Belief isn't methodical that's only the guise portrayed. True of most great philosophers and scientists is that their beliefs have often led them down roads not openly covered with their other materials in history books.
These higher faculties would not exist without the lower ones. They build on them, reuse them, remix them, and are more than the sum of their parts. From my perspective, your interpretation of my words is similar to saying a plane can't fly. A wing can't fly; a body can't fly. How then could a plane fly? I'm not saying a plane can't fly. I'm saying a plane can't fly without wings. There is no consciousness, no self, without feelings.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-20, 19:09:03The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.I don't have quite the same egocentric approach as some. As I said I've had enough of this and besides your post simply reinforced my remarks so more is not needed.
The same way, as a demonstration, please give an exposition of your own philosophy. Or tell more what you think philosophy should be. It's all about sharing and comparing.I noticed that you asked me about creation. I will answer in a few days. But right now, for a change, I seriously think it's your turn to build a thesis.
A composite thing can be defined either as the thing itself - distinguished from other things -, or as an enumeration of its components.
CREATIONThe problem of creation is the problem of beginning. It's a logical problem, a matter of point of view. Considering logical absolute timescale, it's a matter of point of view what one considers the beginning. There is a concurrent logical problem: Beginning of what? If we want to be logical, we want to avoid the problem of infinite regress.Indubitably, human beings have minds more comfortable with multiplicity than with unity, even though many have a rational and spiritual tendency towards unity. To remain intelligible to human minds, a multiplicity of some kind or another must necessarily be posited. Let's take the multiplicity of points of view. There's the point of view of (1) infinity and of (2) temporality, of time.
Jesus, you resurrected by the third day, Ersi...
Admittedly, I am not Jesus.
On July 1, 1959, at Ypsilanti State Hospital in Michigan, the social psychologist Milton Rokeach brought together three paranoid schizophrenics: Clyde Benson, an elderly farmer and alcoholic; Joseph Cassel, a failed writer who was institutionalized after increasingly violent behavior toward his family; and Leon Gabor, a college dropout and veteran of World War II.The men had one thing in common: each believed himself to be Jesus Christ.
Atomism (belief or theory that particles are foundational to everything else) is false. However, atomism is influential enough in people's thinking, even in the minds of average religious people, so there are peculiar concepts of God that atomist theists hold. Adherence to atomism and even to materialism (called physicalism these days) does not sharply distinguish an atheist from theist. So, I hope it gets through that I have nothing to do with atomistic premises. Atoms may exist, if they be a useful consideration in some contexts, but, logically, the space between of equal importance in constituting reality. It's unscientific to ignore the space between atoms. Considering atoms and space, neither is more fundamental than the other. If you want to know the way I think about the universe, drop atomistic assumptions. This enables you to understand better what follows.
Now, how about making a case for that you are not one of those whom I should avoid?
The point: You are a composite entirety. You can be disassembled, but this disassemblage will be *less* than you rather than the exact same you.
You say materialism is called physicalism these days, but the empty space, as you put it, is why I don't typically use the phrase materialism--precisely because it might promote the false impression that it's only about matter and not about empty space. And it's not just the empty space between atoms. Most of the universe is empty space even without there being more empty space in us than not.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-24, 15:13:06The point: You are a composite entirety. You can be disassembled, but this disassemblage will be *less* than you rather than the exact same you.This being The Point, offhand may seem profound, but really has no meaning. Sure you went on to deduce how natural occurrence, from the view you want to discredit, seems unlikely. But I can't put my finger on the part that supports this statement with something that isn't pulled from thin air.
I'm not okay with the word naturalism pro ontological materialism. This word implies as if other beliefs were unnatural and that materialism were natural, even though materialism disregards pretty much everything about the nature of consciousness. They always disregard the observer, the philosophical subject side, the factually necessary creator of experiments in science. They struggle with consciousness and, so it seems, think that consciousness is unnatural. Sorry, but consciousness is as natural as anything else - it's not going anywhere.
3 gallons water 3 cups white sugar 1 (16 ounce) can tomato paste (such as Contadina®) 1 cup dried basil 1 cup dried minced onion 1/4 cup dried oregano 1/4 cup granulated garlic 1/4 cup salt 1 1/2 teaspoons cayenne pepper 1 pork neckStir water, sugar, tomato paste, basil, minced onion, oregano, granulated garlic, salt, cayenne pepper, and pork neck together in a large pot.Bring the mixture to a simmer and cook until thickened to desired consistency, about 30 minutes.Remove pork neck bones to serve.
Not only did you miss the part where I distinctly argued for this thesis (to help you out, it was the example of airplane - if airplanes are meant to fly too, then the airplane is not just the assemblage of its parts - the pilot is another necessary element that goes into making up the airplane as it really is)
that isn't pulled from thin air.
This also applies in the opposite direction.
When you say you can't put your finger on something - and this is your whole issue with my thesis - then you are only showing the way you reason. And, sure enough, you're not being convincing.
There's something it's like to be you or me, and you're saying this quality, this personal experience, can't be explained in purely physical terms. Is that correct?
Here's something I have read fairly recently http://consc.net/papers/nature.html
Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-25, 14:05:00Here's something I have read fairly recently http://consc.net/papers/nature.htmlCoincidentally, the other day I read http://consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html
I am not a convert from materialism by any sort of philosophical argument. Ever since I remember myself (which is at very early age) I have found philosophical materialism dubious, and soon enough untenable and indefensible.
Ever since I remember myself (which is at very early age) I have found philosophical materialism dubious, and soon enough untenable and indefensible. For some time I guess I have had a subconscious struggle with various shapes and shades of dualism, until figuring out how spiritual monism works.
He doesn't give me any grounds for contemplating experience or consciousness as something in principle irreducible. Besides, his views seem to lack explanatory power. He says some parts of consciousness are an easy problem, and some other part a hard one. I posit that once you remove (solve) the "easy" problems, you probably won't have a "hard" one left.
In terms of what *you* want to believe, non-linear reactions stemming from thought-reflection, choice, and will should not be there in the first place. The hard problem will not go away by means of explaining the easy problem. The hard problem is a distinct problem.
The hard problem is hard because there's no way it could have a linear causal explanation in terms of neurophysiology - and everybody recognises this. Everybody. Except that those entrenched in the materialist paradigm say "We don't know everything yet (so let's postpone our attempts to explain this away a little bit longer)" which is the wrong answer in philosophy. "Don't know" is not an answer.
Adrenalin flows with fear. Do you get scared because adrenalin (or whatever the exact hormon is) flows or does adrenalin flow because you get scared? In reductionist account, it must be the adrenalin causing fear. However, a person with self-control won't have fear. Such person may not be able to control the flow of adrenalin directly, but adrenalin won't have the same effect any more. As per reductionist account, this should not be possible!
And sometimes, as anyone of us knows, a momentous thought can cause wondrous instant changes in consciousness - in consciousness first, and physiology may or may not follow, depending on the continuity of the effort, or on remembrance of the momentous experience. Conclusion: The causality works the other way round than materialism assumes, and is non-linear to boot.
Quote from: Frenzie on 2013-11-30, 07:58:52I suppose we need one of these.
A problem? Don't we all have plenty already?
Quote from: Macallan on 2013-11-30, 13:45:02A problem? Don't we all have plenty already? You can't have too much of a bad thing if you're an evil person.
Conclusion: your assumptions about what materialism "assumes" are absurd. You presuppose that consciousness is something that can't happen in a strictly physical universe, which may or may not be true depending on what you mean by consciousness, and then say that if you remove consciousness from the equation you can't influence your feelings.
You've got this highly complex organ in your head and yet you assume that in a materialist account, if you give it a bit of cortisol and adrenaline, the only thing it can do is run away like the furnace attached to the thermostat.
So, in materialist account, the organ is "complex" and therefore, when you stimulate it with hormones, anything can happen this or that way, but the fact that anything can happen must not deter us from assuming that the causality is precisely from the hormones to the rest, not the other way
Materialism always was materialism of the gaps, rush inductive generalisations on things that appear to be, forgetting that appearances may deceive.
Page created in 0.117 seconds with 43 queries.