• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

ryan said:
beero1000 said:
It's obvious you think that it's a valid argument, but your thinking is very sloppy.

Case in point: You are trying to prove that X is not always true. So you assume a specific situation where X is not true, and then argue that X is not always true because it is false in the specific situation. Then you say that your conclusion is more general than your premise and your argument is not circular. Think about that for a minute...
Click to expand...

It's deductive reasoning. Example, if I am in Alberta, and if Alberta is in Canada, then I am in Canada. It was meant to be obvious.

Now I will imagine that the argument will shift to the first premise.
Click to expand...

Circular arguments certainly are examples of deductive reasoning. They just aren't useful examples and should be avoided when trying to make a convincing argument...
 
DBT said:
ryan said:
There is an unspeakably small quantum probability that the two universes will actually be the exact same right down to the particle.

And if you just won't accept the possibility, then physicalism is meaningless. Physicalism uses an identical universe in its definition.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how 'physicalism' uses an 'identical universe' in its definition? Including a description of 'identical' to...what?
Click to expand...

I thought I saw somewhere that had it as a requirement.
 
Well this comment should positively put you to sleep. If there are two things combined and the properties of the combination are specified you'll find there are no emergent properties since they are all derived from the properties extant in the two things . So much for emergence.
 
fromderinside said:
Well this comment should positively put you to sleep. If there are two things combined and the properties of the combination are specified you'll find there are no emergent properties since they are all derived from the properties extant in the two things . So much for emergence.
Click to expand...

My faith in reductionism is fading. The problem is that even the elementary particles can't be reduced and not separable from their intrinsic properties. For example, the electron must be an emergent property of spin, mass, duality etc. We know this because these properties do not exist on their own.

Maybe most of the universe is reducible, but maybe some isn't.
 
Last edited:
ryan said:
DBT said:
Can you explain how 'physicalism' uses an 'identical universe' in its definition? Including a description of 'identical' to...what?
Click to expand...

I thought I saw somewhere that had it as a requirement.
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. But this still doesn't alter the fact of two distinctly separate objects, regardless of whether they are identical or not. An objective observer would see two separate people, and if they happen to be identical clones, take them to be twins. Each with his own unique conscious experience of the world.
 
DBT said:
ryan said:
I thought I saw somewhere that had it as a requirement.
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. But this still doesn't alter the fact of two distinctly separate objects, regardless of whether they are identical or not. An objective observer would see two separate people, and if they happen to be identical clones, take them to be twins. Each with his own unique conscious experience of the world.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are regarding the mind. Do you believe that the mind is a process, or do you believe that the mind is a property of a process?
 
ryan said:
DBT said:
Not that I know of. But this still doesn't alter the fact of two distinctly separate objects, regardless of whether they are identical or not. An objective observer would see two separate people, and if they happen to be identical clones, take them to be twins. Each with his own unique conscious experience of the world.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are regarding the mind. Do you believe that the mind is a process, or do you believe that the mind is a property of a process?
Click to expand...

What difference would either proposition make to your position?
 
DBT said:
ryan said:
I am not sure where you are regarding the mind. Do you believe that the mind is a process, or do you believe that the mind is a property of a process?
Click to expand...

What difference would either proposition make to your position?
Click to expand...

The mind is needed for subjectivity. Subjectivity is needed for my argument to work.
 
ryan said:
DBT said:
What difference would either proposition make to your position?
Click to expand...

The mind is needed for subjectivity. Subjectivity is needed for my argument to work.
Click to expand...

'Subjective' refers to the experience generated by a brain that cannot be experienced by another brain, a separate brain with it's own neuronal activity of conscious experience. This doesn't mean the physical activity of conscious experience itself is subjective, but that brains cannot directly access the experience of other brains, or even the scaffolding and production of its own experience.
 
DBT said:
ryan said:
The mind is needed for subjectivity. Subjectivity is needed for my argument to work.
Click to expand...

'Subjective' refers to the experience generated by a brain that cannot be experienced by another brain, a separate brain with it's own neuronal activity of conscious experience. This doesn't mean the physical activity of conscious experience itself is subjective, but that brains cannot directly access the experience of other brains, or even the scaffolding and production of its own experience.
Click to expand...

There is no physical trace of subjectivity. So there can be twins where one is a zombie without subjectivity and the other has it.
 
ryan said:
There is no physical trace of subjectivity.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Nobody ever did anything physical for art, love, or beauty. Everything in the universe is moved by entirely objective beings.
 
Juma said:
ryan said:
The mind is needed for subjectivity. Subjectivity is needed for my argument to work.
Click to expand...

Another stone cannot fall the same fall as another stone falls.

That is all there is to "subkectivity"
Click to expand...

That's only part of it. The other part is that the rock's subjectivity does not emit information; whereas the rock falling does emit information.
 
Kharakov said:
ryan said:
I should have used "account" not "trace".
Click to expand...

What do you mean by account, in this case? "There is no physical account of subjectivity."
Click to expand...

It should be obvious. A physical account is a physical description/report of what is there. "Account" is often used in ontological philosophy. For example, the physical account of an electron is its intrinsic or extrinsic properties. Or a physical account of only the electron are its intrinsic properties.

Actually, others don't seem to respond to me properly when I use "account" either.
 
Last edited:
ryan said:
Kharakov said:
What do you mean by account, in this case? "There is no physical account of subjectivity."
Click to expand...

It should be obvious. A physical account is a physical description/report of what is there. "Account" is often used in ontological philosophy. For example, the physical account of an electron are its intrinsic or extrinsic properties. Or a physical account of only the electron are its intrinsic properties.

Actually, others don't seem to respond to me properly when I use "account" either.
Click to expand...
Ehh, just trying to make sure you weren't talking about something other than what I thought you said. I understand the standard usage of the term account....

There is a (more or less accurate) physical account of subjectivity in your mind, although I'm not dividing your mental state from the rest of physical reality in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom