Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 148
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    ...so what?
    Well, the first problem is that you and I are engaging in the realm of ideas.
    If ideas indeed have no causal power, then all "if than" statements are illusions.
    Because "if/than" when dealing purely within the realm of ideas, is an appeal to the power and force of ideas. That Idea B follows form Idea A from the force of logic.
    IE "logically".
    Otherwise, Idea B follows Idea A, not logically, but simply chronologically.

    That is an enormously relevant aspect if one wants to pretend to engage in the realm of ideas.

    Are you engaging in the realm of ideas with me? or are you simply chemically reacting to stimuli, and thus your next answer is chemically determined and not through the force of reason?


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Why is this a problem? You keep saying there's a problem, but why do you say that?
    (some ideas repeated from above.. sorry)
    The problem is that syntax is not semantics.

    Because you claimed it came from imagination, and your mind.

    Does the position you are forwarding and the statements you are making assume that the imaginary is real?
    I mean, respectfully, as a christian I am told all the time by atheists that God is imaginary.. the imaginary man in the sky etc.. and of course this insult derives it's power from
    the assumption that the imaginary does not have physical consequence/interaction/causal powers.
    Did you imagine something, and that imagined idea EFFECTED your response?

    ---------- Post added at 10:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Um... look. Lets say a rock falls on my head, it really hurts and leaves a bruise. I say "I just got hit by a rock."
    You: "How do you know?"
    Me: "It hurt, here is the rock, here is my bruise."
    You: "That's begging the question, you haven't even established the reality of the rock much less your head."
    -This is the point in the story where I feel like bonking you with the rock to demonstrate its reality.

    I'm a pragmatist, that means I think the best knowledge is knowledge you can use. Esoteric questions of hard skepticism aren't of much use to me. I have presuppositions, they include the idea that the world is real, it has rules, cause and effect are real phenomena. I don't bother to try and prove these things because pretty much everyone already accepts them. I will only argue them with people who honestly dispute them.
    Then your simply not engaging with the OP at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If I draw a picture of a house, doesn't it have a necessary connection to the house it represents? It may not be exact of course, but there is a necessary connection. Same with your thoughts. They come from interaction with the world you inhabit through your senses and through the very material of your brain. All your thoughts have a cause, and those causes impact the form your thoughts take. Reality draws into your brain and there is absolutely a necissary connection. That does not mean the representations in your mind are 1:1 exact replicas of what they represent.
    Look the problem with begging the question, is that it doesn't examine the point being offered.

    So first your appealing to a fully formed correlation, when part of the OP is about how such a thing can not come about naturally.
    Second, you are specifically responding to the point that there is nothing about nature.. think big bang.. that would require natural states to be correlated to any given idea.

    So, you could be eating,sleep, reproducing etc, be your experience existant or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No. The brian is not just a Tabula Rasa. It is a biological machine that has a specific function. It doesn't just opperate in an arbitrary way.
    That is just a denial. First, I didn't say it was a blank slate.
    My point is that it's biological function is distinct from YOUR conciousness.

    So that, given the same biological conditions, in possible world, your conciousness could be different.
    Think of this point more along the lines of initial conditions of the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Indeed, and a computer is not built to represent only one idea, but, when in opperation, its representations are not at all arbitrary. It is adaptabble and flexible, but it is not meaningless.
    Well, that isn't a problem when you have a BUILDER.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It was the same as the above, I am trying to explain to you that our thoughts have causes. They are not arbitrary so much as abstract. A blind man does not have an idea of color in the same way you have an idea of color. That is because our senses are different. Our thoughts flow from our expereince, they are not indipendent of cause and effect. And thus, your critique that naturalism means ideas are arbitrary and meaningless is
    unfounded.
    I see, but the problem is that you have not correctly applied the argument I am making.
    See above, and I will address it again in your next response.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    OK, give me an idea that has no possible physical correlation. Just one, any one. I guarantee you I can show you how it has one.
    This is a self contradictory request. It makes no sense. How can I possibly respond to it?

    Please go back and re-read what you responded to, and think about it a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, but... logic is based on reality, so are our brain states, so we can often compare the brain states, and then state that reality will work out the same way the mental model did.
    By mental model, you mean your imagintion.
    So... re- my response to Dio on imagination. Certainly you don't thin imaginary things have actuall effects in the real world?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I talked about the model of using beans to count people. The model works because the model is based on the reality it represents. It would not work if I used fruit flies. They could well breed or die and would be no good as a model for counting people. The model, in the case above, brain state, has to be based on reality if it is going to be used to predict reality accurately. If it isn't it won't. If it is, it will.
    Look I get how it actually works.
    The problem is, that doesn't make naturalism sufficient to explain it.
    Nor are you really addressing either of the walls that I have pointed out that disqualify the assumptions you are making.
    To serve man.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Look the problem with begging the question, is that it doesn't examine the point being offered.
    The point being offered flies in the face of real experience. It might as well be a rainbow farting unicorn. I guess if all the substance it can offer is to make bad observations, I will just walk away dismissively. I thought it might have more substance than that, but apparently not.

    So first your appealing to a fully formed correlation, when part of the OP is about how such a thing can not come about naturally.
    Natural correlations happen all the time. Ever seen a shadow? Its a representation caused by physical phenomena. It does't have the outline of the object casting the shadow by accident. The nature of light and matter makes it happen that way. The shadow is an idea. It is a representation, it is also a think in and of itself. It has a correlation with they object that cast the shadow, but it is not the object that cast the shadow. Ideas in your mind are exactly like this.

    Second, you are specifically responding to the point that there is nothing about nature.. think big bang.. that would require natural states to be correlated to any given idea.
    You say that like an "idea" has an existence of it's own. Its like saying "that would require shadows to corelate to an actual object" Um, ya well they do man, that's how they work. You wouldn't have a shadow without something to cast the shadow. You don't have ideas without some bit of the natural world to have an idea about. Ideas don't exist indipendent of reality.

    That is just a denial. First, I didn't say it was a blank slate.
    My point is that it's biological function is distinct from YOUR conciousness.
    You can say that, but you can't demonstrate that. And if you can't demonstrate it, you may as well be claiming rainbow farting unicorns (hereafter refered to as FRUs).

    So that, given the same biological conditions, in possible world, your conciousness could be different.
    Huh, the gramar here is unclear. Your conciousness is determined by your world. Different world, different thoughts. Cause and effect.

    This is a self contradictory request. It makes no sense. How can I possibly respond to it?
    Well, if dualism is real, then ideas can exist indipendnetly of the natural world. They have a cause outside of nature. So if thoughts are not caused by nature, surely you can find some thought somewhere that demonstrates this. Yet the only thoughts I have ever had, and all thoughts I have seen anyone elese express, are represented in the natural world. It seems very clear to me that thoughts come from nature and don't exist indipendently of it.

    And that being the case, then the whole notion of the OP, that thoughts can be arbitrarily applied to the natural world is a false conciet in the first place.

    By mental model, you mean your imagintion.
    So... re- my response to Dio on imagination. Certainly you don't thin imaginary things have actuall effects in the real world?
    They do, in the sense that there are electrons firing in my brian when I imagine things. And the do in the sense that my imagination may lead me to take an action which undoubtedly has causes in the "real world".
    They don't in the sense that I can think things and they just become realized by the act of thinking of them. You can't turn a representation in to the reality it represents.

    Its a one way street in that sense...
    Reality can beget an idea
    But
    Ideas cannot beget reality

    Reality -> Ideas
    (Cause) -> (Effect)

    Look I get how it actually works.
    Do you understnad why it works?

    The problem is, that doesn't make naturalism sufficient to explain it.
    It doesn't need to be "explained" in that sense, it is a hard fact of the world we live in. (You should probably use the world Justified rather than Explained here) Naturalism explains it very well in that it tells us how it happens from cause and effect. Person enters gate, causes bean to fall in jar, 1:1 correlation, shared property, bean is represnetational in aspect of quantity to people passing through the gate. If water fills a jug it displaces an equal volume of water. That's just how reality opperates so that's what happens. I don't need metaphysics to justify it because it is already happening so it is self evident.

    Nor are you really addressing either of the walls that I have pointed out that disqualify the assumptions you are making.
    I have been trying to do that all along, you just don't get it.

    1) Why things happen in the physical world
    You don't need to justify reality, it is self evident.

    2) There is no physical mechanism to select proper logical thoughts from illogical thoughts.
    This assumes that thoughts and logic are indipendent of the natural universe when everything points to them being a result of the natural universe instead. Therefore the premise upon which it rests is invalid rendering the conclusion invalid.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The point being offered flies in the face of real experience. It might as well be a rainbow farting unicorn. I guess if all the substance it can offer is to make bad observations, I will just walk away dismissively. I thought it might have more substance than that, but apparently not.
    As the OP assumes naturalism. I encourage you to dismiss naturalsim and recognize that it doesn't reflect reality of our real experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Natural correlations happen all the time. Ever seen a shadow? Its a representation caused by physical phenomena. It does't have the outline of the object casting the shadow by accident. The nature of light and matter makes it happen that way. The shadow is an idea. It is a representation, it is also a think in and of itself. It has a correlation with they object that cast the shadow, but it is not the object that cast the shadow. Ideas in your mind are exactly like this.
    At first I thought this was a good point, but shadows are not correlations only.
    It is a specific effect that is necissary given certain conditions.

    But there is no reason to think Ideas are like that at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You say that like an "idea" has an existence of it's own. Its like saying "that would require shadows to corelate to an actual object" Um, ya well they do man, that's how they work. You wouldn't have a shadow without something to cast the shadow. You don't have ideas without some bit of the natural world to have an idea about. Ideas don't exist indipendent of reality.
    A better example of how ideas work, is more like chess.
    The idea of a queen and what she does, is not linked to anything like a shadow.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You can say that, but you can't demonstrate that. And if you can't demonstrate it, you may as well be claiming rainbow farting unicorns (hereafter refered to as FRUs).
    Sleep walking.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Huh, the gramar here is unclear. Your conciousness is determined by your world. Different world, different thoughts. Cause and effect.
    Think inital conditions of the universe. Gravity has a value, and if it is changed.. different world.
    But ideas attached to states of matter are the same way.
    Which is just a point about how the ideas are not necissarily connected, and that poses an interesting point of complexity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Well, if dualism is real, then ideas can exist indipendnetly of the natural world. They have a cause outside of nature. So if thoughts are not caused by nature, surely you can find some thought somewhere that demonstrates this. Yet the only thoughts I have ever had, and all thoughts I have seen anyone elese express, are represented in the natural world. It seems very clear to me that thoughts come from nature and don't exist indipendently of it.
    This is not a debate about duelisms ability to explain or address the walls set up in the O.P.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    And that being the case, then the whole notion of the OP, that thoughts can be arbitrarily applied to the natural world is a false conciet in the first place.
    Because you don't think so? I think you can do better than that.
    I get that you may be getting a little frustraited, but I don't think you have put it all together yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    They do, in the sense that there are electrons firing in my brian when I imagine things. And the do in the sense that my imagination may lead me to take an action which undoubtedly has causes in the "real world".
    They don't in the sense that I can think things and they just become realized by the act of thinking of them. You can't turn a representation in to the reality it represents.
    Your not actually talking about your imagination, or anything imaginary when you talk of neurons firing.
    Neurons are real, not imaginary.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Do you understnad why it works?
    That your conciousness is an effect of your brain.
    That ideas reside in your conciousness.

    and that you are telling me that abstract imaginary things have real effect.
    Which contradicts naturalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It doesn't need to be "explained" in that sense, it is a hard fact of the world we live in. (You should probably use the world Justified rather than Explained here) Naturalism explains it very well in that it tells us how it happens from cause and effect. Person enters gate, causes bean to fall in jar, 1:1 correlation, shared property, bean is represnetational in aspect of quantity to people passing through the gate. If water fills a jug it displaces an equal volume of water. That's just how reality opperates so that's what happens. I don't need metaphysics to justify it because it is already happening so it is self evident.
    Two point.

    1) No that doesn't explain it, because the challenge is not to explain beans in jars, it is to explain how abstract ideas can effect the world, because clearly they do.
    In reality, I am not engaging you on a simply chemcial level, and your responses are not chemically pre-determined. We are engaging in the realm of abstract ideas, not just mental state correlations.
    On naturalsim you have no actual appeal to logic. Because logic is about rules for ideas, not chemisitry.

    2) Even if it does explain it perfectly, my secondary hope is to ponit out the insane complexity that would apply to initial conditions of the universe.
    In that, just as some argue the universe must be designed because the value of gravity is X instead of Y... I would say given the OP we should add the realm of ideas correlating to reality to that list.\
    Because you could be just as you are physically, and have a very different set, or no set of ideas correlated with your physical brain states.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I have been trying to do that all along, you just don't get it.
    Hmm... maybe I should break it down even more, and you can point out the specific point where I am wrong or incorrectly ascribing nautrualsim.
    Because so far, what I am getting is more of just outright denials of the conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This assumes that thoughts and logic are indipendent of the natural universe when everything points to them being a result of the natural universe instead. Therefore the premise upon which it rests is invalid rendering the conclusion invalid.
    This is a good example.
    You have the understanding of the OP wrong.
    Because the OP starts off with the assumption that they are not indipendent, and constructs the First wall like that.

    I understand you are trying to explain your point, and you side, but you are failing to accuratly understand the OP.
    May I suggest you ask a few questions to see where you have mis-understood it, and then you can try to build some counter argument.

    I would much wrather build a common base, and get naturalism (even your personal brand if applicable) right, and explain to you how the first wall applies.
    To serve man.

  4. #44
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Sig pretty much hit on the same issue I'm having. That something hasn't been explained doesn't mean that it cannot be explained. Thoughts (which is what "ideas" are) aren't some separate "thing" that exists apart from humanity, any more than music or language are. People didn't discover music; they invented it.

    This whole discussion comes apart at the same fundamental level that any such discussion does; someone equates an observation like "science has not completely explained this phenomenon" with a claim like "this phenomenon cannot be explained without invoking some supernatural component". Of course, it doesn't mean that there ISN'T some supernatural component, but absolutely nothing said in this thread makes it so that one is necessary.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Sig pretty much hit on the same issue I'm having. That something hasn't been explained doesn't mean that it cannot be explained. Thoughts (which is what "ideas" are) aren't some separate "thing" that exists apart from humanity, any more than music or language are. People didn't discover music; they invented it.
    It is a straw-man to forward that the OP appeals to the un-explained in this way.

    The argument is specifically, that there is an actual wall that is logically insurmountable for naturalism.
    Not simply that naturalism does not address, or is currently ignorant.

    If the ultimate response to the OP, is that the wall is not valid, because one day naturalism may figure a way around it.
    That sounds more like a faith statement then a valid counter argument to be addressed.

    I remain concerned that the OP may not have been grasped, as the application has been consistently off base.
    To serve man.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    897
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I remain concerned that the OP may not have been grasped, as the application has been consistently off base.
    Agreed.

    Are you saying that if humans all died off that thoughts/ideas/consciousness still exist? This would seem to be the case if thoughts and the brain are separate?

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Agreed.

    Are you saying that if humans all died off that thoughts/ideas/consciousness still exist? This would seem to be the case if thoughts and the brain are separate?
    No, and I don't think that is a necessary implication of the OP.

    ----
    To all
    Question to opponent. What is the difference between syntax, and semantics?
    Do you understand how that applies to this thread?
    Explain that understanding.
    To serve man.

  8. #48
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is a straw-man to forward that the OP appeals to the un-explained in this way.

    The argument is specifically, that there is an actual wall that is logically insurmountable for naturalism.
    1. How is this NOT exactly what I said?

    2. The OP does appeal to the unexplained in this precisely way. To wit: "On naturalism our experience is unintelligible. Our access to logic can not be consistently made sense of. The only proposed world view that does, is one that includes a spirit mind."

    So, unfortunately, this whole discussion does come apart at the same fundamental level that any such discussion does; someone equates an observation like "science has not completely explained this phenomenon" with a claim like "this phenomenon cannot be explained without invoking some supernatural component". Of course, it doesn't mean that there ISN'T some supernatural component, but absolutely nothing said in this thread makes it so that one is necessary.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    1. How is this NOT exactly what I said?
    As I understand it, you were asserting it as an invalid premise of the OP.
    What I said points out that as a premise it may be invalid, but as a conclusion, your assertion is not logically sound, as it simply denies a valid conclusion, and apparently confuses it for a premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    2. The OP does appeal to the unexplained in this precisely way.
    That is the conclusion, not a starting premise.
    It is only a fallacious if it is a premise. It is however a valid conclusion to make.


    So, are you asserting that I have started with the observation that X is not explained.
    if so, that is a false assertion.
    Or
    are you saying that as a conclusion, it is inherently invalid. If so I don't understand why such a conclusion would be inherently invalid... so that i"breaks down".
    To serve man.

  10. #50
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the conclusion, not a starting premise.
    Ok, so doesn't your conclusion follow from your premises? And if your conclusion is that naturalism cannot explain phenomenon "X", and that only super-naturalism can (which is exactly what your conclusion does say), how is this discussion not dead from the get-go for exactly the reasons I pointed out? Saying that phenomenon "X" must be supernatural because we don't understand it is classic god-of-the-gaps reasoning - it explains nothing and assumes everything. Again, simply because phenomenon "X" hasn't been explained by science doesn't mean that it cannot be explained by science. I mean, for goodness sake, I pointed out the leap you're making in the second post of this thread:

    "Consider that just 80 or so years ago there wasn't a clear distinction between "alive" and "not alive", and some philosophers suggested that living things needed something extra to animate them - again, some proponents believed that accounted for the existence of "souls" (re: "Vitalism"). Now the distinction between a living and a non-living thing is about as well-understood as anything in science and, consequently, you don't hear much about vitalism anymore. So it seems to me that the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is really just vitalism pushed into another space where the explanation for a given phenomenon is incomplete."

    And, just because it seems like it's worth saying for some, that science hasn't explained phenomenon "X" yet doesn't mean that it eventually will explain phenomenon "X" - it's entirely possible that it won't. But even if it never does, that still doesn't mean that there's no possible scientific explanation for phenomenon "X"; it's doesn't mean that explaining phenomenon "X" is impossible. All it means is that we don't know everything about phenomenon "X". That's it. It doesn't in even the most remote way imply that the explanation for phenomenon "X" must be supernatural (as your conclusion says).

  11. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ok, so doesn't your conclusion follow from your premises?
    As a conclusion, yes I think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    And if your conclusion is that naturalism cannot explain phenomenon "X", and that only super-naturalism can (which is exactly what your conclusion does say), how is this discussion not dead from the get-go for exactly the reasons I pointed out?
    Because that critisizm is only valid, for a primes, not a conclusion.
    I mean if a conclusion that follows logically from true premises, ends a discussion on something.. that is generally called a win, not a flaw.
    Yet you are presenting it like a flaw.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Saying that phenomenon "X" must be supernatural because we don't understand it is classic god-of-the-gaps reasoning - it explains nothing and assumes everything.
    False, because God of the gaps relies on an argument like this.
    1) We do not know how X occurs.
    2) Therefore, God did it.

    My argument goes like this.
    1) Logical relationship A, precludes from the realm of possibility any naturalist solution.
    2) Therefore naturalism is insufficient and incapable to explain it.
    3) Therefore, there is something other than naturalism (IE some kind of deulism) at work.

    That is not a fallacious argument, and your just denying a conclusion without argumentation to disprove the premises.
    to wit.. To conclude super naturalism is to shut down debate and inherently claim a God of the gaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    And, just because it seems like it's worth saying for some, that science hasn't explained phenomenon "X" yet doesn't mean that it eventually will explain phenomenon "X" - it's entirely possible that it won't. But even if it never does, that still doesn't mean that there's no possible scientific explanation for phenomenon "X"; it's doesn't mean that explaining phenomenon "X" is impossible. All it means is that we don't know everything about phenomenon "X". That's it. It doesn't in even the most remote way imply that the explanation for phenomenon "X" must be supernatural (as your conclusion says).
    all you doing is appealing to ignorance as a dismissal of a logical defeater.
    My argument is that IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR NATURALISM TO EXPLAIN x.
    A response of "well we just don't know but we could"
    is not a valid response or rebuttal.


    bottom line.
    My assertion is not that "we do not know X".
    My assertion is "X is logically beyond the reach of Y, for ABC reasons"

    So, just like one would say "Science can not discover a Married Batchelor"
    and your response of "Just because Science hasn't observed one or found one, doesn't mean that it can't"
    would not be logically valid, so too your objection here is invalid.


    ---
    Bonus..
    --
    If naturalism is ruled out logically.
    Isn't the only other option remaining some kind of dualism?

    Edit.
    I think it should be noted that there are two conclusions stated.
    1) that naturalism is insufficient
    2) therefore we are only left with some kind of deulism (or spirit based) answers.
    To serve man.

  12. #52
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Logical relationship A, precludes from the realm of possibility any naturalist solution.
    Right, you keep saying that, but you've yet to provide any reason to accept it; you just keep repeating that naturalism can't explain it. The reasons you've provided are vague, muddy, and imprecise; they don't explain anything. So all we're left with is the claim. Simply saying that ideas cannot rise from conscious states based on chemical reactions in the brain + sensory stimuli doesn't make it true. By everything we can see, ideas do rise out of conscious states based on chemical reactions + sensory stimuli. It might not be fully understood how this happens, but there's absolutely nothing in your argument that necessitates something like "Ideas rise out of conscious states + some supernatural component that provides access to ideas."

  13. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Right, you keep saying that, but you've yet to provide any reason to accept it; .....
    Right, you keep saying that.. and I understand why. Because you have yet to actually address the O.P.s contentions correctly.
    I don't know why, or what communication barrier is causing this.. yet here we are.
    Exibit A.
    You have mis-identified the claim, and actually have identified a CONCESSION as the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    ... just keep repeating that naturalism can't explain it. Your "reasons" are vague and imprecise; they don't explain anything. So all we're left with is the claim. Simply saying that ideas cannot rise from conscious states based on chemical reactions in the brain + sensory stimuli doesn't make it true. By everything we can see, ideas do rise out of conscious states based on chemical reactions + sensory stimuli. It might not be fully understood how this happens, but there's absolutely nothing in your argument that necessitates something like "Ideas rise out of conscious states + some supernatural component that provides access to ideas."
    Earlier in the thread I pointed out, that is not the area of contention.
    My objection is not based on ideas arising. I have for the the sake of this thread, conceded that consciousness (defined as how we experience chemical reaction/stimuli).


    I mean to highlight the level of how far off you really are on this (and I don't mean that this is evidence that I am correct, just that the argument is not being processed property)
    Is that, what you have said above, is not only conceded, is is the very basis for the objection and the foundations for the first wall.


    ----
    The O.P. is not a bare claim, without evidence or reasons. You have yet to correctly identify the reasons and evidence offered, or to understand them as presented. This is evidenced by the repeated attacks on things that ARE NOT the argument and evidenced offered.
    ---

    I'll think on if I can present the argument in a way that may be easier to understand or convey. .. I thought it was clear.. but clearly it is not.
    To serve man.

  14. #54
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, you keep saying that.. and I understand why. Because you have yet to actually address the O.P.s contentions correctly.
    False. It's because your claims are imprecise and don't explain anything.

    Consider this claim of yours: "On naturalism, thought A is followed by thought B, not because of the content of the thought, but because of chemical necessity."

    What does this even mean? What IS the content of a thought? Pick any thought, and explain 1) what you think its content is 2) how the next successive thought has NO relationship with the "content" of the one that came before. You haven't even provided a sense of what you mean when you say "content of [a] thought", let alone how that content has no relationship between itself and any other thought.

    Here's another one: "There is no physical mechanism to select proper logical thoughts from illogical thoughts."

    There isn't? What do you mean there is NO physical mechanism? Are you claiming that thoughts have no relationship whatsoever to the chemicals in the brain that enable thought? On what basis do you claim this? What reasons do you have to support this? Would this sort of claim last even one second of scrutiny imposed by a neuroscientist?

    Again, as I said in post #3, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying that you haven't provided enough information to even begin entertaining the idea that some supernatural component is necessary for thought.

  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    On naturalism, thought A is followed by thought B, not because of the content of the thought, but because of chemical necessity.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What does this even mean? What IS the content of a thought? Pick any thought, and explain 1) what you think its content is
    So, The OP addresses this when it calls your attention to Newtons cradle.
    That is to say, that the content of a thought, is the abstract idea which is the point of the thought. So, the content of the though "Married man", is the idea of what it means to be a married man. This is the symantics, of married man.

    Have I gone wrong here?
    Do you disagree?
    How, explain.


    I will address next part after your reply.
    To serve man.

  17. #56
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On naturalism, thought A is followed by thought B, not because of the content of the thought, but because of chemical necessity.

    So, The OP addresses this when it calls your attention to Newtons cradle.
    HOW does it address it? What are the relevant elements of the cradle analogy that make it a fair comparison to human thought processes?

    What is the "content of [a] thought"? Is the "content of a thought" the neurons that carry the thought? Is it the chemicals that stimulated the thought? Is it the stored sensory input from past experience? Is it the idea itself? Suppose I think of better mousetrap: Is the content of that thought the idea of the mousetrap itself? Is it the neurons and neurotransmitters that transmit and propagate the thought and transform that into action?

    What do you mean? Are you certain you understand what you yourself mean when you say "the content of [a] thought"?

  18. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    HOW does it address it?
    I'm taking it slow, my only point is that the OP addresses it. I am on the path to explaining it here, just want to go slow with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What is the "content of [a] thought"?
    Little confused here, because I answered that specifically, and you don't appear to be addressing it or responding to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Is the "content of a thought" the neurons that carry the thought?
    That doesn't sound like what I said.. does it?

    That is to say, that the content of a thought, is the abstract idea which is the point of the thought.
    So, the content of the though "Married man", is the idea of what it means to be a married man.
    This is the symantics, of married man.
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Suppose I think of better mousetrap: Is the content of that thought the idea of the mousetrap itself?
    I think this sounds more like what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Is it the neurons and neurotransmitters that transmit and propagate the thought and transform that into action?
    I don't think this sounds like what I said. So no.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What do you mean? Are you certain your understand what you yourself mean when you say "the content of [a] thought"?
    Yes

    So I appreciate the questions, because I think that is a great way to clear up communication issues.
    But, I would really appreciate that if I ask a question to you, that I get some kind of feedback on that question as well.
    Even if it is to say that you don't understand my answer.


    "So, to your question about What do I mean about the content of a thought. I said the following, and May I draw your attention to the questions at the end of the statements.
    That is to say, that the content of a thought, is the abstract idea which is the point of the thought. So, the content of the though "Married man", is the idea of what it means to be a married man. This is the symantics, of married man."
    Have I gone wrong here?
    Do you disagree?
    How, explain. (MT from post 55)
    To serve man.

  19. #58
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    First, I can do without the sarcasm. Anything even remotely like it from here on out, and I'm done.

    I'm asking for precision, here. The way you write is difficult to parse because of the way you employ language. Here's an example:

    "I have for the the sake of this thread, conceded that consciousness (defined as how we experience chemical reaction/stimuli)."

    You've conceded that consciousness... what? This isn't even a complete sentence. This is routine with you, and it's terribly distracting to me as a reader to have to correct this stuff in my head in order to marshal a proper response to it. It takes work to make sense of what you write sometimes, and often it's easier to simply move on once I get hung up instead of trying to figure it out.

    You've said yourself many times that your writing is hard to read, and you should know that I certainly have better things to do with my time than to try to untangle/decipher/correct/decode the unorthodox way you communicate and go on to understand it, let alone try to summon a thoughtful response to it. I'm certainly direct, but I'm not a ****ing smartass. So, like I said, anymore sarcastic crap, and I'm done.

    Ok, on to your post.

    If the content of a thought is the idea itself, what specifically makes it so that the idea itself has no relationship between any other thought? I have no idea whether I agree or not, because it's not clear to me why the "content of [a] thought" has no relationships with the thoughts preceding or succeeding it.

    Also, when you say "This is the symantics, of married man" what relevance does that have to anything? What do semantics have to do with the relationships between thoughts?

  20. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,958
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    You've conceded that consciousness... what? This isn't even a complete sentence. This is routine with you, and it's terribly distracting to me as a reader to have to correct this stuff in my head in order to marshal a proper response to it. It takes work to make sense of what you write sometimes, and often it's easier to simply move on once I get hung up instead of trying to figure it out.
    I agree, and I'm sorry for that. It is a struggle for me as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    So, like I said, anymore sarcastic crap, and I'm done.
    I was trying to be respectful. Because I felt your questions were good, and I wanted to answer them, but I felt the same about my own questions.
    Sorry to offend.

    ---------------
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If the content of a thought is the idea itself, what specifically makes it so that the idea itself has no relationship between any other thought?
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Also, when you say "This is the symantics, of married man" what relevance does that have to anything? What do semantics have to do with the relationships between thoughts?
    I think the answer is the same for both of these, So I will combine them.

    On naturalism, thought A is not reacting with thought B on a semantic level. It is interacting on a syntax level. It is the chemicals side that make up thought A, that lead to thought B.
    Not the semantics of either.

    Edit..
    Keep in mind, that the content of the thought is symantic, so in order for the content of the thought to be involved, the symantics have to have an effect.
    To serve man.

  21. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  22. #60
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On naturalism, thought A is not reacting with thought B on a semantic level. It is interacting on a syntax level. It is the chemicals side that make up thought A, that lead to thought B.
    Not the semantics of either.
    Ok, so what do you mean by this? Are you saying that the meaning of thought "A" isn't reacting with the meaning of thought "B"? What do you mean when you say they interact at the level of syntax? What are the important differences (not the obvious differences) between the two and why do they matter to your point?

 

 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trap's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: November 26th, 2011, 03:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 10:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 04:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •