On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[Sean Hayden]

When does it enter the lump of meat?

[SpeedOfSound]

They may indeed be reducible to the physical, once we establish that there is a mind-independent physical there to reduce to, I will consider it a serious option, But, as it is, what evidence do we have to suggest that as a serious option?

The SAME EXACT evidence that you use to know that there IS a PW. Try really hard to understand this.

[colubridae]

Sos give it up


LI is not arguing…

It’s just assertion, assertion, assertion…

This is the telling one.

Does seem odd that a lump of meat should cause consciousness.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

I suspect he has been surrounding himself with acolytes who hang on his every word, easily dismissed and crushed with drivel. He now thinks that any nonsensical verbiage will do the job, with anyone. He doesn't even realise that he's talking nonsense anymore

[Little Idiot]

When does it enter the lump of meat?

Hi Sean, welcome to the thread.
I assume you are refering to consciousness entering meat?
Who you asking, and what are you asking ?

Is it one of those rhetorical questions?

[Little Idiot]

They may indeed be reducible to the physical, once we establish that there is a mind-independent physical there to reduce to, I will consider it a serious option, But, as it is, what evidence do we have to suggest that as a serious option?

The SAME EXACT evidence that you use to know that there IS a PW. Try really hard to understand this.

I tried, honest I did. I used to buy it too, a long while back when I too was one of you. Before I started to question the obvious.
I know there is a PW because I can experience it in my waking life, sense it with my senses, and it looks pretty darn physical.
Is that your "SAME EXACT evidence"?
Because that convinces me it is physical, but doesnt move a jot towards convincing me its non-mental.

IMO physical is a sub set of mental. Disprove it if you can. I havent seen much to make me think I am wrong about it/

[Little Idiot]

Sos give it up


LI is not arguing…

It’s just assertion, assertion, assertion…

This is the telling one.

Does seem odd that a lump of meat should cause consciousness.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

Thats not an assertion. saying thats the telling one does tell me something, and its something not very flattering about what your saying. If that gentle comment is a telling assertion, no wonder you think its just assertion after asserion....

I suspect he has been surrounding himself with acolytes who hang on his every word, easily dismissed and crushed with drivel. He now thinks that any nonsensical verbiage will do the job, with anyone. He doesn't even realise that he's talking nonsense anymore

This is a silly thing to say. Its totally fictional, not even close to facts; it is clear evidence that you are indeed the one here talking nonsense.
I have no acolytes, nor would I wish to have.

[SpeedOfSound]

They may indeed be reducible to the physical, once we establish that there is a mind-independent physical there to reduce to, I will consider it a serious option, But, as it is, what evidence do we have to suggest that as a serious option?

The SAME EXACT evidence that you use to know that there IS a PW. Try really hard to understand this.

I tried, honest I did. I used to buy it too, a long while back when I too was one of you. Before I started to question the obvious.
I know there is a PW because I can experience it in my waking life, sense it with my senses, and it looks pretty darn physical.
Is that your "SAME EXACT evidence"?
Because that convinces me it is physical, but doesnt move a jot towards convincing me its non-mental.

IMO physical is a sub set of mental. Disprove it if you can. I havent seen much to make me think I am wrong about it/

I'm not asking you to believe anything I'm asking you to understand something. A concept. A simple statement I am making.



IS the PW any different now then when you believed the other thing you talk about? Does it behave differently?

[GrahamH]

Have we successfully flushed your "Duh, science doesn't know about thought" evidence?

What's that argument called again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I think the argument you are using is called 'straw man'

I did not say "Duh, science doesn't know about thought"

I did say "The objection being it is based on an unestablished foundation that physical can cause thought and subjective experience. Also the inability to explain how the non-mental (physical) interacts with or becomes the mental experience."

Did I miss the point where it was established that the physical can cause thought and subjective experience?
Did you explain how the non-mental interacts with or becomes the mental experience?

I suggested elsewhere that something outside the presumed subjective bubble is representing physical interactions as 'experiences' and the 'subjective bubble' has no ontological significance, but it is a representation. The mechanistic parts of 'mind' that process sensory input, store memories, recognise faces, make decisions, control the body, etc, construct knowledge of the person as a 'subjective self'. In other words - it's all physical.

The subjective bubble is a representation in the sense that it is our idea of something, and is a representation like all our ideas and experiences. But its a representation with some significance; it accurately describes the fact that we can't get outside our own subjective experience.
You can ascribe the mechanistic components to mind or brain, but that still does not justify the statement that the 'something' outside the subjective bubble is physical, how did you reach that information?

Because the something outside the bubble is what thinks there is a bubble in the first place. It is therefore much more likely that whatever seems to be outside the bubble is the stuff that counts and that there is nothing inside the bubble, because the bubble is only a representation.

You are convinced that you are inside your subjective bubble. I'm suggesting you are quite wrong about that, and the 'you' that is wrong is not in the bubble.

A robot might do the same thing by different means. 'Mental' is a naive R1 representations of a set of neurological functions. Neurology is getting well with identifying all sorts of supposed mental. The key to this hypothesis is that the parts of 'mind' that knows things and thinks are not identical to the parts that 'experience'. If we introspect inside the bubble we find it is empty. Qualia are just labels (bits of neural nets that respond to particular stimuli, recognisers). A 'sense of real-ness' is another of these labels. Your certainty in your experience of qualia might be a physical response to the activation of these recognisers.

They may indeed be reducible to the physical, once we establish that there is a mind-independent physical there to reduce to, I will consider it a serious option, But, as it is, what evidence do we have to suggest that as a serious option?

From personal 'experience' I 'observe' that there is no 'subjective experience' of mind beyond a superficial level. We 'experience thought' as results from nowhere. It seems that 'mind' knows things and that part of mind that knows is not self-aware. This suggests to me that I should put more confidence in the knowing part than the experiencing part.

Plus Neuroscience!

My main issue with your model is that it puts all it's faith in subjective experience, then admits that subjective experience cannot be responsible for generating an experienced world.

My model accounts for our unshakable confidence in experience, because it is a practical model of how the system as a whole works. If it works R1 says it must be true as it appears on the surface. The unseen error is that the part that has the confidence is not the 'experiencer'.

[GrahamH]

'Mental' is a naive R1 representations of a set of neurological functions. Neurology is getting well with identifying all sorts of supposed mental. The key to this hypothesis is that the parts of 'mind' that knows things and thinks are not identical to the parts that 'experience'. If we introspect inside the bubble we find it is empty. Qualia are just labels (bits of neural nets that respond to particular stimuli, recognisers). A 'sense of real-ness' is another of these labels. Your certainty in your experience of qualia might be a physical response to the activation of these recognisers.

This R1 idea of mental/mind is firmly Cartesian dualism. We can't utter an English phrase without it. This is why it is so easy to look like you have an argument against physicalism when all you have is naive idealism.

There are two traps set here. The first is to buy the idea at all of a mental substance. Mental substance is cloaked in many different sheepskins.

The second is the idea of observer-consciousness.

Almost every human being alive, including the best neuroscientists, buy into this bullshit without even thinking. The reason for that is that creating this representation of the mind and observer conscious is exactly what the brain is structured to do.

Someone linked a TedTalk yesterday whee the guy said the brain did not evolve to give a clear picture of the world. It evolved to give a picture that was useful to US. Not a realistic picture at all. The biggest ad best illusion and magic trick of the brain is to get us to believe we are separate form our biology.

All I do here is consistently fight with people that can't see outside that little tinted plastic bubble of the silly man-ape's meat brain.

Does seem odd that a lump of meat should cause consciousness.
Isnt it altogether more likely that the lump of meat is a tool used by consciousness than the actual cause of consciousness, I mean; GET OUT OF HERE! why would meat become self-aware...

For the same reason that a worm slithers out of the ground when it rains or a stem cell turns into part of a liver. It is just a more capable system of interacting with the environment.

[GrahamH]

LI, will you be explaining brains any time soon?

[Sean Hayden]

Yes Little Idiot, when does consciousness enter the lump of meat?

[SpeedOfSound]

Yes Little Idiot, when does consciousness enter the lump of meat.

Check this out! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 19#p404519

Wow! He just 'splained the whole thing for me. That's it man, my neurology books going in the trash now. Gonna get me a menticle cloud chamber and figure it out that way.

[Little Idiot]

They may indeed be reducible to the physical, once we establish that there is a mind-independent physical there to reduce to, I will consider it a serious option, But, as it is, what evidence do we have to suggest that as a serious option?

The SAME EXACT evidence that you use to know that there IS a PW. Try really hard to understand this.

I tried, honest I did. I used to buy it too, a long while back when I too was one of you. Before I started to question the obvious.
I know there is a PW because I can experience it in my waking life, sense it with my senses, and it looks pretty darn physical.
Is that your "SAME EXACT evidence"?
Because that convinces me it is physical, but doesnt move a jot towards convincing me its non-mental.

IMO physical is a sub set of mental. Disprove it if you can. I havent seen much to make me think I am wrong about it/

I'm not asking you to believe anything I'm asking you to understand something. A concept. A simple statement I am making.



IS the PW any different now then when you believed the other thing you talk about? Does it behave differently?

The PW is as the PW is. Nothing changes about it when we come to see it as mental-data constructed by the mind into our experience of physical environment. What changes is our understanding and interaction with it.

I do understand your statement.

I understand it, but question it.

My question is really simple. Its one I have asked many times. SD didnt answer it either.
What exactly is the evidence for a non-mental physical world out there?

I explain that I agree there is a PW out there, but I say its mental, you guys laugh at the idea, but to be honest it seems to me that you have no reason to believe as you do; do you understand how it looks from my side?

I understand that from your side, I look like a crazy woo head, thats already known, lets talk about how you know, based upon what, do you know there is a physical world.

Answer; you dont.

[Little Idiot]

Yes Little Idiot, when does consciousness enter the lump of meat.

Check this out! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 19#p404519

Wow! He just 'splained the whole thing for me. That's it man, my neurology books going in the trash now. Gonna get me a menticle cloud chamber and figure it out that way.

Cheap shot.
Quote about 10% of my post in yours, then link to your post as if that was it, as if that was my explaination, rather than my link between what you were asking and what I said above (in my post).

[Little Idiot]

Yes Little Idiot, when does consciousness enter the lump of meat?

It doesnt.

To say consciousness enters the lump of meat implies the lump of meat is outside consciousness at some time.

While it is possible (say after death, or in deep sleep) to have a brain without individual awareness, it is still in the 'Big Mind' it is still in consciousness.

As is the whole physical world.
The physical is a subset of the mental, which is never separate to mind in some way, although it may not be in individual mind.