tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5498206992570586031..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Ben Schuldt replies to me on behalf of CarrierVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56022622018383245492013-02-23T19:01:39.371-07:002013-02-23T19:01:39.371-07:00I agree, and enjoy the give-and-take.I agree, and enjoy the give-and-take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19393306490627805642013-02-23T15:40:11.875-07:002013-02-23T15:40:11.875-07:00"
If Papa didn't get the joke, ....."...<i>"<br />If Papa didn't get the joke, ....."</i><br /><br />Many a true word said in jest.<br /><br />Actually, Zach, I feel quite some remorse for having responded to you in the manner I did. And in hindsight I wish I hadn't. It was off-the-handle spite. You are a good person as is ingx24. It contributed little to the conversation and I retract the personal slights unconditionally. I'm sorry about that.<br /><br />We simply have a difference in how we make sense of the world. Not really earth-shattering in that respect. People have been at odds since time immemorial. I'm just happy we don't see a reason to kill each other for our different perspectivesPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47003441744464463802013-02-23T14:48:04.954-07:002013-02-23T14:48:04.954-07:00If Papa didn't get the joke, then he is truly ...If Papa didn't get the joke, then he is truly without mentality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11358669181033852222013-02-23T14:21:57.960-07:002013-02-23T14:21:57.960-07:00There you go again, going against all that you bel...<i>There you go again, going against all that you believe is fact.</i><br /><br />He's not going against it - he believes it for most people. He was saying (probably not 100% seriously) that maybe for YOU specifically, materialism is true (i.e. you specifically are just a useless pile of carbon without a real mind, while everyone else is not).ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33006831032899512232013-02-23T13:52:57.931-07:002013-02-23T13:52:57.931-07:00Zach
"lol Duly noted that Papalinton is a use...Zach<br /><i>"lol Duly noted that Papalinton is a useless pile of carbon."</i><br /><br />There you go again, going against all that you believe is fact. Your religion tells everyone I cannot be just a useless pile of carbon, because I have been made in the image of god AND I have been ensouled by the Big Man hisself since conception. So Zach, you just can't go around jumping the fence into naturalism whenever you feel like it, and use a materialist descriptor. You see, I know from evidence you are a useless pile of carbon but your religion tells you I am one of god's divine creatures that is just rebellious and refuses to acknowledge god; but that I am one of God's creatures with a sole and can never be just a 'useless pile of carbon. Such a reality-check description goes against the very central tenets of christian truth claims.. <br /><br />What this informs me with such clarity is that your christian worldview simply has no intellectual rigour or quantum of knowledge in its armoury that allows you to characterize me as you really and emotionally feel. That is why your only recourse is to resort to the truth of naturalism, 'useless pile of carbon'. <br /><br />But then the veracity of your belief system is as real as the immateriality of your worldview. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55487392678807414482013-02-23T06:55:13.602-07:002013-02-23T06:55:13.602-07:00Papalinton--the evangalist of effusive evasive ath...Papalinton--the evangalist of effusive evasive atheists everywhere. Come in with a breath of fire, but never, I repeat <b>never</b>, offer anything of substance. Never answer a question directly. Just cherry-pick links from the ever-reliable internet, because that is the best way to argue.<br /><br />lol Duly noted that Papalinton is a useless pile of carbon. Maybe you do not have a mind, Papalinton, in which case your theories would apply to you alone. The evidence is mounting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46351870350540619782013-02-22T20:43:38.028-07:002013-02-22T20:43:38.028-07:00"Note I haven't said one thing about Fese...<i>"Note I haven't said one thing about Feser or God in this thread. Dualism isn't theism."</i><br /><br />Just the kind of response so common among god-botherers who are quicker than the speed of light to ditch their woo-meistering, knowing and understanding that holding such views are anathema to rational thought, and then proceeds to lie for jeebus, 'dualism isn't theism'. <br /><br />Ignorance is truly a blessing for the blessed lame-brained. Read <a href="http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_dualism.html" rel="nofollow"> this little piece</a> as a start to your eduction. It is peppered through and through with theology.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36196580987969047202013-02-22T20:23:09.658-07:002013-02-22T20:23:09.658-07:00ingx24
"You keep making the assumption that r...ingx24<br /><i>"You keep making the assumption that rejection of materialism can only be motivated by Christianity. Why? I don't subscribe to religious belief, yet I am a dualist. And the reason is because materialism just flies in the face of everything that I experience every day. I have a direct awareness of my mental life as something different from, and more than, mindless electrical impulses and chemical reactions. And no amount of scientific "evidence" (read: biased materialistic interpretations of actual evidence) can convince me that all of my thoughts, emotions, memories, imaginings, etc. are all just random chemical reactions inside my skull."</i><br /><br />That is called, the Argument from Personal Incredulity. It is determined by what Psychology 101 generally defines as ego-centrism, or in the more fashionable notion of being 'the centre of the world'. Can be read about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />In part it notes:<br /><br /><i>"Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one's own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. Self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than do thoughts about others and other-relevant information (Windschitl, Rose, Stalkfleet & Smith, 2008). Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people's opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept."</i><br /><br />You are not yet ready to accept that "everything that I [you] experience every day", may not indeed be the fact that reality is different from what you are ready to accept.<br /><i>"Dualism has its written origins with Plato and Aristotle; however, it is central to most religious thought."</i> Wiki. <br />Subscribing to a form of indeterminate dualism is a concession to a supernaturalism of sorts or some element of ineffability from which this aspect of immaterialism is by definition precluded from investigation or falsifiability. Such a proposition is as jejune as those that cling so resolutely to ancient theo-philosophical postulates. Clearly such proponents are not yet near enough intellectually ready for, let alone equipped to assimilate and acculturate scientific evidence as part of their informed worldview. <br /><br />Therein lies the essence of the dysfunctional nature of the 'inner witness of the holey spirit' for the theists among you and the nature of cognitive dissonance that pervades the misplaced perception of dualism. Remember dualism is an ancient concept largely perpetuated in the works of philosophers that lived within the predominantly contained-world of christian theism, the only significant referent for thinkers of that period. You might want to read up on the history of 'dualism' <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81116932029181251022013-02-22T18:23:04.800-07:002013-02-22T18:23:04.800-07:00Papa retreats to nothing. I ask for evidence, and ...Papa retreats to nothing. I ask for evidence, and he refuses to even engage. Took a page from the book of Loftus. Bark and bark, and then when someone engages, run away with tail between legs.<br /><br />Note I haven't said one thing about Feser or God in this thread. Dualism isn't theism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40266049356277491382013-02-22T17:55:09.515-07:002013-02-22T17:55:09.515-07:00Papalinton,
You keep making the assumption that r...Papalinton,<br /><br />You keep making the assumption that rejection of materialism can only be motivated by Christianity. Why? I don't subscribe to religious belief, yet I am a dualist. And the reason is because materialism just flies in the face of everything that I experience every day. I have a direct awareness of my mental life as something different from, and more than, mindless electrical impulses and chemical reactions. And no amount of scientific "evidence" (read: biased materialistic interpretations of actual evidence) can convince me that all of my thoughts, emotions, memories, imaginings, etc. are all just random chemical reactions inside my skull. My awareness of my own mind and self is the most certain thing I know - I may be hallucinating the entire external world, and it may be nothing like what I see it as if it does exist, but I cannot be mistaken about the existence and contents of my own mind.<br /><br />Materialism is a hopelessly incoherent, nihilistic, and dehumanizing philosophy. And if materialism is the only alternative to religion that most people see (which it shouldn't be - an atheist could easily be a Platonic dualist or a "naturalistic" property dualist like David Chalmers), then maybe we do still need religious belief for the masses - even if it turns out to be false.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20927017550950206492013-02-22T17:37:03.727-07:002013-02-22T17:37:03.727-07:00Zach
'You appeal to the authority of links.&qu...Zach<br /><i>'You appeal to the authority of links."</i><br /><br />No. I'm pointing you to where you could be catching up on the latest data. It's called learning. Rather than spoon feed you I am encouraging you look beyond theo-philosophical obscurantism in search of answers to science investigation. Reading Nagel, or Feser does not constitute prime sources of evidence going back to first principles. Nor does such reading meet even the minimum standard for secondary sources of evidence. It is hear-say at best, open to a myriad of interpretations, as philosophers are want to do, particularly those that elect to remain scientifically uninformed. No better example can be offered than the long history of apologetical interpretative exegesis of christian mythicism, under which hearsay upon hearsay constitutes 'evidence' within theo-philosophical circles. {Remember, to this day, we do not know the sources of the Gospels, nor who their authors were, nor anything about them; nor for which communities they were written, nor their time, nor their region of origin.] What is defined as 'evidence' for the christian mythos is speculative hearsay at best, pretty much in keeping with its truth claims of substantive immateriality [pardon the irony]. Indeed the only conclusion we can come to on the veracity of the Gospels is their, "aboutness".<br /><br /><i>" ... not just reassurances, platitudes, and links, but substantive evidence."</i><br /><br />No can do. Not because substantive evidence is lacking, but rather your definition of what constitutes 'substantive evidence' is contingent upon a supernatural form of immateriality, and predicated on the foundation of hearsay as outlined above, such that you are rendered oblivious to forms of evidence that are conventionally understood as prima facie. <br /><br />As Robert Ingersoll so adroitly noted all those years ago:<br /><br /><i>"Every fact is an enemy of the church. Every fact is a heretic. Every demonstration is an infidel. Everything that ever really happened testifies against the supernatural'.</i><br /><br />Come on, Zach. You must lift your face from the nose-bag of supernaturalism, and smell the roses. :o)<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56573017017596788422013-02-22T12:43:43.241-07:002013-02-22T12:43:43.241-07:00Im-skeptical,
You are aware of the difference bet...Im-skeptical,<br /><br />You are aware of the difference between derived intentionality and intrinsic intentionality, right?ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13768471897722726372013-02-22T12:39:02.766-07:002013-02-22T12:39:02.766-07:00im-skeptical,
>A book can indeed be "abou...im-skeptical,<br /><br />>A book can indeed be "about" something, even though it lacks this ethereal "aboutness" attribite.<br /><br />I address this in the Powerpoint. A book contains ink markings. Those ink markings are only about things because we say they are. Otherwise, they are not about anything.<br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23559242803392281112013-02-22T11:51:56.723-07:002013-02-22T11:51:56.723-07:00ozero91
So you can say that thoughts have meaning...ozero91<br /><br />So you can say that thoughts have meaning as one of their attributes or properties. But it is still wrong to say that there is no physical information, and that information can't be about something, in a completely different sense than "aboutness". That's what I'm trying to get across.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44719867974519986022013-02-22T11:39:30.028-07:002013-02-22T11:39:30.028-07:00Should be:
"Just like 1's and 0's ha...Should be:<br /><br />"Just like 1's and 0's have no real aboutness."ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12590977917288497672013-02-22T11:38:37.084-07:002013-02-22T11:38:37.084-07:00"A book can indeed be "about" somet..."A book can indeed be "about" something, even though it lacks this ethereal "aboutness" attribite. When I read a book, I must first go through the physical process of transferring information from the book to my brain, including what the book is about. Only then (if you insist) can I attach some sort of immaterial "aboutness" to the book."<br /><br />The aboutness of the information in the book is only derived or secondary. In other words, it has no REAL aboutness. Just like 1's and 0'2 have no real aboutness. Any sort of "aboutness" that they do have is only by virtue of minds who impart them with meaning.<br /><br />I think Martin was referring to whether or not the material things are intrinsically meaningful.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22769976770028492202013-02-22T11:30:23.475-07:002013-02-22T11:30:23.475-07:00Martin,
The problem with your "aboutness&quo...Martin,<br /><br />The problem with your "aboutness" argument, as I see it, is that there is a subtle equivocation involved.<br /><br />The philosophical term "aboutness" is defined in non-material terms. By definition, it does not apply to material objects, but only as some kind of conceptual attribute of thoughts. So we can accept that physical things in general don't have this attribute of "aboutness".<br /><br />But in your argument, you immediately start using the term "about", claiming that it can't apply to physical things. "About" is not the same as "aboutness". I previously described in a physical sense how information (which is physical) is in fact "about" something, but I did not refute that is has this "aboutness" attribute. What your argument does is equivocate between those terms, and then conclude that thoughts cannot be material.<br /><br />A book can indeed be "about" something, even though it lacks this ethereal "aboutness" attribite. When I read a book, I must first go through the physical process of transferring information from the book to my brain, including what the book is about. Only then (if you insist) can I attach some sort of immaterial "aboutness" to the book.<br /><br />It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, that aboutness, if it exists at all, is dependent on physical information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5216512856642290542013-02-22T07:19:27.082-07:002013-02-22T07:19:27.082-07:00I would be more curious to see an explanation for ...I would be more curious to see an explanation for why consciousness would be expected from purely physical and Darwinian causes. This is a difficulty Thomas Nagel points out in his new book Mind and Cosmos. <br />Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9954351525934806212013-02-22T06:30:52.504-07:002013-02-22T06:30:52.504-07:00So Papa you can cite others who give promises abou...So Papa you can cite others who give promises about the future, but cannot explain to us how a bit of neural tissue is conscious? You appeal to the authority of links. The new God of the naturalist--links to other naturalists. Where does the buck stop?<br /><br />Explain it for us please: not just reassurances, platitudes, and links, but substantive evidence. How is it that a chunk of brain is conscious?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51516889299558510422013-02-22T01:31:12.350-07:002013-02-22T01:31:12.350-07:00One of the most recent reviews into consciousness ...One of the most recent reviews into consciousness research is outlined <a href="http://edge.org/3rd_culture/dehaene09/dehaene09_index.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />Well worth the read for all interested in learning.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23902191341931054632013-02-21T22:56:03.040-07:002013-02-21T22:56:03.040-07:00Yes Martin, I saw it. But in terms of philsophy &...Yes Martin, I saw it. But in terms of philsophy 'aboutness' is largely synonymous with 'intentionality'. Read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboutness" rel="nofollow">HERE</a><br /><br />Intentionality is a perception concept, very much in the camp of teleology, or as the more assertive would characterize it, rampant agency detection, which is an element of our genetic survival mechanism. <br /><br />There is little about 'aboutness' that translates into or is relevant to the notion of consciousness. Hutchins [See <a href="http://www.vergegraphics.com/blog/knowledge-management/81-defining-intentional-aboutness-in-web-documents-using-the-open-graph-protocol" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>] notes that the term 'aboutness' is <i>" .. used to allow the indexer a differentiated approach to the complex task of analysis."</i><br /><br />If anything, 'aboutness' is not some amorphous experience of some external 'other' worldliness, but rather simply a reflection of a state of consciousness. Occam's razor comes to mind [pardon the pun] here.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14686800936442704792013-02-21T22:21:00.422-07:002013-02-21T22:21:00.422-07:00Papalinton,
>So before theists continue to pra...Papalinton,<br /><br />>So before theists continue to prattle about the ineffability of consciousness, perhaps they ought to define what it is that they believe 'consciousness' entails.<br /><br />I think you missed my link, above.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23771277366887089592013-02-21T22:14:29.762-07:002013-02-21T22:14:29.762-07:00Matt DeStefano, are you the same Matt DeStefano fr...Matt DeStefano, are you the same Matt DeStefano from the foreword to "Homework Helpers: Geometry"?Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28143025145269211752013-02-21T21:23:21.762-07:002013-02-21T21:23:21.762-07:00Zach
"Papalinton cute bluster, but explain to...Zach<br /><i>"Papalinton cute bluster, but explain to me how brains are conscious again? I think I missed that part of your leaky faucet."</i><br /><br />I know it is difficult to concentrate when one is in supernatural orbit but please try and remain attentive. I have drawn theists to the latest info on a number of occasions. Please see <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201104/what-is-consciousness" rel="nofollow">HERE</a><br /><br />In part it reads, <i>"In fact, major progress is being made both experimentally and theoretically in unraveling the mysteries of consciousness."</i><br /><br />Have a read of some of the work of the researchers that are mentioned in the article, Zach. Read <a href="http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/bci/documents/NeuroscientistAntonioDamasioExplainsConsciousness_HuffPo_16Nov2010.pdf" rel="nofollow">this very short piece</a> from Damasio, a neuroscientist based at USC, LA. <br /><br />Or listen to this short <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-conscious-computer/3003916" rel="nofollow">13min podcast</a> with Professor Koch of Pasadena. In part, the blurp reads, <br /><br /><i>"Computer design is moving ahead at enormous speed. Christof Koch suggests before too long, computers will be built that have a degree of consciousness. He says there is little difference between a neuron passing an electrical signal and a circuit firing on a chip. Computers can recognise faces, play chess and perform in television quiz shows such as Jeopardy. Koch says if enough resources are deployed, computers could even interpret poetry."</i><br /><br />So before theists continue to prattle about the ineffability of consciousness, perhaps they ought to define what it is that they believe 'consciousness' entails.<br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12992046598077176342013-02-21T18:54:55.514-07:002013-02-21T18:54:55.514-07:00Matt: a theory of consciousness should explain why...<b>Matt:</b> a theory of consciousness should explain why a bit of neural tissue is conscious. The complete lack of even a crazy hare-brained such theory is very telling. Even when given a free pass to go beyond the data, to just use his imagination and speculate about how it might work, the naturalist greets us with silence.<br /><br />It isn't a matter of naturalists needing to dot i's and cross t's: the problem is that they don't even have the right alphabet to work with. They are insisting on playing checkers when the problem in front of them is a chess problem. They aren't even in a commensurate ball park.<br /><br />Note I never mentioned Chalmers or the hard problem. No need. Dennett is not the best ally, as he effectively denies C's existence from the outset, thereby proving my point.<br /><br /><b>Papalinton</b> cute bluster, but explain to me how brains are conscious again? I think I missed that part of your leaky faucet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com