Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 105

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

  1. Top | #81
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,386
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,939
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. Top | #82
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    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.

  3. Top | #83
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    Humans agreeing on things do not make them objective.
    I agree. One makes things objective by observing using material processes documenting, finding, documenting causes.

  4. Top | #84
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,386
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,939
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    You are resorting to you-ism, centering reference to you rather than to nature.
    "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.

  5. Top | #85
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Gee. I believe two you's is an I. Show me "I" is material mr. wizard. IOW "I" is subjective. Self reference yano.

  6. Top | #86
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,386
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,939
    Rep Power
    81
    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.

  7. Top | #87
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    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.
    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.
    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)

  8. Top | #88
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,386
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,939
    Rep Power
    81
    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?

  9. Top | #89
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    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?

  10. Top | #90
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,386
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,939
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Opinion? What opinion.
    You feel you have no opinions as you spew them sloppily every day?

    What holds the opinions your hands type out?

Posting Permissions

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