Interaction ("mind body") problem

[GrowingSmaller]

If you really mean unobservable, I'd say yes. And no.

Observe: Law of non-contradition... please.

It really makes no difference, either answer gives the exact same results.

It may make no practical difference, but there is an ontological difference.

If they're unobservable in any conceivable way, them existing or not is a semantic quibble.

A what?

There's literally no difference between them existing or not, by definition.

Go study ontology and get back to me.

So says the guy who's trying to discredit naturalism

Where, please evidence for this comment! But I guess you will brush over than one as you would not like to admit you are wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

Chocolate comes from a fairly well definmed set of chemical compounds containing cacao etc. Without them the term "chocolate" becomes inappropriate.

As I said I don't think (if a quark were chocolate) we would actually expect it to pass a chemical examination. Just because all the chocolate we've seen so far is correlated with certain chemical compounds is no reason to assume that it must be universally true. After all, as you've told us, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I prefer to remain agnostic on the subject.

Chocolate has a chemical definition in ordinary language, like I said:

Fermented, roasted, shelled, and ground cacao seeds, often combined with a sweetener or flavoring agent.

That's defining chocolate, not chocolateness. The correct comparison then is conscious :

conscious - definition of conscious by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., the first scientific definition - 4. (Psychology) a. denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action

 

[KCfromNC]

Observe: Law of non-contradition... please.

Please provide proof that an inherently unobservable property must follow the law of non-contradiction, and the observations you used to prove this.

It may make no practical difference, but there is an ontological difference.
A what?

A difference without a distinction, a series of meaningless word games, as I said a few posts ago.

Where, please evidence for this comment! But I guess you will brush over than one as you would not like to admit you are wrong.

Wrong about what? Do you feel that your comments about possibly unobseravbly conscious office furniture have nothing to do with the problems naturalism has in describing brain functions? You've spent an awful lot of time on it for something which you're now implying is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please provide proof that an inherently unobservable property must follow the law of non-contradiction, and the observations you used to prove this.

Please provide any reason whatsoever to think that the law of non-contradiction can ever be broken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As I said I don't think (if a quark were chocolate) we would actually expect it to pass a chemical examination. Just because all the chocolate we've seen so far is correlated with certain chemical compounds is no reason to assume that it must be universally true.

Why not, when chocolate has a well accepted chemical definition? On the other hand consciousness (or "counscious" if you like, pending further enquiry) does not have such a chemical definition. So you are simply repeating the same failed analogy. I think that what started off as a misconception of my position has turned into a warrior like straw man you simply feel unable to give up. YOu think that the definition of chocolate might stray from the present one, IF the definition of consciousness might stray from the present ("brain") one. But I repeat that that is not the present definition of conscious or consciousness.

That's defining chocolate, not chocolateness. The correct comparison then is conscious :

I am not sure of that one. I would have thought that being conscious was an acticvity of consciousness, just like being chocaletey is a property of chocolate. BTW whats the point you want to make, akhi?

conscious - definition of conscious by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., the first scientific definition - 4. (Psychology) a. denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action

And? Obviously to you you are making a point, but yuou'll need to fill me in on the important details. You have selected one definition dealing with human minds where we could make a connection to brains, and you want to generalize from there, right?
Peace.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please provide proof that an inherently unobservable property must follow the law of non-contradiction, and the observations you used to prove this.

How would I provide observations proving something unobservable? I don't think my mental contents are that mixed up. Do you?

A difference without a distinction, a series of meaningless word games, as I said a few posts ago.

Could you put that in logical form please.

Wrong about what? Do you feel that your comments about possibly unobseravbly conscious office furniture have nothing to do with the problems naturalism has in describing brain functions?

I am asking: where was I arguing against naturalism. Please state the case clearly.

You've spent an awful lot of time on it for something which you're now implying is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

See the previous comment.

 

[quatona]

I am not sure of that one. I would have theought that being conscious was an acticvity of consciousness,

What?? Like moving is an activity of movement?

That´s the problem with your nominalizations. You end up believing nominalized verbs and adjectives signify objects.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What?? Like moving is an activity of movement?

That´s the problem with your nominalizations. You end up believing nominalized verbs and adjectives signify objects.

What is the point of all this grammatical insight please?

 

[sandwiches]

Chocolate has a chemical definition such that veering too far does not make something "chocolate" anymore. Consciousness on the other hand has an observed correlation to certain chemical states, but is not necessarily defined by them. See the dictionary for details.

Sorry but the ONLY consciousness we are aware of occurs in brains and in living organisms. Rocks, quarks, and chairs have neither brains nor life.

 

[sandwiches]

So there are no such things as unobservable properties?

Maybe. But there is no way to use unobservable properties to differentiate on thing from another.

 

[sandwiches]

Please provide any reason whatsoever to think that the law of non-contradiction can ever be broken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

To use GrowingSmaller's tactic: Just because we don't know nor can't conceive of any case where it might be broken, doesn't mean it couldn't ever. I'm agnostic on that subject.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry but the ONLY consciousness we are aware of occurs in brains and in living organisms. Rocks, quarks, and chairs have neither brains nor life.

I know that, but to conclude "therefore, because we don't know that they are, they are not" is an argument from ignorance.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Maybe. But there is no way to use unobservable properties to differentiate on thing from another.

I acept that but afaict it does not affect my argument.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

To use GrowingSmaller's tactic: Just because we don't know nor can't conceive of any case where it might be broken, doesn't mean it couldn't ever. I'm agnostic on that subject.

The principle of non-contradiction can IIRC be abandoned in non-classical "paraconsistent logic". No time to searchfor references at present.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The principle of non-contradiction can IIRC be abandoned in non-classical "paraconsistent logic".

But can it be abandoned and not abandoned in non-classical paraconsistent logic at the same time and in the same respect?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

What is the point of all this grammatical insight please?

That nominalized descriptions of processes and attributes don´t create objects. They are merely useful grammatical products.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That nominalized descriptions of processes and attributes don´t create objects. They are merely useful grammatical products.

Sorry that goes over my head. Does that mean I have to quit now, and grammar proves that quarks cannot be conscious?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But can it be abandoned and not abandoned in non-classical paraconsistent logic at the same time and in the same respect?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I dont know have not studied it formally, just know if it's existence.

 

[quatona]

Sorry that goes over my head.

Ok.

Does that mean I have to quit now, and grammar proves that quarks cannot be conscious?

No, it means neither.
As far as I am concerned you are free to write whatever you want, and grammar proves nothing (the latter almost being my very point).

Please answer this question to yourself: Is moving an action of a movement?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok.

No, it means neither.
As far as I am concerned you are free to write whatever you want, and grammar proves nothing (the latter almost being my very point).

Please answer this question to yourself: Is moving an action of a movement?

I am not sure what the analogy you are trying to draw is sorry so I wont go on.
But "the brain is consciousness" as well as "the brain is conscious" makes sense to me.