Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Physicalism is refuted

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.
Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.
Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you've just said without presupposing it?

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?

Yeah I think so.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:47:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:10:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you've just said without presupposing it?

It may be a little confusing since I formulated the argument in a quick reductio ad absurdum way. The experience of colors is a feature of the physical. That is where colors exist. Colors don't exist outside that experience. In what we typically take for the physical world only causes these experiences.
Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?

Yeah I think so.

I see. I don't see why it must assume that. Mental cannot interact with the non mental only if they have nothing in common. If the mind emerges from the physical it could easily interact with the physical. For example, digestion is a feature of the stomach, it isn't the same thing as the stomach, but it does have common features with it. So it can interact with the stomach and other biological systems.

Even if we could only perceive mental events doesn't entail that we're bound to Kant like idealism. Representationalism would still be on the table, which would allow us to understand the non-mental reality.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 5:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:47:35 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:10:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you've just said without presupposing it?

It may be a little confusing since I formulated the argument in a quick reductio ad absurdum way. The experience of colors is a feature of the physical. That is where colors exist. Colors don't exist outside that experience. In what we typically take for the physical world only causes these experiences.

If experiences are physical, why can't they exist apart from sentient life? A new addition to reality is introduced with sentient perception. Just by that alone, there's no basis for supposing that experiences are physical. They solely rely upon conscious perception for being a part of reality.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?

Yeah I think so.

I see. I don't see why it must assume that. Mental cannot interact with the non mental only if they have nothing in common. If the mind emerges from the physical it could easily interact with the physical. For example, digestion is a feature of the stomach, it isn't the same thing as the stomach, but it does have common features with it. So it can interact with the stomach and other biological systems.

Even if we could only perceive mental events doesn't entail that we're bound to Kant like idealism. Representationalism would still be on the table, which would allow us to understand the non-mental reality.

I think you've conflated physical with non-mental. "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Clearly we can conceive of the physical. We cannot conceive of what is non-mental.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 10:14:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Colors, as we experience them, only exist in our experiences and as "images" in our brains. That does not mean that "color" doesn't exist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 10:26:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

So you're saying that if there were no conscious entities, then different types of matter would no longer absorb different frequencies of light?

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

This has no logical coherence to it at all.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:04:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 5:05:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

If experiences are physical, why can't they exist apart from sentient life?

That is like asking "If computing is physical, why can't it exist apart from processors". You are essentially asking why mental events cannot exist in absensce of something that instantiates mental events.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain. Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:17:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 5:05:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:47:35 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:10:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you've just said without presupposing it?

It may be a little confusing since I formulated the argument in a quick reductio ad absurdum way. The experience of colors is a feature of the physical. That is where colors exist. Colors don't exist outside that experience. In what we typically take for the physical world only causes these experiences.

If experiences are physical, why can't they exist apart from sentient life? A new addition to reality is introduced with sentient perception. Just by that alone, there's no basis for supposing that experiences are physical. They solely rely upon conscious perception for being a part of reality.

And if water comes from non-water, why can't it exists apart from liquid? You're presuming sentient life itself isn't also physical.
Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?

Yeah I think so.

I see. I don't see why it must assume that. Mental cannot interact with the non mental only if they have nothing in common. If the mind emerges from the physical it could easily interact with the physical. For example, digestion is a feature of the stomach, it isn't the same thing as the stomach, but it does have common features with it. So it can interact with the stomach and other biological systems.

Even if we could only perceive mental events doesn't entail that we're bound to Kant like idealism. Representationalism would still be on the table, which would allow us to understand the non-mental reality.

I think you've conflated physical with non-mental. "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Clearly we can conceive of the physical. We cannot conceive of what is non-mental.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever non-mental is, if there's emergence then there's a common factor that allows interaction.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 1:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Colors are physical phenomena. "Red" refers to the entrance of a photon of wavelength about 700 nm entering through the eye's lens, passing through the vitreous fluid, before exciting a reaction in the photoreceptor neurons in the optic nerve, causing an electric impulse to be passed through the dendritic network to the brain.

A physical phenomenon.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

It isn't illusory, it's merely a representation of reality within reality. If you go the mall and see a little map that says "YOU ARE HERE", it of course is a representation of the mall, just as our perceptions are a representation of the universe. Obviously, the map isn't an exact replica, so it is not literally "the mall" that is on the map, just as our perceptions are not literally "the universe". However, the map is part of the mall, and the alternating activations of neurons in our brain are part of the universe.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 4:51:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

You've managed to limbo under the hysterically low bar set by your usual standard of drivel, here. I'll address each 'point' separately.

1) "Objective presence" is meaningless, as would be "subjective presence". Something either exists or it does not. Your first paragraph actually states nothing more than "if the universe were different, the universe would be different". It doesn't prove that 'objective reality' (aka 'reality' - putting 'objective' in front of things doesn't make them sound more impressive or change their nature) is partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings, merely that if there weren't conscious beings to perceive things, things would not be perceived. You've just made a load of tautological noise and nothing else.

2) You're arguing that physicalism is inherently dualist when it is, by definition, not. There is no dichotomy between mental and physical, as mental is part of the physical. This is the most nonsensical argument I've ever heard: "Physicalism is wrong because there are problems with dualism!". It's really beyond stupid.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:53:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain.

There is no proof that consciousness is emergent of the brain,

Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

That is like saying, If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it.


Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 12:57:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 12:53:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain.

There is no proof that consciousness is emergent of the brain,

Uh, yes, since creatures with smaller, less complex brains exhibit no signs of self-awareness or sentience.

Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

That is like saying, If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it.

You're right, the sounds coming from the radio did come from the speaker after modulated low frequency electromagnetic radiation was decoded and the sounds used to modulate them were recreated by the radio's circuitry.

All this aside, your brain is not a radio and it does not just receive and translate signals from another source. Your analogy is flawed in a number of ways.


Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:02:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 12:57:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:53:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain.

There is no proof that consciousness is emergent of the brain,

Uh, yes, since creatures with smaller, less complex brains exhibit no signs of self-awareness or sentience.

That doesn't prove the consciousness is an emergent of the brain, Plus there are animals with bigger brains than humans, but that are not so self aware or sentient.


Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

That is like saying, If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it.

You're right, the sounds coming from the radio did come from the speaker after modulated low frequency electromagnetic radiation was decoded and the sounds used to modulate them were recreated by the radio's circuitry.

All this aside, your brain is not a radio and it does not just receive and translate signals from another source. Your analogy is flawed in a number of ways.

No it's not. There is no proof that consciousness is an emergent of the brain, especially as there is evidence documented in the medical literature, showing people with little to no brain tissue who are conscious.

This blows the whole ideology out of the water.



Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:10:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:02:56 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:57:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:53:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain.

There is no proof that consciousness is emergent of the brain,

Uh, yes, since creatures with smaller, less complex brains exhibit no signs of self-awareness or sentience.

That doesn't prove the consciousness is an emergent of the brain, Plus there are animals with bigger brains than humans, but that are not so self aware or sentient.

Do tell. If you're referring to elephants or whales, well, they exhibit signs of sentience, emotion, and compassion. Human are merely animals with a bit more intelligence than most.



Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

That is like saying, If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it.

You're right, the sounds coming from the radio did come from the speaker after modulated low frequency electromagnetic radiation was decoded and the sounds used to modulate them were recreated by the radio's circuitry.

All this aside, your brain is not a radio and it does not just receive and translate signals from another source. Your analogy is flawed in a number of ways.


No it's not. There is no proof that consciousness is an emergent of the brain, especially as there is evidence documented in the medical literature, showing people with little to no brain tissue who are conscious.

References, please?

This blows the whole ideology out of the water.




Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 1:15:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:10:18 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:02:56 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:57:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:53:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain.

There is no proof that consciousness is emergent of the brain,

Uh, yes, since creatures with smaller, less complex brains exhibit no signs of self-awareness or sentience.

That doesn't prove the consciousness is an emergent of the brain, Plus there are animals with bigger brains than humans, but that are not so self aware or sentient.

Do tell. If you're referring to elephants or whales, well, they exhibit signs of sentience, emotion, and compassion. Human are merely animals with a bit more intelligence than most.

I am not interested in an argument that doesn't do anything to prove the premise,
It does nothing to prove that consciousness is an emergent of the brain.




Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

That is like saying, If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it.

You're right, the sounds coming from the radio did come from the speaker after modulated low frequency electromagnetic radiation was decoded and the sounds used to modulate them were recreated by the radio's circuitry.

All this aside, your brain is not a radio and it does not just receive and translate signals from another source. Your analogy is flawed in a number of ways.


No it's not. There is no proof that consciousness is an emergent of the brain, especially as there is evidence documented in the medical literature, showing people with little to no brain tissue who are conscious.

References, please?

And yet, despite having no idea how it could work, most
neuroscientists continue to maintain this 19th century materialistic
view that the brain, in some miraculous way we don"t understand,
produces consciousness. And they discount or ignore the evidence
that consciousness in extreme circumstances can function very well
without a brain.

(Charles) Bruce Greyson (born October 1946) is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia

http://www.scienceformonks.org...


This blows the whole ideology out of the water.




Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 2:35:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And yet, despite having no idea how it could work, most
neuroscientists continue to maintain this 19th century materialistic
view that the brain, in some miraculous way we don"t understand,
produces consciousness. And they discount or ignore the evidence
that consciousness in extreme circumstances can function very well
without a brain.

(Charles) Bruce Greyson (born October 1946) is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia

http://www.scienceformonks.org...

It's very simple really. As the article mentions, it is undeniable that the brain plays some role in formulating our consciousness. However, I will concede that the brain by itself cannot create consciousness.

This is because the brain organizes our sensory information into a compilation of sensations that we call "consciousness". So yes, it is like a radio set in certain ways, in that it cannot create a set of information without first receiving some. But I think a better analogy is in order.

Imagine a small pond in a forest. In many ways, the pond is a reflection of the life in the forest. If there are pine leaves floating on its surface, you can conclude there are pine trees in the forest. If you see frogs eating flies in this pond, you can conclude there are frogs in the forest. If you see a toxic chemical, you can conclude that there is some pipeline passing through the forest.

Note how this microcosm of the forest could not be created by the pond itself, and yet the pond is still a distinct entity. The pond contains elements that correspond to some parts of the greater reality, but not all. The pond is also different in that it may alter the elements in its own way.

This is how I envision the human brain.

It creates a wall of sensations that correspond to parts of reality. This is how we can take actions and see that consequences make sense given our sensations. It can only reflect the parts of reality it is able to sense. This is why we don't know everything. It's own properties may influence its reflection. This is why our perceptions are not an exact reflection of reality, but merely a different way of representing it.

In short, I agree that the brain cannot create consciousness by itself. But the brain is never by itself, it has a universe around it!
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:07:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 1:15:48 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:10:18 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/16/2015 1:02:56 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:57:25 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/16/2015 12:53:05 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/15/2015 11:40:00 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Ben, once again, everything mental derives from the physical structure of our brain.

There is no proof that consciousness is emergent of the brain,

Uh, yes, since creatures with smaller, less complex brains exhibit no signs of self-awareness or sentience.

That doesn't prove the consciousness is an emergent of the brain, Plus there are animals with bigger brains than humans, but that are not so self aware or sentient.

Do tell. If you're referring to elephants or whales, well, they exhibit signs of sentience, emotion, and compassion. Human are merely animals with a bit more intelligence than most.

I am not interested in an argument that doesn't do anything to prove the premise,
It does nothing to prove that consciousness is an emergent of the brain.





Damage that structure and perceptions can change or the ability to perceive can be destroyed.

That is like saying, If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it.

You're right, the sounds coming from the radio did come from the speaker after modulated low frequency electromagnetic radiation was decoded and the sounds used to modulate them were recreated by the radio's circuitry.

All this aside, your brain is not a radio and it does not just receive and translate signals from another source. Your analogy is flawed in a number of ways.


No it's not. There is no proof that consciousness is an emergent of the brain, especially as there is evidence documented in the medical literature, showing people with little to no brain tissue who are conscious.

References, please?


And yet, despite having no idea how it could work, most
neuroscientists continue to maintain this 19th century materialistic
view that the brain, in some miraculous way we don"t understand,
produces consciousness. And they discount or ignore the evidence
that consciousness in extreme circumstances can function very well
without a brain.

A non-referenced speculative paper based on near death experiences and supposed past lives. It does not have any case studies, any actual data of any kind. If you have something with such data, preferably from a peer reviewed publication on neuroscience and not just the opinionated lecture of someone who decries so-called western medicine, I will concede your point. Right now you still have nothing of consequence.

(Charles) Bruce Greyson (born October 1946) is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia

http://www.scienceformonks.org...





This blows the whole ideology out of the water.




Why do you keep on this color thing since 'color' is just a term for a specific frequency of light as perceived by the human eye and brain? We could call red blue and blue red but the frequency of the light would remain the same. Our perceptions do not dictate reality, they only reflect it so a greater or lesser degree of accuracy.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:06:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 10:26:15 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

So you're saying that if there were no conscious entities, then different types of matter would no longer absorb different frequencies of light?

That isn't relevant because it isn't a description of color.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

This has no logical coherence to it at all.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:11:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 1:03:14 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Colors are physical phenomena. "Red" refers to the entrance of a photon of wavelength about 700 nm entering through the eye's lens, passing through the vitreous fluid, before exciting a reaction in the photoreceptor neurons in the optic nerve, causing an electric impulse to be passed through the dendritic network to the brain.

A physical phenomenon.

A 700nm wavelength of light is a 700nm wavelength of light. It is only when this specific wavelength strikes the eye that color can be experienced. Colors aren't an intrinsic property of light and don't objectively exist. This means that if we remove all sentient life, colors (such as red, blue, green) etc., will no longer exist.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

It isn't illusory, it's merely a representation of reality within reality. If you go the mall and see a little map that says "YOU ARE HERE", it of course is a representation of the mall, just as our perceptions are a representation of the universe. Obviously, the map isn't an exact replica, so it is not literally "the mall" that is on the map, just as our perceptions are not literally "the universe". However, the map is part of the mall, and the alternating activations of neurons in our brain are part of the universe.

This isn't analogous to what I'm talking about. You're talking about a mirrored reality. Something mental cannot interact with something non-mental *at all*.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:58:15 PM, Goya wrote:
I would agree inasmuch as you've refuted a misconception of physicalism.

Is it a misconception that physicalism posits that the mental emerged from the non-mental?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:26:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 12:17:28 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 5:05:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:47:35 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:10:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you've just said without presupposing it?

It may be a little confusing since I formulated the argument in a quick reductio ad absurdum way. The experience of colors is a feature of the physical. That is where colors exist. Colors don't exist outside that experience. In what we typically take for the physical world only causes these experiences.

If experiences are physical, why can't they exist apart from sentient life? A new addition to reality is introduced with sentient perception. Just by that alone, there's no basis for supposing that experiences are physical. They solely rely upon conscious perception for being a part of reality.

And if water comes from non-water, why can't it exists apart from liquid? You're presuming sentient life itself isn't also physical.

Water reduces to hydrogen and oxygen. Experiences don't reduce to their physical constituent parts. Sentient life has physical structures but I don't regard consciousness as being a derivative of it.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?

Yeah I think so.

I see. I don't see why it must assume that. Mental cannot interact with the non mental only if they have nothing in common. If the mind emerges from the physical it could easily interact with the physical. For example, digestion is a feature of the stomach, it isn't the same thing as the stomach, but it does have common features with it. So it can interact with the stomach and other biological systems.

Even if we could only perceive mental events doesn't entail that we're bound to Kant like idealism. Representationalism would still be on the table, which would allow us to understand the non-mental reality.

I think you've conflated physical with non-mental. "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Clearly we can conceive of the physical. We cannot conceive of what is non-mental.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever non-mental is, if there's emergence then there's a common factor that allows interaction.

Hence the falsification of physicalism. If there is any kind of interaction (there must be) then dualism or solipsism must be true.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 11:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:26:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/15/2015 12:17:28 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 5:05:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:47:35 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:10:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:05:07 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/14/2015 2:09:58 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Colors (red, blue, green) have no objective presence in the universe unless perceived by consciousness. This means that if all consciousness were removed, a piece of objective reality (colors such as red, blue, green) will not exist. This proves that objective reality is at least partially dependent on the perception of conscious beings. This is NOT possible if physicalism is true.

Qualia and ect are subjective content. I could drop acid and perceive red to be black, but this doesn't mean the objective world is different. You're also conflating the
experience of colors with some physical presence of colors. If there is no experience of colors there's no physical presence of colors. But you wouldn't believe there was a physical presence to begin with. You think the experience of colors exists apart from the universe. The only thing that would change is the experience of such colors. A physicalist doesn't need to believe there are literal physical intrinsic colors. Just that colors are the said experiences caused by light.

So you're willing to concede that human experiences are non-physical?

No. Experiences emerge from the physical.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what you've just said without presupposing it?

It may be a little confusing since I formulated the argument in a quick reductio ad absurdum way. The experience of colors is a feature of the physical. That is where colors exist. Colors don't exist outside that experience. In what we typically take for the physical world only causes these experiences.

If experiences are physical, why can't they exist apart from sentient life? A new addition to reality is introduced with sentient perception. Just by that alone, there's no basis for supposing that experiences are physical. They solely rely upon conscious perception for being a part of reality.

And if water comes from non-water, why can't it exists apart from liquid? You're presuming sentient life itself isn't also physical.

Water reduces to hydrogen and oxygen. Experiences don't reduce to their physical constituent parts. Sentient life has physical structures but I don't regard consciousness as being a derivative of it.

Well then look into non-reductive physicalism.

Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

Not all of them are emergent. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this argument. It sounds like you're saying something cannot be more than the sum of its parts (arguing something cannot emerge) which is blatantly false.

I think you missed the point entirely but let me elaborate a little bit. Whatever is mental cannot interact with anything non-mental. Whatever human beings perceive is irrevocably mental. Physicalism posits that our universe had non-mental origins. If that is the case, it's impossible for us to mentally conceive or perceive of the fundamental non-mental reality.

I think I see what you're saying. You're basically saying physicalism presumes a Kantian like theory of perception and that means we can never know about the things in themselves?

Yeah I think so.

I see. I don't see why it must assume that. Mental cannot interact with the non mental only if they have nothing in common. If the mind emerges from the physical it could easily interact with the physical. For example, digestion is a feature of the stomach, it isn't the same thing as the stomach, but it does have common features with it. So it can interact with the stomach and other biological systems.

Even if we could only perceive mental events doesn't entail that we're bound to Kant like idealism. Representationalism would still be on the table, which would allow us to understand the non-mental reality.

I think you've conflated physical with non-mental. "Mental" means of or relating to the mind. Clearly we can conceive of the physical. We cannot conceive of what is non-mental.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever non-mental is, if there's emergence then there's a common factor that allows interaction.

Hence the falsification of physicalism. If there is any kind of interaction (there must be) then dualism or solipsism must be true.

Complete non-sequitur.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Goya
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 12:13:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 10:14:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:58:15 PM, Goya wrote:
I would agree inasmuch as you've refuted a misconception of physicalism.

Is it a misconception that physicalism posits that the mental emerged from the non-mental?

A physicalist (generally speaking, we're getting into a lack of nuance here) would hold that the experience of color is generated by a physical process. The physicalist has no problem asserting the existence of mental properties, or even a soul for that matter, so as long as it is taken as something that the physical "does". The crux of your argument is a language trick. When there are physical systems that are sufficient for creating color out of light waves (e.g. a brain and human eyes), then, in this particular configuration of reality, color is an "objective" (vaguely defined in your OP) property of the universe. This, by definition, entails that color is an objective property if and only if there is an entity with the sufficient physical parts for creating color out of light waves. When one considers a situation in which there are no such entities, color disappears, but this does not mean that an objective part of reality disappears as well, for without such entities, it makes no sense to speak of color as an objective part of reality. Your argument conceives of entities generating color (it objectively exists in this instance) from light waves, and then conceives of a universe with no entities and therefore no color, and then tries to juxtapose "no conscious entities" with the disappearance of an objective property of the universe. The problem is, as explicated earlier, one must either choose "conscious entities and color as an objective property" or "no conscious entities and color as a not-objective property". One cannot take aspects of both situations and combine them to reach the conclusion that physicalism is false, for in a scenario in which there are no conscious entities, the notion of color as an objective property of the universe is not true. This bars any imagine scenario in which both of these propositions are actualized. Simply put, a universe without conscious entities that can generate color does not entail a universe that is suddenly missing of an objective property, for in such a universe, it is not an objective property in the first place.

This proof, I fear, might have been overly complex. As an even more simple demonstration of the fallacy behind the argument, a physicalist could (again, generally) assert that even if there were no entities that could generate color, nothing would be missing from our picture of reality, for the light waves from which color is generated still very much exist even if there are no entities that turn these light waves into what is perceived as color.
Goya
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 12:18:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:47:07 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Secondly, physicalism posits that reality (the mentally perceived reality as we know it) emerged from the non-mental. This means that "reality" as we know it is completely illusory. If the fundamental reality is non-mental, no mental beings could every perceive or conceive of it. This means we can't posit that physicalism is true since it's a mental application to a non-mental truth.

This is what I had in mind when I referred to misconceptions. An archetypal physicalist would not assert that it's illusory, but only that it's generated by (and in some views, supervenient on) the physical. Cognitive and Gestalt psychology would indicate that "model" is a much better choice of word than "illusion" in any case.