williejhonlo: Nam, this planet is a lifeform, where is its brain?
No, williejhonlo, this planet is not a lifeform, so your question is redundant.
williejhonlo: A tree is a lifeform where is its brain?
Nobody was claiming that all lifeforms have brains, were they?
williejhonlo: Since there are a lot things we cannot directly see, as you agree, makes the so called explanation, just speculation.
How can somebody be so consistently wrong!?
Can we see gravity? No, be we can deduce considerable information about the universe from its operations, very little of it being speculative. Your benighted equivocations are beginning to tire me.
This planet is something that is not alive?
No, williejhonlo, this planet is certainly not alive. Life exists as a very thin veneer on the Earth's surface.
If you think that the planet is alive, it should be the easiest task for you to advance the evidence that this is the case.
As for the explanations being speculations David Chalmers expressed it nicely when he said, "There is an obvious problem that plagues the development of a theory of consciousness, and that is the paucity of objective data. Conscious experience is not directly observable in an experimental context. So we cannot generate data about the relationship between physical processes and experience at will."
Yes, but David Chalmers has also acknowledged that physicalism has all the best arguments. And compelling objective evidence is progressively mounting in regard to the relationship between physical processes and "experience". I would recommend the writings of V.S. Ramachandran and Oliver Sacks in this regard.
All the explanations are just speculations and hypothesis.
To assert that "all the explanations are just speculations and hypothesis" is just plain wrong and merely signifies - once again - your benightedness with the research.
I wouldn't say that claiming the explanations are just speculations and hypothesis when David Chalmers after analyzing all the different theories said, "Such theories will always retain an element of speculation that is not present in other scientific theories, because of the impossibility of conclusive intersubjective experimental test."
Yes, but David Chalmers is a philosopher, not a cognitive scientist. Familiarize yourself with the research of some of the scientists in the field - V.S. Ramachandra, Oliver Sacks, Bill Utall, Mark W. McDonald, Gayatri Devi, etc - and you might see things differently. Daniel Dennett, a philosopher, has shredded Chalmers hypotheses about 'property dualism', along with his 'Zombic-hunch'.
I'd suggest you read wider while not allowing your a priori beliefs to filter what you're reading.
As for the planet being alive? I would say because it is active.
Haha...
Saying that the planet is "active" is a long long way away from claiming it is "alive", williejhonlo. Unfortunately, you play very very loose with words.
You are always going to have your detractors, some people have even criticized Dennett as not explaining consciousness, but rather, explaining it away. All this arguing back and forth just goes to show that it's all very hypothetical.
True, but Chalmers has acknowledged that he doesn't have much to go, and there is little doubt that what Dennett advances is way more convincing than Chalmers 'hunches'.
By the way, "arguing back and forth" does not indicate at all that consciousness studies are merely hypothetical. Some striking advances have been made in the last decade, certainly enough to identify that consciousness doesn't involve any sort of magic.
As I've said before, there is nothing to indicate that the marvelously complex brain of a human is not sufficient in itself to account for consciousness.
What Dennett advances, what Schwartz advances, what Chalmers advances, is all hypothetical. None of them can prove their theories by using physical observation that brain produces mind by physical processes, nor can they answer the hard question of why? such processes lead to a subjective experience.
williejhonlo: You are assuming that because you have a brain you have wisdom.
I am assuming no such thing.
I am merely stating that 'wisdom' comes, if it comes at all, from the human ability to analyse and learn from experience.Yes, and like all human abilities and qualities like integrity,honor,love,and compassion you cannot trace these qualities to neurons.
One can both trace them to the excitations and interactions of neurons coupled with the influences and permutations of cultural and society.
williejhonlo: (B)ut nothing can manufacture wisdom, it is its own entity.
What unthinking and unadulterated tosh!
Wisdom is not an "entity", it's a product of reflective minds. Provide the evidence that 'wisdom' exists independently outside of minds capable of reflection (it beats me how you are going to be able to do that)?Yes, reflective minds not brains.
Reflection is one of the things that the human brain does. No human without a brain is capable of it.
But one notes that, not only have you dodged the central question again, but added to it by being unable to show just how "wisdom" constitutes an "entity", all of which simply further identifies that you haven't a clue what you're talking about!
You just keep digging holes for yourself with your unjustified assertions, williejhonlo, holes that you are simply unable to extricate yourself from. One would have to ask if there is any wisdom in such a predisposition?
Just knowing that you "know" is wisdom.
A [false] proposition that you have failed to provide the least evidence for. Just "knowing" that one knows is not wisdom. A person can know that they know smoking is bad for them, but they may continue to smoke despite it. Is that wisdom? Yes,if you know something is bad for you, that is wisdom. If you can't stop smoking even if you know it's bad for you gives you the wisdom of how lacking self-control overrides intelligence. It tells you something about yourself, and that's wisdom.
That kind of sophistry might be swallowed by some of the people you associate with, williejhonlo, but its not going to work with me. I guess you haven't noticed the bald contradiction in what you have just asserted above!?
And speaking of failing to advance evidence for outrageous claims, you have yet to show just how lifeforms without brains are capable of self-reflective consciousness? Time to put your money where your mouth is, huh?How do you know they are not self-reflective?
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and answer the question!
I've given you four days to come up with something and still you have proffered nothing.
But let me ask it yet again: Give an example of a living thing without a brain that even hints at having the capacity of self-reflection, let alone the virtue of wisdom?
You'll have time to do it as I'll be away for a few days.
I'm sorry namchuck if you misunderstood what I meant by the term "entity" I wasn't refering to wisdom as something living but something that performs function. I should have been more clearer.
As I say above, you play very loose with words, something which gives the impression that you either don't take care with what you say or, alternatively, that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm provisionally opting for the later view.
'Entity' is one of those words it is extremely difficult to take out of context, and yet you are confessing to doing just that. Even your latest definition of the word as suggesting that it refers to "something that performs a function" is both vague and misleading. My bowel performs a function, but its hardly an "entity".
From Webster"s dictionary. Entity-(thing's having real existence;realty; thing having real existence)
You should have gone to the dictionary before playing loose with the word.
The actual disagreement between us (one of many) lay within your claim that "wisdom" was an "entity" existing independently of human brains. The definition that you have now trotted out still doesn't support your outlandish assertion. Perhaps you'll now revise that too?
Wisdom is not an "entity" under any definition. It is a a by-product of brains capable of learning from observation and experience.
Since wisdom has reality, you can call it an entity. As for it being a by-product of brains, you can believe what you want, but you can't observe such an event happening.
williejhonlo: You are assuming that because you have a brain you have wisdom.
I am assuming no such thing.
I am merely stating that 'wisdom' comes, if it comes at all, from the human ability to analyse and learn from experience.Yes, and like all human abilities and qualities like integrity,honor,love,and compassion you cannot trace these qualities to neurons.
One can both trace them to the excitations and interactions of neurons coupled with the influences and permutations of cultural and society.
williejhonlo: (B)ut nothing can manufacture wisdom, it is its own entity.
What unthinking and unadulterated tosh!
Wisdom is not an "entity", it's a product of reflective minds. Provide the evidence that 'wisdom' exists independently outside of minds capable of reflection (it beats me how you are going to be able to do that)?Yes, reflective minds not brains.
Reflection is one of the things that the human brain does. No human without a brain is capable of it.
But one notes that, not only have you dodged the central question again, but added to it by being unable to show just how "wisdom" constitutes an "entity", all of which simply further identifies that you haven't a clue what you're talking about!
You just keep digging holes for yourself with your unjustified assertions, williejhonlo, holes that you are simply unable to extricate yourself from. One would have to ask if there is any wisdom in such a predisposition?
Just knowing that you "know" is wisdom.
A [false] proposition that you have failed to provide the least evidence for. Just "knowing" that one knows is not wisdom. A person can know that they know smoking is bad for them, but they may continue to smoke despite it. Is that wisdom? Yes,if you know something is bad for you, that is wisdom. If you can't stop smoking even if you know it's bad for you gives you the wisdom of how lacking self-control overrides intelligence. It tells you something about yourself, and that's wisdom.
That kind of sophistry might be swallowed by some of the people you associate with, williejhonlo, but its not going to work with me. I guess you haven't noticed the bald contradiction in what you have just asserted above!?
And speaking of failing to advance evidence for outrageous claims, you have yet to show just how lifeforms without brains are capable of self-reflective consciousness? Time to put your money where your mouth is, huh?How do you know they are not self-reflective?
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and answer the question!
I've given you four days to come up with something and still you have proffered nothing.
But let me ask it yet again: Give an example of a living thing without a brain that even hints at having the capacity of self-reflection, let alone the virtue of wisdom?
You'll have time to do it as I'll be away for a few days.
I'm sorry namchuck if you misunderstood what I meant by the term "entity" I wasn't refering to wisdom as something living but something that performs function. I should have been more clearer.
As I say above, you play very loose with words, something which gives the impression that you either don't take care with what you say or, alternatively, that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm provisionally opting for the later view.
'Entity' is one of those words it is extremely difficult to take out of context, and yet you are confessing to doing just that. Even your latest definition of the word as suggesting that it refers to "something that performs a function" is both vague and misleading. My bowel performs a function, but its hardly an "entity".
From Webster"s dictionary. Entity-(thing's having real existence;realty; thing having real existence)
You should have gone to the dictionary before playing loose with the word.
The actual disagreement between us (one of many) lay within your claim that "wisdom" was an "entity" existing independently of human brains. The definition that you have now trotted out still doesn't support your outlandish assertion. Perhaps you'll now revise that too?
Wisdom is not an "entity" under any definition. It is a a by-product of brains capable of learning from observation and experience.
Since wisdom has reality, you can call it an entity. As for it being a by-product of brains, you can believe what you want, but you can't observe such an event happening.
You're obviously scrambling, williejhonlo. It would be an abuse of the word. No one who appreciates and values language would call wisdom an "entity".
The 'reality' of wisdom lies in the fact that it is a by-product of a brain capable of self-reflection and, thus, able to learn from observation and experience in ways that no other animal can even come close to.
No one can prove one way or the other how something like mind can arise from matter, or, how matter can arise from mind. At the end of the day, it's all just something hypothetical.
No one can prove one way or the other how something like mind can arise from matter, or, how matter can arise from mind. At the end of the day, it's all just something hypothetical.
Suggesting that "no one can prove how something like mind can arise from matter" is a little premature, don't you think williejhonlo? That kind of thing was once said about a whole host of things that arise from matter that science has now established beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, what evidence is there to think that mind cannot arise from matter? Have you got any to advance? Seems not, hence your reliance on David Chalmers wholly unsubstantiated views, views you have latched onto because you think they somehow give substance to other unjustifed and insupportable beliefs that you hold.
Certainly the great weight of evidence from the cognitive and neuro sciences compellingly shows that consciousness, like intelligence, is the result of a physical brain substrate. As the universe is causally closed, consciousness is not outside of the physical network. You've got all your work ahead of you to show the contrary. Wishful thinking and ignoring the real advances in the brain sciences is simply not going to be able to do it.
No one can prove one way or the other how something like mind can arise from matter, or, how matter can arise from mind. At the end of the day, it's all just something hypothetical.
Suggesting that "no one can prove how something like mind can arise from matter" is a little premature, don't you think williejhonlo? That kind of thing was once said about a whole host of things that arise from matter that science has now established beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, what evidence is there to think that mind cannot arise from matter? Have you got any to advance? Seems not, hence your reliance on David Chalmers wholly unsubstantiated views, views you have latched onto because you think they somehow give substance to other unjustifed and insupportable beliefs that you hold.
Certainly the great weight of evidence from the cognitive and neuro sciences compellingly shows that consciousness, like intelligence, is the result of a physical brain substrate. As the universe is causally closed, consciousness is not outside of the physical network. You've got all your work ahead of you to show the contrary. Wishful thinking and ignoring the real advances in the brain sciences is simply not going to be able to do it.
Emergentism = bad
Epiphenomonalism = good.
I fail to see a REAL difference between the two.
Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
No one can prove one way or the other how something like mind can arise from matter, or, how matter can arise from mind. At the end of the day, it's all just something hypothetical.
Suggesting that "no one can prove how something like mind can arise from matter" is a little premature, don't you think williejhonlo? That kind of thing was once said about a whole host of things that arise from matter that science has now established beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, what evidence is there to think that mind cannot arise from matter? Have you got any to advance? Seems not, hence your reliance on David Chalmers wholly unsubstantiated views, views you have latched onto because you think they somehow give substance to other unjustifed and insupportable beliefs that you hold.
Certainly the great weight of evidence from the cognitive and neuro sciences compellingly shows that consciousness, like intelligence, is the result of a physical brain substrate. As the universe is causally closed, consciousness is not outside of the physical network. You've got all your work ahead of you to show the contrary. Wishful thinking and ignoring the real advances in the brain sciences is simply not going to be able to do it.
Emergentism = bad
Epiphenomonalism = good.
I fail to see a REAL difference between the two.
What makes you think that I see "Emergentism" as "bad", Neomonist?
No one can prove one way or the other how something like mind can arise from matter, or, how matter can arise from mind. At the end of the day, it's all just something hypothetical.
Suggesting that "no one can prove how something like mind can arise from matter" is a little premature, don't you think williejhonlo? That kind of thing was once said about a whole host of things that arise from matter that science has now established beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, what evidence is there to think that mind cannot arise from matter? Have you got any to advance? Seems not, hence your reliance on David Chalmers wholly unsubstantiated views, views you have latched onto because you think they somehow give substance to other unjustifed and insupportable beliefs that you hold.
Certainly the great weight of evidence from the cognitive and neuro sciences compellingly shows that consciousness, like intelligence, is the result of a physical brain substrate. As the universe is causally closed, consciousness is not outside of the physical network. You've got all your work ahead of you to show the contrary. Wishful thinking and ignoring the real advances in the brain sciences is simply not going to be able to do it.
Emergentism = bad
Epiphenomonalism = good.
I fail to see a REAL difference between the two.
What makes you think that I see "Emergentism" as "bad", Neomonist?
Everything you have said about it.
Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
No one can prove one way or the other how something like mind can arise from matter, or, how matter can arise from mind. At the end of the day, it's all just something hypothetical.
Suggesting that "no one can prove how something like mind can arise from matter" is a little premature, don't you think williejhonlo? That kind of thing was once said about a whole host of things that arise from matter that science has now established beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, what evidence is there to think that mind cannot arise from matter? Have you got any to advance? Seems not, hence your reliance on David Chalmers wholly unsubstantiated views, views you have latched onto because you think they somehow give substance to other unjustifed and insupportable beliefs that you hold.
Certainly the great weight of evidence from the cognitive and neuro sciences compellingly shows that consciousness, like intelligence, is the result of a physical brain substrate. As the universe is causally closed, consciousness is not outside of the physical network. You've got all your work ahead of you to show the contrary. Wishful thinking and ignoring the real advances in the brain sciences is simply not going to be able to do it.
Emergentism = bad
Epiphenomonalism = good.
I fail to see a REAL difference between the two.
What makes you think that I see "Emergentism" as "bad", Neomonist?
Everything you have said about it.
I think you're somewhat mistaken, Neomonist.
I am a 'weak' emergentist if that is any consolation.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
