Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: Nagel's Batty Explanation of the Mind-Body Problem

  1. Top | #101
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,843
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,056
    Rep Power
    65
    Ah, you are trying to cleave to the language of good dr. H.

    What the person is doing is using what she senses as basis for models of what's best for her. It is related to what is input only as a frame for mixing her nature with perceived recent events, moods, etc.

    What becomes models are the dances with fitness, an event the user will ultimately lose but, will have usually survived long enough to give some of her genes another chance.

    There is no mind intent or creation because there can't be one. Behavior is respondent. Never let cause and effect disassociate. You lose contact with what actually happens when you do so.

  2. Top | #102
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,379
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,932
    Rep Power
    84
    This is my language and my ideas.

    What an animal experiences is related to how that experience effects evolutionary success.

    Experience is not the brain's attempt to perfectly recreate "reality".

    Mind denial is just a modern stupidity from third rate minds.

  3. Top | #103
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,843
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,056
    Rep Power
    65
    Your ideas need justification. Fitness isn't it.

    For instance:
    What an animal experiences is related to how that experience effects evolutionary success.
    You make no connection between the physical mechanics of gene selection and experience. You need to show first the physical then how the physical translates to the subjective.

    We already know that genes produce receptors with color sensitive elements that activate the cell when stimulated. But you ignore that and you jump to experience creates color. Wha?

    Can't do that. You don't even provide a hand wave.

    First you have to explain how experience is related to sense. You don't. Then you have to show how other than by magic most every human sees grass as green. You are in a logical box with no way out except to say "It's a miracle!"

  4. Top | #104
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,379
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,932
    Rep Power
    84
    The receptors are not color sensitive.

    They are sensitive to colorless invisible waves of energy.

    Energy exists external to the mind.

    Color exists as an experience of the mind.

    There is no way for external energy to force an evolving brain to respond to it in a specific manner. It can't force an evolving brain to create the experience of red.

    If by chance red is created from it then how that creation of red helps the animal survive will determine if the creation of red remains.

  5. Top | #105
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,843
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    33,056
    Rep Power
    65
    Evidence would be nice he said again for about the n'teenth time.

    R U the guy the great unwashed call when they want a miracle? Do you use fireworks like those who call for rain do in the Midwest during droughts?

    Actually I'm just pointing out that your declarations are about to label you as one of them. You know who them is right?

Posting Permissions

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