|
On July 01 2013 11:03 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:01 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:57 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 10:53 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. yes case closed thats a good way of thinking "i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!" What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it. so our experiences don't exist? because mine definitely do. If your experiences exist, they are physical phenomena. If they are not physical phenomena, they do not exist.
Okay, you've stated that. Now provide your back-up.
That's the problem with these arguments. People toss out platitudes as if they are actual arguments. A conclusion without a premise has roughly the same use as an asshole on an elbow and makes as much sense as a soup sandwich.
|
On July 01 2013 11:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:03 casuistry wrote:On July 01 2013 11:01 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:57 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 10:53 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. yes case closed thats a good way of thinking "i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!" What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it. so our experiences don't exist? because mine definitely do. If your experiences exist, they are physical phenomena. If they are not physical phenomena, they do not exist. Okay, you've stated that. Now provide your back-up. That's the problem with these arguments. People toss out platitudes as if they are actual arguments. A conclusion without a premise has roughly the same use as an asshole on an elbow and makes as much sense as a soup sandwich.
Actually, the burden is on you to provide evidence of anything which is not physical phenomena. Good luck 
|
SergioCQH, did you read my second reply to you above? I'm genuinely interested in knowing whether the stochastic processes you mention are actually random or are considered to be random because we cannot accurately represent/identify them in their detail at the micro level and must therefore resort to approximations/probabilities (meaning they would in reality be deterministic, but with no way for us to analyze them as such).
|
On July 01 2013 11:05 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:03 casuistry wrote:On July 01 2013 11:01 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:57 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 10:53 travis wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. yes case closed thats a good way of thinking "i've decided it to be true and will examine it no further!" What's there to examine? This is a definition. If it exists, it is physical. If it's metaphysical, then it doesn't exist. You're free to reject the definition, but that doesn't invalidate it. so our experiences don't exist? because mine definitely do. If your experiences exist, they are physical phenomena. If they are not physical phenomena, they do not exist. Okay, you've stated that. Now provide your back-up. That's the problem with these arguments. People toss out platitudes as if they are actual arguments. A conclusion without a premise has roughly the same use as an asshole on an elbow and makes as much sense as a soup sandwich. Actually, the burden is on you to provide evidence of anything which is not physical phenomena. Good luck
You're the one who provided a false definition...
And yeah, burden of proof has even less worth than platitudes in logical arguments.
Not to mention that you just asked me to provide physical evidence of a metaphysical concept. Yeah... that makes a lot of sense -.-
|
Well there is no point in pursuing this further because some things should be self-evident. It's one thing to think that your experiences result from material, it's another entirely to think that they are material when they very clearly are not.
|
No it's all love and magic.
|
all cells in human gets replace by new cells except for the neurons in the cerbral cortex, after birth no neurons are added to our cerbral cortex, if we some how lose some neurons no more will be regrow. So no, the mind's not all chemicals and electricity.
|
On July 01 2013 11:05 kwizach wrote:SergioCQH, did you read my second reply to you above? I'm genuinely interested in knowing whether the stochastic processes you mention are actually random or are considered to be random because we cannot accurately represent/identify them in their detail at the micro level and must therefore resort to approximations/probabilities (meaning they would in reality be deterministic, but with no way for us to analyze them as such).
I would say the distinction is meaningless. Either they are deterministic, or they are arbitrary. But free will is defined as neither.
|
No.
Can we please differentiate between the mind and the brain please. It seems people are confusing the two.
|
On July 01 2013 11:09 KingAce wrote:
No.
Can we please differentiate between the mind and the brain please. It seems people are confusing the two.
The question is basically:
Is the mind merely a byproduct of the brain or not?
|
On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line.
Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion?
I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative.
The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing.
|
On July 01 2013 11:08 rei wrote:
all cells in human gets replace by new cells except for the neurons in the cerbral cortex, after birth no neurons are added to our cerbral cortex, if we some how lose some neurons no more will be regrow. So no, the mind's not all chemicals and electricity.
Your reasoning just killed a few of my limited brain cells.
|
On July 01 2013 11:05 kwizach wrote:SergioCQH, did you read my second reply to you above? I'm genuinely interested in knowing whether the stochastic processes you mention are actually random or are considered to be random because we cannot accurately represent/identify them in their detail at the micro level and must therefore resort to approximations/probabilities (meaning they would in reality be deterministic, but with no way for us to analyze them as such).
Stochasticity is not black and white. There are degrees of randomness. You can read up on Brownian motion yourself if you like. It is considered one of the basic natural stochastic processes.
Speaking in black and white terms is not a scientific way to approach this topic. Some processes can be more deterministic and less stochastic, and vice versa. Even quantum phenomena can be made less random, albeit not without changing their nature.
|
On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing.
If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected.
Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion.
|
On July 01 2013 11:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:09 KingAce wrote:
No.
Can we please differentiate between the mind and the brain please. It seems people are confusing the two. The question is basically: Is the mind merely a byproduct of the brain or not?
When you boil it down like that, the question becomes even more apparently absurd. When have we seen evidence of a mind without a brain? Ghosts? Haha
|
On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion.
Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science.
Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science.
|
On July 01 2013 11:14 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:09 KingAce wrote:
No.
Can we please differentiate between the mind and the brain please. It seems people are confusing the two. The question is basically: Is the mind merely a byproduct of the brain or not? When you boil it down like that, the question becomes even more apparently absurd. When have we seen evidence of a mind without a brain? Ghosts? Haha
As I said earlier (multiple times), you are all mixing philosophy with science whenever it suits you, without any regard to the fact that while they are both tools for uncovering knowledge, they do not work the same way. Science calls for physical evidence and has a use for the burden of proof. Philosophy is a little more open. If you want to advance a purely scientific point of view, than your only response can be:
"We don't know yet, and possibly never will."
If you want to take any other position, than you have gone into the realm of philosophy and now you have a responsibility to back up your arguments using logical syllogisms.
|
On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science.
Philosophy can be useful in some areas. I only reject philosophical discussion of certain topics like free will. Philosophers are indispensable when it comes to logic or ethics.
|
On July 01 2013 11:01 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 10:59 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 10:56 casuistry wrote:On July 01 2013 10:46 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 10:38 casuistry wrote:On July 01 2013 10:33 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 10:26 casuistry wrote:
Yes, it's all electrical and chemical events. Accept it.
What's really funny is that half of the people saying yes in this thread still believe in free will. We can "control" the laws of physics! With our brain made of elements ruled by physics! What a miracle! Mmm, free will is a separate issue from whether brain activity is solely produced by chemical and electrical activity. That would only be true if behavior or thought were independent from brain activity, which they are not. So it is not a separate issue, people simply compartmentalize free will in their brains from logic to prevent reaching inevitable if uncomfortable conclusions. You are aware that we know laughably little about how the brain works and how it influences thought and behavior, yes? It is incredibly pretentious and arrogant to reach such a far-reaching conclusion from so little evidence. We don't need to know completely how the brain works. We simply need to know that nowhere in human history have we ever encountered a system which was independent from the laws of physics. Except for art, music, stories, etc. Figments of the human imagination... How are those items independent of the laws of physics?
They're independent from the laws of physics because you can make up conditions that do not require the laws of physics to be true. This reiterates the point that the brain is physical but the mind is not. We can make up abstractions that do not require a physical, material basis, but we still accept them as true. Such as math.
I will add the point that the Western concept of free will comes from Rousseau's beautiful statement: "Man is born free and is everywhere in chains".
|
On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:On July 01 2013 10:51 Galaxy1again wrote:
If it exists in this universe, then it is physical, and that's the bottom line. Is it impossible that there is something that cannot be detected through physicality because it doesn't interact with what is physical but is still manifested in another fashion? I'm not saying that such a thing exists but to say that everything that exists must be physical shows that you are unwilling to consider the possibility of an alternative. The true answer to the question seems to be that we likely cannot know. I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond the physical but I can see no way of knowing. If something does not interact with the physical realm in any way that is detectable, then it doesn't exist. Because the null hypothesis has to be that X does not exist unless X is first detected. Any other null hypothesis is not science, but religion. Dude... you have got to stop mixing philosophy with science. Or at least be honest and say that you're discussing the philosophy of science.
I agree, using metaphysical arguments and claiming that it's proven by science is not accurate. You have made good points just don't mix up the two without better clarification!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
