(May 31, 2012 at 4:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Most of the atheists on this forum make a habit of dodging their burden of proof when it comes to defending the material basis for subjective experiences.

The typical atheist claim is that material processes, at the level of classical physics, i.e. elecro-chemical reations, produce non-physical subjective experiences. That is a very extraordinary, though common, claim. The theory that subjective experience = brain state is so woefully inadequate as to be on the same level as creationism. And here is why.

Mental phenomena have no mass or volume, so whatever is happening, must be happening outside of classical physics. Explaining consciousness as an emergent property of matter at the scale of classical physics defies logic. The most common example of emergence is the relationship between a car and its parts. Drivability for example is a property of the car but not any of the parts. This analogy is flawed. First, it only describes a functional relationship. Functional relationships describe what thoughts do, not what a thoughts are, how they feel, or why they occur at all. Second, a car shares basic physical properties with its parts. Parts respond to heat and collisions in the same way that the car as a whole does. Not so with brain matter and thought. Although they are functionally related, what we call mind and the brain have no shared physical properties. Physical trauma to the brain may alter the contents of consciousness, but it doesn’t make any sense to describe a thought as being physically damaged. For example, you could dye the brain green and it wouldn't make the thoughts green.

In previous threads I have defended a panpsychic philosophy. However, this time I want to see you, materialist atheist, defend the claim that mental experiences reduce to physical processes.

[facetiousness]

Emergence

[/facetiousness]

(June 8, 2012 at 8:56 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Emergence

Cool, another adult in the room. I’ve been arguing against emergence with respect to qualia. Right now I am rolling genkaus’s and apo’s ideas around to make sure I fully understand their points and see if our respective philosophies are really that far apart. The idea of emergence has a couple of different conotations and I may be confusing them or we may be talking past each other. I hope to jump back in to the conversation after thinking it through more.

Simply put emergence is the demonstrable tendency for complex and stable patterns to arise out of a seemingly simple set of initial starting conditions. Any "connotations" beyond this are more than likely strawmen.

Brian37 Wrote:So if you call it an idea, people wont get married to it. But when you call it a philosophy, people cherry pick the connections and consistencies interdependency.

What's this 'married' business? I think you're pointing out things that simply aren't there and only in your head.

Let's talk moral ethics. What do you believe in? Utilitarianism, moral relativity, kantian theory...? You're bound to fall in one of these categories and they're all philosophies for moral ethics.

Philosophy governs different aspects of life whether you want to label it a 'philosophy' or not.

(June 8, 2012 at 9:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: Simply put emergence is the demonstrable tendency for complex and stable patterns to arise out of a seemingly simple set of initial starting conditions. Any "connotations" beyond this are more than likely strawmen.

More precisely, emergence is the spontaneous appearance of complex patterns and behaviors from a system with large numbers of simple components capable of only simply interactions.

(June 8, 2012 at 9:25 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 8, 2012 at 8:56 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Emergence

Cool, another adult in the room. I’ve been arguing against emergence with respect to qualia. Right now I am rolling genkaus’s and apo’s ideas around to make sure I fully understand their points and see if our respective philosophies are really that far apart. The idea of emergence has a couple of different conotations and I may be confusing them or we may be talking past each other. I hope to jump back in to the conversation after thinking it through more.

Uh oh, the labler is at work, and Matthew will not be happy.

'Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."'

(June 3, 2012 at 1:38 pm)genkaus Wrote: …humans predominantly rely on sight and sound, which results in our concepts relating to other senses to be severely limited. … Another person is still able to describe it physically and you are still able to create a mental construct to visualize it - in effect experience that object it being present….artists can play entire symphonies in their heads without an actual note being struck. This shows us that it is possible to have conceptual development of other sensory experiences as well

Creating a mental construct is a function; visualizing that construct is an experience. In addition, imagining something only takes you so far. As an artist, I can and do imagine mixing colors and distinguish between various pigment qualities in my head, but, as you say, only conceptually. I can make pictures in my head, yet none of these can substitute for a picture in front of me. Actual reality is more visceral and qualitatively different from imagining it, just as dreams pale in comparision to waking reality.

(June 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm)apophenia Wrote: Let's suppose that I've never ridden a bicycle, but I've spent my entire life studying human physiology, sport, and bicycle riding. Do I know how to ride a bicycle? Again, until we actually perform the experiment, it's impossible to know, but our intuition tells us no. It seems intuitively obvious that "knowing about" bicycle riding doesn't give us "knowing how" to ride a bicycle…It simply shows that there are different modes of knowing employed by minds and brains…Having conceptual knowledge probably will not allow us to intuit experiential knowledge; this doesn't tell us that experiential knowledge is special or magical, only that it is different.[/i]

Magical, no, special, yes. It’s special precisely because it is different. You are correct that “knowing about” doesn’t give you “knowing how”. And niether of those give you “knowing what it feels like.” As you say, there are different modes of knowing. One is qualia.

(June 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm)apophenia Wrote: …when you separate the mind from the brain, you not only separate it from materialism, you separate it from all occurrences of itself, because if it isn't physical, we have no way of determining that your non-material mental is of the same stuff as my non-material mental…

That is not my position. I do not posit the existence of a separate and distinct substance for mind apart from matter. I say that both mind and matter partake of a more fundamental basis, two sides of the same coin, if you will. Mind is the impression on one side. Matter the impression on the other. A precious metal supports both.

(June 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm)apophenia Wrote: ….if you assert some version of panpsychism or monism here, note that in doing so, you are accepting the burden of proof here…

All materialist approaches are basically monist theories, because they reduce everything to fundamental particles and their properties. Using this approach, how do you distinguish between fundamental material properties and emergent ones? The same process that allows you to recognize ‘sphere’ as an emergent property of various substances also allows you to recognize atoms as emergent properties. So for example, you can make a sphere out of wood, cotton, or inflated rubber. ‘Spherical’ is a recognizable property actualized in different substances. Cotton balls, volley balls, and billard balls are all spheres. A helium atom, an iron atom, and a uraniuam atom are all atoms.

Using the materialist approach gives you emergent properties all the way down. The term ‘atom’ refers to the a set of properties that ‘emerge’ from electrons, protons, and neutrons, all of which refer to emergent properties of various types of quarks, then energy and fields, vibrating strings and so on the deeper you go. Thus is seems to be logical to conclude that “there is no there there” and call emergence itself the true fundamental, a continuous coming into being.

What a lovely straw man collection you have gathered here. I love to see the lengths you xtards go to in your vain efforts to force a gap of ignorance into which to shoehorn your fairy tale bullshit speculations. Your obviously increasing desperation pleases and amuses me.

(June 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: What a lovely straw man collection you have gathered here.

I present ideas for the sake of learning and not to convince or convert anyone. If I have made a mistake, then by all means help me to see it.

(June 8, 2012 at 2:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: What a lovely straw man collection you have gathered here.

I present ideas for the sake of learning and not to convince or convert anyone.

Yes, that is why you open up with the absolute bullshit assertion that that "Most of the atheists on this forum make a habit of dodging their burden of proof when it comes to defending the material basis for subjective experiences". I thought lying was a sin in your religion..Do you know how rude it is to lie?

Quote:If I have made a mistake, then by all means help me to see it.

Even your thesis "the brain=mind fallacy" is a strawman. Your arguments here are so full of Fail it could take a lifetime to sort it alll out. But your biggest problem is the underlying disingenuousness that drives you to post shit like this here, and indeed to even hang out here trying to infect the enlightened with your disease of delusion.