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

Nagel's Batty Explanation of the Mind-Body Problem

fromderinside said:
I'm not talking about the idea of objective data. I'm talking about the application of objective methods to produce objective results about how those things produced the subjective experience. Completely different thing from what you keep attempting to divert toward. We don't do subjective analyses on subjective experience.
Click to expand...

You made a mistake.

You said the word "how".

All you have is a temporal correlation between subjectively chosen physiology to record and subjective reports about experience.

You have no "how".

You have no understanding of HOW arbitrarily chosen and incomplete physiological events create experience. Or HOW they create that which can experience.
 
Obviously I'm limited in how I interpret things when I begin with determinism. If determined 'how' is fixed by natural law, therefore determined.

You are resorting to you-ism, centering reference to you rather than to nature.

Not legitimate even with the most lenient reading of argument.

Observer is not you.

It is subjective not causal, not presumed to be derived causally, only associatively. Its the difference between cause and presumption. No observer has recorded this to that, one just presumes a relationship between this and that because one has associated this with that not that one has caused the other.

Believe it or not many material theorists have played with 'what if' until they find some causal relation; When one can replace 'what if' with 'cause' one begins to have material theory. 'What if' is presumptive model testing. When the presumption can be replaced by data then it becomes physical theory.

Go back and examine one (associates) the "sun cross the sky" becomes 'one sees ...' is caused by one is on a planet revolving as it orbits the sun. Adding, finding, variables changes descriptions.
 
fromderinside said:
You are resorting to you-ism, centering reference to you rather than to nature.
Click to expand...

"I" am resorting to I-ism.

I have no idea if YOU exist.

I have the experience of reading words that appear to be human in nature.

That is not definite knowledge that YOU exist.

But I cannot doubt that "I" exist.

I am that which experiences your words and has an intellect and language ability to make sense of them.

I am that which says you are nuts.

You cannot doubt that YOU experience.

There is no way to doubt it.

You are engaging in modern SELF delusion.
 
This is Descartes. Not just me.

You have not overturned any thinking with your self delusions about experiences without something having those experiences.

I experience therefore I exist.

Your hand waving does not make this truth go away by magic.
 
untermensche said:
This is Descartes. Not just me.

You have not overturned any thinking with your self delusions about experiences without something having those experiences.

I experience therefore I exist.

Your hand waving does not make this truth go away by magic.
Click to expand...

Descartes is your problem.

From Quora

  • Acknowledging certainty of ones own existence on the basis of thinking, since doubting is a form of thought, it’s questionable whether we can infer anything else from it. The only step forward Descartes makes is by appealing to the benevolence of God to trust his sense perception of the external world and other minds. When using a characteristic of God as justification becomes problematic, as it did for the Enlightenment philosophers, the dominant 19th century Idealism and phenomenology appear to be the only rational conclusion and approach.
  • Following 1, while acknowledging a need for objective, or at least inter-subjective, agreement about knowledge, Descartes methodological skepticism which leads to the cogito as a first principle becomes questionable. We saw this reaction in multiple 20th century tradition including common sense realism, pragmatism, and logical positivism. It seems that the sort of epistemic certainty required by starting with doubting everything doesn’t give us enough to base our common sense intuitions, pragmatic decisions, or even our empirical methods. It can be argued that science never really took off until we abandoned such rigid indubitable restrictions on epistemic justification.
  • More recently, the subjective “I” as a meaningful entity has come under scrutiny. Sam Harris is a great example of someone who argues from a neuroscientific point of view that your “I” is an illusion. If there is no self to attribute existence, the cogito fails.
Click to expand...

Rat-tat-bumpf

...and you try so hard to respond. Ah well...... (although I would have chosen Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett over Sam Harris)
 
Saying Descartes got some things wrong is not a criticism of what he got right.

Any fool can say that "I" is an illusion. It is nothing but self delusion.

What exactly holds the opinion?
 
All Descartes got right was there are dimensions that are measurable.

Opinion? What opinion.

All there is this bangs against that and that moves, as it turns out, in proportion to what mass and force the striking object carries relative to the mass of the at rest object struck. No opinion there, just objective observation of material interactions. Self, I, illusions.

Where is the center of the universe?
 
Consolidation of accumulated information would be one source for what my hands type.

So what do you attribute your unsourced declarative rants?

My guess is your rants arise from accumulated prejudice of one unable to accumulate objective information.

Its easy for you to falsify what I wrote. All you have to do is provide citations and snippets of actual research as support for your declarations.

All I've seen from you is a snippet from a technical user handbook handbook published in 1995.
 
It is your opinion that what you spew is information.

Where does that opinion come from?
 
Oh gee.

From where cometh the information I spew?

Information comes from scientific articles digested and research conducted.

Characterizing the source or style from which information comes is one of your specialties. Such has nothing to do with whether the information is relevant or accurate.

Another messenger shot, carcass dragged away.
 
fromderinside said:
Oh gee.

From where cometh the information I spew?

Information comes from scientific articles digested and research conducted.

Characterizing the source or style from which information comes is one of your specialties. Such has nothing to do with whether the information is relevant or accurate.

Another messenger shot, carcass dragged away.
Click to expand...

I don't care where your bad insights come from.

Your opinion is that they are meaningful.

From where do these opinions come from?

What is holding these opinions?

You are not giving objective opinions. You are giving YOUR very subjective opinions.

How exactly are these opinions connected to you? Why are you giving them? Why are you writing anything here?
 
I'm doing what I normally do when I conduct research. I check information on topics from empirically proven reliable sources for such information. I compare it with the questions at hand and apply it as appropriate for resolving those questions.

For fun I play pin the tail on such donkeys as seem appropriate for my entertainment. I presume some knowledge from those posing or opining.


You are special. You refuse to engage beyond proclamation. If, in the near future I see you still unresponsive, I'll move on. So there is hope for you yet.
 
Yes you have habits.

Animals have habits.

But you also have opinions and proclivities.

And many blind spots.
 
You think energy has information about color.

Because you experience color.

MASSIVE BLINDSPOT.

You think vibrating air has information about sound.

Because you experience sound.

MASSIVE BLINDSPOT.

You think you have language but no innate language ability.

Because you think you just learned language somehow.

MASSIVE BLINDSPOT.
 
That's close.

The brain constructs an experience that is related to fitness and survival rates.

Not an experience based on the external stimulus.

The experience and it's ability to increase survival chances is constructed from a stimulus that has nothing to do with the experience.

Bats turn so-called "sound waves" into a visual experience because doing so increased survival rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom