Icelander said:

backfromthedead said:

Icelander said:

We're too smart to believe in God over here.



Which planet would that be?

---

The one obsessed with BULLSHIT stories.

---

That might be all of them.

---

A pattern to be reckoned with, for sure.

Veritas said:

Senor_Hongos said:

It is possible, I would say even likely, that the concepts are not being learned at that point, the word signifying the concept is being learned.  The reason I say this is because universals as sense perceptions, particularly visual, are identified by other animals without using words.  Birds and other animals can tell the difference between a triangle and a circle.  This is called perceptual abstraction.

---

They are learning to apply the word to a series of rules which add up to a concept.  The concept is NOT known prior to establishing the rules through repeated experiences and guidance from others. 

---

Quote:

Quote:

These "rules" as you call them are a function of the mind, which is in place before the word signifying the concept (actually percept) is learned.

---

The word "mind" describes the function of the human brain, so it is accurate to say that "mind" exists prior to having the ability to learn concepts.  To claim that the "mind" has knowledge of concepts prior to exposure to said concepts seems quite baseless.  What support can you offer for this claim?

---

Quote:

Quote:

The concept of universals had its beginning with Plato.  However, down through the years it has had significant refinement.  Porphyry, Boethius, Aristotle, Bonaventure, down to William of Champeaux, Bernard of Chartres, Clarembald of Arras and Abelard have all had their say.

---

All also prior to technology which enabled us to view the brain at work.  Philosophy which attempts to describe physical functions without science has little chance of being scientifically accurate.

---

Quote:

Quote:

Sadly, neurological research has done nothing to explain it.  The debate between two factions continues unabated to this day.  It is my contention that neurological research is unable to explain it because it is out of empirical science's grasp.

---

Are you saying that neurological methods cannot establish that concepts are stored in memory?  I beg to differ.  Damage to the memory centers of the brain most definitely can result in loss of the ability to conceptualize. 

---

  We are talking at cross purposes.  I am definitely saying that neurological research cannot examine the mind, only philosophy can.  But I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that the brain is not a necessary condition for the mind.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, Ockham's razor for one.  The rule of parsimony states we do not add more reasons for a thing if a simpler, or lesser, answer will do.  The existence of an immaterial "mind" is the only answer that will suffice in the question of how we recognize sensate perceptions--we being animals. 

---

Please elaborate.  How is the function of our physical brain insufficient to explain how we recognize sensate perceptions?  The simplest explanation seems to be that our cognitive process is based in physical reality, and not in an imaginary realm of pure forms.

---

Quote:

Quote:

The conclusion then is that our concepts which have universality cannot be embodied in matter.  If the concepts were acts of the brain, they would be embodied in matter so they couldn't have the requisite universality to function as concepts that enable us to think of individual things.

Therefore, the power of conceptual thought that we use to form concepts (and use them) has to be immaterial.

---

You are confusing the idea with the mechanism responsible for comprehending the idea.  The fact that "universals" cannot be demonstrated as a tangible object in no way implies that a tangible object (our brain) is incapable of storing information about them.  This logic fails utterly. 

---

Quote:

The human mind uses propositional speech to explain intangibles, i.e. concepts, i.e. things not found in the material world such as universals and things like justice and love other than individual examples. These things do not exist in matter. Please explain how they could function if they were found in matter.

---

Quote:

The brain can, and does, store data. The mind uses the data during conceptual abstraction. Our cognitive sensory powers do not and cannot experience, or a better word "apprehend," universals. Their reach does not go beyond individuals. We would not be able to apprehend universals if we did not have the power of intellect, which is the mind, not the brain.

---

Quote:

Yet you have failed to demonstrate dog or any other universal, nor can you.

---

Quote:

BTW, "precept" is inaccurate, as it means "A rule or principle prescribing a particular course of action or conduct." Concept is correct, and precisely what I am discussing: "A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences."

---

Quote:

Percept
A mental impression of something perceived by the senses, viewed as the basic component in the formation of concepts; a sense datum.

---

As the spelling of this within his post was inconsistent, I went with "precept." 

This definition indicates that percepts add up to concepts, which is exactly what I was describing in my example of repeated sense observations of individual dogs being compiled into a generalized idea of "dog."

Veritas said:

Quote:

The human mind uses propositional speech to explain intangibles, i.e. concepts, i.e. things not found in the material world such as universals and things like justice and love other than individual examples. These things do not exist in matter. Please explain how they could function if they were found in matter.

---

The fact that they do not exist in matter does not mean that we cannot record them in matter. Can you write down on paper what we mean by "justice"? Paper is matter.

---

Quote:

Quote:

The brain can, and does, store data. The mind uses the data during conceptual abstraction. Our cognitive sensory powers do not and cannot experience, or a better word "apprehend," universals. Their reach does not go beyond individuals. We would not be able to apprehend universals if we did not have the power of intellect, which is the mind, not the brain.

---

This is pure conjecture. Where is the evidence which shows that our new brain is incapable of apprehending universals, or that our intellect is not based in our physical brain?

---

Quote:

Quote:

Yet you have failed to demonstrate dog or any other universal, nor can you.

---

We cannot demonstrate non-physical concepts, but we can define them. This is the means by which our brain understands figurative ideas.

---

Quote:

The human mind uses propositional speech to explain intangibles, i.e. concepts, i.e. things not found in the material world such as universals and things like justice and love other than individual examples.

---

Quote:

Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic, is that branch of logic that studies ways of combining or altering statements or propositions to form more complicated statements or propositions. Joining two simpler propositions with the word "and" is one common way of combining statements. When two statements are joined together with "and", the complex statement formed by them is true if and only if both the component statements are true.

---

Quote:

Whether scientific approaches will provide a completely satisfying explanation of awareness is a vexed philosophical issue. But the determination of recent work in neuroscience, psychology and philosophy to do justice both to the rich texture of experience and to its intimate, revealable relationship to neuronal events holds out great promise for the study of consciousness in years to come.

---

Quote:

It is my contention that neurological research is unable to explain it because it is out of empirical science's grasp.  Only with philosophy and science working together may the answer be found.

---

Quote:

Therefore, they must be immaterial and not embodied in a material organ, i.e. the brain.

---

Veritas said:

This is our point of disagreement:

Quote:

Therefore, they must be immaterial and not embodied in a material organ, i.e. the brain.

---

Everything in our memory is indirectly represented, from sense impressions to thoughts.  We can recall thinking about something, though our past thoughts have no material existence.  It is not necessary for us to physically replicate that which we have experienced, and therefore both material AND immaterial aspects of our experience may be "recorded" in our material brain.

---

Quote:

Future work in philosophy and science may change the ways in which we think about consciousness so radically that its reduction to physical process begins to look plausible. For the time being we have no alternative but to continue to use all three vocabularies of biology, behaviour and experience in our efforts to understand the mind.

---

Until and unless I see a true "gap" between our experience of consciousness and the functionality of our brain, I will continue with my default working theory.  As it is quite clear that the brain exists, and clear that our cognition is directly impacted by damage to our physical brain, I need not prove this position.

The position which requires substantiation is the one which attempts to elaborate upon what is evident, and extrapolate from subjective (possibly wishful) thinking to objective truth.  There is no more proof of an immaterial mind than there is proof of an immaterial soul, though each idea has great allure.  Personally, I am wary of ideas about the world which hold such allure, yet have no verifiable basis--it seems all too likely that they are insubstantial fantasies. 

Methinks we shall have to agree to disagree on this subject, sir.  I DO understand your position, yet remain unconvinced by your argument.

Middleman said:

offensive ardent
lucid maiden hardening
a consciousness fist

---

Like...  "I will rise from this void, if its the last thing I do...!?"




Hey that was fun for a while...  "Can I go home NOW??"


"Nope.  That's not real, silly, those are just stories...  People have been talking about that for AGES.  *fuckin shifty weasel evil face*"   *CLENCH*

Veritas said:

Methinks we shall have to agree to disagree on this subject, sir.  I DO understand your position, yet remain unconvinced by your argument.

---

That is more than adequate for me.  I am pleased we had this discussion.  My intention was not to convince, but to explain an alternate view.