Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Cartesian dualism

tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 2:15:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know this SEEMS like it should belong in the philosophy section, it's just I'd rather hear from the science community on DDO than the philosophy community as my question involves both disciplines.

If 'particulate' matter can take on both a particle nature and a wave nature, while neither being more fundamental to matter, then why haven't we at least brought into question Cartesian dualism and physicalism with respect to consciousness? I know it's WAY to early to say whether it is or is not, even whether or not it is or isn't more probable, but isn't it at least POSSIBLE, that consciousness is both mind and body all at once? Neither one nor the other but both, depending?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 3:58:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because, while there is EMPIRICAL evidence for the wave properties AND particle properties, there is ZERO EMPIRICAL evidence for the non-physical.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 12:05:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 2:15:36 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
I know this SEEMS like it should belong in the philosophy section, it's just I'd rather hear from the science community on DDO than the philosophy community as my question involves both disciplines.

If 'particulate' matter can take on both a particle nature and a wave nature, while neither being more fundamental to matter, then why haven't we at least brought into question Cartesian dualism and physicalism with respect to consciousness? I know it's WAY to early to say whether it is or is not, even whether or not it is or isn't more probable, but isn't it at least POSSIBLE, that consciousness is both mind and body all at once? Neither one nor the other but both, depending?

Yes it is a possibility, but as many scientists will reinforce, there is no empirical evidence yet. There exists absolutely no atomic barriers, and the only possible explanation (as of now) as to the force that is responsible for the physical shaping of objects lies within hardly understood realms of consciousness and perception.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2012 12:18:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 2:15:36 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
I know this SEEMS like it should belong in the philosophy section, it's just I'd rather hear from the science community on DDO than the philosophy community as my question involves both disciplines.

If 'particulate' matter can take on both a particle nature and a wave nature, while neither being more fundamental to matter, then why haven't we at least brought into question Cartesian dualism and physicalism with respect to consciousness? I know it's WAY to early to say whether it is or is not, even whether or not it is or isn't more probable, but isn't it at least POSSIBLE, that consciousness is both mind and body all at once? Neither one nor the other but both, depending?

"I don't know, man, do how does it feel?

Warm and fuzzy and you tingle all over? That's a lot, man... that's like, everything."

Lol, do drugs, and see consciousness in a whole different way.

Of course consciousness is physical to an extent. Can't you feel when someone's looking at you?

Makes me walk funny sometimes.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 2:16:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At the same time, it simply isn't true that "there is no evidence". Descartes himself took his own consciousness as evidence of "mind". We have no way of 'measuring' mind but through matter, this is true sure enough, but that doesn't mean mind doesn't exist. To be sure, this shouldn't be counted as some mark against it, it makes perfect sense that there really isn't any corporeal means of measuring the non-corporeal.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 1:50:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 4:45:38 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
so because there is zero evidence there is zero possibility?
Philosophically no, physically yes.

At the same time, it simply isn't true that "there is no evidence".
If you think that there is empirical evidence, then show me.

Descartes himself took his own consciousness as evidence of "mind".
So what? A mind is simply a concept of a physical state or condition of a brain; and a brain is a physical thing. The only thing this proves is that the brain exists. We already know this.

We have no way of 'measuring' mind but through matter, this is true sure enough, but that doesn't mean mind doesn't exist.
Who says that the mind doesn't exist? I certainly don't make that claim. And why would you "measure" a mind? A mind is not something to be measured: it is not a real physical thing but rather a concept. It's like trying to measure a philosophy or idea: how do you measure theism? You don't. (Please do not respond to this point with equivocations.)

To be sure, this shouldn't be counted as some mark against it, it makes perfect sense that there really isn't any corporeal means of measuring the non-corporeal.
Corporeal means of measuring? It's simply measuring and there isn't any other type. Adding "corporeal" to measuring is redundant.

The biggest problem with "philosophies of the non-physical" is that within their framework, the non-physical is always exempt from ALL "rules" pertaining to the physical (ie physics) EXCEPT that it can interact with the physical whenever it is convenient for the framework. How nice!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 3:56:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the most part I enjoy your posts tboone, but I have to say this response was uncharacteristically uninformed.

At 4/26/2012 1:50:14 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Philosophically no, physically yes.

Since we cannot empirically test string theory, or conceivably, the multiverse theory, their physical realities are impossible? Are you just being disingenuous or are you actually convinced of what you are saying? What if this whole universe was actually in the singularity of a black hole in some other universe? Sure it's POSSIBLE, but let me now if you figure out a way of providing physical evidence of its veracity.

Sure string theory may or may not be a scientific theory since there is no apparent methods of empirical verification, but that doesn't mean that's its conclusions are wrong and physically impossible. In fact, string theory is the theory that proves that its conclusions are POSSIBLE, what we need now is physical evidence to determine whether or not they are FACTUAL.

If you think that there is empirical evidence, then show me.

Read Descartes' Discourse on Method and Meditations on the First Philosophy (as I hoped any responder here would have, after all, it IS a prerequisite for correctly understanding the OP). He interprets, through empirical means (in that you, yourself can replicate his 'experiment' of sorts), that his consciousness is ontological different from his body, hence Cartesian dualism mind/body, the issue I was initially referring to.

So what? A mind is simply a concept of a physical state or condition of a brain; and a brain is a physical thing. The only thing this proves is that the brain exists. We already know this.
This is quite possibly the best evidence that you are simply unfit to be answering the problem presented by the initial post. A mind is not simply "a concept of a physical state..." for the simple reason that I am talking about the original concept of the Cartesian "mind" also known as the Cartesian "cogito". Mind is that stuff that, though distinct from matter, interacts with it 'somehow', similar to how dark matter 'somehow' interacts with regular matter.

Whether or not you accept this is how it is, you're not going to sit there and tell me you KNOW consciousness IS physical. It may correlate and coincide with physical processes, but what of the feeling of wetness or the feeling of anger et cetera? We know physical processes have strong correlations with the PRESENCE of the feeling of anger, hell it even might cause of the presence, but what of the feeling itself, what it "feels" like? Don't tell me the "feeling" of this or that is physical as there are very different things associated with the presence of "a wall" or "an atom" and that special private presence of "the feeling of..."

Who says that the mind doesn't exist? I certainly don't make that claim. And why would you "measure" a mind? A mind is not something to be measured: it is not a real physical thing but rather a concept. It's like trying to measure a philosophy or idea: how do you measure theism? You don't. (Please do not respond to this point with equivocations.)

Sure there is no way of 'measuring' a mind, which is why I put apostrophe's around the word measure. It was a kind of syntactical way of expressing the absurdity of such a notion.

Corporeal means of measuring? It's simply measuring and there isn't any other type. Adding "corporeal" to measuring is redundant.
You're are beginning to understand what I mean by the absurdity of the whole notion.

The biggest problem with "philosophies of the non-physical" is that within their framework, the non-physical is always exempt from ALL "rules" pertaining to the physical (ie physics) EXCEPT that it can interact with the physical whenever it is convenient for the framework. How nice!

It essentially boils down to this. Descartes, through doubting everything met with a contradiction. The existence that says "I don't exist" must exist, in order to be incredulous to begin with, much more make such a bold claim. He goes on to show why the body must exist too yada yada, but he establishes there is an ontological distinction between the two.

Now, my question is, should we accept there is a distinction, why then must we assume that it sequesters each half of the dichotomy unto itself? In other words, despite the distinction, why can't mind be body and body be mind simultaneously?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 5:33:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 3:56:14 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
For the most part I enjoy your posts tboone, but I have to say this response was uncharacteristically uninformed.
Why thanks!

Since we cannot empirically test string theory, or conceivably, the multiverse theory, their physical realities are impossible?
No, but then again these are NOTHING like the non-physical.

Are you just being disingenuous or are you actually convinced of what you are saying?
I mean what I say, and I say what I mean! Every single one of the above theories HEAVILY relies upon an ENORMOUS amount of empirical evidence.

What if this whole universe was actually in the singularity of a black hole in some other universe?
But there is no evidence of that. You can play what-ifs all you want just gimme some good old fashioned empirical evidence!

Sure it's POSSIBLE, but let me now if you figure out a way of providing physical evidence of its veracity.
How is it possible? The physics we see every day breaks down inside a singularity; ergo, if we were in a singularity we would not experience everyday physics.

Sure string theory may or may not be a scientific theory since there is no apparent methods of empirical verification, but that doesn't mean that's its conclusions are wrong and physically impossible.
May or may not be? It absolutely is. The problem with many of these "theories of everything" is that in their attempt to explain everything they're left with not being able to predict anything!

In fact, string theory is the theory that proves that its conclusions are POSSIBLE, what we need now is physical evidence to determine whether or not they are FACTUAL.
No. String Theory is a wonderfully CHERRY PICKED mathematical model of what the Universe might be. It is SO cherry picked, that it leaves no room for predictions: it says it all!

Read Descartes' Discourse on Method and Meditations on the First Philosophy (as I hoped any responder here would have, after all, it IS a prerequisite for correctly understanding the OP).
Nope, but I will now that you mentioned it.

He interprets, through empirical means (in that you, yourself can replicate his 'experiment' of sorts), that his consciousness is ontological different from his body, hence Cartesian dualism mind/body, the issue I was initially referring to.
Not empirical means.

This is quite possibly the best evidence that you are simply unfit to be answering the problem presented by the initial post.
That was mean. I strongly disagree, however.

A mind is not simply "a concept of a physical state..." for the simple reason that I am talking about the original concept of the Cartesian "mind" also known as the Cartesian "cogito".
Ah, so we disagree on the definition of the mind.

Mind is that stuff that, though distinct from matter, interacts with it 'somehow', similar to how dark matter 'somehow' interacts with regular matter.
I cannot not accept such flights of fancy as a definition of a mind. I prefer to use my definition because it has the caveat of empiricism behind it.

Whether or not you accept this is how it is, you're not going to sit there and tell me you KNOW consciousness IS physical.
I believe that I told you that conscienceless is a condition or state of a physical brain. There is plenty of empirical evidence for this, btw.

It may correlate and coincide with physical processes, but what of the feeling of wetness or the feeling of anger et cetera?
What about it? We touch something wet, so our brain interprets it as the "feeling of wetness"; etc. I don't see the big deal here.

We know physical processes have strong correlations with the PRESENCE of the feeling of anger, hell it even might cause of the presence, but what of the feeling itself, what it "feels" like?
Again, you get physical input and it is used by the brain to produce an output: feeling. What's the big deal?

Don't tell me the "feeling" of this or that is physical as there are very different things associated with the presence of "a wall" or "an atom" and that special private presence of "the feeling of..."
Don't understand your point. Maybe you could explain it differently. I honestly don't see the big whoop.

Sure there is no way of 'measuring' a mind, which is why I put apostrophe's around the word measure. It was a kind of syntactical way of expressing the absurdity of such a notion.
OK, it's absurd...so what? Who's proposing the absurd?

You're are beginning to understand what I mean by the absurdity of the whole notion.
No. I just see a pointless point being made. What is the point of this strawman?

It essentially boils down to this. Descartes, through doubting everything met with a contradiction.
Doubting everything? You mean like negating everything?

The existence that says "I don't exist" must exist, in order to be incredulous to begin with, much more make such a bold claim.
I don't understand this phrasing. Do you mean the negation of existence? Can you elaborate?

He goes on to show why the body must exist too yada yada, but he establishes there is an ontological distinction between the two.
I cannot speak further on this until you can clarify the above.

Now, my question is, should we accept there is a distinction, why then must we assume that it sequesters each half of the dichotomy unto itself? In other words, despite the distinction, why can't mind be body and body be mind simultaneously?
I cannot begin to answer the question because I cannot accept the non-physical because there is no empirical evidence for it.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 3:43:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 5:33:21 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No, but then again these are NOTHING like the non-physical.

Sure, but they're not impossible.

But there is no evidence of that. You can play what-ifs all you want just gimme some good old fashioned empirical evidence!

I know, but it is possible right?

How is it possible? The physics we see every day breaks down inside a singularity; ergo, if we were in a singularity we would not experience everyday physics.

http://www.tgdaily.com...

Also, read Susskind (though I'm sure you have already).

May or may not be? It absolutely is. The problem with many of these "theories of everything" is that in their attempt to explain everything they're left with not being able to predict anything!

Actually, the scientific community has been raising the question for some time now; "is string theory, really a scientific theory?" A scientific theories must, at the very least, CONCEIVABLY lend themselves to falsifiability. String theory, unfortunately, seems like it does not.

(I hope the link works): http://www.google.com...

Ah, so we disagree on the definition of the mind.

Not necessarily. You disagree with the Descartes' notion of mind, not necessarily my own. I don't have to agree that there is a real problem with mind/body in order to suggest a solution in terms of the problem itself.

There's a magnificent example of this in the history of psychology. Way back when in France, in the Hopital General, there was a man who believed he was dead and, as a consequence, refused to eat or drink. So, one day, they brought some actors into his cell, made up to appear as though they were dead. And what did they do? They all sat down to a nice big meal. The next day, the same man began eating and drinking again, though he still was certain he was dead. You can use the terms of the problem to answer the problem without necessarily agreeing that the problem exists in the first place. He wasn't ever dead, but that doesn't prevent us from getting creative does it?

I cannot not accept such flights of fancy as a definition of a mind. I prefer to use my definition because it has the caveat of empiricism behind it.

Then you can't adequately address the question posed by my original post.

Again, you get physical input and it is used by the brain to produce an output: feeling. What's the big deal?

Well, you know, just that the feeling of something is entirely non-physical. If it is physical, explain how. I'm not asking you to say that "it's possibly an electromagentic phenomenon..." as this is a sort of physical component of the feeling, you must address what the feeling is itself, in terms of the physical. This, I'll submit, is impossible and I will continue to submit, until you demonstrate otherwise.

Don't understand your point. Maybe you could explain it differently. I honestly don't see the big whoop.

I don't know, maybe I can't help you then? Just seems pretty apparent to me.

OK, it's absurd...so what? Who's proposing the absurd?

Not me. I wasn't the one asking for the corporeal vestiges of the that which is non-corporeal.

Doubting everything? You mean like negating everything?

More or less yes. He basically threw out all prima facie truth and said "I won't believe it until there is real reason."

I don't understand this phrasing. Do you mean the negation of existence? Can you elaborate?

Suppose you just decided that simply seeing and feeling your body is no real reason to believe exists and that you demand a more cogent evidence of its existence. Now assume the same consciousness (your own consciousness in this case) that is doubting the existence of the corporeal body in which it resides, decides it (the consciousness) too must give an adequate reason for why it exists, if it can't, then it doesn't. Ah, but how can it doubt its own existence without existing in the first place; "Cogito ergo sum" , I think, therefore I am. In order to doubt your existence, you must first exist.

I cannot begin to answer the question because I cannot accept the non-physical because there is no empirical evidence for it.

In spite of the fact that we've both agreed it is absurd to expect corporeal evidence of the non-corporeal.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:16:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 8:56:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tboone, read up on qualia.
Thanks, I actually learned about qualia on this site. Very interesting stuff. Qualia is simply a mental state which of course corresponds to a physiological state.
************************************

At 4/27/2012 3:43:17 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
Sure, but they're not impossible.
Yes but again, there's a world of difference between them; ergo, not analogous. They simply share the fact that the concepts do not embody any contradictions, that's a pretty weak association. My point was that there is empiricism behind one and not the other.

I know, but it is possible right?
In the same ideological way that ANYTHING that does not contain a contradiction is possible, yes. But in a more pragmatic sense, no: it is HIGHLY unlikely.

http://www.tgdaily.com...
Again, highly unlikely. Too much speculation for my taste.

Also, read Susskind (though I'm sure you have already).
I like Susskind a lot more than I like Michio...Susskind seems more humble. Anyways, I don't really care for M-Theory and the like.

Actually, the scientific community has been raising the question for some time now; "is string theory, really a scientific theory?" A scientific theories must, at the very least, CONCEIVABLY lend themselves to falsifiability. String theory, unfortunately, seems like it does not.
True, but then again there are aspects to QM that are unfalsifiable as well. Again, I am not a strong supporter of string theory and the like, but I do appreciate the incredibly brilliant minds that have worked out the mathematics behind it. But there's so much damn cherry picking in it!

Not necessarily. You disagree with the Descartes' notion of mind, not necessarily my own. I don't have to agree that there is a real problem with mind/body in order to suggest a solution in terms of the problem itself.
How can you suggest a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? I'm confused: what are you actually saying here?

There's a magnificent example of this in the history of psychology. Way back when in France, in the Hopital General, there was a man who believed he was dead and, as a consequence, refused to eat or drink. So, one day, they brought some actors into his cell, made up to appear as though they were dead. And what did they do? They all sat down to a nice big meal. The next day, the same man began eating and drinking again, though he still was certain he was dead. You can use the terms of the problem to answer the problem without necessarily agreeing that the problem exists in the first place. He wasn't ever dead, but that doesn't prevent us from getting creative does it?
That is very creative, but not exactly correct because there are 2 different problems here. The problem that was solved was the problem of not eating and NOT the problem of whether he was dead or not...which of course was never a problem at all. So my question to you is: what's the corollary to the "eating problem" in our discourse?

Then you can't adequately address the question posed by my original post.
Perhaps there isn't a question there to begin with!

Well, you know, just that the feeling of something is entirely non-physical.
And your proof of that is where? I mean other than a bold assertion, of course.

If it is physical, explain how.
1) There is no other alternative. There is no empirical evidence for anything other than the physical.
2) I think that physiology can do a great job of explaining that. I'm sure that you're familiar with this stuff.

I'm not asking you to say that "it's possibly an electromagentic phenomenon..." as this is a sort of physical component of the feeling, you must address what the feeling is itself, in terms of the physical.
I lean more to the fact that it IS electromagnetic in nature, as that seems to be the way impulses travel through nerves. Chemistry is electromagnetic in nature so we have no reason to think that Bio-Chemistry is any different. Again, I have no reason to think that a feeling has any component other than a physical because there is no evidence for it.

This, I'll submit, is impossible and I will continue to submit, until you demonstrate otherwise.
That's fine, but I like to take a more pragmatic approach to things. I do not lend much credence to something who's ONLY virtue is that it SIMPLY does not embody a contradiction.

I don't know, maybe I can't help you then? Just seems pretty apparent to me.
If it is so apparent, shouldn't it be simple to demonstrate?

Not me. I wasn't the one asking for the corporeal vestiges of the that which is non-corporeal.
In a way you are, because you are suggesting that the non-corporeal DOES sometimes have corporeal properties. If not, then the non-corporeal is COMPLETELY separate from the corporeal in the same way fantasy and reality are.

More or less yes. He basically threw out all prima facie truth and said "I won't believe it until there is real reason."
Ok, but you cannot really throw out ALL prima facie truth otherwise you are left with "nothing" and let's not forget that ex nihlo nihil fit.

Suppose you just decided that simply seeing and feeling your body is no real reason to believe exists and that you demand a more cogent evidence of its existence.
And you don't see the error in this line of reasoning? There is a hidden contradiction and once removed there is no question to be answered. I do appreciate Descartes and his brilliance, but I respectfully disagree.

Now assume the same consciousness (your own consciousness in this case) that is doubting the existence of the corporeal body in which it resides, decides it (the consciousness) too must give an adequate reason for why it exists, if it can't, then it doesn't. Ah, but how can it doubt its own existence without existing in the first place; "Cogito ergo sum" , I think, therefore I am. In order to doubt your existence, you must first exist.
Yes, I am familiar with Descartes' statement. But as I said, there is really no question that is being asked because there is no choice in the matter.

I placed "nothing" in quotes above because that is where the contradiction lies. Nothingness is a contradiction and therefore does not exist. One can never HAVE nothingness because nothingness is a contradiction in meaning, it is the negation of that which CANNOT be negated: existence. Existence exists and is the default state of things and there is no other alternative: anything else simply does not exist!

In spite of the fact that we've both agreed it is absurd to expect corporeal evidence of the non-corporeal.
I agree that it is absurd, but for different reasons. You see, if it is absurd to "expect corporeal evidence of the non-corporeal," it's equally as absurd to expect the non-corporeal to be able to interact with the corporeal. There is something else that has no corporeal evidence and cannot interact with the corporeal: fantasy.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:21:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Perhaps a better word than "fantasy" would be imagination? I hope that I did not offend you by it because it was not my intent. What I am trying to say is that we can imagine or conceive of things in our minds BUT just because they are imagined or conceived, it doesn't make it so. That's where empiricism comes in.

You see, there is no function in the mind that guarantees that a conceived or imagined concept is true (ie does not embody a contradiction). There has been many-a-man that has held concepts or views that were untrue (ie contradictory) on unbeknownst to them and sometimes many others (present company NOT excluded !) However, empiricism doesn't have this problem: gravity never "forgets" to be an attractive force; light never mistakenly travels at less than c in a vacuum, etc. That is why empiricism is so important.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:16:19 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Thanks, I actually learned about qualia on this site. Very interesting stuff. Qualia is simply a mental state which of course corresponds to a physiological state.

Your own definition here doesn't mean it isn't non-physical.

Yes but again, there's a world of difference between them; ergo, not analogous. They simply share the fact that the concepts do not embody any contradictions, that's a pretty weak association. My point was that there is empiricism behind one and not the other.

I thought you said, at the very beginning: " There is ZERO empirical evidence of the non-physical" implying this was a reason for it's impossibility. This is already apparently not true as evidence of something doesn't establish that it doesn't exist. Even more, I showed how certain theories that are physical still seemingly have no way to provide physical evidence of their truth.

Again, highly unlikely. Too much speculation for my taste.

Still, the absence of empirical evidence doesn't seem to qualify as a reason to completely dismiss theories as evinced by these examples.

I like Susskind a lot more than I like Michio...Susskind seems more humble. Anyways, I don't really care for M-Theory and the like.

That and I think Susskind is the kind of guy you can root for. He was a plumber and all that, was a veritable David versus the Hawking Goliath. I like that about him.

True, but then again there are aspects to QM that are unfalsifiable as well. Again, I am not a strong supporter of string theory and the like, but I do appreciate the incredibly brilliant minds that have worked out the mathematics behind it. But there's so much damn cherry picking in it!

Then there are parts of QM that are not, strictly speaking, scientific.

How can you suggest a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? I'm confused: what are you actually saying here?

TBoone! Watch out! There's a giant unicorned spaghetti monster behind you about to eat you! Quick, be convinced that no such thing exists and you are not and never were in any real danger. Phew, that was close, he almost got you.

You'll agree that the problem of being eaten, here, didn't exist in the first place, yet there was a solution. That's how.

That is very creative, but not exactly correct because there are 2 different problems here. The problem that was solved was the problem of not eating and NOT the problem of whether he was dead or not...which of course was never a problem at all. So my question to you is: what's the corollary to the "eating problem" in our discourse?

I'll need more room to address this.

Perhaps there isn't a question there to begin with!

Yes there was, it was why body can't be mind and mind can't be body simultaneously.

And your proof of that is where? I mean other than a bold assertion, of course.

Physical proof of the non-physical? Is that what you're asking for? My proof is unto myself, as I'm also sure it's unto yourself and so the same for everyone else, mutatis mutandis. My proof is in my experience.

1) There is no other alternative. There is no empirical evidence for anything other than the physical.
2) I think that physiology can do a great job of explaining that. I'm sure that you're familiar with this stuff.

1) Yes there is another alternative, the one I proposed. Moreover, there is evidence of the non-physical, viz., your experience of it.
2) Physiology and nueroscience does a good job of explaining the physical aspects of my consciousness. Nueroscience has no answer as to what consciousness is, and much less an explanation of how the PATENTLY non-physical experience(s) I have, just about every hour of every day, is actually physical.

I lean more to the fact that it IS electromagnetic in nature, as that seems to be the way impulses travel through nerves. Chemistry is electromagnetic in nature so we have no reason to think that Bio-Chemistry is any different. Again, I have no reason to think that a feeling has any component other than a physical because there is no evidence for it.

Once again, these are only components of consciousness. Try this, look at something that evokes some sort of emotion out of you. While doing this try to explain this is physical terms. I imagine it'd go something like: "Okay light waves are being focused onto my retina exciting the nerves there causing them to break the information down into an electric signal that's transported to the..." and on and on. These are the physical components of your experience, I'm asking that you explain how it is that your ACTUAL experience (as I'm sure you're not actually experientially aware of all these physical aspects, otherwise neuroscience would essentially be common knowledge.) is physical. The what "what it looks like" of those things in your visual field, the "what it feels like" of the emotions you feel. Explain THOSE in terms of the physical.

That's fine, but I like to take a more pragmatic approach to things. I do not lend much credence to something who's ONLY virtue is that it SIMPLY does not embody a contradiction.

Huh? I look at my experience as evidence of the non-physical but it is patently non-physical.

I don't know, maybe I can't help you then? Just seems pretty apparent to me.

Not so easy to tell you what the feeling of this or that is like. This is why we have art, it's much better at communicating these kinds of things.

In a way you are, because you are suggesting that the non-corporeal DOES sometimes have corporeal properties. If not, then the non-corporeal is COMPLETELY separate from the corporeal in the same way fantasy and reality are.

Right, but I wasn't asking of their vestiges you were. I take my own experience as evidence.

Ok, but you cannot really throw out ALL prima facie truth otherwise you are left with "nothing" and let's not forget that ex nihlo nihil fit.

I don't understand this? Maybe I'll reword myself, he systematically, threw out all prima facie truth. It was sort of going down the latter rather than all at once.

And you don't see the error in this line of reasoning? There is a hidden contradiction and once removed there is no question to be answered. I do appreciate Descartes and his brilliance, but I respectfully disagree.

Error? Maybe in the way I explain it but probably not in Descartes'. My senses sometimes deceive me (optical illusions etc.), therefore sensual information is not to be trusted absolutely. Sensual impressions of my body exist, yet they can be complex illusions. I'll need a better proof of my body's existence.

I placed "nothing" in quotes above because that is where the contradiction lies. Nothingness is a contradiction and therefore does not exist. One can never HAVE nothingness because nothingness is a contradiction in meaning, it is the negation of that which CANNOT be negated: existence. Existence exists and is the default state of things and there is no other alternative: anything else simply does not exist!

Exactly, I think therefore I am. I can't doubt my own existence as consciousness because I must be conscious to doubt it. Once again, it was a systematic method of doubt, it didn't all happen in one fell swoop.

I agree that it is absurd, but for different reasons. You see, if it is absurd to "expect corporeal evidence of the non-corporeal," it's equally as absurd to expect the non-corporeal to be able to interact with the corporeal. There is something else that has no corporeal evidence and cannot interact with the corporeal: fantasy.

I find that it is absurd to think that what is patently non-physical, which is my experience, is actually physical. I'm sure my experiences can be explained by its physical components, but to say they are the same is equivocation and false.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:41:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is very creative, but not exactly correct because there are 2 different problems here. The problem that was solved was the problem of not eating and NOT the problem of whether he was dead or not...which of course was never a problem at all. So my question to you is: what's the corollary to the "eating problem" in our discourse?


Their problem:

Dead people do not eat or drink
I am dead
Therefore, I do not eat or drink

Our Problem:

Mind and body have distinct modes of existence.
I have a mind and I have a body.
Therefore, my mind's mode of existence is distinct from my body's.

Their solution
Premise 1 is false in that dead people do eat, therefore you eat too.

Our solution
Premise one is false in that mind and body can have the same mode of existence, therefore your mind and body's mode of existence need not always be distinct.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:52:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:21:13 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Perhaps a better word than "fantasy" would be imagination? I hope that I did not offend you by it because it was not my intent. What I am trying to say is that we can imagine or conceive of things in our minds BUT just because they are imagined or conceived, it doesn't make it so. That's where empiricism comes in.

You see, there is no function in the mind that guarantees that a conceived or imagined concept is true (ie does not embody a contradiction). There has been many-a-man that has held concepts or views that were untrue (ie contradictory) on unbeknownst to them and sometimes many others (present company NOT excluded !) However, empiricism doesn't have this problem: gravity never "forgets" to be an attractive force; light never mistakenly travels at less than c in a vacuum, etc. That is why empiricism is so important.

Right but I take my own experience of the world and hold that it is evidence of the non-physical. How does matter "become" experience? The problem is akin to the "how does the non-physical interact with the physical?

We have no problem saying that what I'm seeing is really a chain of events starting from my eyes and and ending in my occipital lobe. What occurs in between can be explained, in theory, in its entirety by biology, chemistry and physics.

The problem is my visual experience has nothing to do with biology, chemistry and physics. The way the world works is not directly connected to my consciousness, otherwise physics, chemistry and biology would, in theory, become a priori (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I wouldn't have to study for my chemistry or physics exams). Rather, my consciousness sort of emerges, but how? How does all this chemistry and biology and physics become my experience, qua experience? My experience of the world doesn't seem electromagnetic or wavelike. The way things look to me doesn't seem like a biochemical phenomenon. It just seems "visual". I can't explain with an exact description what my experience is like, at all.

This problem should make you feel the same way the problem of how the non-physical and physical interact.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 10:32:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:08:09 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
Your own definition here doesn't mean it isn't non-physical.
Until you show me empirical evidence it IS physical because there is no other alternative. Without evidence, It is simply bold assertion.

I thought you said, at the very beginning: " There is ZERO empirical evidence of the non-physical" implying this was a reason for it's impossibility.
That is incorrect; please re-read my precious posts. I said that in the STRICTEST sense they are possible BECAUSE they do not embody a contradiction. BUT that's a pretty weak argument.

This is already apparently not true as evidence of something doesn't establish that it doesn't exist.
Huh? If you have evidence of something, how could it not exist? The fact that something does NOT contain a contradiction isn't empirical evidence of anything! Any comic book story can lack any contradictions that doesn't mean that it is real.

Even more, I showed how certain theories that are physical still seemingly have no way to provide physical evidence of their truth.
What are you referring to? String Theory? Did you not read my reply? Did I not explain to you how those are NOTHING like the non-physical because ALL of the fundamentals in the theories have TONS of empirical evidence?

Still, the absence of empirical evidence doesn't seem to qualify as a reason to completely dismiss theories as evinced by these examples.
See above.

Then there are parts of QM that are not, strictly speaking, scientific.
No. Why do you say that? There is no rule in physics that says that if something is not falsifiable then it is not valid.

TBoone! Watch out! There's a giant unicorned spaghetti monster behind you about to eat you! Quick, be convinced that no such thing exists and you are not and never were in any real danger. Phew, that was close, he almost got you.
You are missing the point.

You'll agree that the problem of being eaten, here, didn't exist in the first place, yet there was a solution. That's how.
But this is a FALSE analogy to your example of the mental patient that thought he was dead.

I'll need more room to address this.
And how!

Yes there was, it was why body can't be mind and mind can't be body simultaneously.
And just like in your mental patient example, this is the part where he thinks he is dead. Not really the real question because he's not really dead!

Physical proof of the non-physical? Is that what you're asking for?
Your back to the same refuted point? The non-physical is a bold assertion until you show proof otherwise. Showing me that you can come up with a concept that has no contradictions but lacks ANY proof is the same thing as any good work of fiction.

My proof is unto myself, as I'm also sure it's unto yourself and so the same for everyone else, mutatis mutandis. My proof is in my experience.
Yes, just like the guy who THOUGHT he was dead. Thinking something is so DOESN'T make it so.

Regardless, if that is your position, then the reality of it starts and ends with YOU ergo it is not true for me or ANYONE else.

1) Yes there is another alternative, the one I proposed. Moreover, there is evidence of the non-physical, viz., your experience of it.
The one that you proposed lacks any empirical evidence and thus remains only true to you and no one else; like the guy that thought he was dead.

2) Physiology and nueroscience does a good job of explaining the physical aspects of my consciousness. Nueroscience has no answer as to what consciousness is, and much less an explanation of how the PATENTLY non-physical experience(s) I have, just about every hour of every day, is actually physical.
Lol at the contradiction in bold! You are WOWEFULLY misinformed if you think that neuroscience doesn't know what if does a good job of explaining! This is epic!

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Once again, these are only components of consciousness. Try this, look at something that evokes some sort of emotion out of you. While doing this try to explain this is physical terms. I imagine it'd go something like: "Okay light waves are being focused onto my retina exciting the nerves there causing them to break the information down into an electric signal that's transported to the..." and on and on. These are the physical components of your experience, I'm asking that you explain how it is that your ACTUAL experience (as I'm sure you're not actually experientially aware of all these physical aspects, otherwise neuroscience would essentially be common knowledge.) is physical. The what "what it looks like" of those things in your visual field, the "what it feels like" of the emotions you feel. Explain THOSE in terms of the physical.
You already did. What's left to explain? Perhaps that what you are looking at triggers something in your past and so your brain recalls previous experiences, etc. But yeah, that's the gist of it. Nothing mystical going on here.

Huh? I look at my experience as evidence of the non-physical but it is patently non-physical.
But that is NOT empirical evidence: it is a BOLD ASSERTION until you show otherwise. It is no different than the guy that thinks he's dead.

Not so easy to tell you what the feeling of this or that is like. This is why we have art, it's much better at communicating these kinds of things.
We aren't talking about people's subject opinions, we are talking about objective reality. People's opinions start and end between their ears.

Right, but I wasn't asking of their vestiges you were. I take my own experience as evidence.
That's fine, but then the truth of your experience remains YOURS and not so for anyone else.

I don't understand this? Maybe I'll reword myself, he systematically, threw out all prima facie truth. It was sort of going down the latter rather than all at once.
If you were to do that, then you'd be left with nothing: you'd have nothing to work with.

Exactly, I think therefore I am.
No. A rock can exist without knowing that it does. Existence is NOT predicated on knowledge.

I can't doubt my own existence as consciousness because I must be conscious to doubt it.
Tell that to the guy that thought he was dead! He thought he was dead, therefore he was dead! Who are you to say otherwise?

I find that it is absurd to think that what is patently non-physical, which is my experience, is actually physical.
I think the contrary: how could you accept something to be true with out any verifiable evidence? I'm sue the guy who thinks he's dead is sure of it.

I'm sure my experiences can be explained by its physical components, but to say they are the same is equivocation and false.
You cannot prove that to be so, ergo it stands.

Our solution
Premise one is false in that mind and body can have the same mode of existence, therefore your mind and body's mode of existence need not always be distinct.
Awesome! Couldn't have said it better myself!

Right but I take my own experience of the world and hold that it is evidence of the non-physical.
That's not enough; it is no different than the man who thinks that he is dead. We need verifiable empirical evidence.

How does matter "become" experience? The problem is akin to the "how does the non-physical interact with the physical?
You tell me, your the one that claims this to be so.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 11:43:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 1:41:10 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
We have no problem saying that what I'm seeing is really a chain of events starting from my eyes and and ending in my occipital lobe. What occurs in between can be explained, in theory, in its entirety by biology, chemistry and physics.
In between what? You have already covered all the aspects.

The problem is my visual experience has nothing to do with biology, chemistry and physics.
Of course it does: it has everything to do with it! Explain that one to those born blind!

The way the world works is not directly connected to my consciousness, otherwise physics, chemistry and biology would, in theory, become a priori...
It's the OTHER way around: your consciousness is contingent upon the world NOT the world contingent upon your consciousness.

(which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I wouldn't have to study for my chemistry or physics exams).
Non sequitur.

Rather, my consciousness sort of emerges, but how? How does all this chemistry and biology and physics become my experience, qua experience?
I think you've explained it quite clearly from the eyeballs to the brain.

My experience of the world doesn't seem electromagnetic or wavelike.
What does this even mean? How is it to seem non-wavelike or even wavelike for that matter? Not to mention the fact that what things SEEM and what they are are TOTALLY different things.

The way things look to me doesn't seem like a biochemical phenomenon.
How would you know? You don't have any other frame of reference.

It just seems "visual". I can't explain with an exact description what my experience is like, at all.
Isn't it great that we just keep putting quotes around different words and that somehow gives it some magical qualities? Why is it that?

Anyways, it is visual to you because you have sight; you can see. To someone born blind, it is not visual at all.

This problem should make you feel the same way the problem of how the non-physical and physical interact.
That's the problem of the man that thinks he's dead! But he's not dead, and we know this from EMPIRICAL evidence not from what he feels.

Even the logic which you are attempting to employ is empirical AND contingent upon the physical!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 10:44:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At this point, it does no good to address the greater portion of your response as I'd simply be entertaining your boorish attitude of denial. I will address what responses I feel might still be relevant and continue thereafter with a cross examination and I invite you to do the same.

Attempting to refute the famous Cartesian revelation "cogito ergo sum" with the assumed existence of a rock is, quite literally, a joke and it Pro-Foundly misses the point. The 'Cartesian Method' was essentially a way of establishing a firm ground upon which we can build truth. Anything that Descartes could doubt, he did doubt. Finally, in his methodological doubting, he met with contradiction. You cannot doubt that doubting exists while you are doubting without contradicting yourself. Therefore doubt exists and as doubting is something someone does, there must be someone doing the doubting, therefore, "I" exist: "I think therefore I am" which can more accurately be rephrased "I doubt therefore I am."

Note, having read this doesn't mean you're now qualified to talk at length on the matter without being presumptuous. You know nearly nothing about Descartes' original formulation of the mind-body problem and, given your position, should have proceeded in any related discussions with caution and humility.

Now then, let's look at three of your statements:
1
tBoonePickens wrote:
What about it? We touch something wet, so our brain interprets it as the "feeling of wetness"; etc. I don't see the big deal here
2
Again, you get physical input and it is used by the brain to produce an output: feeling. What's the big deal?
3
Qualia is simply a mental state which of course corresponds to a physiological state.

Once again, I'll claim that either your entire argument is predicated on an egregious misunderstanding of what you, yourself, are saying or you are simply being disingenuous.

1

Let's start with your first statement, which more or less says that feelings are something that the brain generates. I'll have you know that there is no direct evidence meeting rigorous scientific standards that proves that a causal mechanism between brain states and mental states exists, much less demonstrates how such a mechanism works.

In spite of that, we ask, due to their strong correlative relationship, how might such a hypothetical brain mechanism generate mental states? Taking my previous example, we might say that when light is focused onto the retina, visual phototransduction occurs and the resultant electrical signals are primarily channeled to a region of the brain known as the Occipital Lobe,or more specifically, the Visual Cortex. When this signal reaches the Visual Cortex, testimonial and behavioral evidence suggests that the subject to which the Visual Cortex belongs, begins having visual experiences. That is to say, the visual experiences themselves do not emerge on any plane in the brain, once the photo input is transduced into an electronic signal, the input remains an electronic signal in the brain, it is only again made into a photo-visual phenomenon in the subject's private, unobservable experience.

But what have we really said; that photo-signals (photons) are transduced by conformational and their resultant chemical changes at the retina, and that these electrical signals have a circuit that ends in the Visual Cortex? Isn't this what our experiments were telling us in the first place: that there is circuit beginning at our retina and ending in our Visual Cortex whose activity corresponds with vision. Nowhere did we explain how that signal is again transformed into a private visual experience, nor how that signal could also have concomitant, private, photo-visual properties.

This means we cannot even suggest how such a consciousness generating brain mechanism MIGHT work. On the one hand you have a physical account and on the other you have a subjective, personal account, and no apparent way for the former to become the latter. I see a language argument in there somewhere, but I haven't quite put my finger on it yet.

2
Given what has already been said, we can see that this statement conspicuously downplays its own impact and egregiously misses the point. How does the brain create private, subjective experiences? By what cerebral mechanism does the objective, material world become subjective?

We cannot say just because the brain is composed entirely of physical parts and all of its known experimental inputs are physical, means that the outputs must, similarly, be physical. Unless, of course, we fancy a little indulgence in the fallacy of composition.

Similarly, we cannot say that physical phenomena that occur in the brain during these brain states are the same as our experience without committing the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation, in that we would be confusing a brain state with a mental state which even you admit are distinct, in that a visual field occurring is qualitatively different from a brain state occurring. Moreover, if brain states were mental states, then in measuring brain states we would be simultaneously measuring mental states which include concepts and ideas. You yourself admit the notion of measuring ideas is absurd:

tBoonePickens wrote:
A mind is not something to be measured: it is not a real physical thing but rather a concept. It's like trying to measure a philosophy or idea: how do you measure theism? You don't.

Herein you even admit that a mind is
1) not real
2) not physical
and by implication
3) concepts are not real or physical.

Prior to, you insisted that there is no empirical evidence of the non-physical, yet, you simultaneously admit that mind, concepts and ideas are not real physical things.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 10:45:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
3
Finally, a corresponding state does not imply a causal connection between those states, a la cum hoc ergo propter hoc , and much less does it imply that those two corresponding states are the same thing. Either the brain state is the same as the mental state, which we know is equivocating, or the brain state is something distinct from a mental state but occurs alongside it, which says nothing about causality.

Furthermore, even if a brain state were causally connected to a mental state, we still have yet to show how it is causally related. By what mechanism does this brain state create this mental state? In so doing, we would establish either that

1) A mental state is actually a physical thing effectuated by a physical brain state (which by your own admission as well as Descartes', is false, which makes me wonder why we are having this discussion at all).
or
2) A physical brain mechanism is somehow able to effectuate a non-physical mental state.

Note that second term in alternation does not require a physical brain mechanism to, as you claim, interact with the non-physical, but rather, to be the necessary precondition for it; to have explanatory power over it.

The first term is patently absurd and false. If this isn't clear to you, try establishing its truth without falling into the path of equivocation we already talked about. The second term does nothing to answer the mind-body problem and is essentially useless.

After all this we're left with

1) A "mental-state generating brain mechanism" is a long-winded term that is essentially meaningless. We do not even have a conceptual basis for how some such thing might work nor what it would be.

2) In our example, a "brain state" or "physiological state" referred to the processes of visual phototransduction that occur in the brain and a "mental state" referred to the private visual experience of a subject. In all cases, to say one is the other, no matter their relation, is equivocation. Accepting that they are distinct, we must decide whether a mental-state is a physical thing, which is patently absurd, or that a physical brain mechanism causes non-physical mental states...

and this leaves us right where dualism left off....
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 10:20:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 10:44:38 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
At this point, it does no good to address the greater portion of your response as I'd simply be entertaining your boorish attitude of denial. I will address what responses I feel might still be relevant and continue thereafter with a cross examination and I invite you to do the same.
Denial? That was petty. The only thing I am denying is all evidence that unique to YOUR personal experience and verifiable ONLY by YOU. I hope that you will do the same to me. On the other hand, I am not the one that's denying EMPIRICAL evidence that's verifiable bu ALL people.

Attempting to refute the famous Cartesian revelation "cogito ergo sum" with the assumed existence of a rock is, quite literally, a joke and it Pro-Foundly misses the point.
Are you doubting the existence of rocks now? More pettiness. At best, Descartes' cogito ergo sum applies only to people and not to non-sentient objects. At worst, it presupposes the "I" that is doing the doubting.

The 'Cartesian Method' was essentially a way of establishing a firm ground upon which we can build truth. Anything that Descartes could doubt, he did doubt. Finally, in his methodological doubting, he met with contradiction. You cannot doubt that doubting exists while you are doubting without contradicting yourself. Therefore doubt exists and as doubting is something someone does, there must be someone doing the doubting, therefore, "I" exist: "I think therefore I am" which can more accurately be rephrased "I doubt therefore I am."
For all he knows he could be a manifestation of a greater consciousness' dream, a simulation, etc. Again, Descartes presupposes WHO is doing the doubting.

Note, having read this doesn't mean you're now qualified to talk at length on the matter without being presumptuous.
Yet you are qualified to know who IS qualified? Are you pot or kettle?

You know nearly nothing about Descartes' original formulation of the mind-body problem and, given your position, should have proceeded in any related discussions with caution and humility.
I take it back: you are neither the pot nor the kettle, you're the cauldron! I guess you missed the part about "all due respect to Descartes." You act as if Descartes has never been refuted before? He has, and by more brilliant and QUALIFIED minds than you or I. Regardless, your ad hominems will not help you here. I have presented valid points which you have not refuted but instead ignored.

Now then, let's look at three of your statements:
What about it? We touch something wet, so our brain interprets it as the "feeling of wetness"; etc. I don't see the big deal here
2
Again, you get physical input and it is used by the brain to produce an output: feeling. What's the big deal?
3
Qualia is simply a mental state which of course corresponds to a physiological state.

Once again, I'll claim that either your entire argument is predicated on an egregious misunderstanding of what you, yourself, are saying or you are simply being disingenuous.
So, let me get this straight: you're saying that (1) I either do not understand MY own argument or (2) I am lying. It cannot be perhaps that YOU don't understand my argument? Quite arrogant, indeed.
(1) If you think I don't understand my own argument, please explain it to me. (ie point to the inconsistencies.)
(2) Show me where I am lying.

1

Let's start with your first statement, which more or less says that feelings are something that the brain generates. I'll have you know that there is no direct evidence meeting rigorous scientific standards that proves that a causal mechanism between brain states and mental states exists, much less demonstrates how such a mechanism works.
If you believe this, then you are incredibly misinformed.

(A) Evolution demonstrates that development of the brain corresponds to mental development.
(B) The principle above is also demonstrated by brain growth in individual organisms.
(C) Experiments & measurements on the brain (EEG, stimulation of different areas, etc.) show a correspondence between brain and mental activity.
(D) Brain damage destroys mental abilities.
(E) The effects of drugs also show correspondence between mental and brain activity.

Fail point 1.

In spite of that, we ask, due to their strong correlative relationship, how might such a hypothetical brain mechanism generate mental states? Taking my previous example, we might say that when light is focused onto the retina, visual phototransduction occurs and the resultant electrical signals are primarily channeled to a region of the brain known as the Occipital Lobe,or more specifically, the Visual Cortex. When this signal reaches the Visual Cortex, testimonial and behavioral evidence suggests that the subject to which the Visual Cortex belongs, begins having visual experiences. That is to say, the visual experiences themselves do not emerge on any plane in the brain, once the photo input is transduced into an electronic signal, the input remains an electronic signal in the brain, it is only again made into a photo-visual phenomenon in the subject's private, unobservable experience.
Fail, see above.

But what have we really said; that photo-signals (photons) are transduced by conformational and their resultant chemical changes at the retina, and that these electrical signals have a circuit that ends in the Visual Cortex? Isn't this what our experiments were telling us in the first place: that there is circuit beginning at our retina and ending in our Visual Cortex whose activity corresponds with vision.
Fail. My explanation above does not require a magical interface between the physical & non-physical (which you vehemently will NOT call into question) preceded by a verbose scientific explanation (which you find no problem placing all sorts doubts in.)

Nowhere did we explain how that signal is again transformed into a private visual experience, nor how that signal could also have concomitant, private, photo-visual properties.
That's nonsense. It IS explained above. How is it NOT a private visual experience? I don't share your brain nor you mine so how is this not so? Fail.

This means we cannot even suggest how such a consciousness generating brain mechanism MIGHT work. On the one hand you have a physical account and on the other you have a subjective, personal account, and no apparent way for the former to become the latter. I see a language argument in there somewhere, but I haven't quite put my finger on it yet.
There is no need to reconcile subjective OPINIONS with EMPIRICAL evidence! Just like one need not reconcile the opinion of a person who thinks they are dead with the empirical evidence that they are not.

2
Given what has already been said, we can see that this statement conspicuously downplays its own impact and egregiously misses the point. How does the brain create private, subjective experiences? By what cerebral mechanism does the objective, material world become subjective?
Are you seriously asking that question: what makes my brain mine? I will RESPECTFULLY let you figure that one out. Hint: we do not share brains.

We cannot say just because the brain is composed entirely of physical parts and all of its known experimental inputs are physical, means that the outputs must, similarly, be physical. Unless, of course, we fancy a little indulgence in the fallacy of composition.
There cannot be a fallacy of composition if there is no other viable alternative. Depending on the level of abstraction however, one can say that not all of the "outputs" are physical. For example, some of the outputs can be conceptual. Nonetheless, ALL of the outputs are PREDICATED on the physical. Please do not equivocate the abstract with t
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 10:44:38 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
Similarly, we cannot say that physical phenomena that occur in the brain during these brain states are the same as our experience without committing the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation, in that we would be confusing a brain state with a mental state which even you admit are distinct...
I admit ONLY that they are CONCEPTUALLY different not that they are completely divorced from each other. Let me be clear: ALL mental states are predicated on the physical.

...in that a visual field occurring is qualitatively different from a brain state occurring. Moreover, if brain states were mental states, then in measuring brain states we would be simultaneously measuring mental states which include concepts and ideas.
Now that's a prime example of equivocation! In measuring brain states we are measuring the constituents of mental states. Fail.

You yourself admit the notion of measuring ideas is absurd:

tBoonePickens wrote:
A mind is not something to be measured: it is not a real physical thing but rather a concept. It's like trying to measure a philosophy or idea: how do you measure theism? You don't.
That is correct. Just like one would not measure a landscape on a computer monitor by looking at the electron flow in say a board's diode: there are levels of abstraction between a bunch electrons in a circuit and an image generated on a screen. You don't measure a "conceptual" thing, you can measure what is generating it.

We can measure the number of atheist there are but we cannot measure the concept of atheism; yet you keep insisting on this equivocation. Measuring a concept is false because it is a meaningless proposition: it's like the flavor of wetness. It is nonsense. So why do you keep insisting on nonsense? Why are you suggesting (ie equivocating) that "measuring a concept" and "measuring an object" are the same thing?

Herein you even admit that a mind is
1) not real
2) not physical
and by implication
3) concepts are not real or physical.
That's correct: they are concepts or abstractions AND are predicated on the physical. Furthermore, they are abstractions of real physical things! Please do not equivocate THIS concept to the concept that you are using of "non-corporeal" and "non-physical" which are NOT predicated on the physical.

Prior to, you insisted that there is no empirical evidence of the non-physical, yet, you simultaneously admit that mind, concepts and ideas are not real physical things.
Again, you are equivocating. All non-physical things that I have referred to (like mind, concept, or idea) I have stated are ALL predicated on the physical. This is VERY much UNLIKE what you claim non-physical things to be; ergo, STOP equivocating them.

Fail on point 2.

3
Finally, a corresponding state does not imply a causal connection between those states, a la cum hoc ergo propter hoc , and much less does it imply that those two corresponding states are the same thing.
Science has demonstrated otherwise and I have shown previously (see previous post): a strong causal correspondence between brain and mental states.

Either the brain state is the same as the mental state, which we know is equivocating, or the brain state is something distinct from a mental state but occurs alongside it, which says nothing about causality.
False choice: the mental state is an ABSTRACTION that corresponds to a brain state, as science has shown us. How detailed we can get about said correspondence is a technological matter.

Furthermore, even if a brain state were causally connected to a mental state, we still have yet to show how it is causally related. By what mechanism does this brain state create this mental state?
It has been clearly shown; see above & previous posts.

In so doing, we would establish either that

1) A mental state is actually a physical thing effectuated by a physical brain state (which by your own admission as well as Descartes', is false, which makes me wonder why we are having this discussion at all).
Again, equivocating. A mental state is an abstract concept that is predicated upon a brain state.

or
2) A physical brain mechanism is somehow able to effectuate a non-physical mental state.
Only if said "non-physical mental state" IS predicated on the physical as science has shown us, which of course makes 1 and 2 the same.

Note that second term in alternation does not require a physical brain mechanism to, as you claim, interact with the non-physical, but rather, to be the necessary precondition for it; to have explanatory power over it.
Because 1 and 2 are the same: tomato, tomato, potato, potato. Same difference.

You are suggesting that a physical brain might be the necessary precondition (cause) for the non-physical (effect) in order to have explanatory power over it (cause and effect ie physics ie the physical.) Which to me means that the non-physical IS predicated on the physical and is what I have been saying all along. FAIL.

The first term is patently absurd and false.
Only if you deny science, logic, and empirical evidence.

If this isn't clear to you, try establishing its truth without falling into the path of equivocation we already talked about.
The only one equivocating is yourself, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. Also, I have established its truth quite clearly and much more tersely than yourself.

The second term does nothing to answer the mind-body problem and is essentially useless.
A) It is useless insofar as it is redundant: it is essentially equivalent to the first.
B) There is no mind-body problem: the mind is an abstraction of the brain (body.)

Fail on 3.

After all this we're left with
1) A "mental-state generating brain mechanism" is a long-winded term that is essentially meaningless. We do not even have a conceptual basis for how some such thing might work nor what it would be.
This is patently false. I have explained this clearly and offered plenty of empirical scientific observations as well.

2) In our example, a "brain state" or "physiological state" referred to the processes of visual phototransduction that occur in the brain and a "mental state" referred to the private visual experience of a subject. In all cases, to say one is the other, no matter their relation, is equivocation.
Clearly we have different opinions on long-windedness. Also, I have shown that you are the one that is equivocating an abstract concept with what is being abstracted.

Accepting that they are distinct, we must decide whether a mental-state is a physical thing, which is patently absurd, or that a physical brain mechanism causes non-physical mental states...
What IS patently absurd is the acceptance of a concept that lacks ANY empirical evidence WHATSOEVER over a concept that has an ENORMOUS amount or empirical evidence.

and this leaves us right where dualism left off....
Sure, dualism minus the non-physical that's not predicated on the physical.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:28:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonePickens wrote:
Denial? That was petty. The only thing I am denying is all evidence that unique to YOUR personal experience and verifiable ONLY by YOU. I hope that you will do the same to me. On the other hand, I am not the one that's denying EMPIRICAL evidence that's verifiable bu ALL people.

You don't even know what you are denying. One second you deny the existence of the non-physical the next you're saying minds, brains and concepts are all not only non physical but not real. You're just a very confused person.

tBoonePickens wrote:
Are you doubting the existence of rocks now?
Yes, Descartes did. Again, it's almost like a joke you're not in on. Go read Descartes. Here, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, I'll even send you the link where you can read the translation for free:

http://www.literatureproject.com...

tBoonePickens wrote:
Again, Descartes presupposes WHO is doing the doubting.

Descartes makes no presumptions about an I and supposes that all he can say about an I is that it is a doubting thing.

tBoonePickens wrote:
Yet you are qualified to know who IS qualified? Are you pot or kettle?

To some extent most of us are. You speak at length about that which you know nothing about. Terribly rude if you ask me. Similarly, I don't feel my uncle is qualified to teach my Differential Equations class, he's just happy at arithmetic.

tBoonePickens wrote:
You act as if Descartes has never been refuted before?

I don't know, you tell me. Why would you ask me that?

He has, and by more brilliant and QUALIFIED minds than you or I.
See, you feel you're qualified to know who is qualified too. It's really not much of a qualification.

Regardless, your ad hominems will not help you here. I have presented valid points which you have not refuted but instead ignored.
Ahahahaha! Your valid arguments like "epic fail" and "you are WOWEFULLY misinformed". Yeah I like making up words too. Sweetheart, your strongest argument is denial.

(A) Evolution demonstrates that development of the brain corresponds to mental development.

Yes but in order to measure "mental development" we either directly use behavioral and testimonial evidence or infer from either one or both of these kinds of evidence. That is to say, we do not probe into the brain and take "mental development" measurements. The reason is because the mental world is not of a physical kind such that that we can simply go in and measure it like we would, say, a brain state.

(B) The principle above is also demonstrated by brain growth in individual organisms.

This does nothing to show either

1) a BRIAN MECHANISM turns an electrical signal into a subjective experience. Remember our example:
photo-signal -> electrical signal -> visual experience.
A brain mechanism is necessary to make this third step.

or

2) How electrical signals in the brain also have a concomitant visio-emotio-subjective properties which are realized by the experiencing party.

In which case we wouldn't need a brain mechanism, but would need physics to account for the gamut of subjective human experience, through the action of already known physical forces. That is to say, we must have a physics given in terms of emotions, feelings, "what it's like"s, etc.

(C) Experiments & measurements on the brain (EEG, stimulation of different areas, etc.) show a correspondence between brain and mental activity.

Yeah, I said that. Moot.

(D) Brain damage destroys mental abilities.
Not only is this not always the case:
http://articles.cnn.com...

But this still isn't an issue. I want to know how the brain turns physical phenomena into a subjective experience.

(E) The effects of drugs also show correspondence between mental and brain :activity.

Says nothing about how brain activity generates mental activity. Moot.

Fail. My explanation above does not require a magical interface between the physical & non-physical (which you vehemently will NOT call into question) preceded by a verbose scientific explanation (which you find no problem placing all sorts doubts in.)

That's right. Your explanation entails the absurd and contradictory idea that mental-states don't exist. Moreover, your explanation also entails the contradictory idea that the non-physical does not exist for the reason that we have no empirical evidence of it, while mind, ideas and concepts, which you do hold exist, are non-physical and not real.

A real winning argument there.

I see you conveniently forget to address that portion of my argument that brought this up. We wouldn't want our readers to forget this now would we. I'll just drop it right here.

At 4/26/2012 1:50:14 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
A mind is not something to be measured: it is not a real physical thing but rather a concept. It's like trying to measure a philosophy or idea: how do you measure theism? You don't. (Please do not respond to this point with equivocations.)

You pretend you don't understand what I'm saying:

How is it NOT a private visual experience? I don't share your brain nor you mine so how is this not so? Fail.

In hopes that everyone around you will think you have somehow reached some depth that they cannot see yet.

How are private, visual experiences generated at all?!

I don't care for your explanation. Send me a link to a scientific study that adequately and undeniably demonstrates either
1) There is a known brain mechanism that completes the signal propagation I presented above.
2) That known physical phenomena have visio-emotio-subjective properties.

Until then, you're all huff and no puff.

Are you seriously asking that question: what makes my brain mine?
No and I'm sure you already know that's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking "what makes your subjective experiences yours?" I'm asking "What makes subjective experiences?"

The brain? But I just explained how that's a dead end explanation for subjective experiences.

For your sake and mine, address my arguments with something other than "fail". If you could say anything substantial in refutation, you would. Since you can't, you say "fail".

You've done absolutely nothing to prove your points as "fail" and straw mans don't constitute as adequate arguments. With this in consideration, I take it you have essentially conceded and all of your hubris is nothing more than a front so that you might not feel embarrassed. Is it working?
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 1:17:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 12:10:30 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Now that's a prime example of equivocation! In measuring brain states we are measuring the constituents of mental states. Fail.

If brain states are the same as mental states then yes, depending on what the subject is thinking about. This is why it is absurd.

Again, you are equivocating. All non-physical things that I have referred to (like mind, concept, or idea) I have stated are ALL predicated on the physical. This is VERY much UNLIKE what you claim non-physical things to be; ergo, STOP equivocating them.

What? You've gone from saying that there is no pragmatic reason to believe the non physical exists:

At 4/20/2012 3:58:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Because, while there is EMPIRICAL evidence for the wave properties AND particle properties, there is ZERO EMPIRICAL evidence for the non-physical.

At 4/20/2012 4:45:38 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
so because there is zero evidence there is zero possibility?

At 4/26/2012 1:50:14 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Philosophically no, physically yes.

I know, but it is possible right?
In the same ideological way that ANYTHING that does not contain a contradiction is possible, yes. But in a more pragmatic sense, no: it is HIGHLY unlikely.


To saying that there is?

I guess changing your entire position is one way to ensure you're not wrong.

I have nothing, then, to argue with you about. Nor do you have with me. Whether I believe the non-physical is predicted on the physical is hardly relevant. This is true because there is no reason why my original question would entail a response that asserts that there is "zero empirical evidence of the non-physical", should you actually believe the non-physical exists.

At the same time, I want to point out I don't think we've been talking past each other this whole time. I believe you have deliberately changed your position to avoid my refutations.

False choice: the mental state is an ABSTRACTION that corresponds to a brain state, as science has shown us. How detailed we can get about said correspondence is a technological matter.

Abstractions occur in the mind. When I think about a mental state it is an abstraction like anything else I might think about, yet, when I experience a mental state it is not. You're suggesting a mind occurs in the mind? I'd like to get off the merry-go-round now, thanks.

Again, equivocating. A mental state is an abstract concept that is predicated upon a brain state.

Again, circular reasoning: concepts are something that exist in the mind. My mind exists in my mind?

You are suggesting that a physical brain might be the necessary precondition (cause) for the non-physical (effect) in order to have explanatory power over it (cause and effect ie physics ie the physical.) Which to me means that the non-physical IS predicated on the physical and is what I have been saying all along. FAIL.

No you haven't. You've been saying the non-physical has zero empirical evidence and for that reason doesn't exist. You are a liar.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 3:16:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My arguments are against these claims:

At 4/20/2012 3:58:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Because, while there is EMPIRICAL evidence for the wave properties AND particle properties, there is ZERO EMPIRICAL evidence for the non-physical.

At 4/26/2012 1:50:14 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/20/2012 4:45:38 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
so because there is zero evidence there is zero possibility?
Philosophically no, physically yes.

The first claim can rightfully be interpreted as implying the negation of all statements that assert that some x has does not have property p. This is the same as asserting that for all of x, x is such that that it does not have the property p, where is p is physical.

The second claim is simply there to ratify that this interpretation is warranted.

Moreover, I explained, even if you didn't agree with Cartesian Dualism, the point was entertain it despite your own personal incredulity. Hence, our anecdote from the history of psychology.

At 4/26/2012 3:56:14 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
...I am talking about the original concept of the Cartesian "mind" also known as the Cartesian "cogito"...

It boils down to:

You argue:
The non-physical is not physically possible:

tBoonePickens wrote:
...there is ZERO EMPIRICAL evidence for the non-physical.

tarkovsky wrote:
so because there is zero evidence there is zero possibility?

tBoonePickens wrote:
Philosophically no, physically yes.

So, should we believe that everything that exists is physical, that would mean the non-physical does not exist.

If you do not believe that everything in the world is of one type, then you cannot be a monist. Now I'm sure you're not an idealist and I'm pretty sure you believe that physical matter exists. So, in consequence, you either believe that the non-physical does not exist, which you have already stated is not true, or, since the non-physical cannot possibly exist in terms of the physical (non-physical is not physical possible), it does not exist in terms of the physical and is fundamentally something else. You also deny this latter claim.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 4:42:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 12:28:33 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
You don't even know what you are denying. One second you deny the existence of the non-physical the next you're saying minds, brains and concepts are all not only non physical but not real. You're just a very confused person.
Thank you for telling me what I know or don't know when it is clearly you that are confused about my position. Please let's have some respect here: at least say that you do not understand what I am stating but don't think that for a second I don't understand what I am saying.

OK, let's break it down:

1) YOU are asking me to accept "non-physical non-empirical" evidence that is "unique to your personal experience," is this NOT so?

2) I am asking you to accept evidence that IS empirical and NOT unique to my personal experience, is this NOT so?

Are you doubting the existence of rocks now?
Yes, Descartes did. Again, it's almost like a joke you're not in on. Go read Descartes.
Dude, we are totally on different levels here. What is the purpose of Descartes' frame work if not so that we don't have to doubt the existence of the physical (ie rocks)! I am familiar with Descartes, please stop insinuating that I am not.

Again, Descartes presupposes WHO is doing the doubting.
Descartes makes no presumptions about an I and supposes that all he can say about an I is that it is a doubting thing.
Lets not equivocate; you are saying:
"Descartes makes no presumptions about an I and presupposes that all he can say about an I is that it is a doubting thing."
He is still presupposing.

Yet you are qualified to know who IS qualified? Are you pot or kettle?
To some extent most of us are. You speak at length about that which you know nothing about. Terribly rude if you ask me. Similarly, I don't feel my uncle is qualified to teach my Differential Equations class, he's just happy at arithmetic.
Yet you are unaware of what I do or don't know and yet you comment on it as well. Is that not equally as rude? And hypocritical? And I have seen nothing coming from yourself to indicate any intellectual prowess enough to refute what I am saying. Yet I didn't resort to name calling.

You act as if Descartes has never been refuted before?
I don't know, you tell me. Why would you ask me that?
Read the posts. It's painfully obvious.

He has, and by more brilliant and QUALIFIED minds than you or I.
See, you feel you're qualified to know who is qualified too. It's really not much of a qualification.
Obviously, otherwise why would I be having this discussion with you; but then again, I am not the one that raised the issue of qualification. On the other hand, you've shown zero reason why you would be MORE qualified than I.

Regardless, your ad hominems will not help you here. I have presented valid points which you have not refuted but instead ignored.
Ahahahaha! Your valid arguments like "epic fail" and "you are WOWEFULLY misinformed". Yeah I like making up words too. Sweetheart, your strongest argument is denial.
1) It's woefully and a spelling error, smart@ss.
2) If you want to go back through all of our posts and count spelling errors you'll be on the losing end.
3) I see you prefer to attack style (spelling errors, "fail", "epic fail") over substance (the evidence presented)...I wonder why.
4) MY strongest argument is denial yet you are the one who is defending a philosophical framework based on denial! I believe it's time for an ad hominem: idiot!

(A) Evolution demonstrates that development of the brain corresponds to mental development.
Yes but in order to measure "mental development" we either directly use behavioral and testimonial evidence or infer from either one or both of these kinds of evidence.
Regardless, this evidence is empirical in nature. Ergo, the point still stands.

That is to say, we do not probe into the brain and take "mental development" measurements. The reason is because the mental world is not of a physical kind such that that we can simply go in and measure it like we would, say, a brain state.
That's 1/2 right: we don't do that for the same reason we wouldn't examine the growth of a conceptual tomato over the growth of an actual tomato. Not for the silly reason you gave. Stop equivocating, please. The point still stands.

(B) The principle above is also demonstrated by brain growth in individual organisms.
This does nothing to show either

1) a BRIAN MECHANISM turns an electrical signal into a subjective experience. Remember our example:
photo-signal -> electrical signal -> visual experience.
A brain mechanism is necessary to make this third step.

or

2) How electrical signals in the brain also have a concomitant visio-emotio-subjective properties which are realized by the experiencing party.
Irrelevant as it's not intended to show neither. What it does demonstrate is that mental development is directly related to brain development. Please stop diverting. And this point also still stands.

In which case we wouldn't need a brain mechanism, but would need physics to account for the gamut of subjective human experience, through the action of already known physical forces.
Those are not necessarily different things, so I don't know why you're trying to make a distinction.

That is to say, we must have a physics given in terms of emotions, feelings, "what it's like"s, etc.
That's what's been done to some degree or another. We have artificial eyes and ears that help us see and hear; ways to directly induce emotions through brain stimulation, etc. As I said previously, there are technological hurdles as to the level of detail or quality of experience is not at the level of the original sensor. Unless you are attempting to argue levels of abstraction AGAIN. The point still stands.

(C) Experiments & measurements on the brain (EEG, stimulation of different areas, etc.) show a correspondence between brain and mental activity.

Yeah, I said that. Moot.
Great, so the point still stands. That's 3 for 3 so far.

(D) Brain damage destroys mental abilities.
Not only is this not always the case:
http://articles.cnn.com...
It's ALWAYS the case for specific parts of the brain. Point still stands.

But this still isn't an issue. I want to know how the brain turns physical phenomena into a subjective experience.
As opposed to what? An objective experience? WTF are you talking about?

(E) The effects of drugs also show correspondence between mental and brain activity.

Says nothing about how brain activity generates mental activity. Moot.
It's not supposed to. Stop diverting, AGAIN. What it does show is a correspondence between mental and brain activity. So this point also stands. That's 5 for 5, Mr. Diversions.

That's right. Your explanation entails the absurd and contradictory idea that mental-states don't exist.
You have not demonstrated or refuted what I have said. Furthermore, I never said that mental states don't exist: I said that mental states that are NOT predicated on the physical do not exist. And it still stands.

Moreover, your explanation also entails the contradictory idea that the non-physical does not exist for the reason that we have no empirical evidence of it, while mind, ideas and concepts, which you do hold exist, are non-physical and not real.
Why can't you stop equivocating? Again, I hold that only the non-physical that's predicated on the physical exists. There is nothing contradictory about that AND there is empirical evidence to support it UNLIKE what you contend which has no empirical evidence.

A real winning argument there.
Must be, as you haven't been able to put a dent in it other than equivocations, ad hominems, and consta
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 5:45:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 12:28:33 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
I see you conveniently forget to address that portion of my argument that brought this up. We wouldn't want our readers to forget this now would we. I'll just drop it right here.
A mind is not something to be measured: it is not a real physical thing but rather a concept. It's like trying to measure a philosophy or idea: how do you measure theism? You don't. (Please do not respond to this point with equivocations.)
Is that quote not a question that I posed and YOU didn't answer? Why yes it is.

Can you please answer it WITHOUT equivocating.

Other than that, I did address your point: you are equivocating.

You pretend you don't understand what I'm saying:
How is it NOT a private visual experience? I don't share your brain nor you mine so how is this not so? Fail.
How do you get that I am not understanding you from the answer above? I understand you perfectly, it is you that do not understand me! And you did not answer the question: how is what I am saying NOT a private visual experience?

In hopes that everyone around you will think you have somehow reached some depth that they cannot see yet.
Please speak for yourself, I am sure there are PLENTY of people here that know or can easily understand exactly what I am saying.

How are private, visual experiences generated at all?!
Are you really that dense? Let's dumb it down for you and try it this way:
What is on the screen of the computer directly behind me? You don't know, right? Because you don't have access to that information and so it is a private visual experience to whomever is experiencing it. What's so hard to understand about that?

Are you seriously asking that question: what makes my brain mine?
No and I'm sure you already know that's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking "what makes your subjective experiences yours?" I'm asking "What makes subjective experiences?"
The same mechanism by which objective experiences are made. Why would there be a difference as they are both experiences?

The brain? But I just explained how that's a dead end explanation for subjective experiences.
You haven't, all you have presented is a framework with ZERO empirical evidence and rejected a framework with empirical evidence and more equivocations, diversions, insults, and lies that I can shake a stick at!

For your sake and mine, address my arguments with something other than "fail".
Nice try, but anyone who reads them can clearly see that I have addressed your arguments with facts.

If you could say anything substantial in refutation, you would. Since you can't, you say "fail".
Lying will not help you and neither will your petty attempts at changing the subject.

You've done absolutely nothing to prove your points as "fail" and straw mans don't constitute as adequate arguments. With this in consideration, I take it you have essentially conceded and all of your hubris is nothing more than a front so that you might not feel embarrassed. Is it working?
See above.

Now that's a prime example of equivocation! In measuring brain states we are measuring the constituents of mental states. Fail.
If brain states are the same as mental states then yes, depending on what the subject is thinking about. This is why it is absurd.
Your comment does not address the point above. It still stands: in measuring brain states we are measuring the constituents of mental states.

Again, you are equivocating. All non-physical things that I have referred to (like mind, concept, or idea) I have stated are ALL predicated on the physical. This is VERY much UNLIKE what you claim non-physical things to be; ergo, STOP equivocating them.
What? You've gone from saying that there is no pragmatic reason to believe the non physical exists.

To saying that there is?
Again, you are equivocating. See above and address the point. Do you even know what you are equivocating? Hmmm.

I guess changing your entire position is one way to ensure you're not wrong.
Lying will not help you. See above and address the point.

I have nothing, then, to argue with you about. Nor do you have with me. Whether I believe the non-physical is predicted on the physical is hardly relevant. This is true because there is no reason why my original question would entail a response that asserts that there is "zero empirical evidence of the non-physical", should you actually believe the non-physical exists.
Let me dumb it down for you, again:

1) You claim that there is some mystical non-physical existence that is not predicated on the physical but can interact with the physical physically when convenient to you.
2) You acknowledge that there is zero evidence for it.
3) Your strongest argument is that your 1 & 2 do not embody a contradiction.

vs

1) I claim that there is only a physical existence and that anything that is non-physical is predicated and completely dependent on the physical.
2) I acknowledge that there is TONS of evidence for it.
3) I claim that my 1 & 2 do not embody a contradiction.

HOWEVER, even if steps our steps 1 & 3 were equivalent (which they are not) my step 2 trumps yours. I say if, because your step 1 DOES embody a contradiction. Namely, it is the non-physical yet "physical when convenient" aspects that embody the contradiction.

Does that help?

At the same time, I want to point out I don't think we've been talking past each other this whole time. I believe you have deliberately changed your position to avoid my refutations.
If you think that then you either are not very intelligent or a liar.

False choice: the mental state is an ABSTRACTION that corresponds to a brain state, as science has shown us. How detailed we can get about said correspondence is a technological matter.
Abstractions occur in the mind. When I think about a mental state it is an abstraction like anything else I might think about, yet, when I experience a mental state it is not. You're suggesting a mind occurs in the mind? I'd like to get off the merry-go-round now, thanks.
You mean one cannot think about thinking? Is it that difficult for you? Jeez, I hate to see you have to deal with a third or fourth level! With practice, perhaps you will be able to this without getting dizzy. After all, like a muscle, the brain also needs to be exercised!

Anyways, you know what the point is here: experiencing a "mental state" IS a mental state, obviously. If you want to simplify it even more just think of it as experiencing. Also, let's not forget that this all also corresponds to brain states.

Again, equivocating. A mental state is an abstract concept that is predicated upon a brain state.
Again, circular reasoning: concepts are something that exist in the mind. My mind exists in my mind?
All reasoning is eventually circular, didn't you know that? Ergo, that in and of itself is not an issue. And, lest you forget, your mind also resides in your brain, btw.

You are suggesting that a physical brain might be the necessary precondition (cause) for the non-physical (effect) in order to have explanatory power over it (cause and effect ie physics ie the physical.) Which to me means that the non-physical IS predicated on the physical and is what I have been saying all along. FAIL.
No you haven't. You've been saying the non-physical has zero empirical evidence and for that reason doesn't exist. You are a liar.
No you are PURPOSEFULLY equivocating in order to divert attention. Let me DUMB it down for you yet again because I think you don't even know what it is that you are equivocating: my "non-physical" is NOT = to your "non-physical."
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 6:00:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 3:16:55 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
I don't care for your explanation. Send me a link to a scientific study that adequately and undeniably demonstrates either
1) There is a known brain mechanism that completes the signal propagation I presented above.
2) That known physical phenomena have visio-emotio-subjective properties.

Until then, you're all huff and no puff.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.strongatheism.net...

http://howourbrainswork.com...
http://www.mayoclinic.com...

And so I huffed and I puffed and I blew your house (of cards) down!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 4:45:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 3:58:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Because, while there is EMPIRICAL evidence for the wave properties AND particle properties, there is ZERO EMPIRICAL evidence for the non-physical.

The Fool says: That right, tboonpickens doesn't exist. lol

Firstly, empirical means experienced. Do you not experience sadness or happyness or affection. IF so they are empirical. If we didnt experience them then you could even know what the word sadness or love or happyness meant. There is nothing physical to base it on. AKA no demaration factor.

in fact look how little phyiscal words we use in everyday language.(I have only used 3 so far and you understand all I have said) You could not know the the meaning of these words with out a DEMARCATION FACTOR. And they are not physical. You it follows by necessity that you.

Demonstation of the difference.

Sensation of Pain is not the same as the neuron firing in you leg. informatino get transduced in the brain into you experience and they may share a bi conditional relationship Experience<->Brain activity. That means they may share a direct logical relationship but Experience=/=Brain activity.

And you could never assert that the mind is dependent on brain in the sense that ever you sense information about the brain, is Post processing. Because you need your mind to see what is physical not what is physical to see you mind. Its assymetrical. Only one way.

So you never ever see everything in its self. You cannot see radiowaves, you cannot see magnitism and I am sure alot of others. Things we may haven't discovered yet.

What we extract from what we consider physical is the mathmatical formulas. Which are a priory. right?

Decartes, newton, Leibnez didn't need to phyiscaly observe anything while creating calculus. When we draw a square its not from randomness, is from your mental idea of square.

Do you thing there is the sensation Red exist outside your mind. Red objects are absorbing all magnetic wavelength exept the one that causes Red when the energy enters you eyes and is tranduced. I can say caused red because of the mathmatical formula within space. Mind you emotions and such are not in space. What we experince to be Red is that energy which hits our eyes which to the best of our knowledge is a mathmatical Formulation. aka Our mind store the Forms of reality.

But even the information about your eyes and other senses is seen within your mind. You can't escape you mind. That doesn't mean as you say the world is only in your mind. It means phyisical is a part of your experience.

Secondly, the word natural comes from 'essential properties' from plato and aristotle.

An essential property is what property that when taken away something seizes to exist.

If we take off you arm you still exist right? Lets say for the sake of argument say that you mind no longer exist, but you body did. You would fail to exist right? because mind is your essential property.

However if we took away your body and you still had mind. You would still exist as well. Why? Because you still have your essential property.

I am not a dualist my self but a trancendental Idealist. Which is monism but I would explain the physical as part of the framework of mind. (my physical atmophere) because we also have an (imaginary atmoshere) in are minds. Right? if I ask you to picture a red ball or a unicorn you can. Right? They are not categoriesed as material but its nonsense to say they don't exist. They exist as ideas, so for science to be complete its needs to take into account ALL experiences. That is any science that fails to include all experiences is incomplete.

My Field of study is COGNITIVE SCEINCE. With specialization in philosophy of mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"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
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 9:54:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonPickens wrote:
No you are PURPOSEFULLY equivocating in order to divert attention. Let me DUMB it down for you yet again because I think you don't even know what it is that you are equivocating: my "non-physical" is NOT = to your "non-physical."

Once again, I submit that your position was either purposefully rendered vague, or rendered vague for reasons dealing with your own inability to be articulate, comprehensive, and brief. Moreover, to accuse me of equivocation requires a remarkable denial of truth, as you yourself, are the party at fault.

It's not my job to guess (nor to care) what your own personal beliefs are pertaining to the properties of the non-physical. Saying that "the non-physical doesn't exist", and then going on to suggest that the non-physical does exist, without any caveat or statement of clarification explaining your own personal change in the meaning of the term is textbook EQUIVOCATION . You have poor argumentation and carry on with a nasty, brutish attitude to boot.

You assert quite plainly that "the non-physical" does not exist since there is no empirical evidence for it. You make no mention of what kind of "non-physical" you are talking about, when you, later, begin suggesting that all sorts of non-physical and not-real (which puts the factual existence minds on the same level of the factual existence of the tooth-fairy, I'll have you know) phenomena exist. As you were the one who has changed the meaning of the term (from a term which designates something that is not predicated from the physical, to something that is), it falls incumbent on you to redefine the term as the term changes when it is being used in regards to your beliefs. Failing to do so is, I repeat, TEXTBOOK EQUIVOCATION :

Wikipedia wrote:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings)...
Switch-Referencing
This occurs where the referent of a word or expression in a second sentence is different from that in the immediately preceding sentence, especially where a change in referent has not been clearly identified.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, I repeat, you are the party at fault, and shall continue to be viewed as the party at fault.

Moreover, you still make little to no sense, even under the auspices of your meaning of non-physical. Either you are supporting a trivial semantic argument wherein you interpret all instances of "mind" to mean "the concept of a mind", or your definition of mind is plainly invalid. You say a mind is a concept or an abstraction, yet both are contingent upon minds. Minds conceptualize things, they deal with abstractions and ideas. Yes it's true, minds can conceptualize themselves, that is, a mind can think about what a mind is, but that doesn't mean all minds are concepts in the same way that thinking about a bird doesn't make all birds concepts. A mind must already exist as something other than a concept in order so that a mind can be thought of in a conceptual way. In other words, you are saying a mind is the same as that which it is contingent upon it, therefore, a mind is contingent upon itself. This makes no sense. There is a difference between the mind that is being thought about, and the mind that is doing the thinking. This is similar to the difference between a bird that is being thought about and the bird that is actually there.

Unless, OF COURSE , I'm missing something because you've failed to clearly mention it. Given your style of debate and expression, this is very possible.