Philosophy of Mind

[Martin Peter Clarke]

No it isn't.

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.

It totally isn't. Neither do you.

See?

Have you actually got anything apart from mere gainsaying and fallacy? You know, reasoning? Why can't you refute him?

[popeye1945]

No it isn't.

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.

Darkneos,

If you cannot explain your beliefs in your own words, it is best to be silent.

[Darkneos]

No it isn't.

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.

It totally isn't. Neither do you.

See?

Have you actually got anything apart from mere gainsaying and fallacy? You know, reasoning? Why can't you refute him?

I did, he’s incorrect on how the brain works and about our knowledge of it. Dopamine isn’t the pleasure hormone it’s more complex than that, same with the brain. Again we’ve had studies were people lost over 50% of their brain and still function, meaning there aren’t exactly hard “regions” of the brain responsible for functions.


And two of the dominant theories about consciousness in neuroscience were recently proven wrong, which means we don’t really know how it works and whether it’s to do with the brain at all.

It’s more like you don’t know, you dropped a bad book and think that means anything when I’ve already refuted chapter 6. You’ve got nothing but I knew that from your comments.

[Darkneos]

No it isn't.

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.

Darkneos,

If you cannot explain your beliefs in your own words, it is best to be silent.

You might want to take your own advice. I merely pointed out the dude chides others for bias and yet can’t see his own and mistakes science for some objective fact finding practice when it ain’t. Science is more about pragmatism than objectivity or truth.

He really needs a course on the philosophy of science, I know my trip into it beat out a lot of mistaken notions I had about it. Like how science is still a belief system (despite what the dude thinks) and what it can and can’t do.

And like I mentioned to you, embodied cognition was proven wrong for reasons I gave already .

I’m not sure why I come back to this site when only like 5-10% of people on here have anything worth reading.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.

It totally isn't. Neither do you.

See?

Have you actually got anything apart from mere gainsaying and fallacy? You know, reasoning? Why can't you refute him?

I did, he’s incorrect on how the brain works and about our knowledge of it. Dopamine isn’t the pleasure hormone it’s more complex than that, same with the brain. Again we’ve had studies were people lost over 50% of their brain and still function, meaning there aren’t exactly hard “regions” of the brain responsible for functions.


And two of the dominant theories about consciousness in neuroscience were recently proven wrong, which means we don’t really know how it works and whether it’s to do with the brain at all.

It’s more like you don’t know, you dropped a bad book and think that means anything when I’ve already refuted chapter 6. You’ve got nothing but I knew that from your comments.

No you didn't.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It totally is, I even read the SA article by him and dude has a chip on his shoulder. Doesn't understand what science really is.

Darkneos,

If you cannot explain your beliefs in your own words, it is best to be silent.

You might want to take your own advice. I merely pointed out the dude chides others for bias and yet can’t see his own and mistakes science for some objective fact finding practice when it ain’t. Science is more about pragmatism than objectivity or truth.

He really needs a course on the philosophy of science, I know my trip into it beat out a lot of mistaken notions I had about it. Like how science is still a belief system (despite what the dude thinks) and what it can and can’t do.

And like I mentioned to you, embodied cognition was proven wrong for reasons I gave already .

I’m not sure why I come back to this site when only like 5-10% of people on here have anything worth reading.

Science is a warranted, justified, true, consilient observation belief system.

Agree on embodied cognition, but not on your ipse dixit. What reasons? Where? You've adduced nothing.

[Belinda]

This is not true, I told you that embodied cognition was proven to be false.

Meaning has nothing to do with biology either, it's just assigning value to things based on circumstances. The mind doesn't create order so much as recognize it, as reality seems to be fairly ordered and appears to follow structure. Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.

Biology doesn't play any role in it at all. We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses, same for anything else that has a sensory method.

Biology is also not the measure and meaning of all things, some aspects of "Biology" transcend it's base structure, like consciousness. The body is also not the first idea of the mind, it's actually the reverse. The body is secondary to the brain. Plenty of evidence shows this is true. Even though the body came first it's secondary overall. Again, embodied cognition was proven false.

In short you're wrong about cognition and what biology means. You're also wrong about what I meant, I said they are not biased they just are. There is no clarity needed on an incorrect statement.

*

We do experience what is out there, it's however mediated by our senses

Chaos is more a lack of information to see the big picture.


*

The two quotes above are from Darkneos.
Lack of information to see the big picture correlates with the insufficiency of our senses.

Not necessarily, more like we can’t keep track of all the factors at play due to limited mental capacity.

All right .Correction: insufficiency of our senses and our memories

[Darkneos]

Darkneos,

If you cannot explain your beliefs in your own words, it is best to be silent.

You might want to take your own advice. I merely pointed out the dude chides others for bias and yet can’t see his own and mistakes science for some objective fact finding practice when it ain’t. Science is more about pragmatism than objectivity or truth.

He really needs a course on the philosophy of science, I know my trip into it beat out a lot of mistaken notions I had about it. Like how science is still a belief system (despite what the dude thinks) and what it can and can’t do.

And like I mentioned to you, embodied cognition was proven wrong for reasons I gave already .

I’m not sure why I come back to this site when only like 5-10% of people on here have anything worth reading.

Science is a warranted, justified, true, consilient observation belief system.

Agree on embodied cognition, but not on your ipse dixit. What reasons? Where? You've adduced nothing.

That’s a mistaken view of science then. It’s more instrumental than justified or true. That notion of science gets beaten out of you in philosophy of science. It’s a human endeavor to understand reality and it does care what we believe.

Science also, IMO, can’t answer the questions that actually matter to existence.
And yeah I did.

[Darkneos]

*
The two quotes above are from Darkneos.
Lack of information to see the big picture correlates with the insufficiency of our senses.

Not necessarily, more like we can’t keep track of all the factors at play due to limited mental capacity.

All right .Correction: insufficiency of our senses and our memories

Still not quite, again it’s more a processing limit than a sensory one.

But I think that no matter how advanced senses might be you don’t know what you don’t know or sense.

[Impenitent]

Science!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83JR2IoI8k

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You might want to take your own advice. I merely pointed out the dude chides others for bias and yet can’t see his own and mistakes science for some objective fact finding practice when it ain’t. Science is more about pragmatism than objectivity or truth.

He really needs a course on the philosophy of science, I know my trip into it beat out a lot of mistaken notions I had about it. Like how science is still a belief system (despite what the dude thinks) and what it can and can’t do.

And like I mentioned to you, embodied cognition was proven wrong for reasons I gave already .

I’m not sure why I come back to this site when only like 5-10% of people on here have anything worth reading.

Science is a warranted, justified, true, consilient observation belief system.

Agree on embodied cognition, but not on your ipse dixit. What reasons? Where? You've adduced nothing.

That’s a mistaken view of science then. It’s more instrumental than justified or true. That notion of science gets beaten out of you in philosophy of science. It’s a human endeavor to understand reality and it does care what we believe.

Science also, IMO, can’t answer the questions that actually matter to existence.
And yeah I did.

Where? And no, I'm not mistaken. Got any reasoning, again? What questions? Science cares?

[Darkneos]

Science is a warranted, justified, true, consilient observation belief system.

Agree on embodied cognition, but not on your ipse dixit. What reasons? Where? You've adduced nothing.

That’s a mistaken view of science then. It’s more instrumental than justified or true. That notion of science gets beaten out of you in philosophy of science. It’s a human endeavor to understand reality and it does care what we believe.

Science also, IMO, can’t answer the questions that actually matter to existence.
And yeah I did.

Where? And no, I'm not mistaken. Got any reasoning, again? What questions? Science cares?

There’s not really a point bringing it up if that’s your line of questioning. Like I said, I made my point, can’t hold your hand to see it.

Reason doesn’t seem to work with you, given your sources.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That’s a mistaken view of science then. It’s more instrumental than justified or true. That notion of science gets beaten out of you in philosophy of science. It’s a human endeavor to understand reality and it does care what we believe.

Science also, IMO, can’t answer the questions that actually matter to existence.
And yeah I did.

Where? And no, I'm not mistaken. Got any reasoning, again? What questions? Science cares?

There’s not really a point bringing it up if that’s your line of questioning. Like I said, I made my point, can’t hold your hand to see it.

Reason doesn’t seem to work with you, given your sources.

You didn't, you can't, you won't. Troll.

[Belinda]

Not necessarily, more like we can’t keep track of all the factors at play due to limited mental capacity.

All right .Correction: insufficiency of our senses and our memories

Still not quite, again it’s more a processing limit than a sensory one.

But I think that no matter how advanced senses might be you don’t know what you don’t know or sense.

Is there another way of knowing , other than via senses and memories?

[Darkneos]

All right .Correction: insufficiency of our senses and our memories

Still not quite, again it’s more a processing limit than a sensory one.

But I think that no matter how advanced senses might be you don’t know what you don’t know or sense.

Is there another way of knowing , other than via senses and memories?

Who knows. One thing I’ve learned from everything I’ve read up to now is anything could be possible.

But it’s not really a sense or memory thing. People think AI might solve it but I doubt it.