(March 14, 2016 at 2:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: One moves around more and says stuff.

Wrong. A conscious person is aware of things, an unconscious person isn't.

(March 14, 2016 at 11:51 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Now, I'm sure this view will be controversial, and I can feel Rhythm breathing down my neck already.  But I'd say that science has shown that, whatever we think the universe is, it isn't that.  Or, at least, that there's a paradoxical dualism: if you view a cell through a microscope (i.e. collect evidence) what are you really seeing?  Is the answer a cloud of wave functions, or a "thing"?  Is a photon a wave or a particle?

That's not me breathing down your neck, it's your own inner rhythm, lol. You already -know- why your questions are malformed.  

Is a carrot x or is it y? -Yes.  
Is a rock a or is it B? -Yes.  
Is a table flat, or is it mostly empty space?  -Yes.

 On to the next, If things aren't as they seem then things aren't as they seem.  It's a no-shit statement that is not a valid objection to a materialist explanation of -anything-, let alone just one specific thing, like a materialist explanation of mind.  Why not just say "What if you're wrong?".  If you view a cell through a microscope..you're seeing, wait for it...a cell as viewed through a microscope.  Strange, it -seems- different under magnification.....is that also a great profundity that speaks against materialist explanations..or is that altogether more mundane and explicable?

Is it a cloud of wave function or is it a thing? -Yes.
Does a photon act like a wave or a particle? - Yes.
Is my shoe rubber or is it grey?  -Yes.

Asking malformed questions leads to unsatisfactory answers and malformed conclusions. Insinuating that a choice needs be made between any of the above is rationalization at best, disingenuous and invalid at worst. Perhaps if you worked on your questions the answers would be more satisfying to you?

(March 15, 2016 at 11:25 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 9:22 am)little_monkey Wrote: Some clarifications:

(1) There are things that are visible to the scientists carrying those experiment: for instance smiling since you brought it up. There are things taking place on your face when you smile in terms of muscles being pulled, and all sorts of chemical reactions taking place, etc - all of these can be observed and measured.

(2) Scientists observe thousands of patients, so if you claim this smiling is a fake, for instance, then you need to believe in a conspiracy theory that all those thousands of  patients are faking it and why they would want to fake a smile???

So, we can definitely map the brain in terms of the activities we all do, whether it's about smiling or anything that involves thinking, feeling, mobility, etc. Now if you can show scientifically you can do some of these activities without the brain , that is, the brain being not involved in any possible way , then you have something to argue from. But so far, the science is not on your side.

Benny, I'm waiting for your response...

I'm not sure what you are saying.  I'm talking about philosophical zombies, and you're talking about people faking smiles.  In correlations of mind with brain function, we cannot knowingly correlate mental experiences-- at best we can correlate words about mind with brain function.  In other words, it is taken at face value that if you think something SEEMS to experience qualia, it does.  But I don't think this logic holds true.

We can only use what we have Benny.  Why does it matter, though, suppose we could directly connect the two...will you then change your position? Unlikely.

"Things may not be as they seem".

Demanding knowledge or ability that no one has in order to complete a task you have made impossible from the outset is in no way, shape, or form, rationally discussing a subject.

(March 15, 2016 at 11:47 am)Rhythm Wrote: Single atoms are not expected to have an awareness in a materialist explanation, and they do not present any evidence of awareness.  Things -may- need to be  similar to our own brain to have an awareness, in a materialist explanation...that -is- expected.  That doesn't mean they need to be human, brains, or even biological.  

Nothing CAN show evidence of awareness, unless you've already taken the philosophical position that particular correlates may be said to correspond to awareness. Take any physical system in the universe, and ask if it experiences qualia. If you think it does, fine-- but how will you know? No matter how many assumptions you're willing to throw onto the pile, the fact is that your evidence is only valid in the context of the assumptions you are making.

Quote:Speaking of similarities....since -no- material monist explanation says "it's in there, somewhere"....this one is just like your "can't account for or discuss" nonsense, and you know better.

Really? This is great. Tell me what exactly it is about the brain that allows a person to really experience qualia, rather than just seeming to. What, specifically, is it about the brain that allows for qualia?

(March 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We can only use what we have Benny.  Why does it matter, though, suppose we could directly connect the two...will you then change your position?  Unlikely.  

"Things may not be as they seem".

Demanding knowledge or ability that no one has in order to complete a task you have made impossible from the outset is in no way, shape, or form, rationally discussing a subject.

We can make all kinds of hunches or ideas about life.  However, you have a habit of forgetting just how many layers of assumptions your position is dependent on.

(March 15, 2016 at 1:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:  
Nothing CAN show evidence of awareness, unless you've already taken the philosophical position that particular correlates may be said to correspond to awareness.  Take any physical system in the universe, and ask if it experiences qualia.  If you think it does, fine-- but how will you know?  No matter how many assumptions you're willing to throw onto the pile, the fact is that your evidence is only valid in the context of the assumptions you are making.

You won't be satisfied with my methods, as you are unsatisfied with sciencific methods, no matter how many assumptions are or aren't made, you've already set fire to the ground.

Quote:Really?  This is great.  Tell me what exactly it is about the brain that allows a person to really experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.  What, specifically, is it about the brain that allows for qualia?

Are you running a clinic in bad logic?  I tell you no material explanation of mind says "it;s in there, somewhere" and you ask for an exact explanation of mind....as though anyone had claimed it.  What's that called, Benny?  Is there a name for that type of response?

The plus side to the manner in which you discuss mind is that you never have to acknowledge that you're rationalizing. You can endlessly demand that others do this, or do that, regardless of the validity of the response..and no matter what they respond with...you've already set your escape route. After you;ve pulled that...you'll simply repeat the same questions until the retun of christ...as though they had never been addressed. It's tedious.

Here, let me put this another, simpler way.

A person says to you-
I don't think your objections are rational.

You respond with-
Then prove brain is mind.

-as though they weren't separate discussions, as though your response has anything to do with the subject of their comments. I know you understand why this is unproductive in other areas of discussion. If you told one of our resident apologists that his argument was not rational..and he then demanded that you prove god didn't exist, you'd laugh at him for having even said it.

(March 15, 2016 at 1:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 15, 2016 at 11:25 am)little_monkey Wrote: Benny, I'm waiting for your response...

I'm not sure what you are saying.  I'm talking about philosophical zombies, and you're talking about people faking smiles.  In correlations of mind with brain function, we cannot knowingly correlate mental experiences-- at best we can correlate words about mind with brain function.  In other words, it is taken at face value that if you think something SEEMS to experience qualia, it does.  But I don't think this logic holds true.

I was responding to your claim in post #48. You wrote: "You do not actually know whether the smiling, breathing physical structure in front of you is experiencing "what it's like" to be mindful-- you accept them at their word when they say they are, but cannot know it." 

The point I raised in #58: 

(1) There are things that are visible to the scientists carrying those experiment: for instance smiling since you brought it up. There are things taking place on your face when you smile in terms of muscles being pulled, and all sorts of chemical reactions taking place, etc - all of these can be observed and measured.

(2) Scientists observe thousands of patients, so if you claim this smiling is a fake, for instance, then you need to believe in a conspiracy theory that all those thousands of  patients are faking it and why they would want to fake a smile???


So, we can definitely map the brain in terms of the activities we all do, whether it's about smiling or anything that involves thinking, feeling, mobility, etc. Now if you can show scientifically you can do some of these activities without the brain , that is, the brain being not involved in any possible way , then you have something to argue from. But so far, the science is not on your side.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

You're saying one cannot know if (smiling, breathing... etc)  pertains to "mindful".  But if there is a correlation between the (smiling, breathing... etc) and the physical activities in the brain produced by MRI's, then I have:

(1) observable (smiling, breathing... etc)  → mindful

(2) observable (smiling, breathing... etc)  → brain activities

Therefore I have to conclude that,

(3) mindful = brain activities

If that correlation in (2) is reproduced over thousands of patients, you have no choice but to conclude (3). The only way you can deny (3) is to show that for some "mindful" activities, the correlation (2) is false.

We can talk "what if"s all day but unless there are evidence to suggest otherwise it's just a waste of time