Page 4 of 6
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:41 pm
by Atla
mmarco wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:47 pm
fragmentary structure of brain processes
What did you mean by this by the way? How are brain processes fragmentary? Some people have fragmented minds but that's probably not what you meant.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
by Atla
mmarco wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:47 pmPreliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
Occam's razor says that technically, abstract thinking is also made of "physical stuff" in the head.
Occam's razor says that what you call mental experience is simply existence (existence always comes with the first-person-view), and it's not a precondition for any specific thing.
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've no idea how this is supposed to follow from the above, or what this even means.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:05 pm
by mmarco
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:41 pm
mmarco wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:47 pm
fragmentary structure of brain processes
What did you mean by this by the way? How are brain processes fragmentary? Some people have fragmented minds but that's probably not what you meant.
I mean that what we call a "brain process" consists of many parallel sequences of elementary physical processes that occur in different points in the brain; this means that a "brain process" is only a cognitive construct that refers to many different underlying physical processes.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:06 pm
by mmarco
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
mmarco wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:47 pmPreliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
Occam's razor says that technically, abstract thinking is also made of "physical stuff" in the head.
Occam's razor says that what you call mental experience is simply existence (existence always comes with the first-person-view), and it's not a precondition for any specific thing.
Occam razor is not a valid argument to refute my arguments. You should try to understand them.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:11 pm
by Atla
mmarco wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:06 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
mmarco wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:47 pmPreliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
Occam's razor says that technically, abstract thinking is also made of "physical stuff" in the head.
Occam's razor says that what you call mental experience is simply existence (existence always comes with the first-person-view), and it's not a precondition for any specific thing.
Occam razor is not a valid argument to refute my arguments. You should try to understand them.
If I don't use Occam's razor then I have an infinite amount of explanations for anything, and any argument has 0% chance of being correct.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 5:10 pm
by Impenitent
the brain may not be the center of thinking... then again, lobotomies seem to have an effect on thinking...
but even Rene knew that the soul is housed in the pineal gland
-Imp
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 5:57 pm
by mmarco
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:11 pm
If I don't use Occam's razor then I have an infinite amount of explanations for anything, and any argument has 0% chance of being correct.
I'll give you some advice: try to analyze the arguments using reason and logic.
Best regards
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:27 pm
by Age
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:38 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:09 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 10:32 am
If you think that is how to express agreement, you haven't completed enough English classes.
Or, if it it takes you this long to just comprehend and understand agreement here, then, just maybe, you have not completed enough "english" classes, "yourself".
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 10:32 am
Please take a hint from someone who has been speaking English his entire life, and accept that the words that you said are not how to express agreement in English. Present your words to your English tutor and ask them where you went wrong.
Why? Are you not capable of writing, in "english" here, where I went wrong.
Also, and once again, your presumption here is absolutely Wrong, as well.
Have you considered seeking out 'clarity', first, before you make your assumptions?
You went wrong in writing the words you wrote, instead of just saying you agree with my position.
I agreed with your position when I said human beings come to opposite conclusions to each other. But, unfortunately for you you just could not see and comprehend this, and thus needed it explained to you.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:38 am
But I'm not trained to help non-English writers write English better, so you should seek assistance from a tutor who is.
Just maybe you could do with some "english" reading and comprehension lessons, also, right?
Or, do you believe that you do not need any?
Also, and again, your assumptions are letting you down and failing you.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:33 pm
by Age
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:11 pm
mmarco wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 4:06 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
Occam's razor says that technically, abstract thinking is also made of "physical stuff" in the head.
Occam's razor says that what you call mental experience is simply existence (existence always comes with the first-person-view), and it's not a precondition for any specific thing.
Occam razor is not a valid argument to refute my arguments. You should try to understand them.
If I don't use Occam's razor then I have an infinite amount of explanations for anything, and any argument has 0% chance of being correct.
How could a sound and valid argument, well to you anyway, have a, supposed, 0% chance of being correct?
Show 'us' if, and how, what you claim here is even actually True.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:44 pm
by mmarco
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:33 pm
Show 'us' if, and how, what you claim here is even actually True.
My arguments prove my thesis. read carefully my initial post and try to understand it.
Best regards,
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:45 pm
by Age
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
mmarco wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:47 pmPreliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
Occam's razor says that technically, abstract thinking is also made of "physical stuff" in the head.
But, 'occam's razor's does not say this at all.
"atla" says this, and then just claims 'occam's razor' say it.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
Occam's razor says that what you call mental experience is simply existence (existence always comes with the first-person-view), and it's not a precondition for any specific thing.
Again, 'occam's razor' does not say this, the one here known as "atla" does.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 3:52 pm
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've no idea how this is supposed to follow from the above, or what this even means.
It does not, logically, follow from the above. What is written and claimed is just another prime example of one who has already obtained a belief of some thing, without any actual proof at all, and who is holding onto that belief while trying to find any words that it possibly can, in the hope that those words will somehow back up and support their 'currently' held onto belief.
This phenomenon, by the way, was a very common habit of the adult human being, well back in the days when this was being written anyway.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:55 pm
by Age
mmarco wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:44 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:33 pm
Show 'us' if, and how, what you claim here is even actually True.
My arguments prove my thesis. read carefully my initial post and try to understand it.
Best regards,
1. Was my post, here, in reply to you?
2. I have already asked you to put 'you argument/s' in syllogical form, so that for ones like me it will make it easier for us to 'see' your claim that your argument/s prove your thesis. But, sadly, you have not yet done this. Why is this? Are you afraid of some thing, not capable of doing so, are too lazy to do it, or is there some other reason why you not, yet?
3. you might want to write down, in simple form also, what your actual thesis is, exactly, now, as well, especially considering that you want to claim that 'your arguments' prove 'your thesis'.
Will you do this?
If no, then why not?
Obviously, no one is understanding your initial post the way that you expected them to or the way that you wanted them to.
So, revising and simplifying your initial post might just help you here.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:11 pm
by mmarco
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:55 pm
you might want to write down, in simple form also, what your actual thesis is, exactly, now, as well, especially considering that you want to claim that 'your arguments' prove 'your thesis'.
My thesis is clearly written at the very beginning of my initial post. I have already discussed my arguments with many people who correctly understood them. If you can't understand them, I can't help you.
Best regards.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:32 pm
by Flannel Jesus
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:27 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:38 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:09 am
Or, if it it takes you this long to just comprehend and understand agreement here, then, just maybe, you have not completed enough "english" classes, "yourself".
Why? Are you not capable of writing, in "english" here, where I went wrong.
Also, and once again, your presumption here is absolutely Wrong, as well.
Have you considered seeking out 'clarity', first, before you make your assumptions?
You went wrong in writing the words you wrote, instead of just saying you agree with my position.
I agreed with your position when I said human beings come to opposite conclusions to each other.
That was not my position, you absolute weirdo.
Re: Refutation of physicalism
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:32 pm
by Age
mmarco wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 7:11 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:55 pm
you might want to write down, in simple form also, what your actual thesis is, exactly, now, as well, especially considering that you want to claim that 'your arguments' prove 'your thesis'.
My thesis is clearly written at the very beginning of my initial post. I have already discussed my arguments with many people who correctly understood them. If you can't understand them, I can't help you.
Best regards.
And, obviously, if you cannot understand where I and others have pointed out to you where you are wrong, incorrect, and/or mistaken in your beliefs and assumptions, then I and others cannot also help you.