2023-06-16, 11:03 AM
(2023-06-16, 10:25 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]The sound of the point going over your head:
A video of me trying to get my point across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wooznjB475w&t=7s
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
2023-06-16, 11:10 AM
(2023-06-16, 11:03 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]A video of me trying to get my point across.
No, really, you missed the point. Twice. You have no point to make unless you understand the point to which you're responding...
2023-06-16, 11:24 AM
(2023-06-16, 10:24 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible, but hard to know either way.
You write this in response to, "Perhaps we should add another item to our list: nails. If you tend to endorse animism, and think waterfalls might be conscious, could nails also be conscious?"
I find it interesting that you think nails might be conscious. After all, the fact that nails are not conscious appears to be a central point of Patel's current line of argument. We will see where his argument goes from here, but it appears you may have taken the wind out of his sails.
2023-06-16, 11:29 AM
(2023-06-16, 11:24 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]You write this in response to, "Perhaps we should add another item to our list: nails. If you tend to endorse animism, and think waterfalls might be conscious, could nails also be conscious?"
I find it interesting that you think nails might be conscious. After all, the fact that nails are not conscious appears to be a central point of Patel's current line of argument. We will see where his argument goes from here, but it appears you may have taken the wind out of his sails.
Nah: if a nail is conscious, it's not because of its physicality (Sci's point), it's because of the mind embodied in it (on mind-body dualism) or because it was never really physical in the first place, but rather consciousness presenting the appearance of physicality (on idealism).
2023-06-16, 11:38 AM
(2023-06-16, 10:55 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]When I look for causes in the world, I look for causes that are consistent with science, knowing that science is steadily advancing, hopefully getting closer to that ideal, complete physics.
The definition of faith; the antithesis of the scientific endeavor.
Certainly you can see how easy it is to imagine a similar sentiment being uttered in support of prevailing 'sciences' of days past? I'm sure Copernicus had plenty of otherwise intelligent folks telling him his heliocentric theory was 'woo' since it wasn't 'consistent with Ptolemic science'.
2023-06-16, 03:17 PM
(2023-06-16, 10:55 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]I would define physical as being in accord with a theoretically potential future ideal physics, but that definition becomes quite open-ended. We cannot know what the final state of a future, complete, ideal physics would look like. So I am finding the word isn't that useful for this conversation.
When one describes a mind as a "non-physical object," what can that even mean? Isn't than an oxymoron? And if you say the mind is not physical and not even an object, then what in the heck is it?
'Non-physical' is used as a term because Physicalists, a metaphysical position, hold that what is "physical" in its base constituents has no-mental character & no teleology, and (for many Physicalists) whose complete description can be given in the mathematical terms of current physics.
So we should just not use the word "physical"? Is that the takeaway?
2023-06-16, 03:17 PM
(2023-06-16, 01:11 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]In creatures with advanced minds, that have vast amounts of memories and ideas vying for attention
Whose attention are these memories and ideas vying for?
(2023-06-16, 01:11 AM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]So the conscious is real, yes, just like a swim class or a reunion is real
Also I don't understand this. Could you explain what you mean by "real", and how this real-ness is shared by swim classes, reunions, and consciousness?
2023-06-16, 03:22 PM
(2023-06-16, 10:28 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Please: go ahead and dominate the discussion. I don't have anything like your stamina for this sort of thing, and am quite happy to be left behind in the dust.
Ah for myself I think asking questions is best at this stage. I don't want to write lots of paragraphs about the "non-physical" or "Physicalism" if these terms don't have any agreed upon meaning.
2023-06-16, 07:12 PM
(2023-06-16, 11:29 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Nah: if a nail is conscious, it's not because of its physicality (Sci's point), it's because of the mind embodied in it (on mind-body dualism) or because it was never really physical in the first place, but rather consciousness presenting the appearance of physicality (on idealism).
I'm beginning to realize that *if* anyone in the proponent camp wanted to try and make these arguments publicly accessible a lot of philosophical usage of words will need to be dropped.
Libertarian, Idealist, Intentional, Materialist....there's more.
Why I think it's better to just accept, for the sake of argument at the very least, that nails are not conscious. Why it should be obvious they aren't is the interesting question...
2023-06-16, 11:04 PM
(2023-06-16, 03:17 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Whose attention are these memories and ideas vying for?
Neurons are vying to be in control of the output of the brain including the consciousness it creates. There is no central part of the brain that is in control of what the brain decides.
Quote:Also I don't understand this. Could you explain what you mean by "real", and how this real-ness is shared by swim classes, reunions, and consciousness?Swim classes, reunions and consciousness all really exist even though none is an actual object.