Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well I think it serves as a word for the set of sensory based perceptional models, which most healthy, like-thinking human minds share in common, whenever we perceive that set.Fervent said:So "physical" is just a meaningless catch-all? What purpose does it serve, then?SelfSim said:Huh?
Perceptional models, (which include tactile, visual/observation, auditory, etc inputs), once described using language and tested, inform us on what 'physical' means .. and not the other way around ..(?)
Terms can be clarified by 'connecting' them, (via communication using language), with other instances of like-thinking human minds of which we are well aware. They can then be used as the meaning basis of another term called 'reality', which may or may not be distinguishable from science's meaning of its objective 'reality'.This is an interesting statement. Can we clarify terms without connecting them to their external referrent?
Scientifically thinking minds, demonstrating evidence of their usage of the scientific method.And what and who decides what qualifies as science and what doesn't? Who has the final say so?
Sound and fury signifying nothing.Well I think it serves as a word for the set of sensory based perceptional models, which most healthy, like-thinking human minds share in common, whenever we perceive that set.
And how are the particulars of the language selected?The word is then shared amongst human minds as a description, using language.
Yeah, and the physicalist hypothesis decreases the sense-making ability of science on questions about consciousness. At least that's what this analysis seems to imply. The notion that everything supervenes upon the physical appears to be a suspect presumption based on semantic analysis to separate the refferrent of the words we use from the linguistic definitions we give such words.The purpose is sense-making (and communications) ..(?)
More sound and fury signifying nothing.Terms can be clarified by 'connecting' them, (via communication using language), with other instances of like-thinking human minds of which we are well aware. They can then be used as the meaning basis of another term called 'reality', which may or may not be distinguishable from science's meaning of its objective 'reality'.
Also, in the case of science, 'the thing itself' is never tested .. Science only ever tests its models.
Circular reasoning raises its head yet again.Scientifically thinking minds.
Tautologies can't be falsified, they can only be defined. And it's not simply a claim that I am making, but how the Bible defines God in the one place He gives His "name". Ehyeh asher Ehyah. What will be will be, I am that I am. I can only work with Biblical definitions of God when considering the Biblical God.
If you don't believe me, you are free to look over a bit of the literature among theorists of mind.
Not at all, it draws on nothing but "seemngs" or direct experience.
The so-called hard problem of how an individuals mind can associate with a particular body.
Yes, but these kinds of denials become necessary if physicalist metaphysics are taken consistently.
The notion that free will and consciousness are illusory is taken as a serious proposition among "scientific" thinkers and it ultimately comes down to clinging tightlly to a metaphysical construct that they can't reconsider.
Not really, people are only convinced as much because they have been taught not to question supervenience on the physical.
There are other metaphysical constructs that untie many of the Gordian knots that consciousness creates for physicalist explanations.
We don't have to tie ourselves into pretzels denying what should be plain to everyone with a mind.
I don't really know what babies are born understanding,
I don't know what understanding without language means,
as the whole of my understanding is limited to my ability to articulate it.
I'm not suggesting the two are totally independent phenomena, just that the presumption that the mind is dependent on and fully explainable in terms of the physical structures doesn't seem warranted and seems to create conflicts that are easily solved by changiing the terms we use.
Not really.
And that's a problem because?
You speak your thoughts, I assume that you have them and that they provide an explanaton for your actions.
My suggestion is simply procedural, the causal exclusion problem is something drawn from debates within theories of mind.
All I've done is suggested that it is the terms themselves and how they are defined that is the culprit and we don't need fanciful explanations to explain away mental phenomena as causally effective in their own right.
No pride, more baffled at how such a simple epistemic move is so readily ignored by so many who think themselves knowledgeable.
Doesn't really matter, all that matters here is whether I've made a procedural error.
Neuroscience seems to still be struggling with several problems that has created a diverse body of robust theoretical explanations that seem more attempts to explain away mental effectiveness than explain the phenomena as they present themselves.
I didn't make the problem up, this is part of a current debate in theories of mind with multiple robust and complex theories to explain how mental phenomena are really just expressions of physical phenomena and not their own category of causal effectiveness. Mind is explained away rather than explained.
Presumptions can create problems,
I've explained it enough in this thread already. If you don't understand the procedures I've used, that's a comprehension issue on your part.
There's nothing speculative or argumentative about what I've done, just logical procedures.
I've taken a recognized problem from the literature surrounding theories of mind and dissolved the conflict by uncoupling a metaphysical presumption from an epistemically defensible proposition. I didn't create the problem
The language is a repository, but what value are the thoughts that you are conveying
Answering this moves us into waters too deep for me.
Come again?
To an extent, but perspectives don't matter to the procedures I've implemented.
Hmm .. I'm not there yet, coming from the proposition you've put forward.Sound and fury signifying nothing.
And how are the particulars of the language selected?
Yeah, and the physicalist hypothesis decreases the sense-making ability of science on questions about consciousness. At least that's what this analysis seems to imply. The notion that everything supervenes upon the physical appears to be a suspect presumption based on semantic analysis to separate the refferrent of the words we use from the linguistic definitions we give such words.
Not sure what you mean by this ..(?)More sound and fury signifying nothing.
There is inevitable circularity (but not circular reasoning). Its source is more like the abundant hypothesis-verifying evidence and when there is no known, objectively demonstrable way, for us to escape our own minds .. its all up to us (using the minds we have).Circular reasoning raises its head yet again.
In the first premise, I left out [natural/physical] and then described the reinsertion below it (or the substitution, or however you wish to characterize it). Think of it as two versions (A) with "physical cause" and (B) with "natural cause". This is the same word substitution you made. As before, the claim you make is that making this substitution about cause in premise 1 removes this titular "causal exclusion problem". This is what I am trying to understand, not assert.1. events require causes
2. mental can be a cause
3. mental is not physical
So if you make the causes of events "natural" rather than "physical" and consider the mental to be natural but non-physical, then the "natural mental" could be the sufficient "natural cause" of the first premise, where the "non-physical mental" couldn't be the sufficient "physical cause"
Calling mental causes mental causes sufficies. You're simply trying to re-assert closure on the physical rather than accepting that the metaphysical imposition is what is getting in the way of simple explanation. Nature is nature, there's no need to name it. If you want to say that physical and natural are the same thing, you are the one who needs to give an explicit definition of physical. But doing so requires us to make elaborate theories that don't seem to stand up to scrutiny.
Universes? Maybe. I only know of one, and speculation about more doesn't really interest me.Well I'm not so limited.
Regardless....your god creates universes....correct?
Not at all, I've plainly stated the problem as it exists within the literature. It's not my representation that is creating issues of comprehension. You seem to be objecting but not providing an indication of what it is you are objecting to exactly.I believe you want me to spend time reading this topic only to realize you weren't representing it well.
I don't base my opinions on consensus opinion, so I'm not really concerned with whether or not anyone agrees with me. All I'm interested in is pointing out the man behind the curtain creating the illusion of the great and powerful Oz.Ok...well try not to sound so disappointed that nobody agrees with your direct experience.
This depends on who decides where the line between science and philosophy is, and what the nature of scientific explanation covers.This hasn't been a scientific problem for some time if I'm not mistaken.
At least one seems likely, though I'm not sure about the metaphysical commitments of others. But no one who seems to want to object to what I've done here seems to be willing to talk about the procedures I've employed and present an actual objection.Do you think someone here is holding a physicalist position?
An unnecessary difficulty built on an imposed metaphysical understanding. Which is what the procedures I've presented identify and everyone who has come against me has failed to address.I think it comes down to the difficulty of the arrival of conscious thought as a physical process.
You've provided evidence contrary to this claim.I'm more than willing to question it...in fact, present some questions.
Uh huh. Deny, deny, deny. Why is there so much literature addressing this theoretical problem if there is no gordian knot?I'm not seeing the Gordian knots.
Metaphysical garbage. I don't really care what you think, as all you are doing is presenting speculation.I think the mind is the process of active thinking and perception aimed recursively upon itself.
More metaphysical garbage.You are simply thinking/perceiving....not running these processes through a mind.
Yes, certainly. I am human and can be persuaded by emotions as much as anyone else. But the procedures I've presented speak for themselves. And all people who object to them seem to be able to do is deny that there is any problem at all despite a great deal of literature responding to the problem being out there. I see plenty of evidence that claims of being amenable to evidence is a falsity among those who are the loudest about such things.Right.
Indeed.
I doubt that. You feel emotions, I'm sure.
Again, this is a problem taken straight out of the current debate within theories of mind. The problem is not in my explanation, but your comprehension.What conflicts?
I'm aware of the body of work out there, but basic epistemic principles are eschewed by those "experts" in order to maintain a metaphysical hypothesis despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary. There are certainly a great deal of robust elaborate theories that attempt to explain away the problem, but applying basic epistemic considerations like Occam's razor and oher heuristics for selecting among theories all of those "expert" theories are just examples of human irrationality run rampant.Trust me....there's a whole body of work by experts on the topic you should check out.
Well, yes.Pointing out the natural/physical distinction again.
At this point it seems clear that your claims of amenability to evidence are not genuine, and that you have issues comprehending basic epistemic principles and analytic procedures. Which means there's really no point in continuing to converse with you, so goodbye and God bless.Only if understood.
As it relates to cause and effect.
Ok...
Are you suggesting that no meaningful difference exists between natural and physical and therefore mental causation is both natural and physical?
Are you suggesting no meaningful difference between physical and mental exists and all causes are physical or mental?
Here's the one I like....all causes are potential effects and effects potential causes so the perception of the relationship between the two depends entirely upon what cause is sought for an effect.
Or you know....none of this matters.
As another poster put it...I prefer to leave the meta from my physics.
You made a claim. Nothing more.
Again....the spilt brain experiments will disappoint you.
Because mind isn't a useful term.
But they don't necessarily.
Possibly. It wouldn't be the first time.
If not A then C is a logical claim....but it's not much by itself.
The problem only appears to exist in the bias of those who reject answers they find unsatisfactory.
The value is communication....the very point of language....and it requires shared meaning.
See above.
Of course perspectives matter. You seem to not like purely physical explanations.
I mean you are doing nothing but obfuscating by increasing words.Not sure what you mean by this ..(?)
Circular reasoning is circular reasoning. If the reasoning involved is inevitably circular, than tryng to call it something other than circular reasoning is just practicing self-deception.There is inevitable circularity (but not circular reasoning). Its source is more like the abundant hypothesis-verifying evidence and when there is no known, objectively demonstrable way, for us to escape our own minds .. its all up to us (using the minds we have).
I think any perceptions of circularity comes down to acceptance of that present-day 'fact'(?)
The reasoning isn't circular .. its the nature of the test data.I mean you are doing nothing but obfuscating by increasing words.
Circular reasoning is circular reasoning. If the reasoning involved is inevitably circular, than tryng to call it something other than circular reasoning is just practicing self-deception.
Just a whole bunch of words trying to explain how your circular reasoning isn't really circular reasoning.The reasoning isn't circular .. its the nature of the test data.
Let me remind you, the path I'm following here, is based on a testable hypothesis which generates objective test evidence and not on some metaphysical, untestable assumption. That's a big difference.
If we infer circularity arising from test data .. then so be it.
I can see how you're having difficulties accepting the natural circularity there ..Just a whole bunch of words trying to explain how your circular reasoning isn't really circular reasoning.
It's not "nature" that is circular, it's your method of justifying what you believe to be true about it. What you have shown is a willingness to deceive yourself by way of circularity.I can see how you're having difficulties accepting the natural circularity there ..
Let's recap this sub-discussion:It's not "nature" that is circular, it's your method of justifying what you believe to be true about it. What you have shown is a willingness to deceive yourself by way of circularity.
So you see circularity there.SelfSim said:Scientifically thinking minds, demonstrating evidence of their usage of the scientific method.And what and who decides what qualifies as science and what doesn't? Who has the final say so?
Yeah, just circular reasoning. So what makes a "scientifically thinking mind" such that they get to define what "science" is? Lies don't become truth just because there's an academic consensus, and circular reasoning doesn't become anything but circular reasoning just because there are more participants. The majesty of the illusion goes away when you spot the feet under the curtain and recognize the man in the mix. More men hiding behind the curtain doesn't make it any more objective, it's just a bunch of circular arguments to confirm what you already believe to be true before you started to investigate.[
Let's recap this sub-discussion:
So you see circularity there.
Let me ask who else you think might decide upon what qualifies as science and what doesn't, if its not the collective of scientifically thinking minds?
(The latter of which, is clearly where any objective test conducted, would point back to)?
Well thank goodness science doesn't use logic to create its fundamental models.Yeah, and the physicalist hypothesis decreases the sense-making ability of science on questions about consciousness. At least that's what this analysis seems to imply. The notion that everything supervenes upon the physical appears to be a suspect presumption based on semantic analysis to separate the refferrent of the words we use from the linguistic definitions we give such words.
Elementary description of the scientific method? That's not really how science works, it's an idealization. Real science involves human beings who misinterpret data, fudge data, outright fabricate data, impose biases onto their conclusions, and on and on. The models are not independent of the semantic content, and logic applies to semantics in a very real way. Science doesn't do anything, and an idealization of the scientific process is nothing but a fairytail built on circular reasoning and consensus thought.Well thank goodness science doesn't use logic to create its fundamental models.
Science uses logic within its models, they are logical syntaxes, but it does not use logic to create its models.
That is obvious, you can see this in any elementary description of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics: they are different.
Such a cynical, merely personal opinion there, which completely ignores the evidence of what science has produced and continues to produce.Elementary description of the scientific method? That's not really how science works, it's an idealization. Real science involves human beings who misinterpret data, fudge data, outright fabricate data, impose biases onto their conclusions, and on and on. The models are not independent of the semantic content, and logic applies to semantics in a very real way. Science doesn't do anything, and an idealization of the scientific process is nothing but a fairytail built on circular reasoning and consensus thought.
Universes? Maybe. I only know of one, and speculation about more doesn't really interest me.
Not at all, I've plainly stated the problem as it exists within the literature. It's not my representation that is creating issues of comprehension.
This depends on who decides where the line between science and philosophy is, and what the nature of scientific explanation covers.
At least one seems likely, though I'm not sure about the metaphysical commitments of others. But no one who seems to want to object to what I've done here seems to be willing to talk about the procedures I've employed and present an actual objection.
An unnecessary difficulty built on an imposed metaphysical understanding.
Uh huh. Deny, deny, deny. Why is there so much literature addressing this theoretical problem if there is no gordian knot?
Metaphysical garbage. I don't really care what you think, as all you are doing is presenting speculation.
And all people who object to them seem to be able to do is deny that there is any problem at all despite a great deal of literature responding to the problem being out there.
Again, this is a problem taken straight out of the current debate within theories of mind. The problem is not in my explanation, but your comprehension.
I'm aware of the body of work out there, but basic epistemic principles are eschewed by those "experts" in order to maintain a metaphysical hypothesis despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary.
Well, yes.
At this point it seems clear that your claims of amenability to evidence
are not genuine, and that you have issues comprehending basic epistemic principles and analytic procedures.
Which means there's really no point in continuing to converse with you, so goodbye and God bless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?