Some Philosophical Arguments

Phil's mouth? Which words?

I acknowledged in post #97 that there is not meant to be any implication of consciousness.

~~ Paul
Stephen: If you want to defend your model, please explain how known processes of brain= mind" model
Paul: I haven't spent a single word in this thread defending any model.

Notice he never said you were engaged in defending your model. He said if you want to defend your model. So:

1) You put words into his mouth
2) You will not defend your model even though it very much has to do with the topic on hand

My Best,
Bertha
 
Stephen: If you want to defend your model, please explain how known processes of brain
Paul: I haven't spent a single word in this thread defending any model.

Notice he never said you were engaged in defending your model. He said if you want to defend your model. So:

1) You put words into his mouth
2) You will not defend your model even though it very much has to do with the topic on hand.
Now you're just being silly. My statement of fact about not defending any model does not put words in his mouth.

But full apologies to Stephen if I misinterpreted anything he said.

~~ Paul
 
Now you're just being silly. My statement of fact about not defending any model does not put words in his mouth.

But full apologies to Stephen if I misinterpreted anything he said.

~~ Paul
? He said if you want to you can defend mind=brain. He never said that was what you were doing. Who's being silly here?

My Best,
Bertha
 
? He said if you want to you can defend mind=brain. He never said that was what you were doing. Who's being silly here?
I didn't say that Stephen said I was defending mind = brain. I said:

"I haven't spent a single word in this thread defending any model. I'm simply discussing Phil's proofs."

Apologies nonetheless. Now let's be done with this nonsense so we can focus on the OP.

~~ Paul
 
It's interesting Paul that you're most willing to pick apart anyone's attempt here on these forums to explain possible hypothesis that suggests consciousness may not be a product of the brain.

But defending your own materialism - you diligently avoid, like any good Skeptic does. It's a one way street with you.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that Stephen said I was defending mind = brain. I said:

"I haven't spent a single word in this thread defending any model. I'm simply discussing Phil's proofs."

Now let's be done with this nonsense so we can focus on the OP.

~~ Paul
Sorry you put words in his mouth. Admit it Paul, all you are engaged in here is the usual Skeptical denigration of other people's non-materialist positions. Like you have of Bohr and Heisenberg - you mocked them and what they said. You have little respect for anyone else's position except your own Skeptical beliefs. Although you pretend this is not the case.

Stephen revealed something fundamental in how you conduct yourself here: you refuse to defend your own untenable materialistic model. But you are more than willing to mock the models of others.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
It's interesting Paul that you're all most willing to pick apart anyone's attempt here on these forums to explain possible hypothesis that suggests consciousness may not be a product of the brain.
Wait, I thought Phil's arguments were neutral with respect to consciousness.

But defending your own materialism - you diligently avoid, like any good Skeptic does. It's a one way street with you.

I am not defending materialism in this thread. (You are accusing me of that, right?)

~~ Paul
 
Wait, I thought Phil's arguments were neutral with respect to consciousness.


I am not defending materialism in this thread. (You are accusing me of that, right?)

~~ Paul
I seem to recall your dismissal of Heisenberg, Bohr, Planck quotes - by asking silly questions, as if you failed to understand the difference between classical and quantum physics.

My Best,
Bertha
 
More simply: If purpose is neutral with respect to consciousness, then you have no justification for premise 2. A non-consciousness-related purpose is perfectly possible under physicalism. If you don't think it is, then you really do need to define purpose as part of the proof, so we can see why purpose is impossible even though defined neutrally.

If the proof is truly neutral, then premise 2:

"If physicalism is true,
then all movements of matter are
purposeless by nature."

is not justified. Why are you assuming that there is no purpose under physicalism?

~~ Paul
We give you a hard time Paul. That said - your above argument answers Phil, simply. Non-conscious purpose is sometimes described as teleonomic, and can put in motion a response, without the immediate attention of an intentional agent.

Teleonomy is related to programmatic or computational aspects of purpose.
 
We give you a hard time Paul. That said - your above argument answers Phil, simply. Non-conscious purpose is sometimes described as teleonomic, and can put in motion a response, without the immediate attention of an intentional agent.
Well now, I've just learned a new word. Much appreciated!

~~ Paul
 
Sorry you put words in his mouth. Admit it Paul, all you are engaged in here is the usual Skeptical denigration of other people's non-materialist positions. Like you have of Bohr and Heisenberg - you mocked them and what they said. You have little respect for anyone else's position except your own Skeptical beliefs. Although you pretend this is not the case.

Stephen revealed something fundamental in how you conduct yourself here: you refuse to defend your own untenable materialistic model. But you are more than willing to mock the models of others.

My Best,
Bertha

I give Paul credit for challenging us. My own personal feelings are until there is model of mind in action in environmental reality that shows why things unfold the way they do - both sides are at loggerheads.

My point is to suggest the importance of the experiential. Emotions play an important role that seem superfluous, in physicalism. I think good research, like that of Diane Nahl and others, show us that subjective emotions can be objectively measured as they are manifest. If you talk about purpose - to make it be a necessary variable - it needs to effect outcomes in a non-material way. A measured strength in physics overcomes smaller strengths- deterministically!!
However, folk wisdom tells it true ---
Its not the dog in the fight - but the fight in the dog
 
I give Paul credit for challenging us. My own personal feelings are until there is model of mind in action in environmental reality that shows why things unfold the way they do - both sides are at loggerheads.

My point is to suggest the importance of the experiential. Emotions play an important role that seem superfluous, in physicalism. I think good research, like that of Diane Nahl and others, show us that subjective emotions can be objectively measured as they are manifest. If you talk about purpose - to make it be a necessary variable - it needs to effect outcomes in a non-material way. A measured strength in physics overcomes smaller strengths- deterministically!!
However, folk wisdom tells it true ---

I do not find Paul a good faith negotiator i.e. he rarely provides room for anything outside his hardcore materialism. His attitude toward Planck, Heisenberg is remarkably dismissive and lacks any willingness to acknowledge their scientific standing and credibility, or the role they played in quantum physics. Whenever he is cornered he resorts to games of word play, and as you mentioned earlier, he avoids any real defense of his mind=brain model of consciousness. Little alone any honest attempt to understand why scientists like Bohr or Heisenberg might make the claim that sub-atomic particle are immaterial and not real. I find him not honestly engaged in a fair dialogue here. He has repeatedly acted more like a Skeptical prosecutor out to convict any immaterialist criminal. Whenever the discussion gets real - he loves to subject other people to repetitive questions (which is the MO of Skeptics) but refuses and wimps out on questions that are asked of him.

My Best,
Bertha
 
You ignored my simpler issue:

More simply: If purpose is neutral with respect to consciousness, then you have no justification for premise 2. A non-consciousness-related purpose is perfectly possible under physicalism. If you don't think it is, then you really do need to define purpose as part of the proof, so we can see why purpose is impossible even though defined neutrally.

No, I didn't ignore it. You only stated the same things in another form.

If the proof is truly neutral, then premise 2:

"If physicalism is true,
then all movements of matter are
purposeless by nature."

is not justified. Why are you assuming that there is no purpose under physicalism?
~~ Paul

The premise is not stating that there is no purpose under physicalism. It states that under physicalism all movements of matter are purposeless by nature, "by nature" meaning "essentially". This should be quite obvious, because under physicalism all movements of matter are workings of purposeless forces. This is what physicalism states, and all physicalists I've ever met agree on that. Don't you?
 
The premise is not stating that there is no purpose under physicalism. It states that under physicalism all movements of matter are purposeless by nature, "by nature" meaning "essentially". This should be quite obvious, because under physicalism all movements of matter are workings of purposeless forces. This is what physicalism states, and all physicalists I've ever met agree on that. Don't you?

Paul like most so-called physicalists or materialists do not even realize the intrinsic inconsistencies , incoherence and paradoxes, not to mention the intrinsic cognitive dissonance of their own world views, or they would just choose to selectively ignore them altogether : some sort of voluntary selective amnesia . lol
They would just try to reformulate the concept of purpose, for example, to make it fit into their own world views , like Dawkins does , for example, via some materialist magical gymnastics , instead of the other way around.

The same goes for the issue of free will, for example : they would say that free will is compatible with determinism, while both are mutually exclusive ...and so on ...Tragic-hilarious.It's an utter waste of time and energy thus to 'debate " with them.Cheers.
 
The premise is not stating that there is no purpose under physicalism. It states that under physicalism all movements of matter are purposeless by nature, "by nature" meaning "essentially". This should be quite obvious, because under physicalism all movements of matter are workings of purposeless forces. This is what physicalism states, and all physicalists I've ever met agree on that. Don't you?
Not if purpose is defined neutrally. Physicalism holds that there is no teleology in low-level physics, but certainly allows for there to be non-teleological purposes, such as wings serving the purpose of flying. Since you allow "for the sake of" rather than "purpose", premise 2 could be:

"If physicalism is true,
then all movements of matter are
not for the sake of anything, by nature."

I certainly wouldn't agree with that, would you? It's as if you're saying that movements have no point, or that all movements are random.

But let's say for a moment that you really mean that all movements are purposeless, occur for the sake of nothing, and have no point. Then I would argue that premise 4 simply contradicts premise 2: in fact, there is no reason to assume that steering ourselves to food is purposeful. Otherwise it would appear that premise 2 uses a different definition of purpose from premise 4.

If you do not believe that is the case, then I would again implore you to define purpose.

~~ Paul
 
@ Phil Argument , Bertha Huse :

I hate to tell you : " I told you so ." lol

See above what our Paul had to say.Cheers.
It's what you would expect from a narcissistic zombie. Who knows? Maybe we are zombies and don't even know it! :)

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
It's what you would expect from a narcissistic zombie.

My Best,
Bertha

Very predictable indeed.
So-called physicalists or other materialists want to believe in determinism so badly that what they "hold in mind tends to manifest itself on the reality ground " through their predictable or determined behavior and thought.

Materialism is just ego that feeds on the suppressed and repressed feelings.

Ego that can lead only to narcissism indeed.Ego is a nasty bitch lol .The 'animal " ego that perceives only the lowest level of reality through the lowest perceptual sensory level of consciousness.Ego is unconscious indeed , a narcissistic zombie.Cheers


See how the US materialist capitalist neo-liberal culture is so narcissistic indeed :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Culture-Narcissism-Diminishing-Expectations/dp/0393307387

57328_article_full.jpg
 
It is true - a good number of these Neo-Materialist skeptics these days have plenty of narcissistic traits. heh

My Best,
Bertha

Ego can only lead to narcissism indeed.
One has to try to let go or transcend the false and illusory ego to experience higher levels of consciousness that correspond to higher levels of reality, or one has to try to invent a higher form of science through higher levels of consciousness.
I am not sure the latter is possible though.Cheers.
 
Back
Top