Christianity

[henry quirk]

Nope. You need to review up-thread.

All 416 pages?

You're the one who keeps using the phrase "meat machines".

You're then one who keeps saying that "meat machines" want more.

To review...

On page 412, Belinda asked Are there beliefs that are clearly not factual but which can used as if they were true?

From there there's been back & forth with me tryin' to get an answer not only to why we might pretend (adopt beliefs that are clearly not factual) to be sumthin' more than *meat machines but how meat machines might pretend at all.

There, all caught up.

*if we're just conglomerations of of particles that don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc. then we are machines made of meat

[phyllo]

From there there's been back & forth with me tryin' to get an answer not only to why we might pretend (adopt beliefs that are clearly not factual) to be sumthin' more than *meat machines but how meat machines might pretend (adopt beliefs that are clearly not factual).

I already said that no pretending is required.

*if we're just conglomerations of of particles that don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc. then we are machines made of meat

That's your assertion.

[Dontaskme]

The human brain is a meat machine.

Machines cannot know their maker.

No more than one can look for a cow at the meat market.

From inside a cow, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.

[phyllo]

You guys say this stuff as if it is true.

How do you know that a complex physical system cannot be conscious, cannot understand, cannot grasp meaning?

[Harry Baird]

You guys say this stuff as if it is true.

How do you know that a complex physical system cannot be conscious, cannot understand, cannot grasp meaning?

Because the point of the word "physical" is to contrast against, and thus exclude, that which is "mental", i.e., conscious.

That's what makes the philosophy of physicalism such a failure: from the get-go, it excludes mentality, i.e., consciousness, from its remit.

Now, some folks recognise this problem and want to amend the failure of physicalism with panpsychism. Others of us think dualism is better. Yet others think idealism is the go. Whichever answer you prefer, though, you can be sure that physicalism is not it.

[bobmax]

You guys say this stuff as if it is true.

How do you know that a complex physical system cannot be conscious, cannot understand, cannot grasp meaning?

It is difficult to resist the temptation to divide the world.

Perhaps because separation allows us to act.
But there can be no real difference between anything.
Because it is the "difference" that is the real nonsense.

I agree with David Chalmers, who with his "The conscious mind" describes how consciousness can only be spread everywhere. Even in the less complex things.

[phyllo]

You guys say this stuff as if it is true.

How do you know that a complex physical system cannot be conscious, cannot understand, cannot grasp meaning?

Because the point of the word "physical" is to contrast against, and thus exclude, that which is "mental", i.e., conscious.

That's what makes the philosophy of physicalism such a failure: from the get-go, it excludes mentality, i.e., consciousness, from its remit.

Now, some folks recognise this problem and want to amend the failure of physicalism with panpsychism. Others of us think dualism is better. Yet others think idealism is the go. Whichever answer you prefer, though, you can be sure that physicalism is not it.

An artificial division.

[Harry Baird]

You guys say this stuff as if it is true.

How do you know that a complex physical system cannot be conscious, cannot understand, cannot grasp meaning?

Because the point of the word "physical" is to contrast against, and thus exclude, that which is "mental", i.e., conscious.

That's what makes the philosophy of physicalism such a failure: from the get-go, it excludes mentality, i.e., consciousness, from its remit.

Now, some folks recognise this problem and want to amend the failure of physicalism with panpsychism. Others of us think dualism is better. Yet others think idealism is the go. Whichever answer you prefer, though, you can be sure that physicalism is not it.

An artificial division.

Insofar as words represent concepts, which might be seen as "artificially" created, then, sure. That doesn't change the facts though. The concept of the physical - "artificial" or otherwise - excludes the mental and thus consciousness, and thus, the philosophy of "physicalism" is a non-starter.

[henry quirk]

I already said that no pretending is required.

It may not be required, but we do don't we? We adopt all manner of beliefs that are clearly not factual.

That's your assertion.

Scientific assertion: electrons, neutrons, and protons don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc

-----

How do you know that a complex physical system cannot be conscious, cannot understand, cannot grasp meaning?

Becuz, electrons, neutrons, and protons don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc

The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. (So), we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.

I am, however, perfectly willin' to review evidence that illustrates, explains, how electrons, neutrons, and protons might be conscious; or evidence, an explanation, of how these unconscious particles can come together in a certain way and become conscious, imaginative, loving, hateful, despairing, hopeful, etc.

I'm always lookin' to minimize and simplify so any such evidence would allow me to jettison concepts like dual substance/dual aspect and The Creator in favor of the pure materialism and atheism I embraced no more than four years ago, that I embraced pretty much my whole life.

[Harry Baird]

Hq, because we see so eye-to-eye here, I feel it necessary to point out the only way in which it seems we disagree a little: you reject consciousness as a type of "energy", whereas I don't think that there is any other alternative - I just see it as a different type of energy to that of physics and the physical; that is, different to the energy of Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation. The energy of consciousness just so happens to be able to interact with that physical energy.

As you were. It's nap time here.

[phyllo]

Insofar as words represent concepts, which might be seen as "artificially" created, then, sure. That doesn't change the facts though. The concept of the physical - "artificial" or otherwise - excludes the mental and thus consciousness, and thus, the philosophy of "physicalism" is a non-starter.

You have basically decided that "the physical" doesn't produce "the mental" and you carry on from there. Which leads to a specific set of conclusions.

If you had decided that it's possible that "the physical" can produce "the mental", then there would be a different set of conclusions.

[phyllo]

It may not be required, but we do don't we? We adopt all manner of beliefs that are clearly not factual.

That doesn't mean that we are pretending.

Scientific assertion: electrons, neutrons, and protons don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc

Becuz, electrons, neutrons, and protons don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc

I didn't say that individual subatomic particles understand anything. But a system of particles might.

[Belinda]

Oh, good Lord, let's not get into the "no self" nonsense, but feel free to substitute "experience" back in for "consciousness", and then answer the question.

If you don't understand the important theory of existence named Absolute Idealism, in its eastern or western tradition, then that's your loss.

Understanding and agreement are two different matters, which you seem to be conflating. But if you're incapable of answering the question, then I guess that's... my loss too?

What was the question you refer to? I have forgotten.

[henry quirk]

Hq, because we see so eye-to-eye here, I feel it necessary to point out the only way in which it seems we disagree a little: you reject consciousness as a type of "energy", whereas I don't think that there is any other alternative - I just see it as a different type of energy to that of physics and the physical; that is, different to the energy of Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation. The energy of consciousness just so happens to be able to interact with that physical energy.

As you were. It's nap time here.

I don't think I referred to energy (either in my posts or by way of the excerpted Q & A up-thread).

But, yeah, consciousness or mind is sumthin' other than a product of brain process.

-----

Phyllo,

I didn't say that individual subatomic particles understand anything. But a system of particles might.

How? How do unconscious particles come together in a certain way and become conscious, imaginative, loving, hateful, despairing, hopeful, etc.?

[phyllo]

I didn't say that individual subatomic particles understand anything. But a system of particles might.

How? How do unconscious particles come together in a certain way and become conscious, imaginative, loving, hateful, despairing, hopeful, etc.?

I don't know.

My ignorance isn't sufficient reason to say that it doesn't or can't happen.