tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post508257225719157086..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-90026616431119539522016-05-13T07:27:36.709-07:002016-05-13T07:27:36.709-07:00Joe,
You are bringing in the discussion from anot...Joe,<br /><br />You are bringing in the discussion from another blog (in case people reading this are wondering WTF you are talking about). At any rate, I don't consider parapsychology to be legitimate science, even if they do quote Chalmers (whose views are also rejected by mainstream science). If you want to be taken seriously, you need to expand your reading, and cite some material that has better credibility.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82542965333893114362016-05-12T23:02:15.215-07:002016-05-12T23:02:15.215-07:00got cozy little rationalization don't= ya. you...got cozy little rationalization don't= ya. you think you are being critical becauwev yiou can wretch bout sources that are not acceptable to the atheist Junta, you did not answer they six points, the two points you hysterically overacted to just because of th4e names(Horizon and Templeton) had nothing to do with the six points is documented by source in peer reviewed journals. you did not touch the six points, the two source you reacted hysterically to were not part of the six points, btw the Horizon source quoted Chalmers.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82810120748998780032016-05-12T22:56:56.111-07:002016-05-12T22:56:56.111-07:00what you are really saying is even though you can[...what you are really saying is even though you can[t answer the arguments you hope they will be ignored when your propaganda blinds more people.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-16911242046892549852016-05-11T16:05:41.900-07:002016-05-11T16:05:41.900-07:00My point is some that people focus too much on the...My point is some that people focus too much on the validity and presence of validity in arguments when they need to consider the truth of premises. Many people on the internet think their opponent is defeated if they present an argument before their opponent and show that it's valid. Well, that's not how it works. Making an argument and showing it is valid is a necessary step in making a sound argument and showing it's sound, but you also need to defend the truth of the premises. Too many people try to dazzle people by complicated arguments and shift the attention away from whether the arguments are sound. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-9145032643503063822016-05-11T15:06:54.252-07:002016-05-11T15:06:54.252-07:00The same applies to mind itself. The big conceptu...The same applies to mind itself. The big conceptual issue that dualists have is that they consider mind to be a "thing", and is is made of some substance that is non-physical or aspect of nature that can't be detected. A better way to see it is that mind is more like a verb. It is a function of the brain.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-40846172129214258742016-05-11T14:57:04.224-07:002016-05-11T14:57:04.224-07:00I think it was Ian Stewart who suggested that our ...I think it was Ian Stewart who suggested that our feeling of Free Will should be considered the quale of our brains processing a judgement. That is I think a useful insight so, I'm not so sure I would go so far a Dennett in say Qualia don't exist. It is just that we should think of them more as verbs instead of nouns.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-57459552525312198262016-05-11T14:37:47.069-07:002016-05-11T14:37:47.069-07:00I think you hit the nail on the head. And this se...I think you hit the nail on the head. And this seems to agree with Dennett. He denies that Qualia exist - in the sense that there is no "thing" that you can call qualia. I agree with this, and I probably could have worded that phrase a little better. The intent was to say that qualia are purely in our mind.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-31874010925304613642016-05-11T14:22:33.247-07:002016-05-11T14:22:33.247-07:00Yes jdhuey. nicely put.Yes jdhuey. nicely put.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-25096708129091369932016-05-11T13:29:03.003-07:002016-05-11T13:29:03.003-07:00I think that I'm inclined toward the idea that...I think that I'm inclined toward the idea that The Hard Problem (tm) will never be "solved" - the problem will simply fade from consideration as just a topic based on our poor understanding of how the brain functions. In a way, like no one is really concerned about the aether after Relativity. Nobody solved the mystery of what the aether was, it simply became moot.<br /><br />I have a minor vetch about the language surrounding the use of the word 'qualia'. The phrase "The subjective perceptions of qualia" is, I think, off a tad: qualia are our perceptions not something we perceive. Stating that we percieve qualia, implictly endorses a dualist view: that little homoculus in our head is watching the qualia on the Cartesian stage act out reality. jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-58035352293331521782016-05-11T12:52:10.732-07:002016-05-11T12:52:10.732-07:00all debaters declare their conclusion true 'ca...all debaters declare their conclusion true 'called making an argument, give me an example of unsound?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-42481272070231339802016-05-10T19:34:29.118-07:002016-05-10T19:34:29.118-07:00I see what you're saying. I interpreted state...I see what you're saying. I interpreted statement 1 in a different way (the referent of T is ambiguous).im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-45972660714894538602016-05-10T18:46:05.677-07:002016-05-10T18:46:05.677-07:00Personally, I think Joe, unintentionally or not, l...Personally, I think Joe, unintentionally or not, lures people to validity over soundness of his arguments. You might question some of his premises, but he will give you examples of why the argument is valid and declare the conclusion to be true as a result. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-39290453974414937012016-05-10T18:44:53.537-07:002016-05-10T18:44:53.537-07:00That is how I would dispute Chalmer's argument...That is how I would dispute Chalmer's argument. Premise 2 is probably true, but premise 1 is false. Premise 1 is a universal generalization, so all you need is one counter example to refute it. On my mind, there are examples of where it is conceptually possible that some T is not accompanied by some E yet T does explain E. <br /><br />Now while I think you're correct that statement 3 is false, you should note the difference between a proposition not following from another and a proposition being false. A conclusion not following from the premises means the argument is invalid. Chalmer's argument is technically valid, so 3 follows from 1 and 2. However, premise 1 is false, so the argument in unsound, and 3 is false anyway. Remember the difference between soundness and validity. Some theists will definitely try to impress you with very complicated arguments that are technically valid, but also unsound. The catch is that they focus on the validity of their arguments to throw people off of the soundness aspect. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-59889694376897535502016-05-10T18:12:15.459-07:002016-05-10T18:12:15.459-07:00Consider the argument when applied to logical comp...Consider the argument when applied to logical computation by mechanistic means. There can be any number of processes T that can be used to produce logically correct results E, but also many that don't.<br /><br />Statement 1 is correct for some physical computational process.<br />Statement 2 is also correct, because it is conceivable that no computational process would produce a correct result.<br />Statement 3 is clearly false. We know that there is some T that produces E. Statement 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-12134940498656185802016-05-10T15:44:30.914-07:002016-05-10T15:44:30.914-07:00Your quotes follow paragraphs from Chalmers where ...Your quotes follow paragraphs from Chalmers where he defends them, so I don't see the issue. <br /><br /><br />"It follows that no mere account of the physical process will tell us why experience arises"<br /><br />Chalmers' logic here follows from his prior claims. Chalmers is essentially claiming this:<br /><br />1. If it is conceptually possible that some physical process T is not accompanied by some experience E, then T does not explain E. <br />2. For any physical process T, it is conceptually possible that there is no E such that T is accompanied by E. <br />3. Therefore, no T explains any E. <br /><br />The crucial premise is premise 1 and Chalmers defends it throughout the paper so I don't see what the issue is. <br /><br />I think the best thing to do is to capture what Chalmers' argument(s) are and show why they are unsound. As a physicalist, I think they are unsound. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-20573547271325711162016-05-10T12:42:58.550-07:002016-05-10T12:42:58.550-07:00Can you give examples from the paper where Chalmer...<i>Can you give examples from the paper where Chalmers assumes physicalism is false, or simply asserts it?</i><br /><br />Section 3 and 4 are dedicated to the ASSERTION that there is no functional explanation for experience.<br /><br />"Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open."<br /><br />"As always, the bridging question is unanswered."<br /><br />Section 5 is dedicated to the assertion that there is something beyond the physical.<br /><br />"It follows that no mere account of the physical process will tell us why experience arises."<br /><br />This logic is based on his assumption, not on fact.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-19613415537048034592016-05-10T11:32:59.888-07:002016-05-10T11:32:59.888-07:00Can you give examples from the paper where Chalmer...Can you give examples from the paper where Chalmers assumes physicalism is false, or simply asserts it?<br /><br />If Chalmer's arguments are successful, then physicalism is false so he would be right to deny the possibility of any purely physical explanation for consciousness. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-30190776402664893122016-05-10T11:11:43.132-07:002016-05-10T11:11:43.132-07:00The points IMS made about that actually prove the ...<i>The points IMS made about that actually prove the HP., color blind go all their lives without being known for it.</i><br />- You just don't get it, Joe. Sure, it's possible for a person to go through life while missing some small subset of his conscious experience. But still, we know that he is functionally deficient in some way. If he was missing ALL of his conscious experience, he would be completely non-functional. THAT's the point.<br /><br /><br /><i>the dean of neurology at UTD said Dennett is full of shit, that means nothing to you tell he doesn't know science, name your studies show me the sources</i><br />- Show me the paper this came from. How do I know that you are not taking it completely out of context? Or that what he said is intended to mean anything like what you claim?<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-40525477351825325962016-05-10T11:04:53.415-07:002016-05-10T11:04:53.415-07:00As I read through this paper, I can't help but...As I read through this paper, I can't help but notice the outright denial even the possibility of any purely physical explanation for consciousness. This is because of Chalmers' dogmatic assumption that it is not physical. But he hasn't presented any analysis that shows this to be the case. He simply asserts it - over and over again. His postulation of experience as a fundamental aspect of nature is likened to electro-magnetism. But he ignores the fact that he is comparing something that can be detected and measured to something that unsupported by any empirical evidence. His theory seems much more similar to the postulation of God - I don't know how to explain this phenomenon scientifically, so I suppose the existence of something else that has no empirical basis as the explanation, and then deny that science can ever explain it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-72587201841483773252016-05-10T08:13:02.944-07:002016-05-10T08:13:02.944-07:00Chalmer's papers are available here:
http://c...Chalmer's papers are available here:<br /><br />http://consc.net/consc-papers.html<br /><br />Of specific interest:<br /><br />http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf<br /><br />Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-41003047886478070852016-05-10T08:05:08.042-07:002016-05-10T08:05:08.042-07:00It's fine not to deal with metaphysical possib...It's fine not to deal with metaphysical possibility, but in responding to arguments such as Chalmer's you must otherwise you attack a strawman. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-12416147968455391362016-05-10T07:54:39.394-07:002016-05-10T07:54:39.394-07:00im-skepticalMay 9, 2016 at 11:22 AM
I think the c...im-skepticalMay 9, 2016 at 11:22 AM<br /><br />I think the connection is clear, and has been scientifically demonstrated, although not necessarily by the examples I gave, simply due to the fact that it may not known in these cases whether the sensory input is actually received and processed by the brain. But there are other cases where that is known.<br /><br /><b>you say such thing never back them up, who demonstrated it? the dean of neurology at UTD said Dennett is full of shit, that means nothing to you tell he doesn't know science, name your studies show me the sources, </b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-2885586210410854112016-05-10T07:51:58.950-07:002016-05-10T07:51:58.950-07:00To pretend 'qualia' is some sort of inexpl...To pretend 'qualia' is some sort of inexplicable stand-alone ethereal, metaphysical element is simply barking<br /><br /><b>if you think that's what the hard problem says you don't get the HP.<br /><br /> The points IMS made about that actually prove the HP., color blind go all their lives without being known for it. sociopaths can fake emotion without being discovered. None of that is the point because the issue can zombies exist is totally off the point nt,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-7544081673796922232016-05-09T18:12:01.265-07:002016-05-09T18:12:01.265-07:00And that's why I can't buy Chalmers' i...And that's why I can't buy Chalmers' idea of the philosophical zombie. It is an absurdity, and so is his dualism.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-2379073803782953732016-05-09T14:33:07.650-07:002016-05-09T14:33:07.650-07:00I think it's pretty clear that people with Fac...I think it's pretty clear that people with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia" rel="nofollow">Face Blindness</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness" rel="nofollow">Colour Blindness</a> have profoundly compromised experiences of qualia. Equally, those that are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_deafness" rel="nofollow">Tone Deaf</a> have a serious impairment and deficiency in experiencing qualia. There are innumerable examples, physical and psychological, that qualia is indeed a functional response to one's environment. To pretend 'qualia' is some sort of inexplicable stand-alone ethereal, metaphysical element is simply barking.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com