0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/12/2013 20:01:23Quote from: cheryl j on 02/12/2013 19:53:30Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/12/2013 17:06:32Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realmHow are you not doing the same? How are you not simply moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm by invoking the immaterial?Good question indeed , for a change : i must give you credit for just that ,sweet Cheryl of ours : good thinking,no kidding,i am serious : Well,since the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " conception of nature is false ,mainly because materialism cannot account for consciousness , then , logically , not -all is matter ,including consciousness thus = consciousness is not material physical or biological = simple logic .Nor does immaterialism account for consciousness. In addition, it has not explained any phenomena. Thus consciousness is not immaterial. Simple logic.
Quote from: cheryl j on 02/12/2013 19:53:30Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/12/2013 17:06:32Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realmHow are you not doing the same? How are you not simply moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm by invoking the immaterial?Good question indeed , for a change : i must give you credit for just that ,sweet Cheryl of ours : good thinking,no kidding,i am serious : Well,since the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " conception of nature is false ,mainly because materialism cannot account for consciousness , then , logically , not -all is matter ,including consciousness thus = consciousness is not material physical or biological = simple logic .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/12/2013 17:06:32Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realmHow are you not doing the same? How are you not simply moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm by invoking the immaterial?
Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm
Quote from: dlorde on 02/12/2013 16:58:23 what constructive contribution has philosophy made to our lives?None, ever. Vide supra et infra. Applied philosophy has, however, been the cause of many ills, from individual insanity to major wars.
what constructive contribution has philosophy made to our lives?
Quote from: cheryl j on 03/12/2013 07:41:34I must confess I hate logical arguments based simply on the conceivability of something, because the devil is always in the details. Just because something is not logically contradictory (like an married bachelor) and is conceivable (like a flying toaster, inverted qualia) does not mean it is not contradictory or impossible on some other level (like water that freezes at 200 degrees)I agree. All fictional and imaginary things are conceivable, but I don't see how that necessarily has any bearing on reality.QuoteSomeone like David Cooper might argue that philosophical zombies are not just conceivable but probable, in the future with AI. Dennett says they already exist, and we’re it. Or maybe he just says that once in a while to piss off philosophers. I think his actual view of consciousness is better reflected in his statement “The time has come to put the burden of proof squarely on those who persist in using the term,” that is, he’s not going to worry about it until somebody comes up with a definition of consciousness that isn’t hopelessly confused.I sympathise with Dennett - a reasonable definition is lacking, but there clearly is something we call consciousness, and we know what it feels like (although there's evidence that it misattributes its agency, and possibly a good deal more). QuoteRamachandron might actually pose a bigger threat to the philosophical zombie argument than Dennett. Ramachandran’s research suggests that a philosophical zombie would not be like us in every way except for the absence of conscious experience... In other words, there may be no such thing as a zombie who could be like us in every other respect besides consciousness. One can't say Ramachandron's findings conclusively prove this, but if it were the case, it would put Chalmers in a bad position.Yes; a philosophical zombie may be conceivable, but it seems to me that a creature that is behaviourally indistinguishable from a known conscious creature must itself be conscious because that level of behavioural complexity requires consciousness - or to put it another way, consciousness comes with the level of complexity required to support those behaviours. Also, the energetics of evolutionary development suggests that consciousness is unlikely to be an 'optional extra' that has no significant advantage, yet consumes energy resource. The alternative is to take Dennett's reversed approach and ask the question if there is no discernable difference between two creatures, and one definitely is not conscious (i.e. p zombie), we can have no grounds to say the other is conscious (also Ockham's Razor). And if a p zombie is possible, then why shouldn't this argument apply to all other humans? and since you are not, fundamentally, different from them, it should apply to you too. Thus you are such a p zombie, and so your feeling of consciousness must be an illusion... Of course, this is unsatisfactory because it doesn't account for subjective experience, and calling it an illusion isn't particularly helpful, as we must still ask how this 'illusion' arises. It becomes more a semantic argument over labels than a philosophical one. I suspect Dennett is using this argument as a provocative demonstration of where the philosophical zombie idea leads without a robust definition of consciousness.
I must confess I hate logical arguments based simply on the conceivability of something, because the devil is always in the details. Just because something is not logically contradictory (like an married bachelor) and is conceivable (like a flying toaster, inverted qualia) does not mean it is not contradictory or impossible on some other level (like water that freezes at 200 degrees)
Someone like David Cooper might argue that philosophical zombies are not just conceivable but probable, in the future with AI. Dennett says they already exist, and we’re it. Or maybe he just says that once in a while to piss off philosophers. I think his actual view of consciousness is better reflected in his statement “The time has come to put the burden of proof squarely on those who persist in using the term,” that is, he’s not going to worry about it until somebody comes up with a definition of consciousness that isn’t hopelessly confused.
Ramachandron might actually pose a bigger threat to the philosophical zombie argument than Dennett. Ramachandran’s research suggests that a philosophical zombie would not be like us in every way except for the absence of conscious experience... In other words, there may be no such thing as a zombie who could be like us in every other respect besides consciousness. One can't say Ramachandron's findings conclusively prove this, but if it were the case, it would put Chalmers in a bad position.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 02/12/2013 16:37:19 I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism. But this is just part of the scientific process. Certain sorts of explanation turn out not to work, so we need to embrace other sorts of explanation instead. Everything I say here is compatible with the results of contemporary science; our picture of the natural world is broadened, not overturned. And this broadening allows the possibility of a naturalistic theory of consciousness that might have been impossible without it. It seems to me that to ignore the problems of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to them directly. To those whosuspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see.I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense. Temperamentally, I amstrongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations.For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly. It eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously. Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.Source : "The conscious mind " by David J.Chalmers , Introduction .Again, this is an introduction, which describes what he is about to discuss. Without the argument itself, I'm not sure what your point is in reposting it, other than to say "Hey, look! Someone who once thought materialist mechanisms explained consciousness now thinks otherwise." But your post doesn't include the reasoning behind this change of view, or the view that has replaced it. And no, I do not expect you to post the entire book, but I would expect some attempt on your part to understand his reasons if you are going to use them as evidence for your own position. (I am pleased that you have chosen someone who is not a total crackpot though.)
I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism. But this is just part of the scientific process. Certain sorts of explanation turn out not to work, so we need to embrace other sorts of explanation instead. Everything I say here is compatible with the results of contemporary science; our picture of the natural world is broadened, not overturned. And this broadening allows the possibility of a naturalistic theory of consciousness that might have been impossible without it. It seems to me that to ignore the problems of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to them directly. To those whosuspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see.I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense. Temperamentally, I amstrongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations.For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly. It eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously. Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.Source : "The conscious mind " by David J.Chalmers , Introduction .
Quote from: Ethos_ on 02/12/2013 21:09:42Don Quixote: The chivalrous but UNREALISTIC hero from the novel by Cervantes. Very serious similarities here by name and personality Mr. Don.Indeed : what a miracle that we do seem to agree with each other this time, for a change .We are all some or other forms of Cervantes' Don Quixote ,from time to time , that's 1 of the reasons why i did choose this nick ,and i did talk about just that on many occasions as well .
Don Quixote: The chivalrous but UNREALISTIC hero from the novel by Cervantes. Very serious similarities here by name and personality Mr. Don.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 17:02:10Quote from: Ethos_ on 02/12/2013 21:09:42Don Quixote: The chivalrous but UNREALISTIC hero from the novel by Cervantes. Very serious similarities here by name and personality Mr. Don.Indeed : what a miracle that we do seem to agree with each other this time, for a change .We are all some or other forms of Cervantes' Don Quixote ,from time to time , that's 1 of the reasons why i did choose this nick ,and i did talk about just that on many occasions as well .No miracle Don., just detailed observation
You should also notice I capitalized the word; UNREALISTIC as how many of us view your stance on these subjects
Nevertheless, it would be good to give credit where credit is due and offer you recognition where persistence is the virtue.
Please accept this as a token of reconciliation
but remember that most of the members here are interested in science and not philosophy.
Believe it or not, I understand where you are coming from. But the problem remains; The bases upon which your "Theory" is built lacks support from identifiable, empirically tested, repeatable evidence. And without such, the "Theory" can not be considered good science. In fact, it should not be called a theory at all. And may even lack sufficient grounds to be considered a correct Hypothesis. And the grief you're putting yourself and others thru is for this very reason.
And to make my position very clear, and submit something that will certainly surprise you and many others here. I am a man of faith and without going into particulars, that very faith agrees with some of what you contend.
However, and I repeat; However, students of the sciences require tangible evidence as I've stated in the prior paragraph. Without these physical attributes, it can not and will not be called good science. Remember, the reason we call it the science of physics, it's dealing with things we can see, touch, hear, taste, smell and measure. Without these measurements, it's only faith.
Science does not require materialism ,as science does not have to be materialistic , in the above mentioned sense = the false materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences must be rejected ,and replaced by a relatively valid one .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:52:57Science does not require materialism ,as science does not have to be materialistic , in the above mentioned sense = the false materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences must be rejected ,and replaced by a relatively valid one .OK Don., tell us how you measure the non-materialistic? Unless we can establish limits and measures, we've accomplished nothing.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/12/2013 19:07:40Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:52:57Science does not require materialism ,as science does not have to be materialistic , in the above mentioned sense = the false materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences must be rejected ,and replaced by a relatively valid one .OK Don., tell us how you measure the non-materialistic? Unless we can establish limits and measures, we've accomplished nothing.You mean the non-material , i think .Science does not have to be materialistic , in the sense that science must stop assuming that "all is matter ,including the mind ",by rejecting its false materialist conception of nature ,or false materialist meta-paradigm in science ,that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " .See Sheldrake's , Chalmer's, Thomas Nagel's and others' works on the subject , relatively speaking .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 19:34:38Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/12/2013 19:07:40Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:52:57Science does not require materialism ,as science does not have to be materialistic , in the above mentioned sense = the false materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences must be rejected ,and replaced by a relatively valid one .OK Don., tell us how you measure the non-materialistic? Unless we can establish limits and measures, we've accomplished nothing.You mean the non-material , i think .Science does not have to be materialistic , in the sense that science must stop assuming that "all is matter ,including the mind ",by rejecting its false materialist conception of nature ,or false materialist meta-paradigm in science ,that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " .See Sheldrake's , Chalmer's, Thomas Nagel's and others' works on the subject , relatively speaking .Don., you keep skating around the issue. Without measurement, you will establish no facts. And about your question; Why I have a faith and still believe in the scientific method? First and foremost, I never mix the two. What is science can be measured and what is faith can not. What I find in science belongs to science and the material world. What is faith remains beyond those limits. And this is the difficulty you've presented yourself with. By defending the indefensible, you're trying to mix science with faith. This position is doomed to fail Sir Don.
... nature cannot "generate " life or consciousness...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:05:45... nature cannot "generate " life or consciousness...So now life and consciousness are unnatural are they, Don?
Quote from: dlorde on 03/12/2013 20:15:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:05:45... nature cannot "generate " life or consciousness...So now life and consciousness are unnatural are they, Don?Not unnatural, they just cannot be "generated " by nature , otherwise , let any materialist out there ,or any naturalist non-reductionist account for the nature of life or consciousness fully naturalistically .In other words :Let them explain to us how life or consciousness emerged in nature .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 20:23:44Quote from: dlorde on 03/12/2013 20:15:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:05:45... nature cannot "generate " life or consciousness...So now life and consciousness are unnatural are they, Don?Not unnatural, they just cannot be "generated " by nature , otherwise , let any materialist out there ,or any naturalist non-reductionist account for the nature of life or consciousness fully naturalistically .In other words :Let them explain to us how life or consciousness emerged in nature .Sir Don., why should I accept your challenge when you have ignored mine for so many posts. But, in an attempt at fairness, I have six words for you: ................................Limited Evolution, and or Natural SelectionMaybe you should answer your own question here my friend. How would you construct the means for the onset of life?But first, you'll need to define life. What is life Don.?Secondly, what makes consciousness different from other forms of mental activity?Thirdly and lastly, What is Nature?
Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/12/2013 20:57:14Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 20:23:44Quote from: dlorde on 03/12/2013 20:15:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:05:45... nature cannot "generate " life or consciousness...So now life and consciousness are unnatural are they, Don?Not unnatural, they just cannot be "generated " by nature , otherwise , let any materialist out there ,or any naturalist non-reductionist account for the nature of life or consciousness fully naturalistically .In other words :Let them explain to us how life or consciousness emerged in nature .Sir Don., why should I accept your challenge when you have ignored mine for so many posts. But, in an attempt at fairness, I have six words for you: ................................Limited Evolution, and or Natural SelectionMaybe you should answer your own question here my friend. How would you construct the means for the onset of life?But first, you'll need to define life. What is life Don.?Secondly, what makes consciousness different from other forms of mental activity?Thirdly and lastly, What is Nature?We patiently wait........................................................
Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/12/2013 21:08:33Quote from: Ethos_ on 03/12/2013 20:57:14Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 20:23:44Quote from: dlorde on 03/12/2013 20:15:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/12/2013 18:05:45... nature cannot "generate " life or consciousness...So now life and consciousness are unnatural are they, Don?Not unnatural, they just cannot be "generated " by nature , otherwise , let any materialist out there ,or any naturalist non-reductionist account for the nature of life or consciousness fully naturalistically .In other words :Let them explain to us how life or consciousness emerged in nature .Sir Don., why should I accept your challenge when you have ignored mine for so many posts. But, in an attempt at fairness, I have six words for you: ................................Limited Evolution, and or Natural SelectionMaybe you should answer your own question here my friend. How would you construct the means for the onset of life?But first, you'll need to define life. What is life Don.?Secondly, what makes consciousness different from other forms of mental activity?Thirdly and lastly, What is Nature?We patiently wait........................................................Times up Don......................Someone else take over here, I'm bored to death and have given up ever being able to squeez any answers out of Sir Don. This thread is an absolute waste of time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!