A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Postby Nigel » Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:33 pm

Ian, I'm tired of going round in circles. You say there is no answer, certainly none by science. For the sake of argument, let's say that's so. So what is the "answer"? It just "is"? What's the metaphysical take on it?

You obviously don't accept the scientific answer, so lay it on us babe. What can you tell us that we don't know?
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Postby Paul C. Anagnostopoulos » Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:55 pm

Nigel wrote:You obviously don't accept the scientific answer, so lay it on us babe. What can you tell us that we don't know?

And that isn't just a convoluted question begging.

Ian wrote:But what's new? None of you arseholes understand anything, and I get suspended from boards because of it.

Uh oh, he's found us out! We said it was because he violated Rule 8, but it was actually sooper sekrit Rule X.

~~ Paul
It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith

Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Postby Jeff » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:39 am

Rule #1, No pooftahs.
Rule #2, No member of the faculty is to mistreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever.
etc.
etc.
There is NO rule # 8.

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:40 pm

Nigel wrote:Ian, I'm tired of going round in circles. You say there is no answer, certainly none by science. For the sake of argument, let's say that's so. So what is the "answer"? It just "is"? What's the metaphysical take on it?

You obviously don't accept the scientific answer, so lay it on us babe. What can you tell us that we don't know?


Yes, it just is.

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:42 pm

The reason why I experience redness on seeing a red object, is because the object is red. It's very very simple.

That's it. Problem solved.

Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Postby Jeff » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:45 pm

Simple, indeed.

User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Postby ceptimus » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:45 pm

...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:53 pm

ceptimus wrote:...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.


Ummm . .anyone know what he's talkiong about?

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Postby Nigel » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:20 pm

Interesting Ian wrote:
ceptimus wrote:...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.


Ummm . .anyone know what he's talkiong about?

Right back atcha.

It just is. You know what I say to that?


COPOUT!

If someone asks me how a car engine works, do you think a satisfying answer would be, "It just does"? Not to anyone above a 4 year old.

I give up Ian. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt, then I thought you were amusing, now I have no idea what to think. You're just not enjoyable to talk to. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the way I see it.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?



I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:49 pm

Nigel wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
ceptimus wrote:...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.


Ummm . .anyone know what he's talkiong about?

Right back atcha.

It just is. You know what I say to that?


COPOUT!

If someone asks me how a car engine works, do you think a satisfying answer would be, "It just does"? Not to anyone above a 4 year old.



There's an explanation of how a car engine works. You look at the component parts and how they fit and function together.

An explanation of why we see redness cannot be so reduced. All we have are physical processes. Presumably a particular process in the brain is the particular correlate of the actual experience of redness. But you cannot derive this experience. All you can derive are other physical processes. This is all that's required for a car engine, or indeed anything else pertaining to the world; apart from conscious experiences.

What on earth do you think the mind/body problem is??

You should realise by now that I don't just say these things.

User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Postby ceptimus » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:58 pm

You can explain how the parts of a car engine work, but not how the whole engine runs. The individual mechanical and electrical events may correlate with the running of the engine, but running is not explainable in those terms.

Everyone knows that a car engine runs, but no one can explain it!

And so, once again, materialism is refuted!

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:02 pm

And moreover, the brain neither creates the red object, nor is the red object encoded in the brain. Rather the brain being in a certain state allows the perception of the red object.

Imagine a window in front of you. You cannot see outside because of the condensation on it. But you wipe the condensation off and that allows you to see the red object. That's roughly analogically similar to the relation of self, brain and red object.

User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Postby Interesting Ian » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:14 pm

ceptimus wrote:You can explain how the parts of a car engine work, but not how the whole engine runs.



Why not? Once you understand everything about a car engine, and that it's connected to the rest of the car, you can understand perfectly how the car runs. There's no problem here at all.


The individual mechanical and electrical events may correlate with the running of the engine, but running is not explainable in those terms.



No, once we understand the processes, then the running of the car is an inevitable consequence. It's all just functions.

If consciousness (or the self) were also just functions, then we could explain everything about consciousness as well, including seeing red. But some maintain that the experience of seeing red can neither be derived from physical processes (how would you do that??), nor is it the same as physical processes.

Consciousness itself cannot be derived from physical processes because it's the neural correlates which do all the "work". A p-zombie (unconscious automaton) would do everything exactly the same as a real person would.

If a p-zombie is not possible, then you're saying consciousness per se is indispensable. In which case it's not the neural correlates which do all the work. There is this thing called consciousness per se which does some work. But consciousness per se is only what the individual experiences (anyone else can only experience their bodily behaviour or the neural correlates of their consciousness).

This means that something only discernible from the 1st person perspective exists and which has real causal powers.

Ummm . .a direct contradiction of materialism.

Simple.

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Postby Nigel » Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:52 pm

Interesting Ian wrote:
There's an explanation of how a car engine works. You look at the component parts and how they fit and function together.

So how does that differ between a car engine and an eye (aside from complexity)?

Interesting Ian wrote:An explanation of why we see redness cannot be so reduced.

Why not?

Interesting Ian wrote: All we have are physical processes. Presumably a particular process in the brain is the particular correlate of the actual experience of redness.

How do you experience a color?
Interesting Ian wrote:But you cannot derive this experience. All you can derive are other physical processes. This is all that's required for a car engine, or indeed anything else pertaining to the world; apart from conscious experiences.

What on earth do you think the mind/body problem is??

You should realise by now that I don't just say these things.


What do you mean by derive when you say you "cannot derive this experience", but you can "derive other physical processes"?

Does this experiencing of color extend to other senses? Or sights? When I see a desk, am I experiencing it in the same way I experience the redness of the ball? Which is to say, the desk "is".

I'm really quite baffled by your arguments. I must say, the fellow who came up with the phrase, "It takes all kinds" really had his finger on it.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?



I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Postby Paul C. Anagnostopoulos » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:19 am

Ian wrote:Consciousness itself cannot be derived from physical processes because it's the neural correlates which do all the "work". A p-zombie (unconscious automaton) would do everything exactly the same as a real person would.

Including answer every question about the experience of consciousness with the same answer?

~~ Paul
It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Postby Paul C. Anagnostopoulos » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:24 am

Ian wrote:And moreover, the brain neither creates the red object, nor is the red object encoded in the brain. Rather the brain being in a certain state allows the perception of the red object.

This might hold true for seeing a red object for the first time. But that red object is certainly encoded in the brain after it has been seen a few times.

~~ Paul
It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith

CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Postby CHARLEY_BIGTIME » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:46 am

I reckon Ian's pissed again.

User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark
Been thanked: 11 times

Postby MRC_Hans » Tue Jul 27, 2004 7:19 am

Interesting Ian wrote:Why not? Once you understand everything about a car engine, and that it's connected to the rest of the car, you can understand perfectly how the car runs. There's no problem here at all.


Agreed.

No, once we understand the processes, then the running of the car is an inevitable consequence. It's all just functions.


Exactly.

If consciousness (or the self) were also just functions, then we could explain everything about consciousness as well, including seeing red.


And who says we cannot? OK, we do not CURRENTLY have sufficient knowledge to do that comprehensively, but why do you assume that this knowledge is not obtainable?

But some maintain that the experience of seeing red can neither be derived from physical processes (how would you do that??), nor is it the same as physical processes.


Who (apart from you) maintain that, and on what grounds? The perception of red is a pattern of neurons firing in our brain (actually, a range of patterns, since there are different kinds of redness). When these patterns emerge, we have chosen to call it "I see red", because we have stored earlier sequences where this impression was accompanying the observation of objects with certain optical properties. However, the perception of "seing red" is not exclusive to visual observations. For example, if you sit in total darkness and press your fingers against your eyeballs, you "see red" (or other colors); the same pattern of neurons are firing in your brain as when you observe red light.

Consciousness itself cannot be derived from physical processes because it's the neural correlates which do all the "work". A p-zombie (unconscious automaton) would do everything exactly the same as a real person would.


Quite apart from this being obviously an unfounded claim, how does it support your theory? If a p-zombie is indistinguishable from a human, how do you conclude that it is not conscious?

If a p-zombie is not possible, then you're saying consciousness per se is indispensable.


No, I say consciousness is a function of the physical brain.

In which case it's not the neural correlates which do all the work.


How does that follow?

There is this thing called consciousness per se which does some work. But consciousness per se is only what the individual experiences (anyone else can only experience their bodily behaviour or the neural correlates of their consciousness).

This means that something only discernible from the 1st person perspective exists and which has real causal powers.


Do you generally have any difficulty in discerning whether a person is conscious or not? Do you perceive whether I am conscious as I write this? Consciousness is basically observable from a 2nd person perspective, too.

Ummm . .a direct contradiction of materialism.

Simple.


Even if the first claim was correct, that would not follow. Even if parts of consciousness can be shown to be only observable from within, your conclusion builds on the premise that only observable things can exist in the material world. This premise is obviously wrong.

Hans
Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...

Saxlover
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:17 am

Postby Saxlover » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:29 pm

I'll have a go.

(1) (a) impossible,

(2) (b) supplemented with a very different discipline.

(3) (b) unknown causal processes

(4) (b) Likely

(5) (b) unlikely

(6) (b) in people's minds

(7) (b) marks on paper

(8) (d) energy is real and democracy is just an idea.

(9) (a) likely

(10) (c) likely,

(11) (a) more understanding than,

User avatar
Vitnir
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:18 pm

Postby Vitnir » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:54 pm

Too late to play? I'l add my reply anyway.

1. B
2. B (could be A,B or C for all I know though)
3. B
4. C
5. C
6. B
7. C
8. D
9. A
10. D
11. B


Return to “Religion & Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests