RE: Is God a logical contradiction?
February 22, 2020 at 7:37 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2020 at 8:26 am by The Grand Nudger.)
It's hard to see the point of copy pasting all that out unless it was meant to show that you do, in fact, have a philosophic objection to science, which proceeds from reductionism.
Chalmers does too...as a dualist who thinks that a new law or force would need to be described in order to explain consciousness. All well and good, but if you take an anti-reductive position, you cannot then assert and thus require the truth of what you would attempt to disprove. In this case, a body of reductive facts. That would be a stolen concept.
Speaking of Chalmers, the p-zombie conjecture is a thought experiment designed explicitly to reject the notion that we can observe the correlates of consciousness, and the hard problem of consciousness is incoherent with the underlying premise of scientific inquiry, as the hard problem of vitalism handily demonstrates. If Chalmers is right about consciousness and hard problems, it's not just cog sci that's wrong, biology is wrong in it's totality. These views place him well outside of the consensus in cog sci (and he knows this, wearing it on his sleeve). As above, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking such a position. However, there are and will always be valid and invalid ways of expressing such a position.
You cannot coherently sate that something is both observable, and un-observable. This isn't a disagreement over facts or which body of asserted facts are the True Facts. Even assuming Chalmers is right, a stolen concept is still a logical fallacy. This is why Chalmers is careful to assert not that we observe the correlates of consciousness, but that we observe behaviors..correlates of brain activity. Stated this way it only applies to creatures with brains, but we do observe behavior in things without brains at all. For some odd reason you think a furby would be a good example (despite it's obvious human artifice)..but here in mere reality a better rep for that set would be plants. Not a problem, for Chalmers. He might call them proto-conscious or minimally conscious. Consciousness being a fundamental unit or force. Run of the mill panpsychism.
Chalmers does too...as a dualist who thinks that a new law or force would need to be described in order to explain consciousness. All well and good, but if you take an anti-reductive position, you cannot then assert and thus require the truth of what you would attempt to disprove. In this case, a body of reductive facts. That would be a stolen concept.
Speaking of Chalmers, the p-zombie conjecture is a thought experiment designed explicitly to reject the notion that we can observe the correlates of consciousness, and the hard problem of consciousness is incoherent with the underlying premise of scientific inquiry, as the hard problem of vitalism handily demonstrates. If Chalmers is right about consciousness and hard problems, it's not just cog sci that's wrong, biology is wrong in it's totality. These views place him well outside of the consensus in cog sci (and he knows this, wearing it on his sleeve). As above, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking such a position. However, there are and will always be valid and invalid ways of expressing such a position.
You cannot coherently sate that something is both observable, and un-observable. This isn't a disagreement over facts or which body of asserted facts are the True Facts. Even assuming Chalmers is right, a stolen concept is still a logical fallacy. This is why Chalmers is careful to assert not that we observe the correlates of consciousness, but that we observe behaviors..correlates of brain activity. Stated this way it only applies to creatures with brains, but we do observe behavior in things without brains at all. For some odd reason you think a furby would be a good example (despite it's obvious human artifice)..but here in mere reality a better rep for that set would be plants. Not a problem, for Chalmers. He might call them proto-conscious or minimally conscious. Consciousness being a fundamental unit or force. Run of the mill panpsychism.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!