Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Materialists have been trying to refute Descartes for 4 centuries. They have not succeeded.
Reductive materialism and eliminative materialism are absurd. Emergentist materialism is a contender, but the hard question of how consciousness could have a material basis remains unanswered.
Materialists have been trying to refute Descartes for 4 centuries. They have not succeeded.
Reductive materialism and eliminative materialism are absurd. Emergentist materialism is a contender, but the hard question of how consciousness could have a material basis remains unanswered.
More: [URL="https://logosandliberty.substack.com/p/dualism-vs-materialism-a-response"]Dualism vs. Materialism: A Response to Paul Churchland[/URL]
Don't forget idealism, which some scientists suggest is a better fit with all the data than is materialism or dualism. A fascinating species of dualism is panpsychism, which has a number of modern adherents. This is the view that consciousness is part of the fabric of reality at the atomic or subatomic level.
To cries of outrage from certain atheists at the Religion & Spirituality forum, I recently cited a new book by analytical philosopher Joshua Rasmussen, Who Are You, Really?: A Philosopher's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons, [url]https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-You-Really-Philosophers/dp/1514003945[/url], that sounds like it would be of interest to you.
The classic text for the argument against the materialist perspective on consciousness is Irreducible Mind, [url]https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B8TKJCRQ/ref=dvm_us_or_cs_ILM_all_CREE3/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=VOL8E&content-id=amzn1.sym.3e3eb8a1-ce5f-48fa-9cdd-5c1cd97e1ccd&pf_rd_p=3e3eb8a1-ce5f-48fa-9cdd-5c1cd97e1ccd&pf_rd_r=Z42Y23AQ05C58VCCD6P0&pd_rd_wg =kHN5s&pd_rd_r=85da88af-f643-4468-977b-110b9894d213[/url].
Materialists have been trying to refute Descartes for 4 centuries. They have not succeeded.
Really? The materialist idea that the mind is a set of processes created by the brain to model the real world explains Descartes dualism, and the idea that the mind must also be an input to the brain resolves things like the problem of interactionism.
Materialism may not explain all of the problems, such as Qualia, but then do any of the alternatives? I have seen no good evidence for a better, alternative argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuebor
Reductive materialism and eliminative materialism are absurd. Emergentist materialism is a contender, but the hard question of how consciousness could have a material basis remains unanswered.
That neural networks can do some of the things our conscious self can do is evidence it has a material basis, as is neuroscience, brain injuries, drug use, usw.
How consciousness could have an immaterial basis remains unanswered, it provides no mechanism, neither does it answer any of the important questions, such as why we experience Qualia, optical illusions, usw.
To cries of outrage from certain atheists at the Religion & Spirituality forum, I recently cited a new book by analytical philosopher Joshua Rasmussen, Who Are You, Really?: A Philosopher's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons, https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-You-R.../dp/1514003945, that sounds like it would be of interest to you.
The "cries of outrage" were because you dismissed posts based on decades of relevant science as internet nonsense, before simply posting a link to a book by a philosopher as if it backed your assertions.
And because your usual posts are nothing but fallacies, science denial and links to books you show no evidence of having read, I looked at the Amazon preview, and raised the valid question, if Dr Rasmussen can make a catastrophe of a logical argument on page 1 of the preface, why should we trust a book by someone no one else had heard about?
And instead of explaining why we should trust the book, you ignored the question by pretending I wanted to refute a book I have not read.
As I have said before, if you are going to ignore data, or make philosophical arguments based on false premises, then you are doing philosophy wrong.
Dualism is a trap one should avoid. I'm not talking about a codified philosophy, you hardly need one for that. Just the idea that things either are or are not. Yes, a lot of things are like that, you're either dead or you're alive. That's a truth, at least in my experiences of life. Death is something I personally know nothing about.....yet.
But good/evil, up/down and most things are relative. If you're floating upside down in space, up and down are not fixed, they're relative. Good and evil and right or wrong are not fixed either. We simply do what is appropriate for the situation we are in at that particular moment in time. In one situation it could be called good, in another situation it could be called bad or evil.
Reality is not fixed, it's always in relationship to something else, and things are constantly changing and evolving, especially us. The "world", or reality, doesn't work on dualistic principles. We make good and bad and up and down based upon our beliefs, culture and upbringing. It's learned. In reality, things just are what they are.
Really? The materialist idea that the mind is a set of processes created by the brain to model the real world explains Descartes dualism, and the idea that the mind must also be an input to the brain resolves things like the problem of interactionism.
Materialism may not explain all of the problems, such as Qualia, but then do any of the alternatives? I have seen no good evidence for a better, alternative argument.
The answers you seek seem beyond our ability to provide "evidence," but that does not eliminate the ability to provide theories and hypotheses based on existing science. Your preferred theory and hypotheses are that the brain is just a set of processes to model the real world but it is somehow also an input to the same processes of the brain. I would ask for whom it models the world. How can the same processes be input into themselves? What is your "evidence" for this preferred theory and hypotheses?
Quote:
That neural networks can do some of the things our conscious self can do is evidence it has a material basis, as is neuroscience, brain injuries, drug use, usw.
Your confidence in the mimicry achievable by programs created BY our consciousness specifically to mimic the outputs of our consciousness is psychologically obtuse. Our Self, as you call it is NOT a set of processes. It is the resonant neuro-synaptic "composite" (BEC) of those processes at the level of quanta and the brain is the "transceiver" that communicates the interactions your hypothesis misrepresents as processes being input to the processes themselves. Obviously, any dysfunction, trauma, drugs, injuries to the transceiver would explain the material impacts on consciousness as it manifests to others.
Quote:
How consciousness could have an immaterial basis remains unanswered, it provides no mechanism, neither does it answer any of the important questions, such as why we experience Qualia, optical illusions, usw.
The mechanism is the amplification achieved by the resonance of the neuro-synaptic firings across the entire brain. The "composite" (our Self) exists outside of our material reach at the level of quanta in the form of a pure BEC. My alternative explanation answers both questions, ie., for whom it models reality and how it interacts. You just dislike my alternative because of its implications for who and what our conscious Self actually IS.
The answers you seek seem beyond our ability to provide "evidence," but that does not eliminate the ability to provide theories and hypotheses based on existing science.
No, we have the evidence, the alternatives do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your preferred theory and hypotheses are that the brain is just a set of processes to model the real world but it is somehow also an input to the same processes of the brain. I would ask for whom it models the world.
It's own survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
How can the same processes be input into themselves?
Good catch, that should read it is an input to the body. But processes can also be inputs into other processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What is your "evidence" for this preferred theory and hypotheses?
In the post you quoted, "neuroscience, brain injuries, drug use, usw."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your confidence in the mimicry achievable by programs created BY our consciousness specifically to mimic the outputs of our consciousness is psychologically obtuse.
Assertion and the usual misrepresentation. Neural networks are not doing mimicry, they are actually doing those processes. They are learning from the data themselves, they are not being programmed to do something that looks like facial recognition or predicting what shoppers will buy, they are learning to do that themselves. You need to sop pretending it is mimicry
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Our Self, as you call it is NOT a set of processes.
This is the philosophy forum, not how to make assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is the resonant neuro-synaptic "composite" (BEC) of those processes at the level of quanta and the brain is the "transceiver" that communicates the interactions your hypothesis misrepresents as processes being input to the processes themselves. Obviously, any dysfunction, trauma, drugs, injuries to the transceiver would explain the material impacts on consciousness as it manifests to others. The mechanism is the amplification achieved by the resonance of the neuro-synaptic firings across the entire brain. The "composite" (our Self) exists outside of our material reach at the level of quanta in the form of a pure BEC.
Yes, we know your assertions without evidence, but are assertions without evidence relevant to the philosophy forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
My alternative explanation answers both questions, ie., for whom it models reality and how it interacts.
No it does not, it asserts things without evidence, and pretends quanta inside the brain must mean quanta independent and outside of the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You just dislike my alternative because of its implications for who and what our conscious Self actually IS.
More misrepresentation. I reject your hypothesis because it asserts extra entities, ignores the overwhelming amount of evidence we do have while having no evidence for your assertions, sorry, hypothesis, and provides neither mechanism, nor does it answer any of the important questions, such as why we experience Qualia, optical illusions, usw.
Perhaps if you made actual philosophical, logical and scientific arguments for your assertions, sorry, hypothesis, instead of implying an agenda in others?
No, we have the evidence, the alternatives do not.
It's own survival.
WHO is IT? You are talking about mere processes. There is no IT in mere processes that wants to survive.
Quote:
Good catch, that should read it is an input to the body. But processes can also be inputs into other processes.
Your explanation implies that the processes are using the processes to decide things. How does that work? How can the processes decide anything using the processes themselves? Your neural networks have programmed our decision-making into the processes of AI. Who or what programs the decision-making into our processes?
Quote:
Assertion and the usual misrepresentation. Neural networks are not doing mimicry, they are actually doing those processes. They are learning from the data themselves, they are not being programmed to do something that looks like facial recognition or predicting what shoppers will buy, they are learning to do that themselves. You need to stop pretending it is mimicry.
Get real. We specifically programmed AI to learn and make decisions the way we imagine we do. What is that if NOT mimicry?
Quote:
This is the philosophy forum, not how to make assertions.
Yes, we know your assertions without evidence, but are assertions without evidence relevant to the philosophy forum?
Extrapolations and hypotheses from existing evidence are relevant to philosophy. Calling them assertions without evidence implies you have not read my Synthesis and blogs as you claimed to have done.
Quote:
No it does not, it asserts things without evidence, and pretends quanta inside the brain must mean quanta independent and outside of the brain.
Please explain how quanta (high energy and frequency) can exist within the brain or any material (low energy and frequency) substance.
Quote:
More misrepresentation. I reject your hypothesis because it asserts extra entities, ignores the overwhelming amount of evidence we do have while having no evidence for your assertions, sorry, hypothesis, and provides neither mechanism nor does it answer any of the important questions, such as why we experience Qualia, optical illusions, usw.
Au contraire. The mechanism is amplification and condensation into a pure BEC "composite" via neural-synaptic RESONANCE. That is our true Self and WE exist at that level. WE are the perceivers of qualia, illusions, etc. Face it, "illusory processes" cannot be the perceivers of illusions.
Quote:
Perhaps if you made actual philosophical, logical and scientific arguments for your assertions, sorry, hypothesis, instead of implying an agenda in others?
Your inability to see the philosophical, logical, and scientific rationale does not mean it is absent.
WHO is IT? You are talking about mere processes. There is no IT in mere processes that wants to survive.
Want? They survive because they provide an advantage. It is called evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your explanation implies that the processes are using the processes to decide things. How does that work? How can the processes decide anything using the processes themselves?
We can explain how neurons work in the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your neural networks have programmed our decision-making into the processes of AI.
No. Neural networks learn for themselves from the data, independent of the programmer. That is what makes them potentially dangerous. Perhaps if you learnt how neural networks function before correcting those of us who build and train them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Who or what programs the decision-making into our processes?
Yes, how do babies learn to walk and think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Get real. We specifically programmed AI to learn and make decisions the way we imagine we do. What is that if NOT mimicry?
If you can not understand the difference between individual neurons and the different networks with different data, you are in the wrong forum. Hint, an artificial neuron mimicking on a computer a real neuron is not responsible for facial recognition, controlling a game, or predicting shopping patterns, that information is in the data in the network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Extrapolations and hypotheses from existing evidence are relevant to philosophy.
Correct, but one needs to present that evidence, not simply claim you have it. And we have asked you thousands of times to present that evidence, and every time you avoid doing so with the usual tedious excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Calling them assertions without evidence implies you have not read my Synthesis and blogs as you claimed to have done.
Calling them assertions without evidence infers I HAVE read your synthesis and blogs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Please explain how quanta (high energy and frequency) can exist within the brain or any material (low energy and frequency) substance.
Au contraire. The mechanism is amplification and condensation into a pure BEC "composite" via neural-synaptic RESONANCE. That is our true Self and WE exist at that level. WE are the perceivers of qualia, illusions, etc.
Your usual assertion with no explanatory power or mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Face it, "illusory processes" cannot be the perceivers of illusions.
Thought processes are not illusory, which is why they are probably called thought processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your inability to see the philosophical, logical, and scientific rationale does not mean it is absent.
Correct, my inability to see philosophical, logical, and scientific rationale you have never presented does not mean it is absent. It does infer it is absent.
Or, we can dispense of all "isms" and be free of them. Nothing to clutch to or defend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
