|
On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.)
You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians."
|
I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it.
What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know
|
On July 01 2013 11:33 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:30 radscorpion9 wrote:
Whether there are some elements of randomness involved or not, this means the universe is at least largely deterministic or at most completely deterministic.
No no no. You can't be largely deterministic just like you can't be mostly a virgin. Either the universe has an inevitable outcome that cannot be changed or it does not.
Yes, this is true. Either the universe is deterministic, or it is arbitrary.
However, it is most important to note that "free will" is defined as neither, rendering it beyond absurd.
|
By "woowoo phenomenon", I think you mean "abstraction".
|
Now are we talking about the mind, or are we talking about the MINDMINDMIND?
|
On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians."
Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all of their constraints, both physical and moral.
|
Asking if the mind is physical is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. There is no scientific experiment possible to answer your question, or many related questions. If you believe nothing exists but for physical reality, than yes. Otherwise, no. That's not to say that our brains aren't secretly dark matter engines, either, or a kind of quantum difference engine that utilizes virtual processing with all our other self's brains in alternate realities! 
|
On July 01 2013 11:30 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:10 casuistry wrote: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. LOL. You a funny  . You people can write philosophical replies all you want. The fact of the matter is that everything we sense around us seems to exist as some form of matter or energy, including the brain. We haven't found anything yet that breaks the laws of physics, or operates above and beyond those laws. And these findings are overwhelmingly supported by scientific experiments, the most reliable form of evidence we have. Whether there are some elements of randomness involved or not, this means the universe is at least largely deterministic or at most completely deterministic. No philosophical argument can help you escape from reality. Of course its possible all of this is an illusion, and everything we experience is an illusion. But for our purposes, as a practical people who choose the simplest explanation over more complex ones, the world is probably external to us as some form of material reality. As for explaining what love is. Just think of it as, we are analyzing every piece of how a complex machine works. And in every instance that we have analyzed so far, that machine works on well established physical laws, with few exceptions. There are a few special parts in the center of the machine we haven't gotten to. What is your expectation? I think any reasonable person would say, it probably works like the other 99% of the machine works, because everywhere we look, under every crevice, from the bottom of the sea to space, there is nothing besides physical law. Hence we expect love is just an electrochemical reaction like any other, and we expect that consciousness is something similar. Of course its not completely certain. And I personally hope and wish there is something more, because pure determinism is a fairly depressing conclusion, even if we can still live amazing lives as some of us do everyday (and hopefully a greater proportion of us in the future!)
nothing exists outside the laws of physics? what physics? quantum physics? we don't even understand it yet lol. quantum entanglement? two particles can act at the same exact time after you "entangle" them and all you have to do is influence one of them. distance doesnt matter, they're about to do an experiment with one particle here on earth and another in the space station.
nobody is talking about the feeling of love, you saying that belittles the subject and makes it seem all wishy washy bullshit. its not.
You're ignoring the most important piece of evidence, you. The fact that you are AWARE. The fact that you are conscious, yet you are made of trillions of smaller INDIVIDUAL organisms called cells, yet somehow you are ONE being. You can't just say that EVERYTHING is deterministic just because most of the observable universe is lol. Quantum mechanics has already proven that to be wrong, determinism fails at the quantum level, that's why there isn't a unifying theory yet. If it were as simple as you say then we would already have truly self aware artificial intelligence, but we don't. We're not even close, even if we do create an artificial intelligence that surpasses the human brain in sheer processing capability, there is something missing in order for it to be self aware, collectively conscious. You cannot rule out the possibility that out brain, through some process, is manipulating quantum space. If that is the case, then we are certainly not deterministic.
|
On July 01 2013 11:41 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:33 coverpunch wrote:On July 01 2013 11:30 radscorpion9 wrote:
Whether there are some elements of randomness involved or not, this means the universe is at least largely deterministic or at most completely deterministic.
No no no. You can't be largely deterministic just like you can't be mostly a virgin. Either the universe has an inevitable outcome that cannot be changed or it does not. Yes, this is true. Either the universe is deterministic, or it is arbitrary. However, it is most important to note that "free will" is defined as neither, rendering it beyond absurd.
The universe is deterministically arbitrary.
|
On July 01 2013 11:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians." Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all its constraints, both physical and moral.
Congrats on 6000! However, I have no clue what "moral constraints" are, except another manifestation of physical constraints.
|
On July 01 2013 11:45 casuistry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:
[quote]
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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians." Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all its constraints, both physical and moral. Congrats on 6000! However, I have no clue what "moral constraints" are, except another manifestation of physical constraints.
Thanks!
Well you're right, moral constraints are physical constraints which we view as external to the physical world. We choose to put it in a different category basically.
|
On July 01 2013 11:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians." Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all of their constraints, both physical and moral.
Well fuck it is news to me. Your argument is based on the assumption that "we" whatever you mean by that are separate from our bodies. It could be argued that "we" are indistinguishable from our bodies, in fact that is pretty much the argument we are having, whether there is something to a person that is beyond the physical.
|
Nothing about the brain suggests that there is anything beyond natural processes going on there.
|
On July 01 2013 11:44 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians." Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all of their constraints, both physical and moral.
exactly, this is correct. it all depends on IF our brain operates on a deterministic level.
On July 01 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it. What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know
this is what im saying, it REQUIRES it.
/thread
|
On July 01 2013 11:53 LegalLord wrote:
Nothing about the brain suggests that there is anything beyond natural processes going on there.
"Nothing about a physical object suggests there are non-physical processes taking place."
Sort of a truism, really.
|
|
|
On July 01 2013 11:50 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:44 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2013 11:41 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:24 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:18 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 11:13 SergioCQH wrote:On July 01 2013 11:10 Moa wrote:
[quote]
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. But you don't reject it because thus far you've provided a bunch of philosophical statements while pretending they are "scientific" conclusions... sure it might seem to to add weight to your argument to someone who isn't versed in either science or philosophy, but to anyone with even a basic knowledge of either subject, it just shows that you don't know how to argue effectively or correctly. But where exactly did I use any argument, philosophical or scientific, to state that free will does or does not exist? I have made philosophy of science arguments yes. But I haven't stated any conclusions on the question of whether free will exists or not. I think you need some reading comprehension. You said: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist." That is a philosophical statement. (I already pointed this out, maybe you didn't see it.) You're right. That was a careless statement. It should have been: "If brain activity is deterministic, then free will doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. Free will as a woowoo phenomenon might still exist if you ask certain philosophers and theologians." Free will is a purely human concept tho, it's not a secret that we're imprisoned in our bodies and all of their constraints, both physical and moral. Well fuck it is news to me. Your argument is based on the assumption that "we" whatever you mean by that are separate from our bodies. It could be argued that "we" are indistinguishable from our bodies, in fact that is pretty much the argument we are having, whether there is something to a person that is beyond the physical.
Oh absolutely I agree, but we separate them like that because it's a more convenient way to discuss it.
|
On July 01 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it. What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know
If you throw a tennis ball, a dog will be able to run to where it lands and catch it before it lands. The trajectory of the ball is modeled by some not-so-simple calculus, but a dog knows well enough where it lands (with margin of error of maybe half a dog's mouth) intuitively.
In the same sense, colors are a very useful shortcut that allows us to explain a complicated mess of facts. We take shortcuts because the world is a complicated mess and our processing power can't keep up.
Those are natural processes. Poorly understood, but natural nonetheless.
|
On July 01 2013 11:24 coverpunch wrote:
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit,
That, from her working, all his visage wann'd;
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? And all for nothing!
-Hamlet, ii, 2
You might find it enlightening to read to the end of the play. That's not where the thought ends.
Anyway, why can't the mind be both all physical and something reflected elsewhere? Most of us are pretty comfortable with characters in stories "existing" despite being no more than ink on a page. Why should we not have a presence in some other plane, as an emanation of this plane (or the other way around, or both)? Not a provable thing, but certainly not something that can be ruled out lightly.
|
On July 01 2013 11:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:I'll just throw up this very interesting critique of physicalism a la a revised look at the Mary's Room argument (otherwise known as the knowledge argument). The long and short of it is that the contours of our conscious experience as we currently understand it not only implies a non-physical component of experience, it requires it. What RoboDennett Still Doesn’t Know If you throw a tennis ball, a dog will be able to run to where it lands and catch it before it lands. The trajectory of the ball is modeled by some not-so-simple calculus, but a dog knows well enough where it lands (with margin of error of maybe half a dog's mouth) intuitively. In the same sense, colors are a very useful shortcut that allows us to explain a complicated mess of facts. We take shortcuts because the world is a complicated mess and our processing power can't keep up.
The experience of colors and the estimated trajectory of a ball are entirely different things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
