|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
#14429430 - 05/10/11 11:38 AM (12 years, 9 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.
 
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14429476 - 05/10/11 11:51 AM (12 years, 9 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. 
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 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)
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
#14429507 - 05/10/11 12:00 PM (12 years, 9 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.
 
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
#14429526 - 05/10/11 12:04 PM (12 years, 9 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. 
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: Also, the thing about "flying pigs being real" is a 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.
 
|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14429565 - 05/10/11 12:13 PM (12 years, 9 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. 
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.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: NetDiver]
#14429623 - 05/10/11 12:25 PM (12 years, 9 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. 
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.
 
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14429667 - 05/10/11 12:36 PM (12 years, 9 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.
 
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14430256 - 05/10/11 03:09 PM (12 years, 9 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. 
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. 
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. 
Can you at least see color in closed-eye-visuals while tripping on 'shrooms?
-------------------- 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.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
#14430483 - 05/10/11 03:46 PM (12 years, 9 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. 
Can you at least see color in closed-eye-visuals while tripping on 'shrooms? 
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.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14430528 - 05/10/11 03:54 PM (12 years, 9 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. 
Can you at least see color in closed-eye-visuals while tripping on 'shrooms? 
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. 
Damn, well at least you're not fully colorblind. 
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.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


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, 9 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.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher] 1
#14430536 - 05/10/11 03:56 PM (12 years, 9 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.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: Poid]
#14430538 - 05/10/11 03:56 PM (12 years, 9 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? 
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.
 
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: for purposes of clarification: [Re: deCypher]
#14430571 - 05/10/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 9 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? 
Sorry, I read what you said incorrectly..I thought you said the point of this debate is to define the mind as non-physical. 
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.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
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.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


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, 9 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.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
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)
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
|
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
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!


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, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Probably because there is no explanation in physics for personal experience.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Huh? What is probably because of that?
-------------------- 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.
|
|