inundate it
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 4:21:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To sum up the original post:

P1 - I think The conscience is amazing!
P2 - If you think that the conscience is made through pure matter, "I doubt you have my same level of understanding of consciousness." Or, "To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is."
C1 - Therefore Dualism.

The conscience is a summation of our emotion: that's why consciences vary through culture to culture. Also, that's why our conscience quietens over time: our emotions die out and become quiet and move on. Whether our emotion is physical or not may be reasonably debated (I personally prefer a form of soft materialism) but the conscience is certainly not some immaterial wishy-washy state of existence.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:21:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument is mis taking on a simplistic understanding so far. It's not the purpose of the argument to establish the truth of dualism simply from it's astonishment. But rather it's astonishment establishes the fact that it is specifically consciousness that is the phenomena to be explained by its own right. And not just explained away by other such forms of materialism.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.
Come on now. There's no empirical evidence for the contraposition.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 6:08:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.
Come on now. There's no empirical evidence for the contraposition.

I have a bone to pick with your 'contraposition' Boone.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 6:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 6:08:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.
Come on now. There's no empirical evidence for the contraposition.

I have a bone to pick with your 'contraposition' Boone.
And that is?....
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 6:30:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 6:25:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 6:08:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.
Come on now. There's no empirical evidence for the contraposition.

I have a bone to pick with your 'contraposition' Boone.
And that is?....

Why did you use that word? ... I've been trying to figure out if it can be applied to modern propositional logic since the word "contraposition" seems to be used in traditional (or term or Aristotelian) logic.

Simply put, I'm wondering if we can still use terms like, "the contraposition" ... when logic has been developed into modern propositional logic.

That is, does it make sense to question a "contraposition" in a modus ponens?

...Sorry if I'm making no sense but I just don't like the word "contraposition." And I'm trying to see if we can use other words that are more in line with modern logic.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 7:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary


The Fool: Empirical is a Very problematic term, it just means experience. Which is Synonymous with consciousness. Unless, you are willing to claim, unconscious experiments.

Of course which just comes from Experienced moment. Or if you mean something else, Let what I said Be x, and then try and tell me what you mean by Y.
Without Begging the question.

I admit, I have great suspicion, about the non-conscious physicists. But then again I don't believe in zombies.

How are you reading this? Do you know what it is LIKE to be human, to feel. Is feeling A non-existing experience.....or is there no evidence.
Can you tell the difference of colors on the screen with resorting to Formal essence. How do you know what you are investigate, where did you get the questions??

I have only understood questions? but never seen them. How do you understand words. Some people speak in difference languages, I know that when I say Le Fol. I mean The Fool. Because it is the same Idea that I am investing, in the meaning.

If what you say is True, then there is no- evidence, for that. Language is random scribbling in the sand, which are meaningless without somebody who understands the "Ideas" of which these symbols refer to.

But I have never smelt, heard, seen, touched or even tasted The LOGOS. What does it taste Like? can you Point it out. <(8D)

Nor has have we seen Energy, Time, Reason, Nor Truth or false nor Necessity or random.

But Non-the less I am conscious of first 4 and by that I mean, I experience the difference between them and Sense information. And so it follows that it IS, even if it as simply a recognition.

For it is the necessary recognition to demarcate what SENSE INFORMATION IS and what it consist of in, in the first place.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 11:21:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

Why do I feel the God of the gaps hiding in the bush some where, there he is, sneaky bugger.........

1) Astonishment
2) You can't explain that
3) Therefore God

On a more serious note I would note the question about consciousness is asked from a position where well there is consciousness, non consciousnesses things don't ask about consciousness now do they.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 12:47:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 11:21:34 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

Why do I feel the God of the gaps hiding in the bush some where, there he is, sneaky bugger.........

1) Astonishment
2) You can't explain that
3) Therefore God

On a more serious note I would note the question about consciousness is asked from a position where well there is consciousness, non consciousnesses things don't ask about consciousness now do they.

Emergent substances from property things make no appeal to the divine. I would be strange to think so...

You're right that non-conscious things can't ask about consciousness. But that's irrelevant. We want to know about consciousness. Not non-consciousness.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 12:47:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 7:46:53 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary


The Fool: Empirical is a Very problematic term, it just means experience. Which is Synonymous with consciousness. Unless, you are willing to claim, unconscious experiments.

Of course which just comes from Experienced moment. Or if you mean something else, Let what I said Be x, and then try and tell me what you mean by Y.
Without Begging the question.

I admit, I have great suspicion, about the non-conscious physicists. But then again I don't believe in zombies.

How are you reading this? Do you know what it is LIKE to be human, to feel. Is feeling A non-existing experience.....or is there no evidence.
Can you tell the difference of colors on the screen with resorting to Formal essence. How do you know what you are investigate, where did you get the questions??

I have only understood questions? but never seen them. How do you understand words. Some people speak in difference languages, I know that when I say Le Fol. I mean The Fool. Because it is the same Idea that I am investing, in the meaning.

If what you say is True, then there is no- evidence, for that. Language is random scribbling in the sand, which are meaningless without somebody who understands the "Ideas" of which these symbols refer to.

But I have never smelt, heard, seen, touched or even tasted The LOGOS. What does it taste Like? can you Point it out. <(8D)

Nor has have we seen Energy, Time, Reason, Nor Truth or false nor Necessity or random.

But Non-the less I am conscious of first 4 and by that I mean, I experience the difference between them and Sense information. And so it follows that it IS, even if it as simply a recognition.

For it is the necessary recognition to demarcate what SENSE INFORMATION IS and what it consist of in, in the first place.

Hi.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 6:28:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity.

I don't think that is very compelling evidence though, you could postulate that the music coming from a radio has it's source in the radio too, but the fact that damage to the radio makes the music stop doesn't mean the music is coming from the radio.

The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.

I had an NDE so that certainly weighs heavily as evidence for me personally, and philosophically it's Chlamers' hard problem that makes a fully materialistic theory of consciousness completely inexplicable. I think the reason I used the word astonishing is because the issues are so deep and complex and those who argue against seem to dismiss it as if it's just simple. The same folks who mock a position and make fun of the phrase "God did it" will look at the deep and complex problem of consciousness and simply say "the brain did it".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:16:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:28:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity.

I don't think that is very compelling evidence though, you could postulate that the music coming from a radio has it's source in the radio too, but the fact that damage to the radio makes the music stop doesn't mean the music is coming from the radio.

The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.

I had an NDE so that certainly weighs heavily as evidence for me personally, and philosophically it's Chlamers' hard problem that makes a fully materialistic theory of consciousness completely inexplicable. I think the reason I used the word astonishing is because the issues are so deep and complex and those who argue against seem to dismiss it as if it's just simple. The same folks who mock a position and make fun of the phrase "God did it" will look at the deep and complex problem of consciousness and simply say "the brain did it".

Woe, you had an NDE?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 11:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 6:30:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 6:25:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 6:08:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.
Come on now. There's no empirical evidence for the contraposition.

I have a bone to pick with your 'contraposition' Boone.
And that is?....

Why did you use that word? ... I've been trying to figure out if it can be applied to modern propositional logic since the word "contraposition" seems to be used in traditional (or term or Aristotelian) logic.
I meant "counterpoint".

Simply put, I'm wondering if we can still use terms like, "the contraposition" ... when logic has been developed into modern propositional logic.

That is, does it make sense to question a "contraposition" in a modus ponens?

...Sorry if I'm making no sense but I just don't like the word "contraposition." And I'm trying to see if we can use other words that are more in line with modern logic.
You are forgiven!

******************************************
At 12/13/2012 7:46:53 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/13/2012 5:54:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.
Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence to the contrary
The Fool: Empirical is a Very problematic term, it just means experience. Which is Synonymous with consciousness.
It is not problematic at all; at least not for me, anyways. And yes "empirical" can be synonymous with "experience" but it can also be more. Keep reading below.

Unless, you are willing to claim, unconscious experiments.
I'm sure you are familiar with the term non-sequitur, right?

Of course which just comes from Experienced moment. Or if you mean something else, Let what I said Be x, and then try and tell me what you mean by Y.
Gladly:
"empirical: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment" -MW

I bolded a keyword for you.

Without Begging the question.
No question begging here, at least not on my part. There does seem to be a whole lot of non sequiturs on your part, though.

I admit, I have great suspicion, about the non-conscious physicists. But then again I don't believe in zombies.
Ah more non sequiturs! You like them, don't you?

How are you reading this? Do you know what it is LIKE to be human, to feel. Is feeling A non-existing experience.....or is there no evidence.
Clearly you do!

Can you tell the difference of colors on the screen with resorting to Formal essence. How do you know what you are investigate, where did you get the questions??
Go on! Maybe you'll break your previous record!

I have only understood questions? but never seen them. How do you understand words. Some people speak in difference languages, I know that when I say Le Fol. I mean The Fool. Because it is the same Idea that I am investing, in the meaning.
Ok...

If what you say is True, then there is no- evidence, for that.
What is it exactly that you think I'm saying? Judging from your long string of non sequiturs, I think you haven't a clue what I am saying.

Language is random scribbling in the sand, which are meaningless without somebody who understands the "Ideas" of which these symbols refer to.
Ahem, ahem, go on...

But I have never smelt, heard, seen, touched or even tasted The LOGOS. What does it taste Like? can you Point it out. <(8D)
You don't say?

Nor has have we seen Energy, Time, Reason, Nor Truth or false nor Necessity or random.
Nor has have I know nor what you is saying, but go on.

But Non-the less I am conscious of first 4 and by that I mean, I experience the difference between them and Sense information. And so it follows that it IS, even if it as simply a recognition.
Didn't you mention something about begging the question?

For it is the necessary recognition to demarcate what SENSE INFORMATION IS and what it consist of in, in the first place.
Are you familiar with the term homunculus?

Anyways. Like I said, there is no evidence for the non-physical that is "capable of being verified by observation and experiment."

**************************

At 12/14/2012 4:06:38 AM, badger wrote:
At 12/14/2012 4:01:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Consciousness is chaos.

stupid.
And then some.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 12:19:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 9:16:09 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:28:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity.

I don't think that is very compelling evidence though, you could postulate that the music coming from a radio has it's source in the radio too, but the fact that damage to the radio makes the music stop doesn't mean the music is coming from the radio.

The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.

I had an NDE so that certainly weighs heavily as evidence for me personally, and philosophically it's Chlamers' hard problem that makes a fully materialistic theory of consciousness completely inexplicable. I think the reason I used the word astonishing is because the issues are so deep and complex and those who argue against seem to dismiss it as if it's just simple. The same folks who mock a position and make fun of the phrase "God did it" will look at the deep and complex problem of consciousness and simply say "the brain did it".

Woe, you had an NDE?

Yeah, I was struck by lightning of all things, it was quite an electrifying experience :)

Anyway, I did the whole thing you always hear about, the tunnel, the bright lights, seeing people, all of it. Interestingly, horses are a very important and significant part of my life, and there were horses there too.

In an NDE the correlation between intensity of brain activity and intensity of consciousness are completely inverted, that certainly works against the argument that consciousness is merely a byproduct of brain activity.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 12:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 12:19:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/14/2012 9:16:09 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/14/2012 6:28:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:50:18 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/13/2012 7:05:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/12/2012 11:02:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 12/12/2012 10:57:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:02:12 PM, Apeiron wrote:
I insist on the adequacy of our amazement when we reflect about the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness deserves astonishment, since for a person who understands what consciousness consists in will see (upon reflection) just how amazing it is that consciousness arises on the basis of some arrangement of matter.

To downplay the astonishment is to not fully grasp what consciousness is.

I agree with you about the astonishment, but I am very doubtful that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

Hence the astonishment.

What I find most astonishing is that there are some people who believe that consciousness can be fully accounted for by merely an arrangement of matter.

That is about as faith based a position as you can have, and yet, most that take that position also try to crap all over faith.

I think we're having fun with the word astonishing and somehow under the impression that our own astonishment matters when it comes to the truth of any given proposition. I think there are very good arguments for a sort of mind-body dualism or substance dualism. But it really isn't all that astonishing, to maintain the phrase, that materialists think consciousness can be reduced to (or supervene upon, depending on your position) brain states. This is because experience shows us that damage to material states of the brain alter consciousness. These alterations include memory loss or reinterpretation of memories and also changes in what we typically classify as personal identity.

I don't think that is very compelling evidence though, you could postulate that the music coming from a radio has it's source in the radio too, but the fact that damage to the radio makes the music stop doesn't mean the music is coming from the radio.

The issues are deep and complex and I would hardly fault a person for believing that the brain is the causal source of consciousness. I disagree, of course, but I do so because of NDE's, philosophical arguments and my belief in a God who endowed me with a soul.

I had an NDE so that certainly weighs heavily as evidence for me personally, and philosophically it's Chlamers' hard problem that makes a fully materialistic theory of consciousness completely inexplicable. I think the reason I used the word astonishing is because the issues are so deep and complex and those who argue against seem to dismiss it as if it's just simple. The same folks who mock a position and make fun of the phrase "God did it" will look at the deep and complex problem of consciousness and simply say "the brain did it".

Woe, you had an NDE?

Yeah, I was struck by lightning of all things, it was quite an electrifying experience :)

Anyway, I did the whole thing you always hear about, the tunnel, the bright lights, seeing people, all of it. Interestingly, horses are a very important and significant part of my life, and there were horses there too.

In an NDE the correlation between intensity of brain activity and intensity of consciousness are completely inverted, that certainly works against the argument that consciousness is merely a byproduct of brain activity.

That's nuts! .. Did you just wake back up or hostpialized?