(2017-11-02, 07:28 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]There have been several reasons why I've been posting less of late, but I have become less enthralled with nailing down the "nature of reality" and more interested in finding a philosophy to live by, independent of ephemeral underlying truths.
My best and lifelong friend is a highly dedicated and practicing Buddhist. He discovered Buddhism while in graduate school and has gone on to make it the centerpiece of his life. (He is very involved in his order; runs a center, etc.)
We were talking the other day and I was asking him about his thoughts on this materialist vs "more than materialist" (not sure how to categorize it
) debate. While we had a really good discussion and he engaged with a lot of depth it was clear that he ultimately found the exercise, well, non-central.
He's found something in his practice that is most meaningful. Its "known" to him for lack of a better word.
This just struck me as I read your self described evolution (perhaps ongoing?) from nailing down reality to finding something to live by.
While I never do it, my friend would advise you to start a meditative practice. I'm not sure why I don't do it beyond laziness. Its certainly appealing at an intellectual, 'make my life better' sort of level.
(2017-11-03, 03:09 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]But see, it’s clearly not. You’re only categorizing the mind as physical because of physicalism, when it clearly displays no physical attributes. It cannot be independently measured, and the contents of such cant be guaranteed to even exist at any time. You have to take into assumption that it does exist for brain process. Like I have to assume you actually have an inner life and conciousness, because there’s no way for me to physically measure it. Just hand waving off that distinction doesn’t work.
Space displays no physical characteristics yet space can be warped in many ways and those warpings can be measured so to speak. Claiming consciousness isn't physical for that reason is a misstep. Implying consciousness is not brain generated is exclusively a metaphysical position in origin.
(2017-11-03, 07:36 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Space displays no physical characteristics yet space can be warped in many ways and those warpings can be measured so to speak. Claiming consciousness isn't physical for that reason is a misstep. Implying consciousness is not brain generated is exclusively a metaphysical position in origin.
What? Of course space has characteristics that are measurable. That’s crazy to think that it doesn’t. Also, implying consciousness isn’t brain generated isn’t at all a metaphysical position. It’s an empirical one. On top of that, no one actually is debating here about brain generated conciousness, just whether or not that conciousness has the characterizations of ontologically physical things.
Please educate yourself on this conversation before you brazenly inject your opinion into it.
(2017-11-03, 08:00 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]What? Of course space has characteristics that are measurable. That’s crazy to think that it doesn’t. Also, implying consciousness isn’t brain generated isn’t at all a metaphysical position. It’s an empirical one. On top of that, no one actually is debating here about brain generated conciousness, just whether or not that conciousness has the characterizations of ontologically physical things.
Please educate yourself on this conversation before you brazenly inject your opinion into it.
Name one character of space that is quantifiable?
I think your way off the mark. Ever since Skeptiko and now here the assumption is brain and mind are separate things even so far as to be labeled non-local and some have argued the brain is nothing more than a radio receiver. To argue those perspectives do not originate from immaterialists metaphysics as again silly.
I'll be as brazen as I choose.
(2017-11-03, 08:46 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Name one character of space that is quantifiable?
I think your way off the mark. Ever since Skeptiko and now here the assumption is brain and mind are separate things even so far as to be labeled non-local and some have argued the brain is nothing more than a radio receiver. To argue those perspectives do not originate from immaterialists metaphysics as again silly.
I'll be as brazen as I choose.
What are you even talking about? Read, quite literally, 10 posts back where I say:
But one of the major postulates here is that the brain can still give rise to the unphysical mind, physicalism can be wrong, and idealism/post Mortemsurvival still be false. It’s not tied down either way, it just makes it less likely if physicalism is wrong ( which I believe it clearly is ).
(2017-11-03, 03:09 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]But see, it’s clearly not.
Either way, I don't think it is "clearly" anything.
Quote:You’re only categorizing the mind as physical because of physicalism, when it clearly displays no physical attributes.
The physicalist may say that that is a manufactured problem (a pseudoprofound argument beloved by a certain brand of philosopher) in that the mind doesn't actually actually "exist" as a separate entity in the way you like to paint it. The fact that you "feel" it does may miss the point. Beware of trusting your nervous system too much; it is constantly modulating its inputs, and using elaborate feedback systems, to facilitate your interaction with your environment. In a sense, nothing it does is "real". The idea that one can experience the functioning of this system in order to determine anything useful about its aetiology or essential nature could be a mis-step. In other words, Descartes may have got ahead of himself.
Quote:It cannot be independently measured, and the contents of such cant be guaranteed to even exist at any time. You have to take into assumption that it does exist for brain process. Like I have to assume you actually have an inner life and conciousness, because there’s no way for me to physically measure it. Just hand waving off that distinction doesn’t work.
I don't think it's
just handwaving. In nature we see increasing neural complexity in organisms corresponding with higher levels of
awareness and interaction with their environment (consciousness?). These organisms, and their nervous systems, are constructed of the same stuff (atoms, molecules etc) that makes up everything else we can observe.
At no point do I consider all of this anything other than utterly bizarre btw
(2017-11-03, 11:39 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it's just handwaving. In nature we see increasing neural complexity in organisms corresponding with higher levels of awareness and interaction with their environment (consciousness?). These organisms, and their nervous systems, are constructed of the same stuff (atoms, molecules etc) that makes up everything else we can observe.
Be careful not to mistake the map for the terrain.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10930
Hoffman Wrote:
The mind-body problem may not fall within the scope of physicalist science, since this problem has, as yet, no bona fide physicalist theory. Its defenders can surely argue that this penury shows only that we have not been clever enough or that, until the right mutation chances by, we cannot be clever enough, to devise a physicalist theory. They may be right. But if we assume that consciousness is fundamental then the mind-body problem transforms from an attempt to bootstrap consciousness from matter into an attempt to bootstrap matter from consciousness. The latter bootstrap is, in principle, elementary: Matter, spacetime and physical objects are among the contents of consciousness.
And ...
Hoffman Wrote:
Consider, for instance, the quest for neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). This holy grail of physicalism can, and should, proceed unabated if consciousness is fundamental, for it constitutes a central investigation of our user interface. To the physicalist, an NCC is, potentially, a causal source of consciousness. If, however, consciousness is fundamental, then an NCC is a feature of our interface correlated with, but never causally responsible for, alterations of consciousness.
(2017-11-04, 12:17 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Be careful not to mistake the map for the terrain.
I think I’ve been careful to avoid that... but the orienteering will be trickier if I leave the map at home.
Here's a guy I have not come across before. The lecture is really a definition of materialism followed by the various challenges to materialism. I think he summarises them very well and I should cross-post this into the Darwinism thread because that constitutes one of those challenges. I'm pretty sure that Malf and his fellow materialists will agree with Koons' definition of materialism - if not, I'd be interested to know why not. I'd also be interested in the reaction to the challenges other than some kind of ad hominem attack which I'm expecting will be presented anyhow.
(2017-11-05, 11:55 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a guy I have not come across before. The lecture is really a definition of materialism followed by the various challenges to materialism. I think he summarises them very well and I should cross-post this into the Darwinism thread because that constitutes one of those challenges. I'm pretty sure that Malf and his fellow materialists will agree with Koons' definition of materialism - if not, I'd be interested to know why not. I'd also be interested in the reaction to the challenges other than some kind of ad hominem attack which I'm expecting will be presented anyhow.
Very good. But it is too bad that like most philosophers he ignores many of the empirical objections to materialism. It clearly is incompatible with evidence from research into psi and survival, which is most compatible with interactional dualism. He unreasonably gives short shrift to dualism.