Why atheism is irritating

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

LWSleeth
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 01:04 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;69649 wrote:

If something can interact with something physical, i.e. if it has physical consequences, then it is detectable. Your question is more along the lines of 'can WE detect it, or is it within our technological grasp'. That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Dualism requires a medium of interaction. If an object is physical and interacts with another object, then we define the other object to be physical. Since our own senses are totally physical, everything we interact with is physical by definition. If we can detect it, there is no way to distinguish it from what is physical, as it would necessarily have physical consequences(as we detect anything physically by looking for its physical consequences).



There is no palpable difference between neutralism, idealism and physicalism. Physicalism is just popular. They are all logically the same in the sense that going from one is relation preserving. You might even call them isomorphic.




I don't think that causation matters. Its all about description and facts. The only limitation is what is logically possible, and the sort of causation you talk about is at most some practical tool. Viewing events as separate, the house shaking, and you stomping your foot, and you neurons firing ect is the only way to view them without introducing a tellic falacy.



It means nothing, we don't need the cause. We just need the strong correlation to show that it is practical to assume the cause. Causation is just inductive reasoning, which is fallacious.




Physicalism is identical to every other form of monism. It makes no difference, the logical structure of idealism preserves every relation between objects that physicalism does, they are the same thing but with different wording. Monsim is more sensible than dualism(which cannot provide a mechanism for interaction), but physicalism is neutralism is idealism.




If the element has any physical consequences, I define it to be physical. Just as if I were speaking from the idealists perspective I would say that because I can detect it, it must come from the mind. Or from the neutralists perspective, because I can detect it, and I am of one substance, so must be that which I detect.



See above about detection.



A lot of assumptions based around a very narrow view of monism. No comment.


[SIZE="3"]Well, you have reinforced my opinion of the futility of discussion with those who already believe, whether they have proper evidence or not, that reality is ONLY some way. You filtered, dismissed, slanted, redefined, and otherwise found a means to twist every fact of existence into a purely physical event despite how poorly the fit. I'll leave you and Hue-man to your physicalistic believer's cult while I head over to the religious believer's cult to hear them filter, dismiss, slant, redefine and otherwise find means to twist every fact of existence into Biblical prophesy.[/SIZE] :devilish:
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 01:23 pm
@Zetetic11235,
What are you detecting when you observe the functions of the brain, it appears to me if you watched the sense of smell you would see neurons firing as the receptors transmitted the chemical message for the brain to interpret.You would see the transmission to the pleasure areas or the distasteful zone, giving the brain a powerful warning signal.You might see a signal sent to the smiley face nerves but would you see the memories come flooding back, the emotion of a past romance in those electro chemical signals.Our conscious mind is not a location in one point in that amazing watery substance but is like a pervading viewer,an overseer, an appreciative decider that conducts the brains multitudinous functions and turns the mechanical into human expression.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 01:50 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth;69653 wrote:
Well, you have reinforced my opinion of the futility of discussion with those who already believe, whether they have proper evidence or not, that reality is ONLY some way. You filtered, dismissed, slanted, redefined, and otherwise found a means to twist every fact of existence into a purely physical event despite how poorly the fit. I'll leave you and Hue-man to your physicalistic believer's cult while I head over to the religious believer's cult to hear them filter, dismiss, slant, redefine and otherwise find means to twist every fact of existence into Biblical prophesy. :devilish:


What in the world are you talking about? I just said that I am not necessarily a physicalist, but rather only a monist, yet you have ignored that. I have said that dualism provides no mechanism with which the two totally distinct mediums interact, and you have ignored that. I gave you my reasoning for claiming monism over dualism(or rather infinitism, if you get down to how the mediums of interaction logically develop), and you have ignored that. So if you simply want to state your perceptions and ignore the arguement at hand, then continue what you are doing. Make no attempt to rectify my fallacious claims(as you seem to percieve them to be wrong).

If you don't like the way I define what is physical, then you have misunderstood what I mean by physicalism. I provided you with definitions for the terms that I am using. Your original critique of my post was in error because you didn't know what my conception of monism nor of physicalism is, and now you reject my reply because I have clarified. If you want to be disingenuous, do it elsewhere, otherwise; take a good, long, hard look at my post and logically deconstruct whatever you have a problem with. I will be glad to further expatiate.

EDIT:
I have further thought about it and explored a bit of substance theory, and it seems my views are more in line with bundle theory than the idea of an underlying substance. Objects and events are combinations of properties in time and nothing more, and that is my stance. Hence causation is unnecessary, only description is sensible.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 02:12 am
@Zetetic11235,
This is a response to what I have read in the past couple of pages.


Do we witness causation?:


No we dont. Seeing one billiard ball hit another billiard ball and saying that the second BB's movement was caused by the first BB is not witnessing causation in-action. All you're seeing is a regularity, for Hume already pointed this out centuries ago that empiricism is inductive and regularities is the best you can get. We dont witness 'necessity' or 'causation'. Therefore, no one 'sees' causation, only a high degree of correlation. Saying the first BB caused the second BB to move is using the term in an easier to understand fashion or a colloquial sense. For nothing in empiricism can be said with certainty. Only with rationalism do we get certainty.

So saying the brain involved in consciousness is sheer correlation and not causation is simply a non-sequitor. Besides for anything to get published in science it has to have a 95% correlation ratio of accuracy so repeatability and reliability can ensue. Alot of the so called 'analogies' being put forth about the brain and consciousness are pretty much what McGinn calls hyperdualism.

The brain is like a receiver or transducer for consciousness, therefore damage to the brain distorts consciousness.

Which doesnt really solve the interactionist problem at all. It only makes it worse, and the assumptions just increased tenfold as well. Also there isnt a bias towards consciousness being physical. That's what the evidence tells us. If there's evidence for non-physicality then everyone (including myself) would want to see it. How is that biased? It's not. People are open-minded to these things, people would rather see the unexpected, the new information at changes the perspectives of everyone, but if there's no evidence for it then there's no evidence for it.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:44 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;69834 wrote:
This is a response to what I have read in the past couple of pages.


Do we witness causation?:


No we dont. Seeing one billiard ball hit another billiard ball and saying that the second BB's movement was caused by the first BB is not witnessing causation in-action. All you're seeing is a regularity, for Hume already pointed this out centuries ago that empiricism is inductive and regularities is the best you can get. We dont witness 'necessity' or 'causation'. Therefore, no one 'sees' causation, only a high degree of correlation. Saying the first BB caused the second BB to move is using the term in an easier to understand fashion or a colloquial sense. For nothing in empiricism can be said with certainty. Only with rationalism do we get certainty.

So saying the brain involved in consciousness is sheer correlation and not causation is simply a non-sequitor. Besides for anything to get published in science it has to have a 95% correlation ratio of accuracy so repeatability and reliability can ensue. Alot of the so called 'analogies' being put forth about the brain and consciousness are pretty much what McGinn calls hyperdualism.

The brain is like a receiver or transducer for consciousness, therefore damage to the brain distorts consciousness.

Which doesnt really solve the interactionist problem at all. It only makes it worse, and the assumptions just increased tenfold as well. Also there isnt a bias towards consciousness being physical. That's what the evidence tells us. If there's evidence for non-physicality then everyone (including myself) would want to see it. How is that biased? It's not. People are open-minded to these things, people would rather see the unexpected, the new information at changes the perspectives of everyone, but if there's no evidence for it then there's no evidence for it.
There is no evidence to prove one way or the other, your just assuming by your opinion that it has to be physical.If you can't pinpoint consciousness the question is still open.Both are valid but its the certainty that some of us oppose.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/15/2019 at 07:16:08