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 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    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?
    At issue, is the distinction between the mechanical forces at work that create thought (the syntax) and the abstract content of the thought itself (the semantics).
    On naturalism, only the syntax has force so as to be a cause.

    Edit--
    Yes I do mean that the meanings of thought A are not reacting with the meanings of thought B.
    To serve man.

  2. #62
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes I do mean that the meanings of thought A are not reacting with the meanings of thought B.
    How do you know this? On what basis do you claim this? If I employ a word, such as all the words I use in this reply, I do it both knowing how words and phrases are constructed, and understanding the ideas that the particular arrangement of words I use conveys.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    How do you know this? On what basis do you claim this?
    Two ways.
    1) That is the claim of naturalism. In that, as much as it correctly reflects naturalism, then it is valid as a premise.
    2) That is the way that naturalism defines how thoughts come about. Thoughts are the product of Brain states. This makes the thought an effect.

    So did I get how naturalism explains it wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    If I employ a word, such as all the words I use in this reply, I do it both knowing how words and phrases are constructed, and understanding the ideas that the particular arrangement of words I use conveys.
    What does that have to do with naturalism, and how it explains the relationship?
    I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree with your observation. I just don't see what that observation has to do with naturalism.
    Do you mean that because this is how you experience it, then naturalism must be compatible with it?
    To serve man.

  4. #64
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the claim of naturalism. In that, as much as it correctly reflects naturalism, then it is valid as a premise.
    I have no idea what you mean by this. How does naturalism "claim" that independent thoughts within a single mind have no relationship with one another apart from syntax?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the way that naturalism defines how thoughts come about. Thoughts are the product of Brain states. This makes the thought an effect.
    Ok, so why is this a problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So did I get how naturalism explains it wrong?
    I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you mean that because this is how you experience it, then naturalism must be compatible with it?
    Close. I mean that this is how I experience it, and it isn't at all obvious to me how it isn't compatible with natural explanation.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I have no idea what you mean by this. How does naturalism "claim" that independent thoughts within a single mind have no relationship with one another apart from syntax?
    Because on naturalsim syntax(brain states) is the cause of the thoughts, not the other way around (IE semantics causing brain states).
    It has to be the other way around in order for the thoughts to be related by content (semantics).

    Quote Originally Posted by dio
    Ok, so why is this a problem?
    So, naturalsim says that Brain states are the cause of thoughts.
    The content of thoughts, is thus not the cause of brain states.
    creating a wall required for acutal use/access to logic.
    That is a problem when you and I are engaged in a debate where we assume that we are employing logic and appealing to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Close. I mean that this is how I experience it, and it isn't at all obvious to me how it isn't compatible with natural explanation.
    Well, are we engaging in the realm of ideas, or chemistry?
    I mean, if we are engaging in simply a series of chemical reactions, then we are trapped in the world of sytax.
    If you are considering the idea, and thus the idea has some effect, so as to be a cause itself some way, then we are engaging in the realm of ideas.

    naturalism denies the second, by denying the non-physical force or causal power on the natural world.
    So as long as the content of ideas is non-physical.. this is a problem for naturalism, and for us if we are presuming to be engaging in the realm of content of thought.
    To serve man.

  6. #66
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because on naturalsim syntax(brain states) is the cause of the thoughts, not the other way around (IE semantics causing brain states).
    It has to be the other way around in order for the thoughts to be related by content (semantics).
    What do you mean by "on naturalism'? What do you mean when you say syntax causes brain states? The proper arrangement of words causes brain states? Brain states are limited to the influence of word and sentence structure? Are creatures that do not have language incapable of thought? How do you know this?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, naturalsim says that Brain states are the cause of thoughts.
    The content of thoughts, is thus not the cause of brain states.
    creating a wall required for acutal use/access to logic.
    That is a problem when you and I are engaged in a debate where we assume that we are employing logic and appealing to it.
    I don't see how. How do you know that brain states/thoughts are not one in the same? You keep lining these things up like they're dominoes, but that seems a very imprecise way to describe conscious experience, and I'm not aware of any literature, philosophical, scientific, religious, or otherwise that describes conscious experience in such a myopic way, even remotely.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, are we engaging in the realm of ideas, or chemistry?
    I mean, if we are engaging in simply a series of chemical reactions, then we are trapped in the world of sytax.
    Why do you say this? What does syntax have to do with anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you are considering the idea, and thus the idea has some effect, so as to be a cause itself some way, then we are engaging in the realm of ideas.

    naturalism denies the second, by denying the non-physical force or causal power on the natural world.
    So as long as the content of ideas is non-physical.. this is a problem for naturalism, and for us if we are presuming to be engaging in the realm of content of thought.
    How does naturalism "deny" causual power on the world? What do you mean by this? That a thought - i.e. neurons all by themselves - don't have the power to change the physical world apart from the brain that hosts the thought? Isn't that obviously true? Why does this matter?

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What do you mean by "on naturalism'? What do you mean when you say syntax causes brain states? The proper arrangement of words causes brain states? Brain states are limited to the influence of word and sentence structure? Are creatures that do not have language incapable of thought? How do you know this?
    Right,sorry... that is a reference to some of the language used in a referenced video earlier on.
    The point of the language of syntax vs semantics, is to illustrate the difference between the chemical reactions that cause thoughts.
    So the physical laws are to syntax, what content of thought is to semantics.
    I'll try to stick to the language of thought/brains states and content of thought/ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I don't see how. How do you know that brain states/thoughts are not one in the same?
    That is why we are talking about the content of the thought.
    Even if we call brain states "thoughts" and use those interchangeably, there is still a different aspect that we are dealing with, which is the content of those thoughts, or the idea that the brain state represents.
    (representative being a key point in how they relate).

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    You keep lining these things up like they're dominoes, but that seems a very imprecise way to describe conscious experience, and I'm not aware of any literature, philosophical, scientific, religious, or otherwise that describes conscious experience in such a myopic way, even remotely.
    As soon as one refers to the mind as a "brain state" it is exactly like a domino, in that it is purely physical, and is effected by physical forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    How does naturalism "deny" causual power on the world? What do you mean by this? That a thought - i.e. neurons all by themselves - don't have the power to change the physical world apart from the brain that hosts the thought? Isn't that obviously true? Why does this matter?
    No, it is about the content of the thoughts inability to produce or effect any neuron within the brain so as to be the cause of another thought.
    So the distinction is between a thought, and the content of that thought.

    So, your brain state A, can be said to be the thought of a pink pony, but the following thought whatever, is not caused by the immaterial concept of pink ponies.
    Your next thought is governed by chemical processes, not imaginary pink ponies. (on naturalism)
    To serve man.

  8. #68
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, your brain state A, can be said to be the thought of a pink pony, but the following thought whatever, is not caused by the immaterial concept of pink ponies.
    Why not? Why can't thought "A" cause you to think thought "B"? If I see my phone bill and think I need to pay it (thought "A"), then that causes me to look at my bank account to make sure I have the money to pay it (thought "B"), how is it that those two thoughts are completely unrelated? On what basis do you say thought "A" didn't cause me to think thought "B"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your next thought is governed by chemical processes, not imaginary pink ponies. (on naturalism)
    Ok, so why does this matter?

  9. #69
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    ADDENDUM: I think this is where a lot of the difficulty is coming from -

    You say something like 'thought "B" is not caused by immaterial thought "A"'.

    The problem is that thoughts aren't "immaterial", nor is the "content" of the thought. For one, the thought and its contents are one and the same (I don't find it controversial to say that a thought without content can't be rightly called a thought). Second, the thought physically exists and is contained in the very physical neural network that consists of neurons and axons and synapses and electrical signals, etc. And, once the idea has been manifest, be it in an invention, a transference to some kind of physical media like a book, a video, an audio recording, etc, the idea now exists in multiple physical forms.

    Now, I heartily agree when you imply that immaterial things don't have any causative powers (because immaterial "things" can't clearly be said to even exist), but to say that an idea in a person's brain is "immaterial" - in the strict, philosophical sense that you seem to employ it - is misleading and simply incorrect.

  10. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trap's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: November 26th, 2011, 04:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 06:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 11:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 05:08 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
  •