Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Around the campfire...

kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Growing up in Britain, I don't see things in religious terms by default so when I think about things like 'consciousness', 'free-will', what-happened-before-the-big bang, objective morality and so on I don't even consider 'god' amongst the options - it's not that I actively reject god, I just never consider 'god' at all.

If I have to classify myself, I suppose I am a physicalist, or a materialist. I think everything happens for reasons lurking in the nature of the physical universe. For me, there is only the physical - the mental is a product of the physical, not the other way around. Now I am not saying that is the case - but I am saying it is my 'working hypothesis' and I am reluctant to consider any other.

But that means I am really stuck with a few philosophical puzzles. How exactly does consciousness arise in a brain? How does free-will work? Indeed, what are consciousness and free will in the first place? Is morality arbitrary or are some things just plain evil?

As a dyed-in-the-wool anti-dualist I find the intractability of problems such as those annoying. I think that it should be possible to explain consciousness and free-will lofically and within terms of the laws of physics. But - AFAIK - it isn't, certainly not to the standards of rigour I'd be happy with.

The worst of it is that the lack of non-dualist theories of consciosuness and so on leaves room for the woo-woo crowd to claim that their systems are better. Of course their talking nonsense because their argments have more holes in them than a, um, thing with lots of holes in. But we physicalists (assuming thereare any like-minded out there) don't really have anything solid, do we?

So what are the chances of there being tight, rigorous physicalist theories of life, the universe and everything? What is needed to get such theories?
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 9:33:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 12:19:38 PM, kp98 wrote:
Growing up in Britain, I don't see things in religious terms by default so when I think about things like 'consciousness', 'free-will', what-happened-before-the-big bang, objective morality and so on I don't even consider 'god' amongst the options - it's not that I actively reject god, I just never consider 'god' at all.

If I have to classify myself, I suppose I am a physicalist, or a materialist. I think everything happens for reasons lurking in the nature of the physical universe. For me, there is only the physical - the mental is a product of the physical, not the other way around. Now I am not saying that is the case - but I am saying it is my 'working hypothesis' and I am reluctant to consider any other.

But that means I am really stuck with a few philosophical puzzles. How exactly does consciousness arise in a brain? How does free-will work? Indeed, what are consciousness and free will in the first place? Is morality arbitrary or are some things just plain evil?

As a dyed-in-the-wool anti-dualist I find the intractability of problems such as those annoying. I think that it should be possible to explain consciousness and free-will lofically and within terms of the laws of physics. But - AFAIK - it isn't, certainly not to the standards of rigour I'd be happy with.

The worst of it is that the lack of non-dualist theories of consciosuness and so on leaves room for the woo-woo crowd to claim that their systems are better. Of course their talking nonsense because their argments have more holes in them than a, um, thing with lots of holes in. But we physicalists (assuming thereare any like-minded out there) don't really have anything solid, do we?

So what are the chances of there being tight, rigorous physicalist theories of life, the universe and everything? What is needed to get such theories?

Being that you are from the Protestant world, you are very typical of free thinkers.

Regarding being and consciousness, even Socrates in his dying moment was forced to admit that death is either a dreamless sleep or else our souls/essences transmigrate to another world.

We simply do not know.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 7:50:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/9/2015 12:19:38 PM, kp98 wrote:
Growing up in Britain, I don't see things in religious terms by default so when I think about things like 'consciousness', 'free-will', what-happened-before-the-big bang, objective morality and so on I don't even consider 'god' amongst the options - it's not that I actively reject god, I just never consider 'god' at all.

If I have to classify myself, I suppose I am a physicalist, or a materialist. I think everything happens for reasons lurking in the nature of the physical universe. For me, there is only the physical - the mental is a product of the physical, not the other way around. Now I am not saying that is the case - but I am saying it is my 'working hypothesis' and I am reluctant to consider any other.

But that means I am really stuck with a few philosophical puzzles. How exactly does consciousness arise in a brain? How does free-will work? Indeed, what are consciousness and free will in the first place? Is morality arbitrary or are some things just plain evil?

As a dyed-in-the-wool anti-dualist I find the intractability of problems such as those annoying. I think that it should be possible to explain consciousness and free-will lofically and within terms of the laws of physics. But - AFAIK - it isn't, certainly not to the standards of rigour I'd be happy with.

The worst of it is that the lack of non-dualist theories of consciosuness and so on leaves room for the woo-woo crowd to claim that their systems are better. Of course their talking nonsense because their argments have more holes in them than a, um, thing with lots of holes in. But we physicalists (assuming thereare any like-minded out there) don't really have anything solid, do we?

So what are the chances of there being tight, rigorous physicalist theories of life, the universe and everything? What is needed to get such theories?

Disregard the beginning of this videos references to the religious (maybe 5 minutes or so) and embraced the content of the rest of it and I think you'll find it surprising how little "physicalists" really are aware of. This man is an information technologist and has a long list of educational qualifications. The science that is discussed is peer reviewed and irrefutable, not that it contradicts current scientific ideas, but what it shows in addition to them is eye opening. His name is Chuck Missler, yeh, he's a Christian, but there's no debunking of science here, its as I said additional information that is rather compelling. I came away with a profound sense of proof there are more dishonest people within their own circles then one might originally think. And yes, there is very technical information in this speech, but it is all current science. It also addresses scientific thinking of the past that has been discarded or is still relevant. Give it a watch, it gets very deep into our reality. Don't let the title fool you, myths isn't necessarily about current science that is wrong, it is more in reference to not being all inclusive of things that are relevant to the theories but seldom discussed along with the popular rhetoric.

https://m.youtube.com...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 10:23:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
With respect, I'll pass. I don't think that is a path worth exploring any more than I have already.