tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post2176414125007838613..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-46449884891688736372017-08-16T10:07:57.996-07:002017-08-16T10:07:57.996-07:00VR's terminology suggests to me that he sees t...VR's terminology suggests to me that he sees the production of mental states from physical processes as a temporal cause and effect. I think he thinks that the electrical activity of the brain produces thought like a gland produces a fluid. He doesn't grasp that the electrical activity IS thought. jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-41345058021301429022017-08-16T09:58:59.775-07:002017-08-16T09:58:59.775-07:00It might help, but as far as I can tell, Victor re...It might help, but as far as I can tell, Victor refuses to read such things. I have noticed that he only refers to apologetic (or like-minded) materials as his source of understanding of even atheistic concepts. It is not so surprising, then, that he doesn't understand the perspective of atheists. He has been sharply criticized by John Loftus for his adamant refusal to even read the material that he suggests.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-36550752105626939002017-08-16T09:36:57.084-07:002017-08-16T09:36:57.084-07:00Sean Carroll's idea of "Poetic Naturalism...Sean Carroll's idea of "Poetic Naturalism" might help in clarifying VR thinking but I think that VR is incapable of changing his mind about this. jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-52243262113621298272017-08-15T16:14:04.609-07:002017-08-15T16:14:04.609-07:00Almost as if on cue, Reppert makes this stunning r...Almost as if on cue, Reppert makes this stunning remark at <a href="https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-does-psychological-event-occur.html" rel="nofollow">his own blog</a>:<br /><br /><i>If physicalism is true, then the physical state of the world is determined by the prior physical state of the world, which contains nothing about learning (or by quantum chance, which provides nothing rational). And, given the weakest form of physicalism, the supervenience-determination thesis, the mental state is fully and completely determined by the physical state. The complete explanation for the mental state is fully given without referenced to anything like learning or any other form of mental causation. You can call it learning if you want to, but the process is completely nonrational.</i><br /><br />In the comments, Edward Babinski gave a good and lengthy explanation of how learning is effected by physical processes that modify the structure of the brain, thus creating the physical states that determine present mental activity, and that these mental processes are higher-level emergent processes.<br /><br />To which Victor replied (in part):<br /><i>What you are advocating is is simply not physicalism. If higher levels of organization introduce radically new physical laws, which is, in the last analysis what you and Sperry are suggesting, then this is going to be rejected by card-carrying philosophical naturalists. ...</i><br /><br />Yes, Victor it IS naturalism. It's fully consistent with scientific understanding. No woo involved. It's 100% physical. No souls. No gods. Why can't you get this through your thick theistic skull?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com