RE: Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis
February 16, 2017 at 10:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2017 at 11:05 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(February 15, 2017 at 5:22 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(February 15, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: No I'm not committing that fallacy at all because I am not attiributing anything of the sort. I am saying that the mental can be physical and to say it's a contradiction is to commit the equivocation fallacy. I'm not saying objects without brains have thoughts and feelings
But you are attributing intentions to (supposedly) deterministic processes.
Yes I am attributing intentions to deterministic living being's deterministic brains.
I am NOT attributing intentions to non-living objects. I'm not saying a chair has thoughts and feelings. That's the pathetic fallacy.
Determinism has nothing to do with this. I believe we live in a deterministic causal universe. I also believe I have a physical brain containing physical neurons that thinks.
The fact you think that saying deterministic physical beings with deterministic physical brains is a logical fallacy just shows how utterly terrible at logic you are.
(February 15, 2017 at 9:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(February 15, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: What do you mean "Why would it?" Why wouldn't it? Evolution has useless side effects and by products left over all the time. There's no purpose to it it's purposeless.An extra appendage, a malformed foot or a vestigial organ is not in the same category as the capacity to subjectively experience. All those other things, all the ones you could possibly discuss, are philosophically neutral. The ability to experience what things are like is a really different issue-- it's not derived from anything else, it doesn't contribute to anything else, it is not even physically detectable, and yet it is clearly the most important aspect of human existence.
Subjective human experience is impossible to study by science. But I don't see why that makes it mysterious. Of course it's impossible to study something that can only be experienced by the person experiencing it because it is by defintiion their experience itself.
I still don't see the mystery. Science can't prove it's caused by just a bunch of neurons but the likelihood that it is is very close to 100 percent because anything else is ridiculous.
Neurons in my brain working together the way they do produce the side effect of my subjective experience... science can't prove I have that experience because that's the nature of subjective experience. I don't see the big deal.
