EPTyou have denied that there is a deep mystery about consciousness. That's what I've been arguing. I think it's preposterous to claim that there is not
Is the mind all chemical and electricity? - Page 101
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
you have denied that there is a deep mystery about consciousness. That's what I've been arguing. I think it's preposterous to claim that there is not | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 30 2013 23:49 sam!zdat wrote: your first sentence completely begs the question you realize you have denied that there is a deep mystery about consciousness. That's what I've been arguing. I think it's preposterous to claim that there is not What? So you think there is a deep mystery about solid-state hard drives and the atom-molecule problem? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:00 sam!zdat wrote: should I? Convince me that it's strictly analogous and that qualia present no additional mytery and I will agree that these forms of emergence are equivalent to the kind of emergence we talk about when we talk about the mind body problem. I doubt you can do that, but I'd like to see you try Do you know how solid-state hard drives work? Therefore analogous. Atoms and molecules are an example of things being more than the sum of their parts. Therefore analogous. There is nothing about the mind-body problem that is unique to it. It's just a thing we haven't figured out yet. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
saying 'there exists something which is greater than the sum of its parts, so therefore this is how the mind works because the mind is also greater than the sum of its parts' is just a blatant sophistry. by that logic, I can say: 'a tinkertoy set has different pieces, and the brain has different pieces, so therefore tinkertoys explain how the brain works.' not so fast pardner | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:39 sam!zdat wrote: no, that's just the question of how to have object knowledge of an object. This is the question of how to have object knowledge of a subject which is another matter entirely. saying 'there exists something which is greater than the sum of its parts, so therefore this is how the mind works because the mind is also greater than the sum of its parts' is just a blatant sophistry. by that logic, I can say: 'a tinkertoy set has different pieces, and the brain has different pieces, so therefore tinkertoys explain how the brain works.' not so fast pardner Pretty much, yea. The only difference is that we have intuitive understanding of tinker toys. You're the one trying to say "No this is a mysterious magical object of uniqueness that we know nothing about." And let's be clear: I'm saying that things being more than the sum of their parts is the norm, and unexceptional. Why do you think this is some mysterious amazing property? It's a basic property of everything both large and small. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 31 2013 04:30 sam!zdat wrote: because the way you are thinking about it is just magical. You are right, emergence is everywhere, but you don't attempt to understand it, you just hypostasize it and call it a day No, I'm not saying that as a "curiosity stopper." I'm saying it's a question just like any other scientific question about how things work. There's nothing unique about it. The first thing I'd personally need to figure out is how a Neuron works. Because I have no clue. Hopefully that would get me started with in a basic understanding of my tinker toys. Or at least one of my tinker toys. I'm certainly not going to call it "mysterious." Because that is a curiosity stopper. Nothing is inherently mysterious. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18845 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
But that's just a catchy title. | ||
|
Chillton
Canada85 Posts
It gets into a discussion on Quantum Physics, so it's not an easy conversation, but you can check out his books or his documentary. He was also on the JRE podcast where he goes into some interesting details. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On August 31 2013 05:38 Chillton wrote: Dr. Amit Goswami believe conscienceness is non-local, and references various tests which support his theory. It gets into a discussion on Quantum Physics, so it's not an easy conversation, but you can check out his books or his documentary. He was also on the JRE podcast where he goes into some interesting details. Can you go into this in a bit more detail? Just like the basic premises. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On August 30 2013 23:49 DoubleReed wrote: Something isn't mysterious just because you don't know about it. I don't think the technology of solid-state hard drives is "mysterious" just because I don't know the answer. Evolution wasn't mysterious in 1800. Stop treating lack of knowledge as mysterious. Nothing is "mysterious." You just don't know the answer. The mind-body problem is no exception. mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:39 sam!zdat wrote: no, that's just the question of how to have object knowledge of an object. This is the question of how to have object knowledge of a subject which is another matter entirely. saying 'there exists something which is greater than the sum of its parts, so therefore this is how the mind works because the mind is also greater than the sum of its parts' is just a blatant sophistry. by that logic, I can say: 'a tinkertoy set has different pieces, and the brain has different pieces, so therefore tinkertoys explain how the brain works.' not so fast pardner Your analogy here is aweful.. tinkertoys function nothing like the mind. They do not have feedback mechanisms. They don't respond to stimulus. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
I disagree with you heavily on political issues, but you're quite making sense here  | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 31 2013 06:19 Shiori wrote: mys·te·ri·ous /məˈsti(ə)rēəs/ Adjective Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify. (of a location) Having an atmosphere of strangeness or secrecy. from Google. Given that definition, to claim that "nothing is mysterious" seems pretty damn absurd, particularly when one considers that difficulty is to some extent subjective. First of all, bringing a dictionary into an argument is incredibly silly. Dictionaries only give denotation and not connotation. Secondly, everyone knows what "mysterious" means. Thirdly, why would that be absurd? Unless you're also going to grant that solid-state hard drives, organic chemistry, and jetpacks are mysterious, then why would that be absurd? I think anyone who would describe those things as "mysterious" would be misusing the term. Don't you? | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
On August 31 2013 00:00 sam!zdat wrote: should I? Convince me that it's strictly analogous and that qualia present no additional mytery and I will agree that these forms of emergence are equivalent to the kind of emergence we talk about when we talk about the mind body problem. I doubt you can do that, but I'd like to see you try The mind-body problem- Which i quote- Each of these categories itself contains numerous variants. The two main forms of dualism are substance dualism, which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics, and property dualism, which holds that the laws of physics are universally valid but cannot be used to explain the mind. The three main forms of monism are physicalism, which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way; idealism, which holds that only thought truly exists and matter is merely an illusion; and neutral monism, which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them. There is no problem, it was solved originally with transduction, which they didn't understand. neutral monism is wrong. Your cannot separate mind from matter. idealism is wrong. Matter exists, by definition matter is something that interacts, the fact you don't believe in matter is not my problem. If you don't assume things exist, that fine go walk through the ground and run into your non-existent walls. What a waste of time. Stop bringing up solved problems. 9/11 happened, and the hijackers are linked to al-queda, but so many people don't believe that. If its true and people don't believe it. Its their problem. | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
On August 31 2013 04:30 sam!zdat wrote: because the way you are thinking about it is just magical. You are right, emergence is everywhere, but you don't attempt to understand it, you just hypostasize it and call it a day We hardly don't just hypothesize. we apply solutions to it. you choose to ignore all my threads. when are you going to address what I say. | ||
| ||
