South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 25, 2019, 02:08:01 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Eliminative Materialism Q&A (split)

 (Read 10219 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2010, 13:47:50 PM »

ok, call me slow, but i have gotten lost along the way here.

we keep on referring to particles.  do i understand correctly, that what telly is saying, is that our thoughts are particles, and thus interacts with the world around it, thus our thoughts control our world. kinda like a mental choas theory?
or am i getting this all wrong?

and if thoughts consist of particles..... particles of what?
photons?  electrons?  tacheons?
as i understand the neural system in my brain, 'thoughts' and pretty much all processes are electrically conducted.  so ja, okay, a 'thought' is an electrical current.  but it stays within your pip surely.  if your thoughts travel outside your head, then i cant help seeing darth vader in the deathstar canteen going 'i can kill you with a thought'.
the force is indeed strong with telly then.

cy, am i losing the plot?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2010, 13:52:28 PM »

Holy banana, batman, what kind of a genius are you to state what and what not science can IN PRINCIPLE solve or not??

Where my knowledge falls short, I admit such. If this becomes a metaphysical problem for *you* then so be it.

Gaps in my understanding or knowledge does not equate to metaphysical problems.

Quote
Since thoughts are not particles (according to you guys anyway),
Please provide the evidence that they are.
Quote
they do not have any particular physical dimensions such as length (in the case of strings) or width or depth or even mass that one would ascribe to physical objects such as particles, it becomes entirely mysterious just how thoughts can get into any sort of cause-effect relationship with physical objects such as particles.
ie mysterious = metaphysical  Roll Eyes roflol
Quote
You can't appeal to science to help you fill in the gap, or hope that science will one day somehow solve this mystery. E=mc2 and the law of conservation of energy states that the amount of energy in the physical, measureable universe is constant, therefore measuring the energy of a thought becomes another complete mystery since it does not have a mass that you can describe mathematically in terms of particles in motion. If you guys want to assert that thoughts have masses, then it becomes another complete mystery just how you are going to mathematically describe it if thoughts are not particles in motion.
more mystery = metaphysical


These delusions can be cured - have it looked at.

ps the metaphysical is a joke - if that is a problem, metaphysical or not, pleas learn to deal with it, I am not about to make your problems mine.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2010, 13:56:07 PM »

cy, am i losing the plot?
It is a mystery to my - must be metaphysical and I know my brain ain't capable with dealing with that shit...

that or I don't live in lala land like some?
Logged
Julian
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2010, 14:33:10 PM »

Wow, I am impressed, there are a lot of people here that think:
1) Thoughts are not particles.
2) Thoughts interact with particles.
3) Thoughts are the result / product of particles interacting in a specific way.

My thoughts on these points:
1) Thoughts are not particles. Neither are many phenomena that we agree to be purely physical (rocks, trees, lightning)
2) Hmmm. Psychokinesis?
3) Now I think we are getting somewhere.

Thoughts are the products of biological systems, which in turn relies on chemistry, which in turn relies on physics, all the way down to the particles and fundamental forces and what not. The higher-level system is restrained by the laws of the lower level system, ie. you could not have a chemical system that broke the law of conservation of energy. But at each higher level there are emergent properties that do not merely depend on the properties of the building blocks of the system, but also how they are arranged/their interactions in the system. My understanding is that this has been pretty well demonstrated for biology and is in the process of being demonstrated for neuroscience.

I'm curious, Teleological, if you think that the universe CANNOT, even in principle, be reduced to fundamental physics, at what point does something else enter the picture? Is physics and chemistry sufficient to account for lower organisms like bacteria? Where is mind or god or cosmic consciousness (not sure what you are postulating here) required to enter the picture?
Logged
Julian
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #49 on: April 15, 2010, 14:39:58 PM »

And like cyghost, when asked:
1) How can thoughts have any causal efficacy on neural activity if thoughts are not composed of particles?

I would say that thoughts are the subjective experience OF neural activity. Thoughts are not possible in the absence of neural activity. Maybe this is not possible to test definitively (do dead people have thoughts?), but it seems very reasonable. Would you be convinced of this point if it were possible to implant thoughts in someones head by the manipulation of neural activity?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2010, 15:12:16 PM »

I'm curious, Teleological, if you think that the universe CANNOT, even in principle, be reduced to fundamental physics, at what point does something else enter the picture? Is physics and chemistry sufficient to account for lower organisms like bacteria? Where is mind or god or cosmic consciousness (not sure what you are postulating here) required to enter the picture?

I am not saying that the universe cannot be reduced to fundamental physics. That is a misrepresentation. Fundamental physics is propbably the best way to go imo btw.

I am saying that IF you think thoughts are not particles, then thoughts CANNOT IN PRINCIPLE be reduced to fundamental physics since fundamental physics deal with measureable, quantifiable, physical properties. And since thoughts do not have any particular physical dimensions such as length (in the case of strings) or width or depth or even mass that one would ascribe to physical objects such as particles, it is IN PRINCIPLE out of the scope of any physical science to try and understand "thoughts".

Therefor, IF you think thoughts are not particles you are stuck with your particular metaphysical problems, no matter how hard you try to ignore it or sweep it under the carpet or pretend it is not there.

Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2010, 15:22:59 PM »

♫♪♫♪♫♪I am living in a mysterious world, I am living in a metaphysical world

♫♫♫ mysteeerious ♫♫♫

because I don't know I am living in a metaphysical world, baby, a metaphysical world ♫♪♫♪♫♪I



*with apologies to Madonna
Logged
Julian
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2010, 17:59:29 PM »

I am not saying that the universe cannot be reduced to fundamental physics. That is a misrepresentation. Fundamental physics is propbably the best way to go imo btw.

I am saying that IF you think thoughts are not particles, then thoughts CANNOT IN PRINCIPLE be reduced to fundamental physics etc.

So do you think that thoughts are particles?
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2010, 21:01:04 PM »

Wait till Irreverent shows up, that bloke is scary  Cheesy
Aaaaand - Tah-dah! - here I is bristling with barbed commentary! *Bows* Wink

Oooh, my bad, I thought the team had some kind of substance, something intelligent to offer, now it seems to be like a bunch of sycophants.
Hey TellyMecchie, explain the mechanics of how a mystical teleology induces a brain state that results in for example ... uhm ... let's see now ...  envy. Yes, envy will do nicely!

You can't appeal to science to help you fill in the gap, or hope that science...
Yes, 'cos TellyMecchie knows the limits of materialism and all those scientists out there working on those problems are just kidding themselves. Oh, to be such a fuckin' genius...

It is just your specific conception of thoughts (thoughts are not particles) that logically and unavoidably leads you to your specific problems that science IN PRINCIPLE can't solve.
What a bonus then that scientists don't take the mind-numbing idiocies regularly vomited up by wannabe philosophers seriously, isn't it?

I am saying that IF you think thoughts are not particles, then thoughts CANNOT IN PRINCIPLE be reduced to fundamental physics since fundamental physics deal with measureable, quantifiable, physical properties.
Regular friggin' comedian, aren't ya? I mean that's not a bad joke for an imbecile.

Hey TellyMecchie, this just for you in case you missed it in the other thread. I see you chose to studiously ignore my offer. Or maybe you didn't see it. Just for you it's still open with no expiry date, see? So what say you go be a good chump and give it a bash, hmm?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2010, 07:29:39 AM »

IN PRINCIPLE today is Friday. (*The day usually following Thursday.) Why this happens so regularly, almost every week, is of course a mystery. Which makes the work week totally and completely metaphysical. Why this particular week was the longest week in 2010 is also IN PRINCIPLE not determinable by any science, now or futuristic. At least some entertainment on Wednesday cause a bit of a time warp and so we found ourselves here on the most delicious of days.

God, of course, works in mysterious ways. One of the mysteries which is IN PRINCIPLE more mysterious than other mysteries, is why God made dumb people. Ponder *that* dear gentle forumites while the Stormers gear to a massive victory over the Chiefs.

IN PRINCIPLE


* there was that one week on psilocybin where Thursday was definitely followed by Saturday... I'm just saying, mysterious things happen and metaphysical problems have to be faced... or ignored as you like.
Logged
alloytoo
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2010, 04:21:08 AM »

IN PRINCIPLE today is Friday. (*The day usually following Thursday.) Why this happens so regularly, almost every week, is of course a mystery. Which makes the work week totally and completely metaphysical. Why this particular week was the longest week in 2010 is also IN PRINCIPLE not determinable by any science, now or futuristic. At least some entertainment on Wednesday cause a bit of a time warp and so we found ourselves here on the most delicious of days.

God, of course, works in mysterious ways. One of the mysteries which is IN PRINCIPLE more mysterious than other mysteries, is why God made dumb people. Ponder *that* dear gentle forumites while the Stormers gear to a massive victory over the Chiefs.

IN PRINCIPLE


* there was that one week on psilocybin where Thursday was definitely followed by Saturday... I'm just saying, mysterious things happen and metaphysical problems have to be faced... or ignored as you like.


I can readily do

Go Team Cyghost
Stormers, not so much.

It does appear that nothing much has changed there does seem to be a lot of Phronisms and Phriggeling going on.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Phriggeling
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2010, 09:15:43 AM »

Welcome to here  Cheesy
Stormers, not so much.
hmmm, we can work on that methinks.  Evil
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.752 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 10, 2019, 10:24:44 AM
Privacy Policy