South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 08, 2020, 23:20:50 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   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 11294 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2010, 14:45:17 PM »

Yeah, Interweb dramas are fun!  Evil



btw for others who are looking on and because I detest not having my questions answered thus making a point of answering questions as far as possible myself:

Explaining how thought can have any causal efficacy on neural activity if thoughts are not composed of particles.

I have no fucking idea. I simply cannot be blamed that teledoos do not accept "I don't know" answers.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2010, 14:56:59 PM »

Explaining how thought can have any causal efficacy on neural activity if thoughts are not composed of particles.

call me dof, but that entire sentence, makes me think of a platypuss.  odds and ends thrown together, that has got boggerol in relation with each other, yet forced to become something,  and that something is kak ugly, without grace or purpose, and just a freakshow of maniac universal lego building.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2010, 15:19:06 PM »

enjoying this!

I'm for team cyghost

Me too!

Cyghost FTW!!
Logged
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2010, 15:21:50 PM »

Tellyman I am no scientist, so I am going to suggest you read this again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron  and if it is not the answer you were looking for, I assume you already have an opinion on this, then mind telling us?  Otherwise you can also consider having a lengthily intimate discussion with whats his name http://forum.skeptic.za.org/profile/?u=556   .
I’m sure he won’t mind! I think you two got more in common than you would care to admit!  He might be able to supply you with the scientific answers you’re looking for straight outa his 1st bijble and whilst he’s busy, sommer give you some hints as to what future holds for you, according to his Nostra k@k(2nd bijble)
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2010, 15:28:48 PM »

Teleological and david mabus sitting in a tree
K - I - S - S -I - N - G   Grin
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2010, 08:10:28 AM »

team cyghost t-shirts now available.  (nice, now I also know how to do that!)


You guys haven't seen anything yet though. Wait till Irreverent shows up, that bloke is scary  Cheesy
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2010, 09:32:23 AM »

Aaw, cute, team cyghost....

Ok, just to get this straight, you guys are on team cyghost because you are in agreement with cyghost that (and this is really what the thread turned out to be about):
1) Thoughts are not particles.
2) Thoughts don't interact with particles.
3) Thoughts are the result / product of particles interacting in a specific way.

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

The answer is:
1) "I don't know"

Can I hear a "go team cyghost go"
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2010, 09:42:34 AM »

Aaw, cute, team cyghost....

Ok, just to get this straight, you guys are on team cyghost because you are in agreement with cyghost

Fail! We are on his team because we like him, and we don't particularly like you!  Tongue

Go, team cyghost, go!

Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2010, 09:47:00 AM »

Aaw, cute, team cyghost....

Ok, just to get this straight, you guys are on team cyghost because you are in agreement with cyghost

Fail! We are on his team because we like him, and we don't particularly like you!  Tongue

Go, team cyghost, go!
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.

Go, team cyghost go!
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2010, 09:47:27 AM »

Aaw, cute, team cyghost....
The answer is:
1) "I don't know"
Can I hear a "go team cyghost go"
"I don't know" is at least honest and accurate. "I don't know" is often the beginning of knowledge because, if the person wanted to "know" he would take steps to "find out". Since answering the question "Are thoughts particles?" will add very little value to my life, I, for one, do not give a flying rats' ass about answering it.

So, when it comes to honesty, simplicity, accuracy, relevance then I too shout go team cyghost go
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2010, 10:02:18 AM »

Ok, just to get this straight, you guys are on team cyghost because you are in agreement with cyghost that (and this is really what the thread turned out to be about):
No, it really is about nothing. All four threads. Bloody ludicrous.
Quote
1) Thoughts are not particles.
I stand by that
Quote
2) Thoughts don't interact with particles.
I retract that on second thoughts
Quote
3) Thoughts are the result / product of particles interacting in a specific way.
I stand by that
Quote
And like cyghost, when asked:
1) How can thoughts have any causal efficacy on neural activity if thoughts are not composed of particles?

The answer is:
1) "I don't know"
I stand by that

Your rebuttal or evidence to anything you believe contrary are eagerly awaited.
Quote from: rwenzori
We are on his team because we like him, and we don't particularly like you!
That is very scientific and stuff  Cheesy
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #41 on: April 15, 2010, 10:09:06 AM »

Ok, just to get this straight, you guys are on team cyghost because you are in agreement with cyghost that (and this is really what the thread turned out to be about):
1) Thoughts are not particles.
2) Thoughts don't interact with particles.
3) Thoughts are the result / product of particles interacting in a specific way.
And like cyghost, when asked:
1) How can thoughts have any causal efficacy on neural activity if thoughts are not composed of particles?
The answer is:
1) "I don't know"

OK I am not a scientist either, but here is my opinion on some of the questions you raised: No, thoughts are not particles, but can interact with particles. Thoughts may be described as the result of particles (like neurons?) interacting in a specific way. By 'causal efficacy' I assume you mean 'fundamental effect'? (sorry, not always one for big words) I don't see the problem? maybe thoughts, as the result of particles interacting, can seem to have an effect on those particles? Becomes a bit of a chicken-egg-who-came-first argument doesn't it. But yeah... I don't know either, and I'm OK with that.

"go team cyghost go"
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2010, 12:25:13 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.

Now I am really curious what goes through your minds and the thoughts you are having.

Since thoughts are not particles (according to you guys anyway), 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.

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. If a thought does not have energy, just how thoughts interact with particles becomes just another mystery.

So you seem to be stuck with a few mysteries that can not be solved scientifically. Thoughts, according to you guys are just like the Cartesian conception of the soul in the sense that souls and thoughts are not particles. Cartesian dualists knew that these mysteries cannot IN PRINCIPLE be solved by science, so then it became a metaphysical problem.

So, like the Cartesian dualists, you guys are left with metaphysical issues. Who would have thought, you have finally discovered your metaphysical problems, despite kicking and screaming against metaphysics.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1421


Carpe diem


« Reply #43 on: April 15, 2010, 13:05:12 PM »

sweet jesus

we don't understand consciousness, therefor it is metaphysical therefor God

what a stupid fucking retarded argument from splendid ignorance - bravo (we need an applause emoticon)

ex recto or did you think it out for yourself?

Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #44 on: April 15, 2010, 13:32:05 PM »

sweet jesus

we don't understand consciousness, therefor it is metaphysical therefor God

what a stupid fucking retarded argument from splendid ignorance - bravo (we need an applause emoticon)

ex recto or did you think it out for yourself?


Shame, a few logical fallacies here:
1) It is not "we don't understand consciousness therefor metaphysics". 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.
2) Having metaphysical problems does not all of a sudden imply the existence of God.
3) There was no argument from ignorance, it was just a demonstration how your beliefs about thoughts logically and unavoidably leads you to a few metaphysical problems. How you solve them is up to you. You just built and burned straw men. Go solve your own metaphysical problems as a result of your own weird beliefs lol. You are just digging your own hole.
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 0.72 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 24, 2019, 07:47:06 AM
Privacy Policy