Refutation of physicalism

[Age]

Nope. Brain processes not being a sufficient condition for the existence of [phenomenal, Hard problem] consciousness implies that the physical world is the same thing as consciousness.

Your unphysical element idea only comes up if we add some unnecessary dualistic assumption.

You can't dismiss a rational argument simply because you don't like the conclusion. You have provided no arguments to refute mine.

What I wrote was arguably the 'rational' conclusion. Your idea requires an additional and arguably unnecessary assumption, brings in an unprovable dualism, so your idea is arguably 'irrational'. It's just another dime a dozen dualism.

But, everyone's 'conclusion' can be 'arguable', no matter how 'irrational' the 'conclusion' is. As can be 'seen' here, in this forum, by all of the 'arguing' that occurs and happens here.

Even your own claim here that what you wrote was 'arguably' the 'rational' conclusion, just shows and proves that any one and every one of you human beings can think or believe that your own made up conclusions are, 'arguably', the 'rational' ones.

That you all do this, while claiming that it is 'the other', with the opposing view or idea, who is the 'irrational one' is Truly a sight to behold, and watch 'play out', here.

[Age]

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element.

I came to the opposite conclusion - that non fundamental objects, emergent things and processes, must be "real" in some sense. That it's not only the fundamental, the indivisible, that really exist.

Once again, these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

And usually 'each' would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.

Again, this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.

[Flannel Jesus]

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element.

I came to the opposite conclusion - that non fundamental objects, emergent things and processes, must be "real" in some sense. That it's not only the fundamental, the indivisible, that really exist.

Once again, these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

And usually 'each' would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.

Again, this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.

Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

[Atla]

You can't dismiss a rational argument simply because you don't like the conclusion. You have provided no arguments to refute mine.

What I wrote was arguably the 'rational' conclusion. Your idea requires an additional and arguably unnecessary assumption, brings in an unprovable dualism, so your idea is arguably 'irrational'. It's just another dime a dozen dualism.

But, everyone's 'conclusion' can be 'arguable', no matter how 'irrational' the 'conclusion' is. As can be 'seen' here, in this forum, by all of the 'arguing' that occurs and happens here.

Even your own claim here that what you wrote was 'arguably' the 'rational' conclusion, just shows and proves that any one and every one of you human beings can think or believe that your own made up conclusions are, 'arguably', the 'rational' ones.

That you all do this, while claiming that it is 'the other', with the opposing view or idea, who is the 'irrational one' is Truly a sight to behold, and watch 'play out', here.

If you had a fully functioning brain, you would realize that you don't know the irrefutable truth, in fact usually you know way less than we do.

[Age]

I came to the opposite conclusion - that non fundamental objects, emergent things and processes, must be "real" in some sense. That it's not only the fundamental, the indivisible, that really exist.

Once again, these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

And usually 'each' would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.

Again, this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.

Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

Why are there so many pre-assumptions made 'about me' here, in this forum?

Why are not just open 'clarifying questions' asked, first?

It was like the adult human beings, back when this was written, really had lost just about absolutely every bit of 'curiosity' and all they had left was just the 'prejudices' and 'prejudgments' of 'others', only.

Also, and by the way, so many of their presumptions and prejudices were totally Wrong and False, but this never stopped them 'believing' that their own made us assumptions were true and right.

Just so you become aware here "flannel jesus", you human beings, finally, came to the realization of 'why', exactly, every one comes to their own conclusions, of which some are, obviously, opposing. But, because they learned 'why' this happens and occurs, then they also 'knew' how to come-to-conclusions together, and peacefully, instead of just individually, and in conflict.

See, learning how to find and arrive at the 'agreed upon and accepted conclusions', to every one, was one thing that let to living in peace and harmony together, as One.

Learning 'this way to behave', and 'argue' in the 'logical reasoning' sense, and not in 'the sense' and 'way' that you people, here, 'argue', also led to learning how to find the actual and irrefutable Truths in Life, and not to just 'those individual truths' that you all individually believed and told "yourselves" were true.

[Age]

What I wrote was arguably the 'rational' conclusion. Your idea requires an additional and arguably unnecessary assumption, brings in an unprovable dualism, so your idea is arguably 'irrational'. It's just another dime a dozen dualism.

But, everyone's 'conclusion' can be 'arguable', no matter how 'irrational' the 'conclusion' is. As can be 'seen' here, in this forum, by all of the 'arguing' that occurs and happens here.

Even your own claim here that what you wrote was 'arguably' the 'rational' conclusion, just shows and proves that any one and every one of you human beings can think or believe that your own made up conclusions are, 'arguably', the 'rational' ones.

That you all do this, while claiming that it is 'the other', with the opposing view or idea, who is the 'irrational one' is Truly a sight to behold, and watch 'play out', here.

If you had a fully functioning brain, you would realize that you don't know the irrefutable truth, in fact usually you know way less than we do.

Okay. If this is what you do believe, and want to believe is true, then this is more than perfectly fine, and okay, with me.

Pity though you do not just look at 'the words' I use, only, and find some way to counter or refute them instead.

If you did, then, for you, you would not look like and come across so much like you really do have absolutely nothing substantial here, at all.

Obviously, you continually attacking 'the writer' and not 'the words' is showing and proving your total lack of any ability in a 'philosophy forum', of all places.

[Flannel Jesus]

Once again, these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

And usually 'each' would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.

Again, this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.

Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

Why are there so many pre-assumptions made 'about me' here, in this forum?

Why are not just open 'clarifying questions' asked, first?

It was like the adult human beings, back when this was written, really had lost just about absolutely every bit of 'curiosity' and all they had left was just the 'prejudices' and 'prejudgments' of 'others', only.

Also, and by the way, so many of their presumptions and prejudices were totally Wrong and False, but this never stopped them 'believing' that their own made us assumptions were true and right.

Just so you become aware here "flannel jesus", you human beings, finally, came to the realization of 'why', exactly, every one comes to their own conclusions, of which some are, obviously, opposing. But, because they learned 'why' this happens and occurs, then they also 'knew' how to come-to-conclusions together, and peacefully, instead of just individually, and in conflict.

See, learning how to find and arrive at the 'agreed upon and accepted conclusions', to every one, was one thing that let to living in peace and harmony together, as One.

Learning 'this way to behave', and 'argue' in the 'logical reasoning' sense, and not in 'the sense' and 'way' that you people, here, 'argue', also led to learning how to find the actual and irrefutable Truths in Life, and not to just 'those individual truths' that you all individually believed and told "yourselves" were true.

Age expected other people to show him the curiosity he did not extend to others. Age was a sad, sad man, stuck in a future of his own imagining. He got so deeply stuck some days that he didn't even get up from his couch to take a shit. He just did his business wherever he was.

[Atla]

But, everyone's 'conclusion' can be 'arguable', no matter how 'irrational' the 'conclusion' is. As can be 'seen' here, in this forum, by all of the 'arguing' that occurs and happens here.

Even your own claim here that what you wrote was 'arguably' the 'rational' conclusion, just shows and proves that any one and every one of you human beings can think or believe that your own made up conclusions are, 'arguably', the 'rational' ones.

That you all do this, while claiming that it is 'the other', with the opposing view or idea, who is the 'irrational one' is Truly a sight to behold, and watch 'play out', here.

If you had a fully functioning brain, you would realize that you don't know the irrefutable truth, in fact usually you know way less than we do.

Okay. If this is what you do believe, and want to believe is true, then this is more than perfectly fine, and okay, with me.

Pity though you do not just look at 'the words' I use, only, and find some way to counter or refute them instead.

If you did, then, for you, you would not look like and come across so much like you really do have absolutely nothing substantial here, at all.

Obviously, you continually attacking 'the writer' and not 'the words' is showing and proving your total lack of any ability in a 'philosophy forum', of all places.

Went right over your head naturally, as I said it would.

[Flannel Jesus]

Went right over your head naturally, as I said it would.

It's humourous that "humans" back then thought that a human like me, Age, from the future, would have a head.

[Impenitent]

I believe your belief is grounded on philosophical and scientific realism, i.e. reality exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions.

No, actually I am a Berkelian idealist because I think that Berkeley's ontology provides the only logically coherent interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The purpose of my arguments is not to prove the existence of a mind-independnet physical reality; I assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a mind-independent physical reality and I refer to the reality described by the fundamental laws of physics. My arguments prove that, because of the fragmentary nature of brain processes, physicalism is incompatible with the foundations of our scientific knwoledge.

Consciousness is an emergent property from a complex combination of activities.

My arguments prove that your statement is certainly false.

Bishop Berkeley was interesting...

do you assume the existence of God?

according to Berkeley, all the physical world is part of God...

do you likewise assume the existential separation of consciousness and ideas from the physical world?

(I am not sure that mental activity exists outside the physical brain)

esse est percipi...

-Imp

p.s. welcome to the boards

[mmarco]

Bishop Berkeley was interesting...

do you assume the existence of God?

according to Berkeley, all the physical world is part of God...

do you likewise assume the existential separation of consciousness and ideas from the physical world?

(I am not sure that mental activity exists outside the physical brain)

My arguments prove that the hypothesis that brain processes are a sufficient condition for the existence of mental experience is incompatiple with the foundations of our scientific knowledge; this proof is indepenndent of the assumption of the existence of God.

By the way, it is not true that according to Berkeley the physical world is part of God; according to Berkely, what we consider the physical world is only as a collective dream created by God in our minds.

[Age]

Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

Why are there so many pre-assumptions made 'about me' here, in this forum?

Why are not just open 'clarifying questions' asked, first?

It was like the adult human beings, back when this was written, really had lost just about absolutely every bit of 'curiosity' and all they had left was just the 'prejudices' and 'prejudgments' of 'others', only.

Also, and by the way, so many of their presumptions and prejudices were totally Wrong and False, but this never stopped them 'believing' that their own made us assumptions were true and right.

Just so you become aware here "flannel jesus", you human beings, finally, came to the realization of 'why', exactly, every one comes to their own conclusions, of which some are, obviously, opposing. But, because they learned 'why' this happens and occurs, then they also 'knew' how to come-to-conclusions together, and peacefully, instead of just individually, and in conflict.

See, learning how to find and arrive at the 'agreed upon and accepted conclusions', to every one, was one thing that let to living in peace and harmony together, as One.

Learning 'this way to behave', and 'argue' in the 'logical reasoning' sense, and not in 'the sense' and 'way' that you people, here, 'argue', also led to learning how to find the actual and irrefutable Truths in Life, and not to just 'those individual truths' that you all individually believed and told "yourselves" were true.

Age expected other people to show him the curiosity he did not extend to others. Age was a sad, sad man, stuck in a future of his own imagining. He got so deeply stuck some days that he didn't even get up from his couch to take a shit. He just did his business wherever he was.

you do realize that this site is a 'philosophy forum', right?

you just pointed out to "mmarco" the Fact that you came the opposite conclusion, and I just agreed with you.

I just further added that 'human beings, in the days when this is being written, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things'.

There is obviously nothing Wrong nor Incorrect about this.

I then just said, 'And usually 'each', human being, would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.'

Again, there is obviously nothing Wrong nor Incorrect about this.

I also remarked how 'this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.'

Which is also irrefutably True, and Right.

So, I am not sure what it was, exactly, has got 'you' so 'uppity' here, which has led you to respond the way that are 'now' showing above here.

If absolutely any thing that I have said above here is Wrong or Incorrect, to you, then please feel absolutely free to Correct it.

Otherwise, why are you making the claims 'about me' above here 'now'?

When have I never not shown 'the curiosity', to others?

After all I am usually getting criticized for asking too many clarifying and curios questions, to the posters here?

As for the rest of your claims 'about me', do you have any actual proof that any of those claims are actually True and/or Right, at all?

If yes, then will you present that proof here?

[Age]

Bishop Berkeley was interesting...

do you assume the existence of God?

according to Berkeley, all the physical world is part of God...

do you likewise assume the existential separation of consciousness and ideas from the physical world?

(I am not sure that mental activity exists outside the physical brain)

My arguments prove that the hypothesis that brain processes are a sufficient condition for the existence of mental experience is incompatiple with the foundations of our scientific knowledge; this proof is indepenndent of the assumption of the existence of God.

Would you be kind enough to put 'your arguments' in syllogical form?

So then it would be easier for some of 'us' to see where the actual 'proof' is, which you claim exists in 'your arguments'.

Also, I think you will find that the so-called 'foundations of our scientific knowledge' does not even reject or oppose the idea, claim, or hypothesis about 'the brain processes' being 'a sufficient condition for the existence of mental experience'.

As far as I am aware, in the days when this is being written, just about every adult human being agrees with and accepts that 'brain processes are a sufficient condition for the existence of mental activity', anyway.

So, who, exactly, do you think you are 'proving' this to, and why do you keep insisting that 'this' is incompatible with 'the foundations of our scientific knowledge'?

It also appears like you think or believe that 'our' 'scientific knowledge' does not change or evolve either. Is this what you think or believe?

By the way, it is not true that according to Berkeley the physical world is part of God; according to Berkely, what we consider the physical world is only as a collective dream created by God in our minds.

Could it be possible, to you, that you have a misinterpretation of what "george berkely" was actually saying, and meaning, and that others could have the Right or more correct interpretation?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe your belief is grounded on philosophical and scientific realism, i.e. reality exist as absolutely independent of the human conditions.

No, actually I am a Berkelian [Berkeleyan] idealist because I think that Berkeley's ontology provides the only logically coherent interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The purpose of my arguments is not to prove the existence of a mind-independent physical reality; I assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a mind-independent physical reality and I refer to the reality described by the fundamental laws of physics. My arguments prove that, because of the fragmentary nature of brain processes, physicalism is incompatible with the foundations of our scientific knowledge.

Actually Berkeley's is a sort of compound belief.

His anti-materialism [which well argued and I agree with it] is idealism, i.e. subjective idealism.
Berkeley's argument is all things of reality [other than God] fully comprised of primary and secondary qualities where both of these qualities are mind-dependent thus is in opposition to materialism or even physicalism.
The problem is Berkeley's immaterialism leaves reality is suspension, so he has to bring in God to close the argument.

So, Berkeley's overriding belief is fundamentally philosophical realism, i.e. his theistic belief is grounded on an absolutely independent God that perceived all of reality.

Are you a theist?
I am not a theist;
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

If you are not, it would be preferable to be a Kantian, where Kant took idealism [transcendental] all the way without ultimately grounding in a God as far as reality is concern.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why are there so many pre-assumptions made 'about me' here, in this forum?

Why are not just open 'clarifying questions' asked, first?

It was like the adult human beings, back when this was written, really had lost just about absolutely every bit of 'curiosity' and all they had left was just the 'prejudices' and 'prejudgments' of 'others', only.

Also, and by the way, so many of their presumptions and prejudices were totally Wrong and False, but this never stopped them 'believing' that their own made us assumptions were true and right.

Just so you become aware here "flannel jesus", you human beings, finally, came to the realization of 'why', exactly, every one comes to their own conclusions, of which some are, obviously, opposing. But, because they learned 'why' this happens and occurs, then they also 'knew' how to come-to-conclusions together, and peacefully, instead of just individually, and in conflict.

See, learning how to find and arrive at the 'agreed upon and accepted conclusions', to every one, was one thing that let to living in peace and harmony together, as One.

Learning 'this way to behave', and 'argue' in the 'logical reasoning' sense, and not in 'the sense' and 'way' that you people, here, 'argue', also led to learning how to find the actual and irrefutable Truths in Life, and not to just 'those individual truths' that you all individually believed and told "yourselves" were true.

Age expected other people to show him the curiosity he did not extend to others. Age was a sad, sad man, stuck in a future of his own imagining. He got so deeply stuck some days that he didn't even get up from his couch to take a shit. He just did his business wherever he was.

you do realize that this site is a 'philosophy forum', right?

you just pointed out to "mmarco" the Fact that you came the opposite conclusion, and I just agreed with you.

Where in your first reply to me did you "just agree with me"? I can't find anything that looks like that at all.

If absolutely any thing that I have said above here is Wrong or Incorrect, to you, then please feel absolutely free to Correct it.

Something being true doesn't mean it's not a useless and obnoxious thing to say. What you said was one of those useless, obnoxious things to say.