tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post3889916262065927993..comments2023-10-08T06:39:04.875-07:00Comments on Scrivenings: Prior Prejudices and the Argument from Reason, or,why some don’t think consciousness is supernaturalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-23480059785920797172013-04-09T22:46:40.237-07:002013-04-09T22:46:40.237-07:00I agree totally!
When being attacked by a psych...I agree totally! <br /><br />When being attacked by a psychopath, what is one to do? Would Jesus or Gandhi have suggested using passive resistance? Or not? <br /><br />I suspect that most people like being liked more than they like keeping other people's heads in freezers. But aside from that I fully admit some people see things in reverse. That's also probably why laws were invented andEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-54629331944761196142013-04-09T20:31:57.937-07:002013-04-09T20:31:57.937-07:00You say: "-death came with certainty only wit...You say: "-death came with certainty only with the advent of multi-cellular organisms that began reproducing via sexual reproduction)."<br /><br />Even this isn't strictly true: check out Turritopsis nutricula.<br /><br />I agree with what you say, though. When you say, "I am uncertain whether there is one strict meaning to everyone's life" I'll add that I feel Dave McCombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-51238022902813969582013-04-09T19:23:56.100-07:002013-04-09T19:23:56.100-07:00Hi Dave, I agree one can continue to ask questions...Hi Dave, I agree one can continue to ask questions. I do myself, which is why I have never called myself an atheist, or a theist. I tend to view the questions as remaining no matter what philosophical or religious labels one gives one's self. And I recognize there's more than one idea of "God" or "Force" found in various philosophies and religions. <br /><br />I'm Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-62716103242214098102011-03-03T20:59:44.752-08:002011-03-03T20:59:44.752-08:00Nice reply :) It's interesting, though I admit...Nice reply :) It's interesting, though I admit I may not have followed your meaning perfectly.<br /><br />"But the opposite of the reductionism that you describe is emergentism. And there is nothing unnatural about the brain's evolution and the human mind's emergence as a brain-mind phenomenon via evolution."<br /><br />Certainly. Nothing happens that isn't natural to Dave McCombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-42828372933507582852011-03-02T17:36:37.881-08:002011-03-02T17:36:37.881-08:00CONTINUED
"This does not mean these (higher ...CONTINUED <br />"This does not mean these (higher forces) are supernatural. Those who conceived of vital forces in supernatural terms were just as wrong as those who denied the existence of such forces. In any living of nonliving thing, the spacing and timing of the material elements of which it is composed make all the difference in determining what a thing is.<br /><br />"As an Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-22069503454902917932011-03-02T17:36:13.727-08:002011-03-02T17:36:13.727-08:00Dave, you wrote, "I think naturalists are rig...Dave, you wrote, "I think naturalists are right -- but you can reduce a masterpiece painting into paint, pigments, elements, atoms -- with perfect exactness. Knowing the most intimate details, however, doesn't help much toward a holistic description of the Art."<br /><br />But the opposite of the reductionism that you describe is emergentism. And there is nothing unnatural about theEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-33847104531996299682011-02-05T16:43:05.780-08:002011-02-05T16:43:05.780-08:00In your response to Vic you wrote:
"In my bl...In your response to Vic you wrote:<br /><br />"In my blog I presented the 'modeling' idea, that the brain-mind functions by producing models of what it perceives, including the model it builds inside itself of the cosmos, a model that we each build individually, based on our upbringing and what little knowledge we acquire in our finite lifetimes. But models are not the same as what Dave McCombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-13663395606568010572011-02-02T23:43:30.987-08:002011-02-02T23:43:30.987-08:00Dear Ed, I found your site from a broken link on F...Dear Ed, I found your site from a broken link on FB you did recently. I remember studying this view of the brain-mind issue and it was called "epiphenomenalism" that consciousness and thinking were an epiphenomenon of brain activity. I do consider it a serious candidate for being a valid theory of consciousness. The main thing it has in its favor is that it explains easily what "Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15340539277090876795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-34982820010489065352011-02-02T15:48:57.554-08:002011-02-02T15:48:57.554-08:00CONTINUED FROM DIRECTLY ABOVE
(response to Vic)
A...CONTINUED FROM DIRECTLY ABOVE<br />(response to Vic)<br /><br />As for language it is a tool to understanding the world around us and communicating what we think we understand, and as a phenomenon it is both species dependent and culturally dependent. Only humans have language, though many other species get along relatively well without it. And even humans cannot decipher any ancient writing theyEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-81348131405366050342011-02-02T15:43:02.168-08:002011-02-02T15:43:02.168-08:00VIC: "I would like to know what naturalism ex...VIC: "I would like to know what naturalism excludes, and why it excludes it."<br /> <br />ED's response: I noticed you had nothing to add to my response, but let me add a further response to your question above, namely this, your question is prejudging the argument--you are assuming that we CAN know what nature can or can't do, and so you are assuming we can conclude that matterEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-77594641090824323142011-01-27T18:24:25.410-08:002011-01-27T18:24:25.410-08:00I like epistemology.
You say: "But we also k...I like epistemology.<br /><br />You say: "But we also know we've been wrong before about things we've claimed to 'know' were 'real.'"<br /><br />But in this case, I don't think anything experienced is unreal -- it's just not as absolutely real.<br /><br />I agree that threats of eternal punishment don't make sense, but I think Hell is probably real. IDave McCombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-44924216255045399692011-01-26T20:55:34.588-08:002011-01-26T20:55:34.588-08:00Victor, Thanks for contributing.
You asked:
&qu...Victor, Thanks for contributing. <br />You asked: <br /><br />"What qualifies a view of the mind as genuinely naturalistic? How would you define a genuinely naturalistic view? What does naturalism exclude, and why does it exclude it?"<br /><br />In effect you want to know what "naturalism" is or what I think of it. But my argument concerning prejudcies doesn't appear to meEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-82114617144270017242011-01-26T20:15:03.556-08:002011-01-26T20:15:03.556-08:00Hi Dave, The question "what is real?" is...Hi Dave, The question "what is real?" is what philosophers have been trying to answer since there have been philosphers. <br /><br />The question as you point out is also related to "what is real for you, me, us, every sentient species in the cosmos," or even "God." <br /><br />On the lower scale away from "God" once could also ask "what is real to theEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-32789222226010045142011-01-24T12:05:38.313-08:002011-01-24T12:05:38.313-08:00In other words, I would like to know what naturali...In other words, I would like to know what naturalism excludes, and why it excludes it.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-41050138123454095192011-01-24T12:05:07.203-08:002011-01-24T12:05:07.203-08:00Before proceeding any further, let's see if yo...Before proceeding any further, let's see if you understand naturalism the way I do. What qualifies a view of the mind as genuinely naturalistic?<br />How would you define a genuinely naturalistic view? <br /><br />In one sense, you could build the concept of God into one's concept of nature, in which case you could be a theist and a naturalist at the same time.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-53807069912352796602011-01-23T19:27:52.154-08:002011-01-23T19:27:52.154-08:00Thank you for your response. It made things more c...Thank you for your response. It made things more clear in my mind.<br /><br />But you've also brought up what seems like a sticky problem: What is real? It seems you have to decide between "whatever I experience" and "whatever the most people agree describes what we collectively experience", or go further and have faith in an absolute reality or an absolute truth.<br /><brDave McCombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-37105406235546928202011-01-23T16:59:08.802-08:002011-01-23T16:59:08.802-08:00Hi Dave,
Glad you found the piece interesting. I...Hi Dave, <br /><br />Glad you found the piece interesting. I'll try to explain it further and answer your questions below. Perhaps I should rewrite portions of it. <br /><br />It was about prior prejudices related to the AFR. The AFR assumes that individual atoms can never become "minds" (I agree, not individually) and minds can never become logical nor rational if they are composedEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28300773.post-78783746330880942702011-01-23T13:49:38.667-08:002011-01-23T13:49:38.667-08:00Thank you for writing this piece. It was very inte...Thank you for writing this piece. It was very interesting to me and enjoyable to read (even if I didn't comprehend much of it).<br /><br />I would have liked, however, if you had expounded more on your response to:<br /><br />"There can be no guarantee of correspondence between what a brain made of atoms 'thinks,' and the world 'out there.'"<br /><br />I don't Dave McCombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.com