Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view
    #14404290 - 05/05/11 09:02 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

so, i'm finishing up my first year in school, and i'm reading freud for one of my classes ("the future of an illusion" - it's for a class on religion). to give some background, i was a staunch atheist/materialist until about my mid 20's before things started to slowly give way to whatever it is i am now.

anyway, my appraisal of freud is that his criticism of religion, in addition to being extremely euro-centric, is also a response to the fundamentalist brand of the judeo-christian traditions. i've ascertained that this is a completely rational response. in the post enlightenment era, with the growing literacy of the western world and the advent of science, it makes complete sense to reject what is largely a literal and perverse interpretation of scripture.

however, while i feel that freud's argument is by far the most compelling argument in defense of an atheistic world view, i see its limitations in what i mentioned above. it certainly doesn't hold up to any sort of scholarly interpretation of the judeo-christian traditions, nor does it apply to any eastern, pantheistic tradition. speaking for myself, i hated religion until i came to a better understanding of it, and i see a lot of my younger self in freud and people who espouse such beliefs.

anyway, i figured this belongs in the psychology forum since it's about freud. just thought i'd throw that out there to chew on.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14404779 - 05/05/11 11:22 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

What religious beliefs do you hold?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: deCypher]
    #14409127 - 05/06/11 08:54 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

well i'm pretty much a heretic. gnostic christianity is probably the closest to the metaphysical model that i hold, but i'd never consider or proclaim myself to be christian.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14409386 - 05/06/11 10:11 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

So what exactly do you believe that doesnt fit the atheist/materialist world view?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14409560 - 05/06/11 10:49 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

i reject materialism in that i feel that there is much more to reality than the physical plane. i reject atheism in that i feel there is an ultimate, super-personal level of being that exists outside of physical reality that we all share connectivity to, or "god" if you want to be technical about it, but that's just a label. the personal level of being is the spark of divinity that is rooted at the base of our consciousness, which you could consider "the christ" in the christian model, but again that's just a label. the "holy ghost" would be this sort of energy field that binds it all together.

darwin was very astute when he said that "consciousness is the act of nature observing itself". to simply sum up at this point what i feel reality is, i think that consciousness is manifesting itself physically through the field of time in order to observe itself, and i think that as organisms that possess reason, we are meant to understand this, and perhaps use this knowledge in order to further our evolution as a species.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14409580 - 05/06/11 10:53 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

What do you mean when you say the "physical plane," and more importantly, what do you mean by "outside" the physical?

People use these kinds of phrases all the time but I have yet to really figure them out. I don't see consciousness as being separate from the physical world at all. Quite the opposite, I see the two as being one and the same.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14409615 - 05/06/11 11:00 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

i reject materialism in that i feel




Are your feelings 100% correct? Is feeling a good metric for validity?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: NetDiver]
    #14409637 - 05/06/11 11:05 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

physical plane meaning the world of matter. and i didn't say that consciousness was completely separate from the physical plane. what i described was a closed system. matter is imbued and animated by consciousness to a degree, imo. however i think that the source of consciousness is from strata that exists beyond the world of matter. i also feel that the self/ego structure of the mind resides on some level of reality that is perhaps situated in a way that it can leave the field of time (e.g. via the experience of eternity, "ego death" and so on) and perceive the higher dimensions of existence. 

as far as my feelings being "correct", i'm not trying to witness my personal beliefs, and really it doesn't make any difference to me if anyone agrees with me or not. it's just the way that i order my experience of life. my point is that i have a better understanding of the atheist world view. to reemphasize, i think it's a rational response to rigid, fear-fueled, antiquated orthodoxy.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14409677 - 05/06/11 11:16 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

i think it's a rational response to rigid, fear-fueled, antiquated orthodoxy.




One need not attempt to understand the atheist view as it is self-explanatory without any deep pondering or Freudian analysis. There is zero evidence for God/spirit.

That is all. No Herculean strain.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14409686 - 05/06/11 11:18 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

as far as my feelings being "correct", i'm not trying to witness my personal beliefs




Really? What then were you doing?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14409748 - 05/06/11 11:29 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

as far as my feelings being "correct", i'm not trying to witness my personal beliefs




Really? What then were you doing?




i was responding to questions that wer asked by other posters and clarifying some points i made.

moreover, i wasn't giving a "freudian" analysis of the atheist world view. i was commenting on freud's analysis of a theist world view, which imo is the most compelling argument against it (theism) that i've read thus far in spite of its limitations. i was actually complimenting atheism.

you should probably learn to read more carefully.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Edited by millzy (05/06/11 11:37 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14414328 - 05/07/11 09:11 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

i think it's a rational response to rigid, fear-fueled, antiquated orthodoxy.




One need not attempt to understand the atheist view as it is self-explanatory without any deep pondering or Freudian analysis. There is zero evidence for God/spirit.

That is all. No Herculean strain.




the reason this argument holds no weight for many people is that they can see clear as day (or night.. or anything) that there is a 'spiritual' or simply 'unexplained' conscious element to the universe. You can't point to it because you can only point at physical things.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: NetDiver]
    #14414331 - 05/07/11 09:12 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
What do you mean when you say the "physical plane," and more importantly, what do you mean by "outside" the physical?

People use these kinds of phrases all the time but I have yet to really figure them out. I don't see consciousness as being separate from the physical world at all. Quite the opposite, I see the two as being one and the same.




you might define 'physical' as just meaning 'everything that exists'
but many people define physical as 'that which is described and determined by physics'


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14414376 - 05/07/11 09:26 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

while i agree that materialism is unsatisfying, for myself at least, in ordering my subjective experience of reality, and i appreciate all of the comments, even the tragically glib ones, i'm not trying to instigate an e-shouting match between theists and atheists. i wanted to discuss freud and his argument for atheism. bad idea i suppose. i'm beginning to get the impression that a lot of posters in this forum have yet to read any serious literature on the subjects being discussed here.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Edited by millzy (05/07/11 09:27 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14414602 - 05/07/11 10:49 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
you might define 'physical' as just meaning 'everything that exists'
but many people define physical as 'that which is described and determined by physics'




Wouldn't that imply that there was nothing physical before we invented physics?  :confused:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineauxiliary
Mr.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14414631 - 05/07/11 10:57 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Noteworthy said:
you might define 'physical' as just meaning 'everything that exists'
but many people define physical as 'that which is described and determined by physics'




Wouldn't that imply that there was nothing physical before we invented physics?  :confused:



We invented physics?:confused:


Edited by auxiliary (05/07/11 10:58 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: auxiliary]
    #14414638 - 05/07/11 10:58 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

We invented physics?
I assumed we just discovered it.





Nope, scientific theories are invented by man.  They are purposefully constructed to model and predict our observations.  Its observations that are discovered, and it is easy to confuse the map with the territory in this sense.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineauxiliary
Mr.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14414658 - 05/07/11 11:04 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Aw man you caught my assumption. I understand the labeling we put on our observations is man's creation, but aren't the observations themselves inherent in nature?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: auxiliary]
    #14414700 - 05/07/11 11:14 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

In what sense would the observations of human beings be inherent in nature? :confused:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14414732 - 05/07/11 11:20 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

i think it's a rational response to rigid, fear-fueled, antiquated orthodoxy.




One need not attempt to understand the atheist view as it is self-explanatory without any deep pondering or Freudian analysis. There is zero evidence for God/spirit.

That is all. No Herculean strain.




the reason this argument holds no weight for many people is that they can see clear as day (or night.. or anything) that there is a 'spiritual' or simply 'unexplained' conscious element to the universe. You can't point to it because you can only point at physical things.




And since you can't point to it, how can you talk about it? How do you summon your understanding of it? Through which human attributes do you perceive it?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineauxiliary
Mr.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14414745 - 05/07/11 11:25 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
In what sense would the observations of human beings be inherent in nature? :confused:



Eh, worded it incorrectly. Not the human observation, but what the humans are observing. We are observing nature, aren't we? The Laws of Physics are just definitions of what we observe in nature, right?

The color of the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean we invented the color blue, does it? Is that even a good analogy?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid] * 1
    #14414767 - 05/07/11 11:29 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

i think you two guys (diecommie and auxiliary) are talking about the same thing.

for example, electricity is an observable phenomenon for which we have created a working theoretical model that explains and predicts what it will do. however, this model is ultimately based off only of what our senses tell us about the phenomenon. "electricity" is just a word that denotes something we observe that occurs in nature and is, according to our senses, like the model we use to describe it. but the word is not the thing, and what we perceive of electricity is only what our senses allow us to filter in. even with the most sophisticated instrumentation, we are still limited because the end product of what our instrumentation produces is meant for our senses to process.

therefore, there is an objective reality that we are all subjectively experiencing, and in order to communicate with each other we construct models describing reality.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: MushroomTrip] * 1
    #14414824 - 05/07/11 11:41 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
And since you can't point to it, how can you talk about it? How do you summon your understanding of it? Through which human attributes do you perceive it?




we use reason to summon our understanding of the intangible aspect of reality: the world of the psyche. we talk about it in the same way that we talk about tangible reality, that being through the use of linguistic models. the oldest models are ones of scripture and mythology, and the more recent ones are psychological. but again, all we are doing by this is giving a name to what is already present. the problem with god and higher realms of being is that they aren't as readily available to perceive as the tangible aspects of reality, so they are often rejected.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineauxiliary
Mr.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14414843 - 05/07/11 11:44 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14414881 - 05/07/11 11:54 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

auxiliary said:
Quote:

Poid said:
In what sense would the observations of human beings be inherent in nature? :confused:



Eh, worded it incorrectly. Not the human observation, but what the humans are observing. We are observing nature, aren't we? The Laws of Physics are just definitions of what we observe in nature, right?


It's possible that our inferences based on our observations may not accurately reflect reality--scientific theories are subject to revision, and if enough observations contradict any given theory, it is either scrapped or amended. What we are observing may be inherent to nature, but our inferences (i.e. theories) based on our observations may not accurately reflect what is actually occurring in nature.


Quote:

auxiliary said:
The color of the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean we invented the color blue, does it? Is that even a good analogy?


How would I know if it's a bad analogy, you're the one trying to express yourself here. :lol:



Quote:

millzy said:
the problem with god and higher realms of being is that they aren't as readily available to perceive as the tangible aspects of reality, so they are often rejected.


What is "God", besides an imaginary deity? Obviously, he isn't self-evidently existent. :lol:

What do you mean by "higher realms of being"? Is this like being really stoned, kinda like I am right now? :vaped:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineauxiliary
Mr.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14414907 - 05/07/11 12:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
How would I know if it's a bad analogy, you're the one trying to express yourself here. :lol:



I was a little unsure of myself. :shrug:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: auxiliary]
    #14414974 - 05/07/11 12:15 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

"Was", meaning that you are now sure of yourself? Well, was it a good analogy, or not? :smirk:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineauxiliary
Mr.
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14414990 - 05/07/11 12:21 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

It holds


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14414997 - 05/07/11 12:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
What is "God", besides an imaginary deity? Obviously, he isn't self-evidently existent. :lol:




when you say that god is an imaginary diety, i think you're correct, but i don't think you know in what sense you are correct and why.

generally, god is a word we use to describe the ultimate defining aspect of reality. in some traditions it is given male human traits due to the role the male plays in reproduction - "the father" etc. from a western standpoint i believe the hesiodic traditions of greece were amongst the first to assign human traits to their gods (see hesiod's "theogony"). imo this, anthropomorphic view of divinity can be a pernicious set of beliefs, because it tends to lead people to a perception of the model being the thing it is describing. again, god is just a piece of language we use to describe an aspect of our subjective experience of reality.

further, why would god be self evident? he isn't, and i never made the supposition that he is. god must be hidden in order for us to experience reality the way we do, otherwise we would experience reality as god.

again, some of you really need to hone your reading skills.

Quote:

What do you mean by "higher realms of being"? Is this like being really stoned, kinda like I am right now? :vaped:




being has a definite order to it, just like tangible reality. if the mind did not have structure it wouldn't be able to do the things that it does.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Edited by millzy (05/07/11 12:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415016 - 05/07/11 12:26 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
i reject materialism in that i feel that there is much more to reality than the physical plane. i reject atheism in that i feel there is an ultimate, super-personal level of being that exists outside of physical reality that we all share connectivity to, or "god" if you want to be technical about it, but that's just a label. the personal level of being is the spark of divinity that is rooted at the base of our consciousness, which you could consider "the christ" in the christian model, but again that's just a label. the "holy ghost" would be this sort of energy field that binds it all together.

darwin was very astute when he said that "consciousness is the act of nature observing itself". to simply sum up at this point what i feel reality is, i think that consciousness is manifesting itself physically through the field of time in order to observe itself, and i think that as organisms that possess reason, we are meant to understand this, and perhaps use this knowledge in order to further our evolution as a species.




I don't get this at all. Please explain what makes you think there is more to reality that what we can experience in the physical realm? If no one in history or yourself has ever experienced this non-physical realm why are you even attempting to posit it as real? I mean, wtf is non-physical realm anyway? Some sort of God consciousness existing without a brain or external stimuli?

Even the Darwin quote you have is not pointing to anything metaphysical. Consciousness is nature observing itself could simply be humanity studying biology, aka what Darwin was doing. Humans are a part of nature observing nature and huzza you have consciousness. Stop trying to find a way to justify something you (1) cannot describe and (2) have not experienced.

Finally, why is the idea of something metaphysical important to you? How is adding the idea of non-real things helping you in the real reality, you know, the physical realm.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTerry M
Stranger in a Strange Land
Male


Registered: 06/18/10
Posts: 1,502
Loc: Rhode Island
Last seen: 9 years, 7 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415131 - 05/07/11 12:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
i reject materialism in that i feel that there is much more to reality than the physical plane.




The "physical plane" makes reality complicated enough for me! I'd hate to think there was more to try and understand. Physics represents the world as an extremely complex system of mathematical models. The accuracy of these models is verified by experiment. This complexity is essential in order to account for all that we observe.


--------------------
Liberté, égalité, humidité.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14415175 - 05/07/11 01:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
I don't get this at all. Please explain what makes you think there is more to reality that what we can experience in the physical realm?




we experience reality on more than just the physical realm. for example, our emotions are not experienced in any tangible place in reality.

Quote:

If no one in history or yourself has ever experienced this non-physical realm why are you even attempting to posit it as real?




i would be surprised if there was anyone in history who didn't experience having a mind, barring people with birth defects or traumatic brain injuries.

Quote:

I mean, wtf is non-physical realm anyway? Some sort of God consciousness existing without a brain or external stimuli?




non physical meaning the realm of intangible objects and phenomena.


Quote:

Even the Darwin quote you have is not pointing to anything metaphysical.




that's incorrect. the term consciousness implies metaphysics, that which lies beyond the realm of the tangible. and darwin wasn't talking about people studying nature. he was referring to the actual act of nature doing what it does.

Quote:

Stop trying to find a way to justify something you (1) cannot describe and (2) have not experienced.




i have no difficulty describing anything, and i have the experience of living to verify that i have, indeed, experienced something metaphysical. i think the difficulty here lies in your ability to understand the concepts i'm referring to, most likely because you have had inadequate exposure to them, which is evident in your inability to produce rhetorically sound arguments in an effort to refute them.

Quote:

Finally, why is the idea of something metaphysical important to you? How is adding the idea of non-real things helping you in the real reality, you know, the physical realm.




why is it important to me? i guess it's as important as anyone's world view in that it helps me understand the world in which i exist. further, my beliefs are derived solely from experience. i think faith is a faulty concept.

and beyond all of this, i'm not trying to "convert" anyone. all i've done so far is respond to questions and smarmy attacks (in the case of yourself and poid). my original topic has yet to be addressed, and it's becoming very apparent that this forum has been mislabeled as a place to discuss anything remotely philosophical.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Edited by millzy (05/07/11 01:10 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14415176 - 05/07/11 01:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Noteworthy said:
you might define 'physical' as just meaning 'everything that exists'
but many people define physical as 'that which is described and determined by physics'




Wouldn't that imply that there was nothing physical before we invented physics?  :confused:




Why would that be the case?

If Platypus means a certain type of creature, it existed before we ever realised the distinction that Platypus makes.

Similarly, the things that physical descriptions describe existed before we developed our physical distinctions.

But do physical descriptions describe all that exists?

No, because they don't describe certain traits of our phenomenal experience. They also don't precisely describe when an atom is doing to decay (but they can describe an overall average in experimentally controlled conditions). They can't adequitely account for the motion of galaxies from known masses. Such things still occur, and developing some physics of the future would not bring into existance anything other than a way of thinking about what already exists.

Until these things are understood, our physics (and physical models) do not describe all of reality.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14415189 - 05/07/11 01:13 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Until these things are understood, our physics (and physical models) do not describe all of reality.




Nobody claims that they do.  Right now, Type II superconductors cannot be described by physics.  Does that make them non-physical?  100 years ago, why hot objects glow could not be described by physics, but now it can be.  Has that phenomenon gone from being non-physical to physical in the last 100 years?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #14415197 - 05/07/11 01:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

i think it's a rational response to rigid, fear-fueled, antiquated orthodoxy.




One need not attempt to understand the atheist view as it is self-explanatory without any deep pondering or Freudian analysis. There is zero evidence for God/spirit.

That is all. No Herculean strain.




the reason this argument holds no weight for many people is that they can see clear as day (or night.. or anything) that there is a 'spiritual' or simply 'unexplained' conscious element to the universe. You can't point to it because you can only point at physical things.




And since you can't point to it, how can you talk about it? How do you summon your understanding of it? Through which human attributes do you perceive it?





Pointing can only be done with things outside of your mind. You are not limited to think about things outside of your mind, but other people are limited to thinking about things outside of your mind. So, your communication with other people can only ever involve topics that you can point at. But your communication within yourself is not limited by this same constraint. It can recognise something as existing, whos qualities are not fully described (though perhaps partially described) by physics/psychology.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415201 - 05/07/11 01:15 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
generally, god is a word we use to describe the ultimate defining aspect of reality. in some traditions it is given male human traits due to the role the male plays in reproduction - "the father" etc. from a western standpoint i believe the hesiodic traditions of greece were amongst the first to assign human traits to their gods (see hesiod's "theogony"). imo this, anthropomorphic view of divinity can be a pernicious set of beliefs, because it tends to lead people to a perception of the model being the thing it is describing. again, god is just a piece of language we use to describe an aspect of our subjective experience of reality.


Everybody has a different personal definition for the term 'God', no two people's definition of 'God' is exactly alike. Sure, 'God' is a subjective experience of reality, much like any other fantasy is a subjective experience of reality.


Quote:

millzy said:
further, why would god be self evident? he isn't, and i never made the supposition that he is. god must be hidden in order for us to experience reality the way we do, otherwise we would experience reality as god.

again, some of you really need to hone your reading skills.


No, but you could hone your writing skills, and maybe try to grasp the point I made instead of resorting to pitiful ad hominems. :grin:

The fact that "He" isn't self-evidently existent is strong evidence which suggests that "He" only exists inside people's imaginations. My raising of the fact that God isn't self-evidently existent was not the result of a reading comprehension error on my part, it was to make the aforementioned point.

It's worth noting that there are many people who disagree with your definition of God, not that you will get the hint, though...:rolleyes:


Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

What do you mean by "higher realms of being"? Is this like being really stoned, kinda like I am right now? :vaped:




being has a definite order to it, just like tangible reality. if the mind did not have structure it wouldn't be able to do the things that it does.


What do you mean by "being"? What definite order does it have? I agree with your second statement there, but I don't understand your point. :undecided:


Quote:

millzy said:
and beyond all of this, i'm not trying to "convert" anyone. all i've done so far is respond to questions and smarmy attacks (in the case of yourself and poid). my original topic has yet to be addressed, and it's becoming very apparent that this forum has been mislabeled as a place to discuss anything remotely philosophical.


Can you please quote where I made a smarmy attack? :confused:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (05/07/11 01:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14415212 - 05/07/11 01:18 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Until these things are understood, our physics (and physical models) do not describe all of reality.




Nobody claims that they do.  Right now, Type II superconductors cannot be described by physics.  Does that make them non-physical?  100 years ago, why hot objects glow could not be described by physics, but now it can be.  Has that phenomenon gone from being non-physical to physical in the last 100 years?





Yes IF 'physical' refers to whatever physics was 100 years ago.
No IF 'Physical' refers to current physics.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14415219 - 05/07/11 01:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I dont understand what 'physical' means in the context of this forum...  It always baffles me when people make the distinction.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14415231 - 05/07/11 01:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

when people deny the existance of something non-physical they are denying that anything exists that cant be explained by physics. Of course, this is blatantly wrong.

If a person, when saying physical, actually just meant 'all that exists' then nothing could be supernatural/ nonphysical. Which means Even some hocus pocus magic would be called physical.

Which would render the word useless.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14415246 - 05/07/11 01:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

when people deny the existance of something non-physical they are denying that anything exists that cant be explained by physics.




I dont think that is the case at all.  I have never meet anybody who thinks that, not even professional physicists.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14415261 - 05/07/11 01:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Sure, 'God' is a subjective experience of reality, much like any other fantasy is a subjective experience of reality.




god is an aspect of the intangible experience of reality. an aspect. not the totality of it.

Quote:

No, but you could hone in on your writing skills, and maybe try to grasp the point I made instead of resorting to pitiful ad hominems. :grin:




i wouldn't say pointing out the fact that you misunderstood what i wrote as an ad hominem attack. further i'm failing to see any point whatsoever in your previous diatribe aside from a thinly veiled effort to be obtuse.

Quote:

The fact that "He" isn't self-evidently existent is strong evidence which suggests that "He" only exists inside people's imaginations. My raising  the fact that God isn't self-evidently existent was not a result of a reading comprehension error on my part, it was to make the aforementioned point.




where else would god be than our minds? also, does he exist to you or not. you're contradicting yourself by saying he doesn't exist and then saying he exists in our minds.

Quote:

It's worth noting that there are many people who disagree with your definition of God, not that you will get the hint, though...:rolleyes:




it's also worth noting that i qualified my statement with "generally", not that you would get the hint. /rolls glass eye


Quote:

What do you mean by "being"? What definite order does it have? I agree with your second statement there, but I don't understand your point. :undecided:




you understand very little. in philosophy, "being" denotes exactly what it sounds like it does. it could be replaced with the terms "reality", or "living", "existence" etc.


Edited by millzy (05/07/11 01:30 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415288 - 05/07/11 01:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

SlashOZ said:
I don't get this at all. Please explain what makes you think there is more to reality that what we can experience in the physical realm?




we experience reality on more than just the physical realm. for example, our emotions are not experienced in any tangible place in reality.

our emotions are in the physical realm. very widely documented that our emotions and thoughts are the result of chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

Quote:

If no one in history or yourself has ever experienced this non-physical realm why are you even attempting to posit it as real?




i would be surprised if there was anyone in history who didn't experience having a mind, barring people with birth defects or traumatic brain injuries.

once again, the mind is physical.

Quote:

I mean, wtf is non-physical realm anyway? Some sort of God consciousness existing without a brain or external stimuli?




non physical meaning the realm of intangible objects and phenomena.

intangible objects and phenomena such as?

Quote:

Even the Darwin quote you have is not pointing to anything metaphysical.




that's incorrect. the term consciousness implies metaphysics, that which lies beyond the realm of the tangible. and darwin wasn't talking about people studying nature. he was referring to the actual act of nature doing what it does.

consciousness does not imply metaphysics unless you hold to some sort of dualist notion of reality.

Quote:

Stop trying to find a way to justify something you (1) cannot describe and (2) have not experienced.




i have no difficulty describing anything, and i have the experience of living to verify that i have, indeed, experienced something metaphysical. i think the difficulty here lies in your ability to understand the concepts i'm referring to, most likely because you have had inadequate exposure to them, which is evident in your inability to produce rhetorically sound arguments in an effort to refute them.

other than simply assuming things to exist outside of reality what evidence do you have of metaphysics? once again, the mind = physical. emotions and thoughts are nothing more than physical reactions happening in our brain.

Quote:

Finally, why is the idea of something metaphysical important to you? How is adding the idea of non-real things helping you in the real reality, you know, the physical realm.




why is it important to me? i guess it's as important as anyone's world view in that it helps me understand the world in which i exist. further, my beliefs are derived solely from experience. i think faith is a faulty concept.

and beyond all of this, i'm not trying to "convert" anyone. all i've done so far is respond to questions and smarmy attacks (in the case of yourself and poid). my original topic has yet to be addressed, and it's becoming very apparent that this forum has been mislabeled as a place to discuss anything remotely philosophical.





You say your beliefs have come from experience only and faith is not involved. If this is true why do you claim the mind is separate from the body? THC -----> brain ----> feeling stoned. If that isn't enough to prove that your mind is a physical thing and not metaphysical I don't know what would be.

You can discuss philosophy here. The reason i'm questioning you is to engage in a conversation. I could have come out and delivered a huge post about my philosophy on metaphysics but that would have not have clashed with your OP and would most likely have gone ignored. I asked questions and you answered them. Just because my questions are not friendly questions does not mean we are not having a dialogue here. Also, I answered in red because I thought it would be most visible and did not do it to seem hostile.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: DieCommie]
    #14415291 - 05/07/11 01:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont understand what 'physical' means in the context of this forum...  It always baffles me when people make the distinction.




for me, i use the term "physical" to denote tangible things. i might have been able to avoid the deluge of misinterpretations of my responses.

also, does anyone care to discuss my original topic? it really doesn't bother me that some of you don't understand my personal model of how the world works, and i would rather just move on in lieu of just talking right past each other with every post.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415355 - 05/07/11 01:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Sure, 'God' is a subjective experience of reality, much like any other fantasy is a subjective experience of reality.




god is an aspect of the intangible experience of reality. an aspect. not the totality of it.


Great, yet another definition for the term God. And just like all the others, you think yours is the correct one. :rolleyes:

God this shit gets old. :lol:


Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

No, but you could hone in on your writing skills, and maybe try to grasp the point I made instead of resorting to pitiful ad hominems. :grin:




i wouldn't say pointing out the fact that you misunderstood what i wrote as an ad hominem attack.


What? :lol:

I'm sorry, I meant to say 'personalisms' instead of 'ad hominems'--personalisms are generally not allowed in this forum, it is expected that you stick to the topic and leave the people you're debating with out of the debate.


Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

The fact that "He" isn't self-evidently existent is strong evidence which suggests that "He" only exists inside people's imaginations. My raising  the fact that God isn't self-evidently existent was not a result of a reading comprehension error on my part, it was to make the aforementioned point.




where else would god be than our minds?


Good, so you admit "He's" nothing but an imaginary diety?


Quote:

millzy said:
also, does he exist to you or not. you're contradicting yourself by saying he doesn't exist and then saying he exists in our minds.


I think I made it clear that I believe God is nothing more than an imaginary deity--I don't believe he exists anywhere besides in people's imaginations.


Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

It's worth noting that there are many people who disagree with your definition of God, not that you will get the hint, though...:rolleyes:




it's also worth noting that i qualified my statement with "generally", not that you would get the hint. /rolls glass eye


Glass eye? :ilold:

Well, you wrote a somewhat long paragraph, then followed it with this short statement: Further, why would god be self evident? he isn't, and i never made the supposition that he is. god must be hidden in order for us to experience reality the way we do, otherwise we would experience reality as god.

I dunno, I guess I assumed that you were going off on a tangent there where your "generally" qualifier didn't apply, but hey, I'm stoned and kinda tired too. :stoned:


Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

What do you mean by "being"? What definite order does it have? I agree with your second statement there, but I don't understand your point. :undecided:




you understand very little.


More personalisms--if your argument is so weak that you have to resort to making personalisms, then don't even bother posting here. Such immature behavior contributes nothing to the discussion, and is against the rules.

The reason I didn't understand your point is because, clearly, it isn't clear. :lol:


Quote:

millzy said:
in philosophy, "being" denotes exactly what it sounds like it does. it could be replaced with the terms "reality", or "living", "existence" etc.


Ah, well many people come in here with their own idiosyncratic definitions of the term "being"..I thought you were one of them, and just had to make sure. :shrug:


It's funny that you complain about my and another's contributions to this thread, but you yourself tend to dodge questions. This is a debate forum, it's expected that you back up your claims when they're challenged--rigorous debate is encouraged here.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415400 - 05/07/11 02:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

In response to the OP.

Freud's criticism of popular Christianity is mostly correct.

When applying Freud's criticism to 'scholarly Christianity' or some other belief system such as pantheism I actually think it makes sense for a few reasons...

1. Science explains all the stuff we really need to know about the world. I challenge anyone to give an example of science failing to explain something vital to everyday life. The bible does not reveal anything fundamental about reality. It may have wonderful insights into morality etc. but this does not qualify it as a 'the truth' or proving metaphysics or anything of the sort.

and

2. 'Scholarly Christianity' etc. understands that the bible is essentially the equivalent of Zarathustra or any other philosophical text with stories that function as metaphors. To believe in the stories as truth and actuality would put them into the fundamentalist brand of Christianity. I have no real problems with these guys since I too have my favorite philosophical texts to read.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14415404 - 05/07/11 02:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
our emotions are in the physical realm. very widely documented that our emotions and thoughts are the result of chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.




indeed, emotions and thoughts are the result of chemical reactions and electrical impulses. now, show me where that result happens in tangible reality.

Quote:

once again, the mind is physical.




tell me where the mind resides. and while you're at it, you should probably get the nobel committee on the phone, because that question has been stumping people since the middle of the previous century with the advent of psychology.

Quote:

intangible objects and phenomena such as?




emotions, thoughts, mind, language and linguistic models. i could go on.

it seems that answering the rest of your replies would just force me to reiterate these points. but i do appreciate the clarity in saying that you weren't trying to attack me.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Edited by millzy (05/07/11 02:02 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14415426 - 05/07/11 02:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
It's funny that you complain about my and another's contributions to this thread, but you yourself tend to dodge questions. This is a debate forum, it's expected that you back up your claims when they're challenged--rigorous debate is encouraged here.




what questions am i dodging? further, i tend to pick up on when someone is trying to seriously engage in a debate and when someone isn't. i beg your pardon if i'm mistaken, but that's the impression i've gotten from your responses so far. so forgive me if i seem curt and that isn't your intention. you just seem to be throwing out nothing but strawmen and irrelevant questions.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14415453 - 05/07/11 02:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
In response to the OP.

Freud's criticism of popular Christianity is mostly correct.

When applying Freud's criticism to 'scholarly Christianity' or some other belief system such as pantheism I actually think it makes sense for a few reasons...

1. Science explains all the stuff we really need to know about the world. I challenge anyone to give an example of science failing to explain something vital to everyday life. The bible does not reveal anything fundamental about reality. It may have wonderful insights into morality etc. but this does not qualify it as a 'the truth' or proving metaphysics or anything of the sort.

and

2. 'Scholarly Christianity' etc. understands that the bible is essentially the equivalent of Zarathustra or any other philosophical text with stories that function as metaphors. To believe in the stories as truth and actuality would put them into the fundamentalist brand of Christianity. I have no real problems with these guys since I too have my favorite philosophical texts to read.




finally! lol.

i think freud's criticisms of western pantheistic traditions could apply, but i'm not so sure in the case of eastern ones like hinduism.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415473 - 05/07/11 02:17 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

SlashOZ said:

Quote:

intangible objects and phenomena such as?




emotions, thoughts, mind, language and linguistic models. i could go on.





I'll group these. Emotions, thoughts, and the mind are the result of chemical and electrical processes in the brain but this can also work the other way. I assumed this was pretty basic knowledge at this point. I'll link you to a psychology today article that talks about this very subject that I think you might like since your OP was spurred by reading Freud. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shift-mind/201001/beyond-the-mind-body-connection

The second group language and linguistic models are similarly physical since language is a result of some physical being. Language does not exist without someone to create it.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415487 - 05/07/11 02:20 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

SlashOZ said:
In response to the OP.

Freud's criticism of popular Christianity is mostly correct.

When applying Freud's criticism to 'scholarly Christianity' or some other belief system such as pantheism I actually think it makes sense for a few reasons...

1. Science explains all the stuff we really need to know about the world. I challenge anyone to give an example of science failing to explain something vital to everyday life. The bible does not reveal anything fundamental about reality. It may have wonderful insights into morality etc. but this does not qualify it as a 'the truth' or proving metaphysics or anything of the sort.

and

2. 'Scholarly Christianity' etc. understands that the bible is essentially the equivalent of Zarathustra or any other philosophical text with stories that function as metaphors. To believe in the stories as truth and actuality would put them into the fundamentalist brand of Christianity. I have no real problems with these guys since I too have my favorite philosophical texts to read.




finally! lol.

i think freud's criticisms of western pantheistic traditions could apply, but i'm not so sure in the case of eastern ones like hinduism.





From what I could gather of Hinduism is that it is a mixture of various local religions Buddhism and others. It also had a lot to do with the already established social order in the region. What I studied of it in school it seemed much more closely related to culture and social norms than actually believing in ganesh etc.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415620 - 05/07/11 02:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

Poid said:
It's funny that you complain about my and another's contributions to this thread, but you yourself tend to dodge questions. This is a debate forum, it's expected that you back up your claims when they're challenged--rigorous debate is encouraged here.




what questions am i dodging?


"What definite order does it have?" (referring to "being") for one.


Quote:

millzy said:
you just seem to be throwing out nothing but strawmen and irrelevant questions.


If you point out one single strawman, and an irrelevant question, I'll admit my wrongdoing--I suspect, though, that you just dislike having your ideas questioned, and resort to personalisms out of frustration and/or outright refuse to address any challenging scrutinization of your assertions when faced with having to actually back up what you say (here, in a debate forum:lol:).

It happens here all the time, so you don't have to beat yourself up over it. :grin:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14415947 - 05/07/11 04:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
I'll group these. Emotions, thoughts, and the mind are the result of chemical and electrical processes in the brain but this can also work the other way. I assumed this was pretty basic knowledge at this point. I'll link you to a psychology today article that talks about this very subject that I think you might like since your OP was spurred by reading Freud. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shift-mind/201001/beyond-the-mind-body-connection

The second group language and linguistic models are similarly physical since language is a result of some physical being. Language does not exist without someone to create it.




from the article you linked:

Quote:

The mental, emotional, physical and spiritual planes all penetrate and overlap one another. An impact in one plane has immeasurable affect on the others.




........


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415956 - 05/07/11 04:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

When I was younger I had a hard time understanding the theistic/spiritual world-view. My curiosity was so dire that I got sucked in, and now I have a harder time understanding the atheistic/materialist worldview. :argh:

I agree that atheism is fundamentally a reaction to very specific interpretations of Gods, souls, and existence in general, though. There's a strain of thought in Western philosophy that embraces classical Greek philosophy and wants to rid itself of the alien God of the Hebrews. Though I consider it admirable in some of its forms, I also find it to be a narrow method for understanding.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: millzy]
    #14415983 - 05/07/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
Quote:

SlashOZ said:
I'll group these. Emotions, thoughts, and the mind are the result of chemical and electrical processes in the brain but this can also work the other way. I assumed this was pretty basic knowledge at this point. I'll link you to a psychology today article that talks about this very subject that I think you might like since your OP was spurred by reading Freud. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shift-mind/201001/beyond-the-mind-body-connection

The second group language and linguistic models are similarly physical since language is a result of some physical being. Language does not exist without someone to create it.




from the article you linked:

Quote:

The mental, emotional, physical and spiritual planes all penetrate and overlap one another. An impact in one plane has immeasurable affect on the others.




........




Exactly

Also...
Quote:

Mind and body appear to be simply differing aspects of the same whole. As the head and tail of a coin are not separate, but differential points of the same coin, mind and body are thoroughly entwined and inseparable.




physical = body
body = mind
physical = mind




Edited by SlashOZ (05/07/11 04:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14417044 - 05/07/11 10:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Slash OZ, you keep saying that the mind is physical. Why? There is no evidence to say that the mind is physical because we don't even know how to detect the mind. All we know is that the physical world influences the mind and the mind influences the physical world. We have rules that determine how the physical world can change, but we have no rules determining how the mind can change. Psychology is a study of behavior, and we can study a person's body and how they react to various stimuli. But we arent looking at the mind in that case. We are just looking at their body.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Noteworthy] * 1
    #14417078 - 05/07/11 10:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

"mind" is just an abstract concept referring to certain brain processes--there is no logical reason to conclude that there is something non-physical which is closely related to and correlated with the said processes.

:spock:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: Poid]
    #14417276 - 05/07/11 11:16 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
"mind" is just an abstract concept referring to certain brain processes




No; by definition the mind refers to that which thinks, feels, and experiences qualia; all of which are non-physical processes.  How many times have we argued this point before?  :lol:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417310 - 05/07/11 11:26 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I mean, I understand your perspective in that in some sense brain processes most likely are mental processes, but the two concepts describe very different things or categories of stuff.  A sheerly materialistic worldview by definition cannot include thoughts or qualia in its ontology.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: deCypher]
    #14417313 - 05/07/11 11:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I don't think the "qualia" concept is fully agreed upon by scientists..here's what a critic of the concept has to say:

Qualia
Quote:

In Consciousness Explained (1991) and "Quining Qualia" (1988), Daniel Dennett offers an argument against qualia that attempts to show that the above definition breaks down when one tries to make a practical application of it. In a series of thought experiments, which he calls "intuition pumps," he brings qualia into the world of neurosurgery, clinical psychology, and psychological experimentation. His argument attempts to show that, once the concept of qualia is so imported, it turns out that we can either make no use of it in the situation in question, or that the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable precisely because of the special properties defined for qualia.
In Dennett's updated version of the inverted spectrum thought experiment, "alternative neurosurgery," you again awake to find that your qualia have been inverted—grass appears red, the sky appears orange, etc. According to the original account, you should be immediately aware that something has gone horribly wrong. Dennett argues, however, that it is impossible to know whether the diabolical neurosurgeons have indeed inverted your qualia (by tampering with your optic nerve, say), or have simply inverted your connection to memories of past qualia. Since both operations would produce the same result, you would have no means on your own to tell which operation has actually been conducted, and you are thus in the odd position of not knowing whether there has been a change in your "immediately apprehensible" qualia.
Dennett's argument revolves around the central objection that, for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience—for them to even make sense as a discrete concept—it must be possible to show that
a) it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or that
b) there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.
Dennett attempts to show that we cannot satisfy (a) either through introspection or through observation, and that qualia's very definition undermines its chances of satisfying (b).
Supporters of qualia could point out that in order for you to notice a change in qualia, you must compare your current qualia with your memories of past qualia. Arguably, such a comparison would involve immediate apprehension of your current qualia and your memories of past qualia, but not the past qualia itself. Furthermore, modern functional brain imaging has increasingly suggested that the memory of an experience is processed in similar ways and in similar zones of the brain as those originally involved in the original perception. This may mean that there would be asymmetry in outcomes between altering the mechanism of perception of qualia and altering their memories. If the diabolical neurosurgery altered the immediate perception of qualia, you might not even notice the inversion directly, since the brain zones which re-process the memories would themselves invert the qualia remembered. On the other hand, alteration of the qualia memories themselves would be processed without inversion, and thus you would perceive them as an inversion. Thus, you might know immediately if memory of your qualia had been altered, but might not know if immediate qualia were inverted or whether the diabolical neurosurgeons had done a sham procedure (Ungerleider, 1995).
Dennett also has a response to the "Mary the color scientist" thought experiment. He argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red. Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color," that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "quale" of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that the misleading aspect of the story is that Mary is supposed to not merely be knowledgeable about color but to actually know all the physical facts about it, which would be a knowledge so deep that it exceeds what can be imagined, and twists our intuitions.
If Mary really does know everything physical there is to know about the experience of color, then this effectively grants her almost omniscient powers of knowledge. Using this, she will be able to deduce her own reaction, and figure out exactly what the experience of seeing red will feel like.
Dennett finds that many people find it difficult to see this, so he uses the case of RoboMary to further illustrate what it would be like for Mary to possess such a vast knowledge of the physical workings of the human brain and color vision. RoboMary is an intelligent robot who, instead of the ordinary color camera-eyes, has a software lock such that she is only able to perceive black and white and shades in-between.
RoboMary can examine the computer brain of similar non-color-locked robots when they look at a red tomato, and see exactly how they react and what kinds of impulses occur. RoboMary can also construct a simulation of her own brain, unlock the simulation's color-lock and, with reference to the other robots, simulate exactly how this simulation of herself reacts to seeing a red tomato. RoboMary naturally has control over all of her internal states except for the color-lock. With the knowledge of her simulation's internal states upon seeing a red tomato, RoboMary can put her own internal states directly into the states they would be in upon seeing a red tomato. In this way, without ever seeing a red tomato through her cameras, she will know exactly what it is like to see a red tomato.
Dennett uses this example to show us that Mary's all-encompassing physical knowledge makes her own internal states as transparent as those of a robot or computer, and it is almost straightforward for her to figure out exactly how it feels to see red.
Supporters of qualia could point out that RoboMary's simulation would constitute a direct experience, despite the fact that it wouldn't be caused by a real tomato. Furthermore, if the apprehension of qualia is limited to those having the equivalent of a soul or a conscious living spirit, the RoboMary would be unable to apprehend the black and white qualia; and the use of a software lock would be redundant.
Perhaps Mary's failure to learn exactly what seeing red feels like is simply a failure of language, or a failure of our ability to describe experiences. An alien race with a different method of communication or description might be perfectly able to teach their version of Mary exactly how seeing the color red would feel. Perhaps it is simply a uniquely human failing to communicate first-person experiences from a third-person perspective. Dennett suggests that the description might even be possible using English. He uses a simpler version of the Mary thought experiment to show how this might work. What if Mary was in a room without triangles and was prevented from seeing or making any triangles? An English-language description of just a few words would be sufficient for her to imagine what it is like to see a triangle—she can simply and directly visualize a triangle in her mind. Similarly, Dennett proposes, it is perfectly, logically possible that the quale of what it is like to see red could eventually be described in an English-language description of millions or billions of words.



Thoughts and feelings definitely have a physical aspect to them (it could be argued that they are purely physical), and so are not non-physical; the challenge for people who believe that there is a non-physical aspect to thoughts, feelings, etc. is to prove the existence of this non-physical aspect via scientific investigation.

I'm not aware of any widely accepted scientific theory which suggests that there is a non-physical aspect to thoughts, feelings, etc., but I would be interested in reading about one. :smile:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: deCypher]
    #14417316 - 05/07/11 11:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
"mind" is just an abstract concept referring to certain brain processes




No; by definition the mind refers to that which thinks, feels, and experiences qualia; all of which are non-physical processes.  How many times have we argued this point before?  :lol:





Damn this is one extreme point of view. Next you'll start talking about how your mind exists without a body. :facepalm:


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14417330 - 05/07/11 11:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Poid, see my second post for clarification.  At any rate your point about "proving the non-physical aspect" of thoughts & feelings through scientific investigation literally makes no sense because science can only deal with things that can be empirically observed: non-physical things cannot be.

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
"mind" is just an abstract concept referring to certain brain processes




No; by definition the mind refers to that which thinks, feels, and experiences qualia; all of which are non-physical processes.  How many times have we argued this point before?  :lol:





Damn this is one extreme point of view. Next you'll start talking about how your mind exists without a body. :facepalm:




I'm going by the dictionary definition, brah.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417335 - 05/07/11 11:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
A sheerly materialistic worldview by definition cannot include thoughts or qualia in its ontology.


There is nothing in any definition of "thought" I've ever read that says it is non-material/non-physical. :shrug:

Regarding qualia: refer to my previous post.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417343 - 05/07/11 11:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
I mean, I understand your perspective in that in some sense brain processes most likely are mental processes, but the two concepts describe very different things or categories of stuff.


Well, one of those categories is backed up by a ton of evidence, and the other one is still contested amongst professionals. :shrug:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14417346 - 05/07/11 11:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

OK, if thoughts are physical then please give me the energy content or mass of my current thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  Or how about a location?  Does this thought have magnetism?  None of these questions make any sense if we're purely talking about the thought... but they do make sense if we're talking about a brain process.  Again, the two terms mental process and brain process describe two completely different categories of things: brain processes have physical properties like location and size whereas mental processes have properties like representation and intentionality.  Now, as I've stated before it's likely that in some sense these two things ARE the same thing, but reconciling this with the fact that they describe different categories IS the hard problem of consciousness.

As far as the existence of the mental category being "contested by professionals", are you serious?  Right now you are experiencing mental events: the sensation of color and sounds.  The proof is in your subjective experience.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: i think i've come to a better understanding of the atheistic/materialist world view [Re: deCypher]
    #14417355 - 05/07/11 11:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Poid, see my second post for clarification.  At any rate your point about "proving the non-physical aspect" of thoughts & feelings through scientific investigation literally makes no sense because science can only deal with things that can be empirically observed: non-physical things cannot be.

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
"mind" is just an abstract concept referring to certain brain processes




No; by definition the mind refers to that which thinks, feels, and experiences qualia; all of which are non-physical processes.  How many times have we argued this point before?  :lol:





Damn this is one extreme point of view. Next you'll start talking about how your mind exists without a body. :facepalm:




I'm going by the dictionary definition, brah.




Unless we are talking about analytic truths, which we are not, definitions are quite meaningless when it comes to whether or not the mind/consciousness/mental activity/emotions/thinking/etc. is physical. You can't simply define things into being truth. Your definition of the mind may say it is non-physical but that doesn't make it any more true than a definition of the moon being edible cheese. The mind seems to be wholly physical. When the body dies the mind dies. When the mind dies the body dies. Alzheimer disease anyone???? Getting stoned or drunk? Its pretty obvious that chemical or lack there of along with electric impulses govern our 'mind'.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417365 - 05/07/11 11:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
When the body dies the mind dies. When the mind dies the body dies. Alzheimer disease anyone???? Getting stoned or drunk? Its pretty obvious that chemical or lack there of along with electric impulses govern our 'mind'.




I agree... no contest here.  :lol:  But, again:

Quote:

deCypher said:
OK, if thoughts are physical then please give me the energy content or mass of my current thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  Or how about a location?  Does this thought have magnetism?  None of these questions make any sense if we're purely talking about the thought... but they do make sense if we're talking about a brain process.  Again, the two terms mental process and brain process describe two completely different categories of things: brain processes have physical properties like location and size whereas mental processes have properties like representation and intentionality.  Now, as I've stated before it's likely that in some sense these two things ARE the same thing, but reconciling this with the fact that they describe different categories IS the hard problem of consciousness.




--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417388 - 05/07/11 11:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I guess ultimately I subscribe to neutral monism: the mental and the physical are ultimately the same thing but they superficially present themselves as different ontological categories with separate properties that exhibit an incredibly strong correlation.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417390 - 05/07/11 11:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Poid, see my second post for clarification.  At any rate your point about "proving the non-physical aspect" of thoughts & feelings through scientific investigation literally makes no sense because science can only deal with things that can be empirically observed: non-physical things cannot be.


So what you're telling me is this "qualia" concept is essentially unfalsifiable? How scientific...:undecided:


Quote:

deCypher said:
OK, if thoughts are physical then please give me the energy content or mass of my current thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  Or how about a location?  Does this thought have magnetism?  None of these questions make any sense if we're purely talking about the thought... but they do make sense if we're talking about a brain process.


Scientists today are pretty much in agreement about the emergent theory of mind (which explains is as a consequence of physical processes), but they do not all agree on whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind because the current evidence has not shown that there is. We do not fully understand consciousness today, nor do we fully understand physics for that matter--to consider this while at the same time maintaining that the mind is non-physical (even though there is no currently widely accepted scientific theory which posits that it is) would be to make a somewhat baseless premature conclusion IMO. :shrug:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Again, the two terms mental process and brain process describe two completely different categories of things: brain processes have physical properties like location and size whereas mental processes have properties like representation and intentionality.


How do you know that mental processes do not have physical properties? Is it not possible that they could have physical properties, while also having properties like representation and intentionality?


Quote:

deCypher said:
As far as the existence of the mental category being "contested by professionals", are you serious?  Right now you are experiencing mental events: the sensation of color and sounds.  The proof is in your subjective perception.


I don't think that is proof that my experience is non-physical--it's possible that there are physical processes occurring which are involved in the generation and maintenance of my consciousness which are beyond anybody's knowledge at this point.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417407 - 05/07/11 11:49 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

SlashOZ said:
When the body dies the mind dies. When the mind dies the body dies. Alzheimer disease anyone???? Getting stoned or drunk? Its pretty obvious that chemical or lack there of along with electric impulses govern our 'mind'.




I agree... no contest here.  :lol:  But, again:

Quote:

deCypher said:
OK, if thoughts are physical then please give me the energy content or mass of my current thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  Or how about a location?  Does this thought have magnetism?  None of these questions make any sense if we're purely talking about the thought... but they do make sense if we're talking about a brain process.  Again, the two terms mental process and brain process describe two completely different categories of things: brain processes have physical properties like location and size whereas mental processes have properties like representation and intentionality.  Now, as I've stated before it's likely that in some sense these two things ARE the same thing, but reconciling this with the fact that they describe different categories IS the hard problem of consciousness.







A whole study on how non invasive methods of reading brain activity can read people's thoughts. They even mention the potential of reading thoughts that are suppressed and unknown to the individual. it also mentions how they could track subjective changes in perception. This seems to be evidence of mental/brain activity = the same thing and being charted and deciphered by modern science. I don't think the study mentions anywhere that there were things they were unable to chart because they were non-physical.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cogsci.ucsd.edu%2Figert%2Fboot_camp_2007%2FIGERT-fMRIrecommendedArticles%2Fhaynes-NatureNeuroscience2006-multivariateAnalysis.pdf&rct=j&q=difference%20between%20mental%20and%20brain%20activity&ei=LCzGTdmXLeTk0gHWkLGkCA&usg=AFQjCNGEQenPZBz_JiB-X0P3aAl7ueLyAw&sig2=G0z4MD_PcRWD_Dph20SzsA&cad=rja


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14417415 - 05/07/11 11:51 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
So what you're telling me is this "qualia" concept is essentially unfalsifiable? How scientific...:undecided:




IMO the concept is self-evident; I disagree with Dennett's viewpoint but I'll have to get back to you with a refutation tomorrow as I'm hitting the sack nowabouts.

Quote:

Poid said:
Scientists today are pretty much in agreement about the emergent theory of mind, but they do not all agree on whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind because the current evidence has not shown that there is. We do not fully understand consciousness today, nor do we fully understand physics for that matter--to consider this while at the same time maintaining that the mind is non-physical (even though there is no currently widely accepted scientific theory which posits that it is) would be to make a somewhat baseless premature conclusion IMO. :shrug:




Again, science by definition cannot directly deal with the mental.  Waiting for a scientific theory to do so would be futile.  :lol:

Quote:

Poid said:
How do you know that mental processes do not have physical properties? Is it not possible that they could have physical properties, while also having properties like representation and intentionality?




Then answer my questions about my thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  If this thought has physical properties then they should be easy to answer.

Quote:

Poid said:
I don't think that is proof that my experience is non-physical--it's possible that there are physical processes occurring which are involved in the generation and maintenance of my consciousness which are beyond anybody's knowledge at this point.




I'd go further and say that physical brain processes ARE, in some sense, your active consciousness.  Still though, the two terms describe different categories of stuff.  For example my experience of the feeling of pain does not have mass, energetic content, or any other physical property.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Edited by deCypher (05/07/11 11:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14417436 - 05/07/11 11:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
A whole study on how non invasive methods of reading brain activity can read people's thoughts. They even mention the potential of reading thoughts that are suppressed and unknown to the individual. it also mentions how they could track subjective changes in perception. This seems to be evidence of mental/brain activity = the same thing and being charted and deciphered by modern science. I don't think the study mentions anywhere that there were things they were unable to chart because they were non-physical.




For starters your study treats the mind and brain as separate entities:  "Many human neuroimaging studies have provided strong evidence for a close link between the mind and the brain, so it should, at least in principle, be possible to decode what an individual is thinking from their brain activity."  But regardless, I see no refutation in this study that mental states or thoughts exist... of course we can indirectly get at these via their correlated brain states.  All I'm saying is that science can only directly deal with physical things like brain states: we must extrapolate to assume that another person has a certain cognitive content when we see their brain state on an fMRI machine.  Only the person themselves can experience their qualia and mental states: see Nagel's essay What Is It Like To Be A Bat? for an exposition on how we can't get out of our own perceptual framework.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417450 - 05/08/11 12:00 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
I guess ultimately I subscribe to neutral monism: the mental and the physical are ultimately the same thing but they superficially present themselves as different ontological categories with separate properties that exhibit an incredibly strong correlation.


If you say that thought has physical properties, then why do you call it non-physical? :confused:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
So what you're telling me is this "qualia" concept is essentially unfalsifiable? How scientific...:undecided:




IMO the concept is self-evident; I disagree with Dennett's viewpoint but I'll have to get back to you with a refutation tomorrow as I'm hitting the sack nowabouts.


Kind of like how the presence of God is self-evident to some? :wink:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Scientists today are pretty much in agreement about the emergent theory of mind, but they do not all agree on whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind because the current evidence has not shown that there is. We do not fully understand consciousness today, nor do we fully understand physics for that matter--to consider this while at the same time maintaining that the mind is non-physical (even though there is no currently widely accepted scientific theory which posits that it is) would be to make a somewhat baseless premature conclusion IMO. :shrug:




Again, science by definition cannot deal with the mental.  Waiting for a scientific theory to do so would be futile.  :lol:


By what definition? Again, there is nothing in any definition of "mind" that I've ever read which includes the descriptor "non-physical". :shrug:

Your faith/belief in this concept is similar to a religious person's belief in unevidenced mystical stuff. :undecided:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
How do you know that mental processes do not have physical properties? Is it not possible that they could have physical properties, while also having properties like representation and intentionality?




Then answer my questions about my thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  If this thought has physical properties then they should be easy to answer.


What are you referring to when you say "they"? Are you saying that the physical properties of your thought that 2 +2 = 4 should be easy to answer? If so, what do you mean by that?


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
I don't think that is proof that my experience is non-physical--it's possible that there are physical processes occurring which are involved in the generation and maintenance of my consciousness which are beyond anybody's knowledge at this point.




I'd go further and say that physical brain processes ARE, in some sense, your active consciousness.  Still though, the two terms describe different categories of stuff.  For example my experience of the feeling of pain does not have mass, energetic content, or any other physical property.


How do you know that it doesn't have some currently undiscovered physical property? How do you know that it has no energetic content?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417478 - 05/08/11 12:08 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
see Nagel's essay What Is It Like To Be A Bat? for an exposition on how we can't get out of our own perceptual framework.


Quote:

...indeed, we have at present no explanation for what the physical nature of a mental phenomenon could be.



That essay seems to be in agreement with the possibility I suggested of there being currently undiscovered physical processes which are an intrinsic part of perception's nature. :shrug:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (05/08/11 12:16 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSlashOZ
:D
Male


Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14417513 - 05/08/11 12:24 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
A whole study on how non invasive methods of reading brain activity can read people's thoughts. They even mention the potential of reading thoughts that are suppressed and unknown to the individual. it also mentions how they could track subjective changes in perception. This seems to be evidence of mental/brain activity = the same thing and being charted and deciphered by modern science. I don't think the study mentions anywhere that there were things they were unable to chart because they were non-physical.




For starters your study treats the mind and brain as separate entities:  "Many human neuroimaging studies have provided strong evidence for a close link between the mind and the brain, so it should, at least in principle, be possible to decode what an individual is thinking from their brain activity."  But regardless, I see no refutation in this study that mental states or thoughts exist... of course we can indirectly get at these via their correlated brain states.  All I'm saying is that science can only directly deal with physical things like brain states: we must extrapolate to assume that another person has a certain cognitive content when we see their brain state on an fMRI machine.  Only the person themselves can experience their qualia and mental states: see Nagel's essay What Is It Like To Be A Bat? for an exposition on how we can't get out of our own perceptual framework.





I'm thinking you need to actually read the article first bro.


--------------------
"Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose
"Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS
"When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi
"Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson.
"Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNoteworthy
Sophyphile
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 12 days
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14419277 - 05/08/11 12:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
see Nagel's essay What Is It Like To Be A Bat? for an exposition on how we can't get out of our own perceptual framework.


Quote:

...indeed, we have at present no explanation for what the physical nature of a mental phenomenon could be.



That essay seems to be in agreement with the possibility I suggested of there being currently undiscovered physical processes which are an intrinsic part of perception's nature. :shrug:




what would make these undiscovered physical processes 'physical'?

If we discovered that GOD was real, and overcame physical laws to do his bidding, would God be physical? or non-physical?

Or what if we discovered that got did not overcome physical laws but simply chose how to collapse a wave function?

Would this collapser (which is not described in physics) of the wave function , be physical? or non-physical? or what?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Noteworthy]
    #14419705 - 05/08/11 01:46 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
see Nagel's essay What Is It Like To Be A Bat? for an exposition on how we can't get out of our own perceptual framework.


Quote:

...indeed, we have at present no explanation for what the physical nature of a mental phenomenon could be.



That essay seems to be in agreement with the possibility I suggested of there being currently undiscovered physical processes which are an intrinsic part of perception's nature. :shrug:




what would make these undiscovered physical processes 'physical'?


The fact that they are physical processes.


Quote:

Noteworthy said:
If we discovered that GOD was real, and overcame physical laws to do his bidding, would God be physical? or non-physical?


Overcame physical laws? I don't think I want to entertain such a ridiculous hypothetical, sorry. :lol:


Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Or what if we discovered that got did not overcome physical laws but simply chose how to collapse a wave function?





Quote:

Noteworthy said:
Would this collapser (which is not described in physics) of the wave function , be physical? or non-physical? or what?


I guess it would be considered a physical anomaly. :shrug2:

Physics, put broadly, is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves--if we observe these unordinary phenomena that you speak of in nature, then they would be considered physical because they are a part of how the universe behaves. But, again, I think they would be considered physical anomalies.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: SlashOZ]
    #14420332 - 05/08/11 04:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
If you say that thought has physical properties, then why do you call it non-physical? :confused:




Thought is non-physical and does not have physical properties; brain processes are physical and have physical properties.  Both are ultimately the same substance IMO but its different manifestations have different properties.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
IMO the concept is self-evident; I disagree with Dennett's viewpoint but I'll have to get back to you with a refutation tomorrow as I'm hitting the sack nowabouts.


Kind of like how the presence of God is self-evident to some? :wink:




The presence of God may be self-evident to some, but the existence of qualia is self-evident to all rational beings: you experience the feeling of pain when you stub your toe, do you not?

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Then answer my questions about my thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  If this thought has physical properties then they should be easy to answer.


What are you referring to when you say "they"? Are you saying that the physical properties of your thought that 2 +2 = 4 should be easy to answer? If so, what do you mean by that?




Huh?  By 'they' I mean my previously listed questions about the thought '2 + 2 = 4'.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
I'd go further and say that physical brain processes ARE, in some sense, your active consciousness.  Still though, the two terms describe different categories of stuff.  For example my experience of the feeling of pain does not have mass, energetic content, or any other physical property.


How do you know that it doesn't have some currently undiscovered physical property? How do you know that it has no energetic content?




Because to attribute a physical property to it would be a category mistake IMO.  What possible physical property could the feeling of pain have?  Until you can exhibit such a thing, it seems much more plausible that the feeling of pain possesses no physical properties.

Quote:

SlashOZ said:
I'm thinking you need to actually read the article first bro.




I did, bro.  Care to actually answer my post?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420398 - 05/08/11 04:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
If you say that thought has physical properties, then why do you call it non-physical? :confused:




Thought...does not have physical properties...


Proof?


Quote:

deCypher said:
...brain processes are physical and have physical properties.  Both are ultimately the same substance IMO but its different manifestations have different properties.


And how are you so sure that thoughts do not have physical properties?


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
IMO the concept is self-evident; I disagree with Dennett's viewpoint but I'll have to get back to you with a refutation tomorrow as I'm hitting the sack nowabouts.


Kind of like how the presence of God is self-evident to some? :wink:




The presence of God may be self-evident to some, but the existence of qualia is self-evident to all rational beings: you experience the feeling of pain when you stub your toe, do you not?


Like I said earlier, not all scientists are in agreement about the "qualia" concept--I experience the feeling of pain, but I am in no way sure that this experience is completely non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Then answer my questions about my thought that 2 + 2 = 4.  If this thought has physical properties then they should be easy to answer.


What are you referring to when you say "they"? Are you saying that the physical properties of your thought that 2 +2 = 4 should be easy to answer? If so, what do you mean by that?




Huh?  By 'they' I mean my previously listed questions about the thought '2 + 2 = 4'.


I already answered those questions..you responded to my answer with "Again, science by definition cannot directly deal with the mental.  Waiting for a scientific theory to do so would be futile.", to which I responded with "By what definition? Again, there is nothing in any definition of "mind" that I've ever read which includes the descriptor "non-physical".".

Again, it is possible that "qualia" are composed of currently undiscovered physical processes.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
I'd go further and say that physical brain processes ARE, in some sense, your active consciousness.  Still though, the two terms describe different categories of stuff.  For example my experience of the feeling of pain does not have mass, energetic content, or any other physical property.


How do you know that it doesn't have some currently undiscovered physical property? How do you know that it has no energetic content?




Because to attribute a physical property to it would be a category mistake IMO.  What possible physical property could the feeling of pain have?


I'm still waiting on your definition of mind that describes it as being non-physical. :waits:

Once again, the feeling of pain could potentially have one, or more currently undiscovered physical properties.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Until you can exhibit such a thing, it seems much more plausible that the feeling of pain possesses no physical properties.


I don't see how that's plausible..just about everything that has been studied by scientists has physical properties, why should the mind be any different?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14420408 - 05/08/11 04:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.  If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420424 - 05/08/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.


No I'm not, I'm claiming that it's entirely possible, and even somewhat likely that they are physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.


This is not fair..I have to provide evidence to prove that qualia are physical, but you don't have to provide evidence to prove that they are non-physical? I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. :wink:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420426 - 05/08/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Here's another way to look at it: can we break up the raw experience of feeling pain into component molecules or atoms?  Can we strap a voltmeter to the pure feeling of an orgasm?  Can we weigh my thought that '2 + 2 = 4'?  The answer is no to all of these questions because these things do not have physical properties.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14420433 - 05/08/11 04:38 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.


No I'm not, I'm claiming that it's entirely possible, and even somewhat likely that they are physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.


This is not fair..I have to provide evidence to prove that qualia are physical, but you don't have to provide evidence to prove that they are non-physical? I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. :wink:




If all the evidence points towards these things NOT possessing physical properties (since you can't even name a single one), it seems very likely that they're not physical.  No fallacy here, bucko.  :wink:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420478 - 05/08/11 04:51 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Here's another way to look at it: can we break up the raw experience of feeling pain into component molecules or atoms?


Not ethically, no, and not with the level of sophistication of our currently existing technology; it's possible that raw experience is made up of a certain kind of energy.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Can we strap a voltmeter to the pure feeling of an orgasm?  Can we weigh my thought that '2 + 2 = 4'?  The answer is no to all of these questions because these things do not have physical properties.


The answer is no, both because doing so would probably be unethical (we would have to play with people's brains while they are conscious), and because no methods for doing so have been developed yet. And, again, it's possible that raw experience is made up of some sort of physical property that we haven't discovered yet.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.


No I'm not, I'm claiming that it's entirely possible, and even somewhat likely that they are physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.


This is not fair..I have to provide evidence to prove that qualia are physical, but you don't have to provide evidence to prove that they are non-physical? I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy. :wink:




If all the evidence points towards these things NOT possessing physical properties (since you can't even name a single one)...


I'm still waiting on your definition of "mind" that defines it as being non-physical. :waits:

There is no evidence that the mind possesses no physical properties because we haven't developed methods to test whether or not it does--no tests have concluded that the mind is either physical or non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
No fallacy here, bucko.  :wink:


It seems like you're begging the question..you're saying that qualia (the thing to be proved) are non physical, and you're using this as one of your assumptions.

Quote:

Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)

Reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) Or, "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?




--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (04/19/12 06:26 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14420513 - 05/08/11 05:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.  If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.




Who cares if they are defined as non-physical?  Its not really a meaningful or useful distinction to make.  Its an arbitrary distinction that only serves to re-enforce preconceived beliefs.

The love I feel for my wife would probably be defined by you as non-physical.  But that in no way opposes or negates the atheist/materialist point of view.


Personally, when I think of something that is physical, I think of something that simply has mass and the units of mass, grams.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14421893 - 05/08/11 09:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

How, exactly, am I begging the question?  We're trying to determine whether or not the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical, right?  If something is physical, it must have physical properties.  Since not a single physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia can be demonstrated out of the hundreds that are known to us, it seems like there is MUCH evidence demonstrating that these things are not physical.  I'm not assuming that anything is non-physical; rather, I am using the available data to draw this conclusion.

All your talk about some hypothetical, mysterious physical properties that have yet to be shown strikes me as a variant of ye olde fluffernaut standby:



Perhaps your resistance to the idea of something being non-physical is that you think such things are akin to a soul or spirits or some equivalently utterly intangible substance that is impossible to verify or investigate with any modicum of rational integrity.  Yet every day you experience the acts of thinking and feeling!  You stub your toe and you feel the pain; something that cannot be reduced down to atoms and molecules or empirically measured for current or gravitational force.  We can perform these measurements on the brain processes that correlate to this experience of pain, yes, and it is very likely that such brain processes are in some way equivalent to the experience of pain, but these brain processes have physical properties that the experience of pain DOES NOT possess.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14421914 - 05/08/11 09:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
The love I feel for my wife would probably be defined by you as non-physical.  But that in no way opposes or negates the atheist/materialist point of view.




Well, let's leave the atheist POV out of this for now as none of my arguments have addressed this.  At any rate, if something non-physical exists then materialism is automatically invalid; I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Personally, when I think of something that is physical, I think of something that simply has mass and the units of mass, grams.




This definition works for matter but ignores such physical things as energy, fields, forces and the like.  Philosophically speaking physicalism is taken to be synonymous with materialism; if you believe either one then you must believe that everything in the Universe including photons, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force are physical.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14421915 - 05/08/11 09:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

You said 'fluffernaut'. :blush:

Ka-ching! Another royalty for Swami.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14421929 - 05/08/11 09:24 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Someday I, too, aspire to be an Internet forum millionaire.  :sad:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14421946 - 05/08/11 09:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Dost thou mockest me? :mad2:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14421984 - 05/08/11 09:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

:lol: I seriously do aspire, though.  Too bad the FBI shut down the three major online poker sites, just as I was getting good.  :mad:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14422048 - 05/08/11 09:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
How, exactly, am I begging the question?  We're trying to determine whether or not the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical, right?  If something is physical, it must have physical properties.  Since not a single physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia can be demonstrated out of the hundreds that are known to us, it seems like there is MUCH evidence demonstrating that these things are not physical.  I'm not assuming that anything is non-physical; rather, I am using the available data to draw this conclusion.


Pretty much everything in this universe has physical properties..it doesn't seam reasonable to assume that the mind is an exception. What available data are you talking about? The reason that not a single physical property of qualia has been demonstrated is because no methods have been developed to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia.


Quote:

deCypher said:
All your talk about some hypothetical, mysterious physical properties that have yet to be shown strikes me as a variant of ye olde fluffernaut standby:




Well, again, I don't find it reasonable to assume that the mind is non-physical, given that virtually every known thing in the universe is; I don't see why the mind should be an exception. I feel like you're just trying to exaggerate human specialness.

:imspecial:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Perhaps your resistance to the idea of something being non-physical is that you think such things are akin to a soul or spirits or some equivalently utterly intangible substance that is impossible to verify or investigate with any modicum of rational integrity.  Yet every day you experience the acts of thinking and feeling!  You stub your toe and you feel the pain; something that cannot be reduced down to atoms and molecules or empirically measured for current or gravitational force.


Nevertheless, I don't consider any sensations of pain I experience to be non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
We can perform these measurements on the brain processes that correlate to this experience of pain, yes, and it is very likely that such brain processes are in some way equivalent to the experience of pain, but these brain processes have physical properties that the experience of pain DOES NOT possess.


Physics, put broadly, is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves--since you say that the mind is non-physical, does this mean that you would also say it's unnatural?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14422384 - 05/08/11 10:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Everything is qualia (the world = your experience of the world, as far as you can ever know).

Everything observable through that experience is matter.

Logical conclusion, qualia = matter. Couldn't be further from "non-physical." What does that even mean?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher] * 1
    #14422430 - 05/08/11 10:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
:lol: I seriously do aspire, though.  Too bad the FBI shut down the three major online poker sites, just as I was getting good.  :mad:





Years ago I wrote on the Political Forum how I was 10,000 times more afraid of my own government than any terrorist organization. I caught huge flak from the Right-wingers in spite of the fact that millions of have been arrested for exercising a basic freedom to partake of what they want.

Now the US Govt has stolen thousands from me and violated international law by confiscating my hard-won dollars playing online poker. Do I have any legal recourse to get MY MONEY back? No. Why? Because they 'need' more money for US Defense Contractors in frivoulous 'wars'.

Welcome to fascism.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14424455 - 05/09/11 12:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're claiming that the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia are physical.  If so, then please state what physical properties these possess.  Since IMO you can't do so, I rest confidently on my assertion that these are non-physical.




Who cares if they are defined as non-physical?  Its not really a meaningful or useful distinction to make.  Its an arbitrary distinction that only serves to re-enforce preconceived beliefs.

The love I feel for my wife would probably be defined by you as non-physical.  But that in no way opposes or negates the atheist/materialist point of view.


Personally, when I think of something that is physical, I think of something that simply has mass and the units of mass, grams.



The 'mind'-brain relation can be seen as a gateway from the 'nonphysical' to the 'physical' in this way.
So I care.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14424787 - 05/09/11 01:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Logical conclusion, qualia = matter. Couldn't be further from "non-physical." What does that even mean?


:justdontknow:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429213 - 05/10/11 10:44 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Pretty much everything in this universe has physical properties..it doesn't seam reasonable to assume that the mind is an exception. What available data are you talking about? The reason that not a single physical property of qualia has been demonstrated is because no methods have been developed to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia.




As far as I can tell, the mind/qualia are the only exception to the rule.  We categorically divide the universe into the physical (atoms, molecules, brains, etcetera) and the mental (experience, feelings, and thoughts) through which the physical is perceived, even though IMO it is likely that these are simply different perspectives of the same fundamental substance.  Your rationale that we just haven't developed a method to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia sounds exactly like a theist claiming that we just haven't developed a scientific method to detect God... it seems much more rational to conclude that since feelings/thoughts show no sign of being like any other physical phenomena we know of, they therefore are not physical.  :shrug:

Quote:

Poid said:
Nevertheless, I don't consider any sensations of pain I experience to be non-physical.




Seems odd when you can't describe a single physical property that they possess.  :sherlock:

Quote:

Poid said:
Physics, put broadly, is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves--since you say that the mind is non-physical, does this mean that you would also say it's unnatural?




Well, if you're defining Nature as everything physical then yes, I'd say that the mind is unnatural.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Everything is qualia (the world = your experience of the world, as far as you can ever know).

Everything observable through that experience is matter.

Logical conclusion, qualia = matter. Couldn't be further from "non-physical." What does that even mean?




All of our perceptions are qualia... there is a huge difference between our experience of the world and the world itself (see Kant's distinguishing between the noumena and the phenomena for further clarification).  Everything observable through these perceptions is physical in that we label certain regularities of perception matter or energy.  As for defining non-physical, just call it mental.  All these words are just labels to distinguish between our experience of the world and the world itself.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429268 - 05/10/11 10:58 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Here's another way to look at it: can we break up the raw experience of feeling pain into component molecules or atoms?  Can we strap a voltmeter to the pure feeling of an orgasm?  Can we weigh my thought that '2 + 2 = 4'?  The answer is no to all of these questions because these things do not have physical properties.



We can map the brain state that occurs when you do all of those things, and could probably determine the "weight" and/or physical properties of the electro-chemical impulses present therein when you had the thought.

Just because we can't weight the thought itself doesn't mean thoughts aren't physical; it only means that their physical properties can't be directly observed, since they are the source of observation. But saying "you can't weigh a thought, so it's not physical" is like saying "you can't weigh sight, so sight isn't physical."

You can look in a mirror and see your eyes; similarly, you can look at a map of your brain states and see your thoughts' physical form.

As for Kant, he actually said that the noumenal world was entirely unknowable, and used that as his rationality for why many of the traditional philosophical questions were unreasonable. Many philosophers, as well as some physicists, do not draw a distinction between the "perceived world" and the "real world" (i.e. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and quantum physicist John Wheeler).


--------------------


Edited by NetDiver (05/10/11 11:05 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429284 - 05/10/11 11:03 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Sure, brain states are physical and we can measure the physical properties of the neurological correlates to thought.  But again, thoughts themselves do not have physical properties; only their correlates do.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Many philosophers do not draw a distinction between the "perceived world" and the "real world" (i.e. Nietzsche and Heidegger).




Source?  There's a pretty big difference between these, and to ignore it is to believe that optical illusions are real and that a color-blind person's inaccurate perception of the world is reality.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429322 - 05/10/11 11:13 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

But, if thoughts themselves do not have physical properties, then neither do objects themselves, since objects are known entirely through our qualitative senses of them (which cannot be directly measured either).

For instance, say I am measuring the length of a plank of wood. It is 2 feet wide and 4 feet long. Objective, physical properties, completely removed from my subjective measurement of them, right? Wrong. How did I gain those measurements? Through my senses. I looked at the wood and looked at the measuring tape - both qualitative actions, composed of qualia. I can never measure the actual way the plank of wood and the measuring tape looked to me.

Senses, thoughts, and everything are all qualia -- so if a thought is not physical, then neither are the objects we perceive through our qualitative senses.

So you are left to claim either that nothing is physical, or that everything is physical. Given that the physical sciences have proved useful in shaping our qualitative experiences, I would opt for the second one.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429365 - 05/10/11 11:21 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Source?  There's a pretty big difference between these, and to ignore it is to believe that optical illusions are real and that a color-blind person's inaccurate perception of the world is reality.



You're missing the point entirely. To a color-blind person, the world they see is their reality; they know no other. You can tell them all you want that the world looks a different way, but they can never experience that.

As for a source, here's a quote from Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals (third essay, section 12):

Quote:

From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a “pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition”; let’s guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”—those things which demand that we think of an eye which simply cannot be imagined, an eye which is to have no direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence, these things always demand from the eye something conceptually absurd and incomprehensible. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective; and the more emotions we allow to be expressed  in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our “idea” of this thing, our “objectivity,” will be.



http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/nietzsche/genealogy3.htm


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429430 - 05/10/11 11:38 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
But, if thoughts themselves do not have physical properties, then neither do objects themselves, since objects are known entirely through our qualitative senses of them (which cannot be directly measured either).

For instance, say I am measuring the length of a plank of wood. It is 2 feet wide and 4 feet long. Objective, physical properties, completely removed from my subjective measurement of them, right? Wrong. How did I gain those measurements? Through my senses. I looked at the wood and looked at the measuring tape - both qualitative actions, composed of qualia. I can never measure the actual way the plank of wood and the measuring tape looked to me.

Senses, thoughts, and everything are all qualia -- so if a thought is not physical, then neither are the objects we perceive through our qualitative senses.

So you are left to claim either that nothing is physical, or that everything is physical. Given that the physical sciences have proved useful in shaping our qualitative experiences, I would opt for the second one.




You are correct in that we can never go outside of our own perception, but we can still use our perception to get at more-or-less objective properties of the world.  For example, I can measure the size of a plank of wood and then ask another person to confirm whether my measurement is correct.  Through verification and repeatability (I can perform the same measurement tomorrow and still get the same answer) we can certainly approach knowledge of the objective world.  This is the essence of the scientific method.  We observe consistent regularities of perception that lead us to conclude that the "outside" world really does exist and will continue to do so even if our own perception ends via death.  Measurement of these consistent regularities of perception gives us knowledge of physical properties.

To sum up: 'physical' and 'mental' are mere labels.  'Mental' refers to our perception; smells, tastes, sounds, sights and feelings (not to mention ideas and thoughts) are all mental.  When we observe consistent regularities of mental perception we start to assume that that there is something else besides these things: something that is responsible for and the source of our perceptions: these things we label as 'physical'.  If we see a plank of wood in front of us, and are able to hear the knock of our fingers on it when we tap it, and are able to extend our hands around it, it becomes more and more likely that the plank of wood really does exist and is not just a mere hallucination.  This is what distinguishes perceptions of dream objects from perceptions of real objects: we can see a plank of wood in our dreams but when we turn around and back again, the plank of wood can disappear and turn into a beautiful woman.  This irregularity of perception leads us to conclude that that plank of wood wasn't physical.

Subsequently I don't understand your argument that either nothing or everything is physical: all of our perceptions are mental, yes, but if the perceptions follow a consistent, regular pattern then we label whatever it is that we're perceiving as physical.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Source?  There's a pretty big difference between these, and to ignore it is to believe that optical illusions are real and that a color-blind person's inaccurate perception of the world is reality.



You're missing the point entirely. To a color-blind person, the world they see is their reality; they know no other. You can tell them all you want that the world looks a different way, but they can never experience that.




Sure... so what?  You previously implied that you believe there's no difference between the perceived world and the real world: if this were true, then the flying pig I dreamed about last night would be just as real as an actual one and objects could never reflect back certain shades of red and green just because a color-blind person can't perceive them.  No; there is a clear difference between what we perceive and what's actually out there, and this distinction can be teased out via verification from other people and the repeatability of scientific experiments.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
As for a source, here's a quote from Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals (third essay, section 12):

Quote:

From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a “pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition”; let’s guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”—those things which demand that we think of an eye which simply cannot be imagined, an eye which is to have no direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence, these things always demand from the eye something conceptually absurd and incomprehensible. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective; and the more emotions we allow to be expressed  in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our “idea” of this thing, our “objectivity,” will be.



http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/nietzsche/genealogy3.htm




This quote does not imply that the perceived world is the same as the real world; far from it.  Instead it only makes the statement that there is no such thing as perspective-less sight or knowledge, and this is true.  But the more perspectives we have of a certain thing ("the more eyes, different eyes") the more complete our idea can be of the thing itself.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429476 - 05/10/11 11:51 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Right; it is attacking the claims of knowledge of objective reality. Not "far from" what I was saying at all, actually, very much akin to it. Notice that "objectivity" is in quotation marks. :shrug:

Nietzsche was about as anti-dualist as they come, and assuming a dichotomy between the world of appearance and the world that "just is" is a dualist belief. That does not mean that an individual's perception is the whole picture; rather that the sum of all of our perceptions represents the "whole picture." That's what Nietzsche was getting at with the "more eyes trained on the same thing" comment. He definitely wasn't implying that there was any noumenal world (he was very critical of Kant).

See this article on Nietzsche's critique of the noumenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#Nietzsche.27s_critique

Quote:

Sure... so what?  You previously implied that you believe there's no difference between the perceived world and the real world: if this were true, then the flying pig I dreamed about last night would be just as real as an actual one and objects could never reflect back certain shades of red and green just because a color-blind person can't perceive them.



This is a huuuuge misinterpretation of my opinion. To the color-blind person objects look one way, to you they look another way. Neither perception is "more correct." One is simply more common.

Also, the thing about "flying pigs being real" is a :facepalm: worthy caricature of my position. Do you perceive a difference between the waking world and the dreaming world? Of course you do. You perceive a difference, so that difference exists.

Quote:

No; there is a clear difference between what we perceive and what's actually out there, and this distinction can be teased out via verification from other people and the repeatability of scientific experiments.



That only proves that there are different perceptions apart from one individual; basically that solipsism is wrong. It does not, however, prove a world apart from any perception at all.


Edited by NetDiver (05/10/11 11:59 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429507 - 05/10/11 12:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well, I don't necessarily believe in the noumenon as Kant describes it; like that Wiki article states it couldn't interact with anything if it didn't demonstrate any properties other than simply being "the ground of being".  Regardless, the sum of all our perceptions allows us to approximate towards knowledge of "objective" reality.  If that word bothers you, then substitute "inter-subjective".  All I'm saying is that there is difference between our perceptions and what is being perceived.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429526 - 05/10/11 12:04 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Quote:

Sure... so what?  You previously implied that you believe there's no difference between the perceived world and the real world: if this were true, then the flying pig I dreamed about last night would be just as real as an actual one and objects could never reflect back certain shades of red and green just because a color-blind person can't perceive them.



This is a huuuuge misinterpretation of my opinion. To the color-blind person objects look one way, to you they look another way. Neither perception is "more correct." One is simply more common.




A color-blind person has deficiencies in their perception; they are literally unable to perceive certain aspects of the world.  Just because their eyes can't register the difference between certain shades of red does NOT mean that this difference does not exist.  By your logic the perception of a person with 20/20 vision isn't any more correct than the perception of a person with 20/80 vision and that we therefore don't need to prescribe glasses to anyone.  :facepalm:

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Also, the thing about "flying pigs being real" is a :facepalm: worthy caricature of my position. Do you perceive a difference between the waking world and the dreaming world? Of course you do. You perceive a difference, so that difference exists.




Seems like a pretty accurate characterization of your position if you truly believe there is no difference between perception and reality, dude.  The waking world is considered to be objectively or intersubjectively real precisely because our perceptions of it are much more consistent and regular than our perceptions of the dream world.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Quote:

No; there is a clear difference between what we perceive and what's actually out there, and this distinction can be teased out via verification from other people and the repeatability of scientific experiments.



That only proves that there are different perceptions apart from one individual; basically that solipsism is wrong. It does not, however, prove a world apart from any perception at all.




I'm not saying I can prove that anything exists outside of perception; for all I know only perception exists and you're just a figment of imagination.  Common sense, however, tells me this is not true and that it is very likely that something exists that gives rise to my perceptions.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429565 - 05/10/11 12:13 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
A color-blind person has deficiencies in their perception; they are literally unable to perceive certain aspects of the world.  Just because their eyes can't register the difference between certain shades of red does NOT mean that this difference does not exist.  By your logic the perception of a person with 20/20 vision isn't any more correct than the perception of a person with 20/80 vision and that we therefore don't need to prescribe glasses to anyone.  :facepalm:



You're talking to someone with terrible vision. I take off my glasses, the world looks one way. I put them on, the world looks another way. But in both cases, the difference was perceived! I am comparing a difference between two perceptions, not between my perception of a blurry world and a world that is totally unseen/unperceived.

Quote:


Seems like a pretty accurate characterization of your position if you truly believe there is no difference between perception and reality, dude.  The waking world is considered to be objectively or intersubjectively real precisely because our perceptions of it are much more consistent and regular than our perceptions of the dream world.



Thanks for telling me what my position is, when you obviously have such a deficient understanding of it. You're becoming insulting.

There are differences between different worlds that are perceived, but that in no way substantiates your claim that there is a reality apart from any perception whatsoever. The perceived dream world is different from the perceived real world, but again, in no way were they measured against some external, totally unperceived reality- it is merely a comparison between two different perceptions.

Quote:


I'm not saying I can prove that anything exists outside of perception; for all I know only perception exists and you're just a figment of imagination.  Common sense, however, tells me this is not true and that it is very likely that something exists that gives rise to my perceptions.



Postulating something that "gives rise" to your perceptions is a violation of occam's razor. Your perceptions are all you can ever know and they're all you ever have to work with. Again, though, as science is an investigation of our senses, through our senses, this in no way diminishes the value of science -- rather it supports science as a way of predicting our future experiences.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
    #14429623 - 05/10/11 12:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
You're talking to someone with terrible vision. I take off my glasses, the world looks one way. I put them on, the world looks another way. But in both cases, the difference was perceived! I am comparing a difference between two perceptions, not between my perception of a blurry world and a world that is totally unseen/unperceived.




Right.  Again, I'm not arguing that we can ever directly compare our perception to the world-as-it-is.  What I am arguing is that certain perceptions provide more information (or are more "correct") than others.  In this case the non-colorblind person's perception would provide missing information that the colorblind person's perception cannot.  You're talking to a colorblind person right now, as a matter of fact.  :smile:

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
There are differences between different worlds that are perceived, but that in no way substantiates your claim that there is a reality apart from any perception whatsoever. The perceived dream world is different from the perceived real world, but again, in no way were they measured against some external, totally unperceived reality- it is merely a comparison between two different perceptions.




We don't need to compare our perceptions against some unperceived reality... not to mention this is impossible.  All we have to do is observe that certain perceptions are more regular and consistent than others: this combined with other people's perceptions agreeing with our own leads us to believe that we're actually perceiving something outside of our own mind.  Moreover, how can we have perceptions without something causing them?  Your view seems to disintegrate into solipsism: all that exists is my own perception.  Granted we cannot prove that anything exists outside of our own perception, but it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption that something is causing certain consistent perceptions and that other people truly exist rather than just being figments of my imagination.

Quote:

Samurai Drifter said:
Postulating something that "gives rise" to your perceptions is a violation of occam's razor. Your perceptions are all you can ever know and they're all you ever have to work with. Again, though, as science is an investigation of our senses, through our senses, this in no way diminishes the value of science -- rather it supports science as a way of predicting our future experiences.




The simplest explanation in this case, IMO, is that physical things do exist and do give rise to our perceptions.  Sure, science is a way of predicting our future experiences: it tells us how a certain pattern of perceptions will behave, and we call specific patterns of perceptions in this way "physical" because they behave in a consistent manner, unlike those found in dreams.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14429667 - 05/10/11 12:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The way I see it, our perceptions are just a representation of reality.  Think of a robot exploring an environment.  All the robot "knows" is the pattern of 1's and 0's in its memory; these 1's and 0's form a representation of the robot's environment via sensory instruments like a camera or a microphone.  The robot cannot prove that anything exists apart from the 1's and 0's it has immediate access to, but something is nevertheless causing its sensory instruments to send information to its CPU.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14430256 - 05/10/11 03:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Pretty much everything in this universe has physical properties..it doesn't seam reasonable to assume that the mind is an exception. What available data are you talking about? The reason that not a single physical property of qualia has been demonstrated is because no methods have been developed to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia.




As far as I can tell, the mind/qualia are the only exception to the rule.  We categorically divide the universe into the physical (atoms, molecules, brains, etcetera) and the mental (experience, feelings, and thoughts)...


I'm still waiting on a definition of "mind" that describes it as being non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
...through which the physical is perceived, even though IMO it is likely that these are simply different perspectives of the same fundamental substance.  Your rationale that we just haven't developed a method to assist us in demonstrating the potential physical properties of qualia sounds exactly like a theist claiming that we just haven't developed a scientific method to detect God... it seems much more rational to conclude that since feelings/thoughts show no sign of being like any other physical phenomena we know of, they therefore are not physical.  :shrug:


Your belief that perceptions are non-physical seems like a theist's belief in the supernatural IMO. Again, physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves; this means that all of the universe's behaviors (including perceptions, which are part of the universe) are physical.

Once again, I would like to see a definition of "mind" that describes it as being non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Nevertheless, I don't consider any sensations of pain I experience to be non-physical.




Seems odd when you can't describe a single physical property that they possess.  :sherlock:


Sensations of pain are a part of nature, and part of how the universe behaves; by definition, they are physical. Are you going to argue that sensations of pain aren't either a part of nature, or a part of how the universe behaves?


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Physics, put broadly, is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves--since you say that the mind is non-physical, does this mean that you would also say it's unnatural?




Well, if you're defining Nature as everything physical then yes, I'd say that the mind is unnatural.


In what way is it unnatural? Physics is the study of nature, and the mind is a part of nature.


Quote:

deCypher said:
You're talking to a colorblind person right now, as a matter of fact.  :smile:


Can you at least see color in closed-eye-visuals while tripping on 'shrooms? :mushroom2:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14430483 - 05/10/11 03:46 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Two points: looking for definitions doesn't help in this argument because the point of this debate IS to define the mind as physical or non-physical.  According to dualism the mind is defined as non-physical and according to eliminative materialism the mind is defined as physical; I am supporting the dualist side here (categorical dualism rather than substance dualism, to be specific) by my argument that since no physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings has been shown then it is highly probable that these aren't physical.

Secondly, physics deals with whatever can be empirically observed and measured in the Universe.  Since the mind/thoughts/feelings cannot be empirically observed or measured, physics cannot deal with these things.  For that you'll have to look to psychology, which IS defined as the science of mind and behavior.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're talking to a colorblind person right now, as a matter of fact.  :smile:


Can you at least see color in closed-eye-visuals while tripping on 'shrooms? :mushroom2:




I can see most colors; I just have what's called red-green color blindness where I can't distinguish between certain shades of red and green.  I have seen colors I've never seen before while tripping, but I obviously can't compare those to what a normal person sees.  I still definitely fail the Ishihara test while on shrooms, though.  :lol:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14430528 - 05/10/11 03:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Two points: looking for definitions doesn't help in this argument because the point of this debate IS to define the mind as physical or non-physical.


Why is that the point of this debate?


Quote:

deCypher said:
According to dualism the mind is defined as non-physical and according to eliminative materialism the mind is defined as physical; I am supporting the dualist side here (categorical dualism rather than substance dualism, to be specific) by my argument that since no physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings has been shown then it is highly probable that these aren't physical.


The mind has the physical property of being a part of nature, & a part of how the universe behaves.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Secondly, physics deals with whatever can be empirically observed and measured in the Universe.  Since the mind/thoughts/feelings cannot be empirically observed or measured, physics cannot deal with these things.


Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves; are you saying that one cannot analyze their own mind in order to understand how it behaves? Or are you saying that the mind is neither a part of nature, or a part of how the universe behaves?



Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
You're talking to a colorblind person right now, as a matter of fact.  :smile:


Can you at least see color in closed-eye-visuals while tripping on 'shrooms? :mushroom2:




I can see most colors; I just have what's called red-green color blindness where I can't distinguish between certain shades of red and green.  I have seen colors I've never seen before while tripping, but I obviously can't compare those to what a normal person sees.  I still definitely fail the Ishihara test while on shrooms, though.  :lol:


Damn, well at least you're not fully colorblind. :awesome:


So you can't read this:



--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid] * 1
    #14430535 - 05/10/11 03:56 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

deCypher is making no big claims as to the fundamental nature of consciousness, he is simply stating the fact that our inability to directly measure personal experience places it outside the academic field of physics.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher] * 1
    #14430536 - 05/10/11 03:56 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
The way I see it, our perceptions are just a representation of reality.  Think of a robot exploring an environment.  All the robot "knows" is the pattern of 1's and 0's in its memory; these 1's and 0's form a representation of the robot's environment via sensory instruments like a camera or a microphone.  The robot cannot prove that anything exists apart from the 1's and 0's it has immediate access to, but something is nevertheless causing its sensory instruments to send information to its CPU.




Exactly. We construct our reality from the five senses(six if you count balance, or the sensing of gravity). While these senses do build a fairly accurate representation of reality, it is incomplete.
What if instead of seeing visible light, we saw infrared or gamma rays, or what if we didn't see photons at all and instead sensed electrons? The world would seem totally different.

And I agree with OC from the 1st page, atheism is simply using logic to shape your beliefs and not believing random shit that sounds good.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14430538 - 05/10/11 03:56 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Two points: looking for definitions doesn't help in this argument because the point of this debate IS to define the mind as physical or non-physical.


Why is that the point of this debate?




Isn't that what we were arguing about?  :cuckoo:

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
According to dualism the mind is defined as non-physical and according to eliminative materialism the mind is defined as physical; I am supporting the dualist side here (categorical dualism rather than substance dualism, to be specific) by my argument that since no physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings has been shown then it is highly probable that these aren't physical.


The mind has the physical property of being a part of nature, & a part of how the universe behaves.




If you're defining the Universe as all that there is, then the mind is part of the Universe.  The mind is NOT part of nature if you're defining nature to be all physical things.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Secondly, physics deals with whatever can be empirically observed and measured in the Universe.  Since the mind/thoughts/feelings cannot be empirically observed or measured, physics cannot deal with these things.


Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves; are you saying that one cannot analyze their own mind in order to understand how it behaves? Or are you saying that the mind is neither a part of nature, or a part of how the universe behaves?




Sure, one can analyze their own mind to understand how it behaves, and even indirectly analyze other people's minds: this is the science of psychology.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14430571 - 05/10/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Two points: looking for definitions doesn't help in this argument because the point of this debate IS to define the mind as physical or non-physical.


Why is that the point of this debate?




Isn't that what we were arguing about?  :cuckoo:


Sorry, I read what you said incorrectly..I thought you said the point of this debate is to define the mind as non-physical. :crazy:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
According to dualism the mind is defined as non-physical and according to eliminative materialism the mind is defined as physical; I am supporting the dualist side here (categorical dualism rather than substance dualism, to be specific) by my argument that since no physical property of the mind/thoughts/feelings has been shown then it is highly probable that these aren't physical.


The mind has the physical property of being a part of nature, & a part of how the universe behaves.




If you're defining the Universe as all that there is, then the mind is part of the Universe.  The mind is NOT part of nature if you're defining nature to be all physical things.


What's the difference between 'nature' and 'universe'?


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Secondly, physics deals with whatever can be empirically observed and measured in the Universe.  Since the mind/thoughts/feelings cannot be empirically observed or measured, physics cannot deal with these things.


Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves; are you saying that one cannot analyze their own mind in order to understand how it behaves? Or are you saying that the mind is neither a part of nature, or a part of how the universe behaves?




Sure, one can analyze their own mind to understand how it behaves, and even indirectly analyze other people's minds: this is the science of psychology.


True, but this doesn't at all prove that the mind is non-physical..according to the definition I posted, everything in nature, and every behavior in the universe is physical.

Still waiting on your definition of "mind" that defines it as being non-physical, I first asked you for this almost two pages ago.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14430583 - 05/10/11 04:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
deCypher is making no big claims as to the fundamental nature of consciousness, he is simply stating the fact that our inability to directly measure personal experience places it outside the academic field of physics.


But, according to the definition of physics I provided, everything in nature, and every behavior in the universe is physical.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14430693 - 05/10/11 04:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Yes, but some of the universe can't be measured by currently-available principles of physics. It's an incomplete science with incomplete theory.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14430729 - 05/10/11 04:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I totally agree, which is why I believe it's highly possible for us to be able to explain consciousness in detailed physical terms in the future..at any rate, according to the definition of physics I posted, the mind (as well as everything else in the universe/nature) is physical.

I've been waiting for quite a while now for deCypher's definition of "mind" that describes it as being non-physical.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (05/10/11 05:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14430802 - 05/10/11 05:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Idk DC, I used to be with ya but now I'm thinking that even thoughts are completely explainable through the laws of physics. What about the mind strikes you as seperate from the physical reality?
Quote:



Tchan909 said:

Yes, but some of the universe can't be measured by currently-available principles of physics. It's an incomplete science with incomplete theory.




Well duh, it's a work in progress and probably will be for the extent of humanity lol


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14431728 - 05/10/11 08:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Probably because there is no explanation in physics for personal experience. :shrug:


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14432077 - 05/10/11 09:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Huh? What is probably because of that? :undecided:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14432084 - 05/10/11 09:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I'm describing what I understand is Cypher's logic regarding his classification of consciousness as "non-physical." There is no theory of psychological mechanics.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14432120 - 05/10/11 09:39 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I think that might be his logic regarding that as well..however, everything in nature is physical (according to the definition I posted), and the mind is no exception since it is part of nature. Quantum mechanics was considered a physical concept before a cohesive theory regarding it was formed.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
    #14432944 - 05/11/11 12:53 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

sure there is. It is the impression of sensory experience(which is just electrical signals), combined with our desire to feel good/comfortable and our fear of feeling bad/pain(which both occur from the release of various neurotransmitters). These physical phenomena can completely account for every aspect of consciousness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: mushiepussy] * 1
    #14432992 - 05/11/11 01:08 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Physical processes correlate with mental function, certainly. That doesn't give an adequate explanation of how it actually creates the experience of life we are all having. It's like explaining a light-bulb's function in terms of flicking a switch rather than in terms of the physical process underlying its luminosity.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14433909 - 05/11/11 08:55 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

here's my essay on freud that's my final exam for my philosophy of religion class if anyone cares to read. btw, the quotes are from "the future of an illusion".

i apologize for being so cagey initially, and i still completely disagree with some of you, but i'm glad it turned into a discussion. good thread.
---------------

Civilizations are organisms; vast, oozing constructs of mythology, politics and prejudice, bred and nurtured in the minds of the citizens who dwell in the comfort of their care. Civilizations are born, they go through phases of growth, maturation and decline, and then they die. In the global community of these non corporeal, eukaryotic titans, there is no greater threat than that of religious fundamentalism. Like ideological cancer, it metastasizes in the collective consciousness and fosters domestic tyranny, war and ultimately complete and total devastation.

Atheism is civilization’s natural response to religious fundamentalism. In an age when rigid, antiquated orthodoxy has, in some instances, completely usurped governmental control, non-belief acts as an information-charged antibody, razing any and all semblances of religiosity. Amongst the western world’s lineage of doctors who have pursued the cure for religious fundamentalism, there is no more compelling argument in favor of the atheist treatment that than of Dr. Sigmund Freud.

In Freud’s “The Future of an Illusion”, civilization and all its machinations are thoroughly examined. For Freud, civilization amounts to the totality of:

Quote:

….the knowledge and capacity that men have acquired in order to control the forces of nature and extract its wealth for the satisfaction of human needs, and on the other hand, all the regulations necessary in order to adjust the relations of men to one another and especially the distribution of the available wealth.




Controlled by the elite, civilization is the necessary framework for imposing order on the human animal, whose unrestrained instincts would otherwise drive them to a frenzy of barbarism. And yet, civilization can only provide so much comfort in the face of the sublimity of nature - a force that “rises up against us, majestic, cruel and inexorable”. According to Freud, when confronted with such terror, the only remedy civilization can produce is a perspective that provides humanity with a sense of consolation via the projection of human traits onto the various phenomena of nature. That being the religious world view. To Freud, religion is the perpetuation of an “infantile prototype”, and by engaging in religious practice, the human animal is doing nothing more than pining for a parental relationship with that which is impersonal, merciless and incomprehensibly powerful. Moreover, with the concept of the immortality of the human soul and the afterlife, Freud asserts that this belief is yet another manifestation of humanity’s innate, familial programming, its craving for justice and tribal superiority.

Quote:

Now that God was a single person, man’s relationship to him could recover the intimacy and intensity of the child’s relation to his father. But if one had so much for one’s father, one wanted to have a reward, or at least to be his only beloved child, his Chosen People.




For Freud, religion is nothing more than wish-fulfillment. Further, these ideas have been so efficiently cultivated by civilization throughout human history that they come “ready-made”, prepared over millennia for the individual to assimilate as easily as mathematical principles.

Quote:

But this presentation of it is itself a part of the religious system, and it entirely ignores the known historical development of these ideas and their differences in different epochs and civilizations.




Purposely obscured by the clergy since its conception, religious belief is thus an illusion that must be discarded in order for humanity to thrive. According to Freud, rationality, education and the pursuit of scientific discovery are the only way to a productive future. Nevertheless, Freud sees the value in the morality of the teachings of religious doctrine, and sees distilling these humanist lessons from their mythical base as a logical step towards progression.

Quote:

Along with their pretended sanctity, these commandments and laws would lose their rigidity and unchangeableness as well. People could understand that they are made, not so much to rule them, as on the contrary, to serve their interests; and they would adopt a more friendly attitude to them, and instead of aiming at their abolition, would aim to only at their improvement.




Additionally, Freud posits that removing the symbolism from these traditions would help humanity understand them on a conceptual level, thus promoting a more docile society.

Quote:

The truths contained in religious doctrine are after all so distorted and systematically disguised that the mass of humanity cannot recognize them as truth. The case is similar to what happens when we tell a child that new-born babies are brought by the stork. Here, too, we are telling the truth in symbolic clothing, for we know what the large bird signifies. But the child does not know it. He hears only the distorted part of what we say, and feels that he has been deceived; and we know how often his distrust of the grown-ups and his refractoriness actually take their start from this impression.




For all intents and purposes, “The Future of an Illusion” could be renamed “The Atheist Manifesto”, as it is a deeply persuasive argument for doing away with belief in the divine while simultaneously advancing the human endeavor. 

However, as Freud’s aim is correct in the desire to cast aside the irrational fear, guilt and alienation that fundamentalism evokes in the modern world of exponentially increasing scientific revelation and social complexity, his ideas are not without their limitations. His criticism seems to stem from a perspective that solely dwells on the shortcomings of literal interpretations of the Abrahamic traditions. And while Freud understands the pedagogical function of religion and wishes to preserve it, he is completely, and ironically, oblivious to the deeper, psychological function it serves.

From the scholarly Christian theology of Thomas Aquinas, written nearly 700 years prior to “The Future of an Illusion”, to the highly intricate symbolism of the monistic traditions of the east, religion is a map of the human experience; an experience that, in spite of centuries of important scientific research into the nature of the reality in which we are all embedded, remains mysterious and ineffable. Humanity has undoubtedly outgrown the teachings the ancients have provided for us regarding the objective world, but as individuals we will always need a way to make sense of our subjective existence, and all the fleeting moments of pleasure and seemingly endless periods of pain it provides, whether it be through scripture or the outright, obstinate denial of scripture’s validity.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14438514 - 05/12/11 03:07 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
I've been waiting for quite a while now for deCypher's definition of "mind" that describes it as being non-physical.




And I've been ignoring your request because the whole point of this debate is to, again, define the mind as physical or non-physical (in other words, support either eliminative materialism or category dualism).  I could make up some arbitrary definition that assumes what I'm demonstrating but that'd be begging the question.  If you really want a definition, though, I'd suggest looking at the definition of psychology as the science of mind and behavior: implicitly in this definition is the separation between the physical (empirically observable behavior including fMRI scans of brain states) and the mental (mind).

Quote:

Poid said:
everything in nature is physical (according to the definition I posted), and the mind is no exception since it is part of nature.




Classic example of begging the question right here.  :nono:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14440314 - 05/12/11 01:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
I've been waiting for quite a while now for deCypher's definition of "mind" that describes it as being non-physical.




And I've been ignoring your request because the whole point of this debate is to, again, define the mind as physical or non-physical (in other words, support either eliminative materialism or category dualism).


The point of this debate is to discover whether or not the mind is physical or non-physical..I already provided a definition to support my position, and you refuse to do the same for some reason (probably because you know your definition is incorrect).


Quote:

deCypher said:
I could make up some arbitrary definition that assumes what I'm demonstrating but that'd be begging the question.


I want an actual dictionary definition.


Quote:

deCypher said:
If you really want a definition, though, I'd suggest looking at the definition of psychology as the science of mind and behavior: implicitly in this definition is the separation between the physical (empirically observable behavior including fMRI scans of brain states) and the mental (mind).


You're arguing semantics..there is no actual separation between the mind, and all other physical phenomena in terms of physicality. Furthermore, psychology does not assert that the mind is non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
everything in nature is physical (according to the definition I posted), and the mind is no exception since it is part of nature.




Classic example of begging the question right here.  :nono:


May you please explain how that is begging the question?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (04/19/12 06:37 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
    #14445338 - 05/13/11 12:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

"begging the question" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

you positing that the mind is physical without being able to prove it, as nobody in this thread has from my estimation (see decypher's unanswered counter points), requires that your assertion must be proven in order for you to have a valid argument.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445344 - 05/13/11 12:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
There is no theory of psychological mechanics.




What do you mean by this?  There are plenty of theories that classify, categorize and quantify aspects of psychology.  They may not be called 'psychological mechanics' but they do exist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
    #14445354 - 05/13/11 12:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
"begging the question" is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

you positing that the mind is physical without being able to prove it, as nobody in this thread has from my estimation...


It has been proven, all things that are natural are physical (according to the definition I posted several times), including the mind. If anything, he is begging the question by positing that the mind is non-physical without being able to prove it, or even providing a definition that will back up his position.


Quote:

millzy said:
(see decypher's unanswered counter points)


I responded to all of deCypher's posts that were directed at me. :shrug:


Quote:

millzy said:
...requires that your assertion must be proven in order for you to have a valid argument.


By definition, the mind is physical.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14445382 - 05/13/11 12:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
The point of this debate is to discover whether or not the mind is physical or non-physical..I already provided a definition to support my position, and you refuse to do the same for some reason (probably because you know your definition is incorrect).




I refuse to do the same because A) if you want a dictionary definition, I'm sure you're capable of opening the dictionary and looking up the word "mind" and because B) like I've previously stated, a dictionary definition does not resolve the problem because the entire issue we're debating is ON whether to define the mind as physical or non-physical.  What you're doing is tantamount to looking in a dictionary to see whether or not God exists.  Not to mention you can't produce a dictionary definition of the mind that states it's physical, even though I wouldn't ask for one.  :rofl:

Quote:

Poid said:
I want an actual dictionary definition.




And lo, the Internet can satisfy your wants: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Quote:

Poid said:
You're arguing semantics..there is no actual separation between the mind, and all other physical phenomena in terms of physicality. Furthermore, psychology does not assert that the mind is non-physical.




What the heck do you mean by "in terms of physicality"?  Again, the very definition of psychology as it's stated in any Psych 101 textbook clearly delineates between empirically observable, physical behavior and mental states.  The two do NOT fall into the same category.  I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
everything in nature is physical (according to the definition I posted), and the mind is no exception since it is part of nature.




Classic example of begging the question right here.  :nono:


May you please explain how that is begging the question?




You're assuming that everything in reality is physical: in other words, you're assuming that the mind and everything else is physical.  Using this, you're claiming that the mind is physical.  You're assuming what you're trying to prove... textbook case of begging the question.  :wink:

Quote:

Poid said:
If anything, he is begging the question by positing that the mind is non-physical without being able to prove it, or even providing a definition that will back up his position.




:lol: have you been reading my posts at all?  My argument that the mind is non-physical based on the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate a single physical property that it possesses has remained undefeated.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14445392 - 05/13/11 12:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
I'd suggest looking at the definition of psychology as the science of mind and behavior: implicitly in this definition is the separation between the physical (empirically observable behavior including fMRI scans of brain states) and the mental (mind).






Why are you choosing to define the brain states as physical and the mind as non-physical?  I have to say, I cant help but find your arguments here to be somewhat ad-hoc with a bent towards justifying mysticism.  I dont think that whether something is defined as 'physical' is really relevant at all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445399 - 05/13/11 12:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I don't see how a categorization of the world between that which is empirically observable and that which is not isn't relevant or useful.  :confused:

Heck, if you really want to dispute relevancy then you'd probably want to throw out half of philosophy.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14445417 - 05/13/11 01:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well, you're right I probably would throw out half of philosophy as irrelevant...

So you are basically just equating physical to empirically observable?  Seems weird to me, but I think the mind is empirically observable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445444 - 05/13/11 01:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Tchan909 said:
There is no theory of psychological mechanics.




What do you mean by this?  There are plenty of theories that classify, categorize and quantify aspects of psychology.  They may not be called 'psychological mechanics' but they do exist.




The descriptions of mental activity we can form using the verbiage of psychology deal with approximations of phenomena which are beyond our capacity for measurement. This is what makes it a "soft science" - there is no methodology for direct measurement of psychological phenomena. Hell, we don't even know what we'd be measuring. Even if we could somehow measure the neurotransmitter levels of a living person, I suspect we still would not have sufficient data to make accurate predictions of emotional state etc. considering differences in brain architecture, not to mention the sheer volume of unclassified neurotransmitters and receptors.

We can also measure electrical activity in a person's brain and draw a tentative conclusion about their mental activity, but this is a sketchy, incomplete picture. In practical application, such as with a lie detector, we get unreliable answers to the simplest possible questions.

The theory of physics can only go so far in explaining cognitive activity before it runs into walls, hence the spectre of Cartesian dualism looms even now over our best theories. I wouldn't be surprised if a theory of psychological mechanics existed someday, but for now the technology and data are simply not there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445479 - 05/13/11 01:17 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I think you are giving far too much credit to the 'hard sciences' here.  All things measured by science are ultimately unknown and only relate to other measurements.  All theories are approximations of phenomenon where the true reality is beyond our ability to measure and conceptualize.

All the caveats you are mentioning with respect to psychology also apply to biology, chemistry and physics.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14445480 - 05/13/11 01:17 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
The point of this debate is to discover whether or not the mind is physical or non-physical..I already provided a definition to support my position, and you refuse to do the same for some reason (probably because you know your definition is incorrect).




I refuse to do the same because A) if you want a dictionary definition, I'm sure you're capable of opening the dictionary and looking up the word "mind"...


It's not defined as being non-physical in the dictionary.


Quote:

deCypher said:
...and because B) like I've previously stated, a dictionary definition does not resolve the problem because the entire issue we're debating is ON whether to define the mind as physical or non-physical.


It's already defined as being physical, the only one trying to "change" the definition here is you.


Quote:

deCypher said:
What you're doing is tantamount to looking in a dictionary to see whether or not God exists.


He is not defined as objectively existing in the dictionary. :shrug:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Not to mention you can't produce a dictionary definition of the mind that states it's physical, even though I wouldn't ask for one.  :rofl:


Well I posted Wikipedia's definition of physics many times, and according to it, the mind and every other natural phenomenon is physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
I want an actual dictionary definition.




And lo, the Internet can satisfy your wants: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Quote:

Poid said:
You're arguing semantics..there is no actual separation between the mind, and all other physical phenomena in terms of physicality. Furthermore, psychology does not assert that the mind is non-physical.




What the heck do you mean by "in terms of physicality"?


In terms of whether or not they're physical..what I'm trying to say is that both the mind and all other physical phenomena are physical, and there is no sort of separation between the two that somehow makes the mind non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Again, the very definition of psychology as it's stated in any Psych 101 textbook clearly delineates between empirically observable, physical behavior and mental states.  The two do NOT fall into the same category.  I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend.


It's not that I don't comprehend that, in fact I comprehend it quite well. I just don't agree that this arbitrary delineation indicates that the mind is intrinsically non-physical, I think it's there in order to prevent the two from being mixed up..we make a distinction between our experience/perception (the mind) and the phenomena we perceive (physical phenomenon) out of mere convenience.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
everything in nature is physical (according to the definition I posted), and the mind is no exception since it is part of nature.




Classic example of begging the question right here.  :nono:


May you please explain how that is begging the question?




You're assuming that everything in reality is physical: in other words, you're assuming that the mind and everything else is physical.


That's not a mere assumption...according to the definition I posted earlier, every natural phenomenon is physical. Since the mind is natural, it is physical; where is my assumption here? :undecided:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
If anything, he is begging the question by positing that the mind is non-physical without being able to prove it, or even providing a definition that will back up his position.




:lol: have you been reading my posts at all?  My argument that the mind is non-physical based on the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate a single physical property that it possesses has remained undefeated.


No one has to be able to demonstrate a physical property that it possesses in order for it to be physical..it's natural, so it's physical (according to the definition I posted several times).


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445512 - 05/13/11 01:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well, I call psychology a "soft science" because it seems to be separated by a degree from the phenomena it describes and predicts. Physical concepts can be tested through direct measurements of mass, velocity, time, et cetera, but we have no equivalent empirical tools for theorizing anxiety and depression in the mind of the patient. We resort to sketchy intuitive interpretations in the absence of harder data. IMO problems like Cartesian dualism and free will are totally epistemological and not "real" per se.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid] * 1
    #14445529 - 05/13/11 01:26 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
It has been proven




to quote my psychology text book, "the mind is what the brain does" (neuroscientist marvin minsky 1986). biological processes precede conscious function, so the brain and the mind are inextricably linked. (i know someone accused me of positing that the mind and body are completely separate so i figured i'd clear that up.) in any case,  cognitive neuroscience cannot offer any explanation as to how consciousness arises nor what exactly it is. you would be hard pressed to find anyone with extensive education on the subject who would assert that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. the general definition of it in psychology is that it is "our awareness of ourselves and our environment." in no way can that be a concrete structure that exists in tangible reality.

further, i think there's been some confusion on how the term metaphysics has been interpreted by the materialist bunch. personally speaking, when i speak of metaphysics, i'm not referring to any sort of supernatural phenomena. i'm giving a name to that which is intangible, much how we have given a name to what the brain does, that being "the mind". in this sense, psychology is entirely based on metaphysical principles. this is why we have several models for how memory works, for example. and to go back to my original point, if the mind exists in physical reality, where are your memories poid?

you're just wrong on this particular subject. there isn't any other way around it. it's not a difference of perspective, it's that you're wrong.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445553 - 05/13/11 01:31 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
Well, I call psychology a "soft science" because it seems to be separated by a degree from the phenomena it describes and predicts. Physical concepts can be tested through direct measurements of mass, velocity, time, et cetera, but we have no equivalent empirical tools for theorizing anxiety and depression in the mind of the patient. We resort to sketchy intuitive interpretations in the absence of harder data. IMO problems like Cartesian dualism and free will are totally epistemological and not "real" per se.




psychology is a soft science because it deals with the intangible, but hypothesis regarding the mind can be tested, reproduced, reformulated and disproven if neccessary.

cartesian dualism is a very outdated, thoroughly refuted concept. i love reading descarte. his prose is like shakespeare. but he just kind of laid the ground work like all of the other enlightenment period thinkers.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
    #14445575 - 05/13/11 01:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
you would be hard pressed to find anyone with extensive education on the subject who would assert that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.


This is an appeal to authority.


Quote:

millzy said:
the general definition of it in psychology is that it is "our awareness of ourselves and our environment." in no way can that be a concrete structure that exists in tangible reality.


No explanation is given here as to why our awareness of ourselves and our environment can in no way be a concrete structure that exists in tangible reality. Also, not every physical phenomenon is a concrete structure..consciousness doesn't have to be a concrete structure in order to be physical.


Quote:

millzy said:
and to go back to my original point, if the mind exists in physical reality, where are your memories poid?


They are stored in my brain.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (04/19/12 06:42 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445579 - 05/13/11 01:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Well, you're right I probably would throw out half of philosophy as irrelevant...

So you are basically just equating physical to empirically observable?  Seems weird to me, but I think the mind is empirically observable.




1. how would you define philosophy?

2. why do you feel it's irrelevant?


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
    #14445583 - 05/13/11 01:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Mistaken conceptions of duality remain rampant, though. Cartesian dualism is only an illustration of the problems we encounter when trying to make new information conform to the frameworks of outdated theory.

:2cents:

I think that psychology is probably a hard science "in the making." Though as I'm typing this I suddenly begin to wonder - what parallels could we draw between it and quantum mechanics, being that they both require statistical analysis to test their hypotheses?


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance] * 1
    #14445599 - 05/13/11 01:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
Well, I call psychology a "soft science" because it seems to be separated by a degree from the phenomena it describes and predicts. Physical concepts can be tested through direct measurements of mass, velocity, time, et cetera, but we have no equivalent empirical tools for theorizing anxiety and depression in the mind of the patient. We resort to sketchy intuitive interpretations in the absence of harder data. IMO problems like Cartesian dualism and free will are totally epistemological and not "real" per se.




So hard vs soft science, and hence physical vs non-physical phenomenon, are merely a function of how accurate our descriptive and predictive models are?  And that cut-off point is arbitrarily set somewhere in between the ability of psychology and the ability of physics?  Seems silly to make such a distinction to me.  I prefer to think of a continuum of our ability to model and predict phenomenon.  Whether or not such a phenomenon is 'physical' is a useless, arbitrary distinction.  Some phenomenon are described well, some are described not so well - but all are observed and hence all are empirical.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445610 - 05/13/11 01:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I agree that the hard and soft sciences are on a continuum. I don't think there is any "cut-off" point but only characteristics which mark the distinction. Perhaps I misspoke when I said "this is why psychology is a soft science."


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445617 - 05/13/11 01:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

In this thread my only real point is that attempts made by reductionists to "physicalize" psychology, and by doing so to shoot down certain philosophical premises, are premature.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance] * 1
    #14445648 - 05/13/11 01:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

So the invention of a physical/nonphysical dichotomy is there simply to substantiate preconceived philosophical beliefs?  Ha, I agree - that is why it's bullshit.  It's ad-hoc and self serving.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445661 - 05/13/11 01:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
So the invention of a physical/nonphysical dichotomy is there simply to substantiate preconceived philosophical beliefs?  Ha, I agree - that is why it's bullshit.  It's ad-hoc and self serving.




I don't think judgments like those are useful to understanding the problem. We live with epistemological problems of self and other and of free will, and our differing solutions to those problems have driven us apart as a species.

Age of Aquarius indeed.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14445667 - 05/13/11 01:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14445711 - 05/13/11 02:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

If I say, "I like grapes," would you be able to run tests on my brain which conclusively demonstrate HOW I like grapes, and then to examine the brains of others to determine if they like grapes also? The simplest and most concise explanation for why I keep sucking down the fruit of the vine is "I like grapes." And what is "I"? That's a whole other question for which psychology has many self-contradictory theoretical answers and neuroscience has no concrete answer.

This is the danger of dualism - in summarily dismissing it or embracing it. We don't have the epistemological tools to correctly do either.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445727 - 05/13/11 02:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I pretty much agree..however, since the mind is natural, and every natural phenomenon is physical, the mind is physical.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14445760 - 05/13/11 02:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Of course it's physical. By definition it's physical.

My caveat is that it may not be useful to understand the mind as physical, because it's moated-off by countless X-factors from the exacting measurements that physical sciences use. The brain is a fatty, squishy mystery.

To understand the mind only as a physical phenomenon, with currently-available data and technology, involves a degree of reductionism that could result in catastrophic errors and misjudgments. Our buddy Hitler, the ultimate dirty-word of reasoned debate in level voices, applied the theory of evolution in a premature, reductionist way that failed to ensure his fitness against the allies. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most if not all problems with current human affairs involve a similar practice of reductionism applied to the mind.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445780 - 05/13/11 02:17 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

What kinds of errors and misjudgments do you foresee if we understand the mind only as a physical phenomenon?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14445808 - 05/13/11 02:24 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Fundamentalist scientism fomented by the summary rejection of supernatural concepts.

Fundamentalist religion fomented by the premature dismissal, by the secular community, of very real physical processes within the brain which are poorly-characterized and misunderstood by science but better manipulated by ancient systems of social control.

That kind of talk is controversial and has on countless occasions embroiled us in an epistemological cul-de-sac, but another, more obviously tangible example is of iatrogenic disease caused by weak diagnostic tools. How many tweakers do you know who got started with ritalin? Because I know a bunch. (And don't take this as an anti-psychopharmaceutical diatribe, because I use ritalin responsibly and love it.)


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Edited by Tchan909 (05/13/11 03:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445813 - 05/13/11 02:26 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

So, keeping it scientific can somehow turn into mysticism through some unknown process?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #14445819 - 05/13/11 02:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I prefer to think that keeping it mystical can turn into science through the process of record-keeping. :thumbup:


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445827 - 05/13/11 02:28 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

By the way, happy birthday!


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445858 - 05/13/11 02:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Hmmm, can you maybe exemplify what it is that you're talking about? It seems that you said that, keeping record of the most subjective experiences, without actually materially measuring them, can, at one point, turn into science, as in something objectively perceived? How would that happen?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14445863 - 05/13/11 02:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
By the way, happy birthday!




Thanks! :smile:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #14445871 - 05/13/11 02:39 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Yeah, happy birthday! :smile2:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid] * 1
    #14445883 - 05/13/11 02:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Thanks, Poid! :bongload:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #14446015 - 05/13/11 03:12 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
Hmmm, can you maybe exemplify what it is that you're talking about? It seems that you said that, keeping record of the most subjective experiences, without actually materially measuring them, can, at one point, turn into science, as in something objectively perceived? How would that happen?




I'm saying that the physical sciences emerged from the mystical sciences through the rigorous practice of record-keeping. Astrology, alchemy, theology, and theoretical mathematics interhybridize to become astronomy, chemistry, psychology, and physics. All of this is made possible through open record-keeping and interdisciplinary communication.

Physical sciences are a mystical art in themselves - has anyone ever seen an electron up close? For a long time it was an imaginary particle there to help us describe and predict physical phenomena. Only more recently have we conclusively determined that it is, in fact, a "real thing." I know when I was a kid in school, chemistry classes described electrons differently than they do now, because we have discovered in the intervening period that electrons are better represented as "clouds" than as little discrete balls orbiting the nucleus. That doesn't invalidate the discoveries that were made using the older model, but it does (IMO) point to the idea that science is every bit as much a creative process as is any form of mysticism.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Edited by Tchan909 (05/13/11 03:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: millzy]
    #14446204 - 05/13/11 03:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
By the way, happy birthday MushroomTrip!




Quote:

DieCommie said:
So you are basically just equating physical to empirically observable?  Seems weird to me, but I think the mind is empirically observable.




Not directly, which is the crucial distinction.  We can look at an fMRI scan of someone's brain and see neurons firing, but we can't observe the person's mental feeling of pain... only they can experience that.

And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical.  Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.  Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.  :wink:

Quote:

millzy said:
in any case,  cognitive neuroscience cannot offer any explanation as to how consciousness arises nor what exactly it is. you would be hard pressed to find anyone with extensive education on the subject who would assert that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.




Bingo.  :thumbup:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Edited by deCypher (05/13/11 03:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14446256 - 05/13/11 03:59 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
So you are basically just equating physical to empirically observable?  Seems weird to me, but I think the mind is empirically observable.




Not directly, which is the crucial distinction.  We can look at an fMRI scan of someone's brain and see neurons firing, but we can't observe the person's mental feeling of pain... only they can experience that.





You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain?  Sure you can, everybody can.  Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.  That is an empirical observation of the phenomenon of the mind known as pain.  In the same sense, an MRI scan is an empirical observation of different phenomenon.


I think you are making the same mistake that Tchan is making - you are giving to much credit to neuroscience and the hard sciences. 

You dont need to actually experience something to observe it.  Not in the case of the mind, and not in the case of the brain.



Quote:

cognitive neuroscience cannot offer any explanation as to how consciousness arises nor what exactly it is.




The same is true for the basic constituents of absolutely everything investigated by science.  Consciousness is no different from a photon in this regard.  They are each described by a set of observations, but of course we can never know how it fundamentally arises nor can we know what exactly it is.  In the end, 'what exactly something is' is merely the sum of many observations.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446264 - 05/13/11 04:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain?  Sure you can, everybody can.  Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.




And in those examples you'd be observing their facial expression, body language, and listening to what they tell you, which are responses TO the pain and not the feeling of pain itself.  Again, we cannot directly observe the feeling of pain.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446272 - 05/13/11 04:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I think this is the first time someone on PS&S has EVER accused me of giving too much credit to the hard sciences :rofl:

There's nothing empirical about making an assessment of how much pain somebody is by observing their reflexes. Different people have different pain tolerances. That's something you can't measure BTW, you can only account for it statistically.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14446297 - 05/13/11 04:04 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain?  Sure you can, everybody can.  Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.




And in those examples you'd be observing their facial expression, body language, and listening to what they tell you, which are responses TO the pain and not the feeling of pain itself.  Again, we cannot directly observe the feeling of pain.




So what?  You dont need to directly observe it to empirically observe it and quantify it.  What do you claim we can directly observe?  Nothing.  All things are inferred in this manner.  That is how all science works.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14446306 - 05/13/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
I think this is the first time someone on PS&S has EVER accused me of giving too much credit to the hard sciences :rofl:

There's nothing empirical about making an assessment of how much pain somebody is by observing their reflexes. Different people have different pain tolerances. That's something you can't measure BTW, you can only account for it statistically.





Of course such an assessment is empirical.  Thats what empirical means - its information you gain by observing.  Facial expressions are empirical observations, reflexes are another and self reporting is yet another.  You can measure all of those observations in many ways, however you see fit.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14446308 - 05/13/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical.  Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.


It's up to you to show me why you believe that definition doesn't support the assertion that everything in reality is physical; providing a definition of your own will suffice. :smile:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.  :wink:


It exists, just like every other physical property; it's possible that it has some physical properties that have yet to be discovered.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446322 - 05/13/11 04:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Do you have some way of empirically determining whether these posts were constructed within my mind or within the circuitry of a supercomputer?
Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Tchan909 said:
I think this is the first time someone on PS&S has EVER accused me of giving too much credit to the hard sciences :rofl:

There's nothing empirical about making an assessment of how much pain somebody is by observing their reflexes. Different people have different pain tolerances. That's something you can't measure BTW, you can only account for it statistically.





Of course such an assessment is empirical.  Thats what empirical means - its information you gain by observing.  Facial expressions are empirical observations, reflexes are another and self reporting is yet another.  You can measure all of those observations in many ways, however you see fit.




This still hearkens back to the point I made using the lie detector. You can show empirically that certain neurological activity is associated with lying, but the lie detector is not 100% accurate and furthermore the question of whether somebody is lying or not is a much simpler one to answer than, "What is the subjective experience of the color green?" or something along those lines.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14446340 - 05/13/11 04:13 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Do you have some way of empirically determining whether these posts were constructed within my mind or within the circuitry of a supercomputer?




I could easily come up with a model that I can plug observations into and get a prediction.  What of it?


Quote:

This still hearkens back to the point I made using the lie detector. You can show empirically that certain neurological activity is associated with lying, but the lie detector is not 100% accurate and furthermore the question of whether somebody is lying or not is a much simpler one to answer than, "What is the subjective experience of the color green?" or something along those lines.




What point are you making here?  Simply that psychological models and theories have less accuracy than models and theories in physics?  You do realize that neither are ever 100% right?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14446345 - 05/13/11 04:13 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

DieCommie said:
You cant observe a person's mental feeling of pain?  Sure you can, everybody can.  Its as easy as looking at their facial expression, body language and listening to what they tell you.




And in those examples you'd be observing their facial expression, body language, and listening to what they tell you, which are responses TO the pain and not the feeling of pain itself.  Again, we cannot directly observe the feeling of pain.




So what?  You dont need to directly observe it to empirically observe it and quantify it.  What do you claim we can directly observe?  Nothing.  All things are inferred in this manner.  That is how all science works.




I'm using directly synonymously with empirically here: I can directly observe a car crossing the street in front of me.  I can directly observe someone's moaning on the ground after getting hit, leading me to infer that they are in pain.  I cannot directly observe their feeling of pain.  It's a pretty simple distinction, really.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical.  Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.


It's up to you to show me why you believe that definition doesn't support the assertion that everything in reality is physical; providing a definition of your own will suffice. :smile:




You're referring to the definition "Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves", right?  Nowhere in this do I see support for the idea that everything in reality is physical.  Nature and the universe in the sense that that sentence uses them are referring to everything physical; nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.  :wink:


It exists, just like every other physical property; it's possible that it has some physical properties that have yet to be discovered.




It's possible that God exists too... based on the available evidence I conclude that God does not and that the mind has no physical properties.  :smirk:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446371 - 05/13/11 04:18 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to deflate your reductionism. What we don't know about the mind far outweighs what we do know. We have no way to comprehensively explain how the mind and the brain are related without invoking assumptions, subjective descriptions, and other unempirical concepts.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14446384 - 05/13/11 04:20 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I'm using directly synonymously with empirically here: I can directly observe a car crossing the street in front of me.  I can directly observe someone's moaning on the ground after getting hit, leading me to infer that they are in pain.  I cannot directly observe their feeling of pain.  It's a pretty simple distinction, really




That is a simple distinction, but I believe you made up. 

When you think you are observing somebody on the ground, you are really just observing a pattern of colors and sounds that you then infer that they relate to a person on the ground.  You cannot directly observe them on the ground, you have to infer it.  All scientific observations are done this way - all of them.

Furthermore, empirically is not synonymous with directly.  Empirically is synonymous with observed externally.  Observing somebody on the ground moaning leads to me infer that they are in pain.  That is an empirical observation with an inference, and that is how all 'physical' things are observed.


Edited by DieCommie (05/13/11 04:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14446411 - 05/13/11 04:24 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to deflate your reductionism. What we don't know about the mind far outweighs what we do know. We have no way to comprehensively explain how the mind and the brain are related without invoking assumptions, subjective descriptions, and other unempirical concepts.




Im not a reductionist, nor am I advocating it.  I think you are misusing the term here.  I never claimed that the mind can be reduced to its basic constituents.  I claim that it can be empirically observed and is thus physical.  The fact that we cannot comprehensively explain how the mind relates to the brain is irrelevant to the fact that we can empirical observe it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14446436 - 05/13/11 04:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
And Poid, your entire conjecture rests on the assertion that everything in reality is physical.  Please support this; a Wikipedia definition of physics certainly does not.


It's up to you to show me why you believe that definition doesn't support the assertion that everything in reality is physical; providing a definition of your own will suffice. :smile:




You're referring to the definition "Physics is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves", right?  Nowhere in this do I see support for the idea that everything in reality is physical.  Nature and the universe in the sense that that sentence uses them are referring to everything physical...


How do you know that? So basically, you're saying that physics is the general analysis of everything physical, conducted in order to understand how everything physical behaves? :what:


Quote:

deCypher said:
...nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.


If physics is the study of how the universe/nature behaves, and if the mind is part of nature, then the mind is physical..I never claimed that that definition says something about the existence or non-existence of something physical, I claimed that, according to it, the mind is physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Not to mention that if something is physical then it must possess physical properties; none of which the mind/thoughts/feelings/qualia possess.  :wink:


It exists, just like every other physical property; it's possible that it has some physical properties that have yet to be discovered.




It's possible that God exists too... based on the available evidence I conclude that God does not and that the mind has no physical properties.  :smirk:


By available evidence, you're referring to your comment that no physical property has been found to exist in the mind, right?

How do you know that our minds do not have a location (a physical property)? Color is a physical property, are you saying that visual perceptions (a type of qualia) don't have the property of color?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446441 - 05/13/11 04:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Understood. I think I made an incorrect assumption about your premise based on an older debate we'd had.

I agree that the mind is empirically observable, but to describe the mind using only empirical data is (at this point in time) like making a 50x50 pixel reproduction of the Mona Lisa.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14446471 - 05/13/11 04:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
Understood. I think I made an incorrect assumption about your premise based on an older debate we'd had.

I agree that the mind is empirically observable, but to describe the mind using only empirical data is (at this point in time) like making a 50x50 pixel reproduction of the Mona Lisa.





Nobody claims that science produces perfect models.  This is why I accused you of putting too much faith in the hard sciences... Its as though you think hard sciences are able to perfectly reproduce the
'mona lisa'.  They are not.  We are not even privy to the truth of the mona lisa, so we can never even know how close our models are to reproducing it.  It doesn't matter if we are modeling an electron, an acidic solution, a predator/prey relationship or individual thoughts.  They are all observed empirically and modeled as well as we can.

(I still dont like the use of the word 'physical' in this context, and have resorted to using it interchangeably with empirical in lieu of a more clear cut definition.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446488 - 05/13/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Fair!

I think the framework of discussion created by this thread has brought us into an imagined state of mutual opposition. :lol:


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14446926 - 05/13/11 06:07 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
you're saying that physics is the general analysis of everything physical, conducted in order to understand how everything physical behaves? :what:




Precisely... that's why it's called physics.  :lol:  If you want to study something that is non-physical or beyond the physical, you must look elsewhere: metaphysics, for example.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
...nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.


If physics is the study of how the universe/nature behaves, and if the mind is part of nature, then the mind is physical.




Physics is the study of the physical Universe... since we're debating whether or not the mind is physical then you cannot (well, should not :tongue:) beg the question by assuming that the mind is in the physical Universe/Nature.  :nono:

Quote:

Poid said:
How do you know that our minds do not have a location (a physical property)? Color is a physical property, are you saying that visual perceptions (a type of qualia) don't have the property of color?




I'd say minds do not have a location; brains do but it doesn't make sense IMO to talk about a mind that is 3 ft by whatever dimension, for example.  As far as visual perceptions go, we say that the object we are seeing has the property of being red or green, not the visual perception itself.

Quote:

DieCommie said:
When you think you are observing somebody on the ground, you are really just observing a pattern of colors and sounds that you then infer that they relate to a person on the ground.  You cannot directly observe them on the ground, you have to infer it.  All scientific observations are done this way - all of them.




I'm aware of this, and technically you are correct.  I was using direct observation in an informal way, similar to how the layman will say that he sees a car in front of him rather than the more precise statement that he is experiencing a regular series of sights and sounds that leads him to infer that there is a car in front of him.  I probably should not have used the words in such an imprecise fashion.

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Furthermore, empirically is not synonymous with directly.  Empirically is synonymous with observed externally.  Observing somebody on the ground moaning leads to me infer that they are in pain.  That is an empirical observation with an inference, and that is how all 'physical' things are observed.




You're right... my terminology was muddled.  But it still boggles my mind to conceive of thoughts/feelings/the mind as being physical: they do not behave like physical matter because they cannot be broken down into component particles and they do not behave like physical energy because they do not attract or repulse other objects.  I can possibly see some motivation to call the mind physical out of a wish for sheer ontological simplicity, but they behave so differently from any other physical thing we know that IMO they need another linguistic category to contain them.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14447049 - 05/13/11 06:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

.


Edited by DieCommie (11/15/16 11:28 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14447068 - 05/13/11 06:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I think my writing is too dense.  :doh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14447070 - 05/13/11 06:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well, I think that the relationship between the mind and the brain is what's most relevant... but in order to get at this relationship it helps to understand the properties of both, including physicality IMO.  The question itself is anything but moot in contemporary Philosophy of Mind classes.  :shrug:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14447081 - 05/13/11 06:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I think my writing is too dense.  :doh:




It's a war you never really win. :argh:


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemushiepussy
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc: Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #14447203 - 05/13/11 07:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

DC, exactly what parts of the mind do you consider non-physical?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: mushiepussy]
    #14447335 - 05/13/11 07:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

All of it: thoughts, feelings, qualia, etcetera...  If the term non-physical has too many mystical connotations for your liking then substitute 'mental'.  :shrug:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14457577 - 05/15/11 05:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
you're saying that physics is the general analysis of everything physical, conducted in order to understand how everything physical behaves? :what:




Precisely... that's why it's called physics.  :lol:


So you're defining everything physical as everything physical? Brilliant. :tongue:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
...nothing is said about the existence or non-existence of anything non-physical.


If physics is the study of how the universe/nature behaves, and if the mind is part of nature, then the mind is physical.




Physics is the study of the physical Universe...


It is the study of nature.


Quote:

deCypher said:
...since we're debating whether or not the mind is physical then you cannot (well, should not :tongue:) beg the question by assuming that the mind is in the physical Universe/Nature.  :nono:


It's defined as being in the universe/nature; this is not a mere assumption.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
How do you know that our minds do not have a location (a physical property)? Color is a physical property, are you saying that visual perceptions (a type of qualia) don't have the property of color?




I'd say minds do not have a location; brains do but it doesn't make sense IMO to talk about a mind that is 3 ft by whatever dimension, for example.


So if I'm in a closet, would it be safe to say that my mind is also in that same closet? If not, then why? 


Quote:

deCypher said:
As far as visual perceptions go, we say that the object we are seeing has the property of being red or green, not the visual perception itself.


Why can't we say both the object we are seeing, and our visual perception of it is either red or green?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
    #14461187 - 05/16/11 09:17 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
So you're defining everything physical as everything physical? Brilliant. :tongue:




No; if you read more carefully you'd see that all I'm saying is that physics is the study of everything physical, just like psychology is the study of everything psychological.  If you want to study something that is not physical or "beyond" the physical, you must seek your answers in the field of metaphysics (literally "beyond physics") rather than in physics.

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Physics is the study of the physical Universe...


It is the study of nature.




Sure, if you're defining nature as everything physical.  :shrug:

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
...since we're debating whether or not the mind is physical then you cannot (well, should not :tongue:) beg the question by assuming that the mind is in the physical Universe/Nature.  :nono:


It's defined as being in the universe/nature; this is not a mere assumption.




Please state and source your definition of the mind that explicitly mentions it being within the physical universe/nature.  And even IF you can find a definition that satisfies this criteria, you're still fallaciously begging the question.  Wow, you proved that the mind is physical because you're defining the mind as being physical?  What fantastic logic!  :lol::rolleyes:

Quote:

Poid said:
So if I'm in a closet, would it be safe to say that my mind is also in that same closet? If not, then why?




How would you demonstrate that your mind is also in the closet?  (Insert gay joke here.  :tongue:)  Can you see the length, breadth or width of your mind?  Can you bounce a photon off it and measure the time it takes for it to reflect back to you? 

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
As far as visual perceptions go, we say that the object we are seeing has the property of being red or green, not the visual perception itself.


Why can't we say both the object we are seeing, and our visual perception of it is either red or green?




Hmmm... perhaps we can.  But this would mean that even possessing (some) physical properties would not necessarily mean that something is physical: suppose we observe a table while dreaming.  It appears consistent to our perceptions in that we can repeatably measure its size, color, density (by rapping on it with our knuckles), etcetera.  But we don't say that the table in question has physical existence!


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14461960 - 05/16/11 12:51 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Physics is the study of the physical Universe...


It is the study of nature.




Sure, if you're defining nature as everything physical.  :shrug:


That's how Wikipedia defines it. :shrug:


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
...since we're debating whether or not the mind is physical then you cannot (well, should not :tongue:) beg the question by assuming that the mind is in the physical Universe/Nature.  :nono:


It's defined as being in the universe/nature; this is not a mere assumption.




Please state and source your definition of the mind that explicitly mentions it being within the physical universe/nature.


The definition of 'physics' that I posted defines all natural phenomena as being physical; the mind is a natural phenomenon.

Also, the burden of proof is on you..you're the one who made the original claim that the mind is non-physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Wow, you proved that the mind is physical because you're defining the mind as being physical?  What fantastic logic!  :lol::rolleyes:


I don't see anything wrong with that logic, and it's not just me who defines the mind as being physical.


Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
So if I'm in a closet, would it be safe to say that my mind is also in that same closet? If not, then why?




How would you demonstrate that your mind is also in the closet?  (Insert gay joke here.  :tongue:)  Can you see the length, breadth or width of your mind?  Can you bounce a photon off it and measure the time it takes for it to reflect back to you?


I guess I can agree with you here..my mind doesn't seem to have spatial qualities.
 

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
As far as visual perceptions go, we say that the object we are seeing has the property of being red or green, not the visual perception itself.


Why can't we say both the object we are seeing, and our visual perception of it is either red or green?




Hmmm... perhaps we can.  But this would mean that even possessing (some) physical properties would not necessarily mean that something is physical: suppose we observe a table while dreaming.  It appears consistent to our perceptions in that we can repeatably measure its size, color, density (by rapping on it with our knuckles), etcetera.  But we don't say that the table in question has physical existence!


That's a tricky one...:strokebeard:

I would think that the table in the dream must be physical if it possesses physical qualities..can you name any other phenomenon that has physical qualities and isn't physical IYO?


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Edited by Poid (04/19/12 06:55 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
    #14461979 - 05/16/11 12:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Poid said:
So you're defining everything physical as everything physical? Brilliant. :tongue:




No; if you read more carefully you'd see that all I'm saying is that physics is the study of everything physical, just like psychology is the study of everything psychological.  If you want to study something that is not physical or "beyond" the physical, you must seek your answers in the field of metaphysics (literally "beyond physics") rather than in physics.






With respect to this new definition, a living cell isnt even physical.  ??  Im consistently confused by your definition of physical.  It seems to go from being some fundamental philosophical thing, to a minor arbitrary category and back again.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: DieCommie]
    #14462587 - 05/16/11 03:05 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Why can't we say both the object we are seeing, and our visual perception of it is either red or green?





because it wouldn't be a true statement. objects that we perceive as having certain colors reflect back only those colors that they aren't able to absorb in our visible spectrum. so the statement of "the ball is red" is in all actuality untrue, as it only appears red to most human nervous systems (some people are color blind). perception is the constant mental process in which the various lobes of the brain filter elements of the infinitely complex field of data that we are all awash in in order to construct an environment that allows us to optimally function.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Understanding Points of View
( 1 2 all )
Axiom420 2,163 26 10/03/02 06:48 PM
by buttonion
* I want you guys to understand Christian Judgment
( 1 2 3 4 all )
World Spirit 4,363 65 05/05/03 09:33 PM
by CosmicJoke
* Some Christians and the Atheist
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Swami 14,260 119 07/31/02 07:19 AM
by Sclorch
* When will you all understand? There is no god!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 )
Fliquid 21,699 263 09/22/11 10:30 AM
by Cactilove
* the Muslim and the Atheist Zahid 1,247 9 07/26/02 02:13 PM
by Anonymous
* Are Atheists __________? Indeed, they are.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
World Spirit 13,627 190 12/20/02 08:13 PM
by RebelSteve33
* My view on religion . . . djd586 636 4 04/16/03 05:38 PM
by SlapnutRob
* questions for the atheist.
( 1 2 all )
whiterastahippie 4,755 36 08/01/02 05:01 AM
by MAIA

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,952 topic views. 0 members, 14 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.113 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 14 queries.