Why I'm not an Atheist

[Alphicans]

You can touch the concept of 5, but there is no way in knowing if you touched it. The concept of 5 is a bunch of neural connections working together in someway to create the notion of "5." I say we cannot touch it because it's impossible to know if that's what we're touching.

I am not implying there are two physical worlds. There is one, which houses the brain and everything else. Humans have the ability to come up with physically impossible concepts. Doesn't mean they aren't physical though.

 

[Vermanubis]

You can touch the concept of 5, but there is no way in knowing if you touched it. The concept of 5 is a bunch of neural connections working together in someway to create the notion of "5." I say we cannot touch it because it's impossible to know if that's what we're touching.

I am not implying there are two physical worlds. There is one, which houses the brain and everything else. Humans have the ability to come up with physically impossible concepts. Doesn't mean they aren't physical though.

As for the second part, yes, the BT paradox only exists in our mind. However, you're failing to recognize one of my most vital points: where's the disjunction happening? Why is it possible in our minds and not in "the physical world"? You're necessarily implying that there're two physical worlds: one where the BT paradox is possible and one where it's not

Also, you're not making any sense. You can't touch concepts. Can you touch the color green? Can you touch a computer program? Can you touch an idea? You can touch things which facilitate or embody these things, but you can't actually the concept of green. The synaptic process of imagining green and the actual Platonic concept of green are different. You're demonstrating and underwhelming understanding of emergence in complex systems.

You're digging a deep hole, saying that we can conceive things as possible in the same realm in which they're impossible. That's a pretty direct contradiction, and I'm still not seeing much good argumentation or at least analogizing. You're ignoring a compulsory burden to answer why conception allows such things, yet the physical world (allegedly the same realm) disallows it. You either admit a shortcoming in your line of reasoning, or stupidity. I think it's the former.

 

[infiniteV115]

Non-physical things are for idealists who believe everything is non-physical.

So you're saying that one must choose between believing that everything is non-physical and nothing is non-physical?

 

[Alphicans]

Also, you're not making any sense. You can't touch concepts. Can you touch the color green? Can you touch a computer program? Can you touch an idea? You can touch things which facilitate or embody these things, but you can't actually the concept of green. The synaptic process of imagining green and the actual Platonic concept of green are different. You're demonstrating and underwhelming understanding of emergence in complex systems.

You're digging a deep hole, saying that we can conceive things as possible in the same realm in which they're impossible. That's a pretty direct contradiction, and I'm still not seeing much good argumentation or at least analogizing.

You're begging the question though :/. The concept of green IS the neural connections. Why must I be committed to anything else?

 

[Vermanubis]

You're begging the question though :/. The concept of green IS the neural connections. Why must I be committed to anything else?

Answer the entire body of the question, please, not just little parts that seem easy to answer.

 

[Alphicans]

That's all it comes down to though. The BT paradox is a concept in the mind, and all that concept is is the neural connections, a physical thing. Why should I believe that a concept is something non-physical? Unless you want to tell me that the mind is non-physical and that you're dualist.

Also I see no reason for personal attacks. I am debating in a civil manner, and I take my responses as good ones, because you're not doing a great job at explaining yourself. It is your job to prove there are non-physical things in the universe, not my job that they don't exist.

 

[Vermanubis]

That's all it comes down to though. The BT paradox is a concept in the mind, and all that concept is is the neural connections, a physical thing. Why should I believe that a concept is something non-physical? Unless you want to tell me that the mind is non-physical and that you're dualist.

Also I see no reason for personal attacks. I am debating in a civil manner, and I take my responses as good ones, because you're not doing a great job at explaining yourself. It is your job to prove there are non-physical things in the universe, not my job that they don't exist.

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm a dualist.

Now, you're still avoiding the question:

Why is it possible in our minds and not in "the physical world"? You're necessarily implying that there're two physical worlds: one where the BT paradox is possible and one where it's not

You're confusing misplacing the burden of proof for rhetorical techniques. I'm perfectly within my rights in the framework of a debate to use rhetoric to demonstrate my points. As for personal attacks, I don't see where I was <attacking> you. If you want personal attacks, here's one:

Spoiler

You lost to a Ganondorf on the ladder

That's a joke, by the way. I do hate you though. You smell funny. Your mother was a hamster. I also have a distinct hunch that your father smelled of elderberries, too.

Back to the topic: were I asking you to prove me wrong, that'd be misplaced burden of proof. However, I'm asking a question as a means of demonstrating my point; two very different things. There's no reason that you shouldn't be able to answer the above question. Everyone likes to cry burden of proof when a question they don't want to/can't answer it presented, but that's not quite how that fallacy works.

 

[Alphicans]

Obviously it's hard for me to answer this question because I know nothing about the BT paradox. However, I don't think it's absolutely to know anything about it. I'll try my best to not assume anything about the actual details of it.

So the BT paradox is just some paradox that happens to stay in the realms of mathematical logic, but is not physically possible (for reasons I am not aware of, because I am no physicist or mathematician, sorry). So I guess it's conceptually possible. If it's conceptually possible, then it's physical because my brain can create neural connections that give me ideas about it's existence. At the same time my brain will give me the idea that it cannot happen in the external world. Therefore it is not physically possible in one "world" and not in the other "world," it's just only conceptually possible, and my concept of the logical possibility of it is physical.

That was messy :/. I am gonna have to come up with a good way to write this up later if you didn't understand what I am saying. Is there a similar example you can use that isn't this? It's hard for me to argue when I have 0 knowledge about the subject matter.

 

[Vermanubis]

Obviously it's hard for me to answer this question because I know nothing about the BT paradox. However, I don't think it's absolutely to know anything about it. I'll try my best to not assume anything about the actual details of it.

So the BT paradox is just some paradox that happens to stay in the realms of mathematical logic, but is not physically possible (for reasons I am not aware of, because I am no physicist or mathematician, sorry). So I guess it's conceptually possible. If it's conceptually possible, then it's physical because my brain can create neural connections that give me ideas about it's existence. At the same time my brain will give me the idea that it cannot happen in the external world. Therefore it is not physically possible in one "world" and not in the other "world," it's just only conceptually possible, and my concept of the logical possibility of it is physical.

That was messy :/. I am gonna have to come up with a good way to write this up later if you didn't understand what I am saying. Is there a similar example you can use that isn't this? It's hard for me to argue when I have 0 knowledge about the subject matter.

You don't have to know anything about the paradox; you just need to know that it creates a disjunction from the physical and metaphysical by creating a physical paradox whose proof is perfectly consistent with the laws of logic/reality. Something is clearly wrong if the law of conservation of matter can be violated, but still be sanctioned by the laws of logic from which the proof was derived. The only explanation for the paradox is that the mathematical thought involved is not bound by what's physical.

Again: the process of thinking is physical. However, the thought at the end of it is not. You can physically interact with the process of thinking of a number, but you cannot physically interact with the number itself. A computer program is a collection of binary information signals. You can touch the actual hard drive of a computer, but you can't physically touch the idea of a computer program; it's a synthetic category to describe the set of all its informational signals. The number 5 does not exist naturally. The experience of the color green does not exist naturally. Categorical definition which we ascribe to collections of objects like a computer program do not exist naturally. Infinity does not exist naturally. They're all metaphysical; borne of the physical, but not entirely physical themselves.

To restate again: the BT paradox demonstrates an event that is either possible or impossible depending on the realm in which it takes place. It can't happen in the physical world; so why can it in the metaphysical/mental world? Why can we conceive of things that are physically impossible, if thoughts themselves are strictly bound to the physical world? That's not possible unless there exist two distinctly different worlds.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Good Lord I love Verm.


I hardly know the guy, and he's one of my favorite Christians.

Verm I wasn't to hear your full testimony.


When I'm off work I'll come through and bring up points pointing back to the origional blog post, concerning Catholicism.

 

[Alphicans]

You don't have to know anything about the paradox; you just need to know that it creates a disjunction from the physical and metaphysical by creating a physical paradox whose proof is perfectly consistent with the laws of logic/reality. Something is clearly wrong if the law of conservation of matter can be violated, but still be sanctioned by the laws of logic from which the proof was derived. The only explanation for the paradox is that the mathematical thought involved is not bound by what's physical.

Again: the process of thinking is physical. However, the thought at the end of it is not. You can physically interact with the process of thinking of a number, but you cannot physically interact with the number itself. A computer program is a collection of binary information signals. You can touch the actual hard drive of a computer, but you can't physically touch the idea of a computer program; it's a synthetic category to describe the set of all its informational signals. The number 5 does not exist naturally. The experience of the color green does not exist naturally. Categorical definition which we ascribe to collections of objects like a computer program do not exist naturally. Infinity does not exist naturally. They're all metaphysical; borne of the physical, but not entirely physical themselves.

To restate again: the BT paradox demonstrates an event that is either possible or impossible depending on the realm in which it takes place. It can't happen in the physical world; so why can it in the metaphysical/mental world? Why can we conceive of things that are physically impossible, if thoughts themselves are strictly bound to the physical world? That's not possible unless there exist two distinctly different worlds.

How does this make clear that the concept is non-physical. Why can't the concept just be the neural connections?

To answer the bolded part: to think of something impossible we are not breaking any physical laws (this is obvious because we are doing them). You're saying that since we're thinking of something physically impossible, then it must be non-physical... How is this the conclusion, I don't get it. Why aren't we allowed to use our imagination? Nothing in physical science disagrees with us doing that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's always awesome to see people seeking out answers rather than settling for indefinite "I don't knows." (Which, while yes, not a bad answer, is not a good one either.)

What's wrong with "I don't know" when it's honestly the only accurate answer? There's a very clear difference between seeking out answers and just assuming. Most theists do the latter, one way or another.

 

[Vermanubis]

How does this make clear that the concept is non-physical. Why can't the concept just be the neural connections?

To answer the bolded part: to think of something impossible we are not breaking any physical laws (this is obvious because we are doing them). You're saying that since we're thinking of something physically impossible, then it must be non-physical... How is this the conclusion, I don't get it. Why aren't we allowed to use our imagination? Nothing in physical science disagrees with us doing that.

What <comes> from the neural connections is what's important. A logical conclusion can be said to be constituted by series of propositions, but a conclusion, while supplemented by propositions, is not a proposition itself; it's something entirely different. Same principle applies here. The chief principle at play here is that the artifex does not reflect the artifice; what makes something does not always reflect what is made.

As for part two, the question is <why is something that is physically impossible possible mathematically, even though the two operate under the same exact rules?> What allows our imagination to conceive physically impossible things if the thought itself is nothing but a physical phenomenon? Infinity does not physically exist, yet we conceive of it; how? If thought is not special in any way and is just a two-dimensional system, then where does that third dimension come from (the ability to mathematically conceive what is physically impossible). If thought and ideas themselves in their purest form were physical, then where does this nebulous idea like infinity come from? How were imaginary numbers discovered? Somewhere along the line, something happens and a third dimension is added where thought crosses over from a physical beginning to a metaphysical product. When I say "dimension," take that literally. Much like how time exists as its own unique, disparate dimension, but is inexorably bound to at least one other dimension, if not all other three intuitive ones.

What's wrong with "I don't know" when it's honestly the only accurate answer? There's a very clear difference between seeking out answers and just assuming. Most theists do the latter, one way or another

I didn't say there was anything <wrong> with it per se, I just think that it's not a very good answer. I think it has its place in some scientific contexts, but in others, I think just saying "I don't know" is an escapism.

 

[Alphicans]

What <comes> from the neural connections is what's important. A logical conclusion can be said to be constituted by series of propositions, but a conclusion, while supplemented by propositions, is not a proposition itself; it's something entirely different. Same principle applies here.

As for part two, the question is <why is something that is physically impossible possible mathematically, even though the two operate under the same exact rules?> What allows our imagination to conceive physically impossible things if the thought itself is nothing but a physical phenomenon? Infinity does not physically exist, yet we conceive of it; how? If thought is not special in any way and is just a two-dimensional system, then where does that third dimension come from (the ability to mathematically conceive what is physically impossible). If thought and ideas themselves in their purest form were physical, then where does this nebulous idea like infinity come from? How were imaginary numbers discovered? Somewhere along the line, something happens and a third dimension is added where thought crosses over from a physical beginning to a metaphysical product. When I say "dimension," take that literally. Much like how time exists as its own unique, disparate dimension, but is inexorably bound to at least one other dimension, if not all other three intuitive ones.



I didn't say there was anything <wrong> with it per se, I just think that it's not a very good answer. I think it has its place in some scientific contexts, but in others, I think just saying "I don't know" is an escapism.

Again, why does something have to come from the neural connections? The neural connections are everything. The forming of the concept, the processing of it and the realization of it. We do not need some mysterious non-physical thing when the physical materials give an equally good answer.

The bold: It comes from our neural connections... Yet again, why do I need non-physical metaphysical simples or some sort of non-physical mind? The physical systems cannot account for why we perceive things the way we do, but at least we can know what components make it. The non-physical cannot do the latter. Am I supposed to just believe this non-physical stuff I have no conception of can interact with physical material and account for my perceptions? There is no good reason to believe that because it doesn't explain anything just as the physical systems don't explain anything. Dualism is not for arguing these types of issues, dualism is for arguing life after death, free will and personal identity. I believe physicalism can account for all of those just as well as dualism can.

So when you ask how can we conceive of infinity, I do not take that as a good question, because you cannot answer that either. If it's a problem for both of us, it's not an issue.

 

[Vermanubis]

Again, why does something have to come from the neural connections? The neural connections are everything. The forming of the concept, the processing of it and the realization of it. We do not need some mysterious non-physical thing when the physical materials give an equally good answer.

The bold: It comes from our neural connections... Yet again, why do I need non-physical metaphysical simples or some sort of non-physical mind? The physical systems cannot account for why we perceive things the way we do, but at least we can know what components make it. The non-physical cannot do the latter. Am I supposed to just believe this non-physical stuff I have no conception of can interact with physical material and account for my perceptions? There is no good reason to believe that because it doesn't explain anything just as the physical systems don't explain anything. Dualism is not for arguing these types of issues, dualism is for arguing life after death, free will and personal identity. I believe physicalism can account for all of those just as well as dualism can.

So when you ask how can we conceive of infinity, I do not take that as a good question, because you cannot answer that either. If it's a problem for both of us, it's not an issue.

You're still missing the point. Neural connections and stuff are awesome, but the focal point is how do you think that something that does not exist in the physical world can be conceived through nothing more than a series of neuronal interactions? You said because of our imagination, but that unabashedly suggests that imagination is special. Under the exact same rules, the BT paradox is possible in one world, but not the other. It can be performed with mathematical structures, but not with physical ones. Why? If the realm of thought is purely physical, it is not possible in any way for the BT paradox to be possible. A thought is an arrangement of signals; can you reach out and touch the fully formulated thought? You can touch what causes the thought, but you cannot touch the thought itself; the experience of the thought.

And I actually can answer that question, and I have been with my argument. Thoughts (not the process of a thought), but the final product itself are not bound by physicalities. The Platonic realm (see: the mind) does not reflect the physical world in 100% entirety. Why is that? Because a thought is emergent; in the same way a computer program emerges from a series of Boolean logic gates; the same way that <time> emerges from entropy and space.

 

[Alphicans]

How can the mind (a non-physical mind) emerge from something physical? If it comes from something physical, is it not, too, physical?

The reason it can be performed mathematically and not physically? I don't know, but it can, clearly. Why you think it means our mind is non-physical is a definite mystery to me. I don't need to answer why our brain can do it, because as far as anyone can tell, our brain is entirely physical, performing entirely physical processes.

Also, why can't be what causes the thought also be the thought? Why is not a possibility for me to touch the neurons and then say I am touching the experience of thought?

 

[Melomaniacal]

I didn't say there was anything <wrong> with it per se, I just think that it's not a very good answer. I think it has its place in some scientific contexts, but in others, I think just saying "I don't know" is an escapism.

Sometimes it's the best answer, this, in my opinion, being one of those cases. It's not escapism, it's the truth. Sometimes admitting you don't know something prevents you from coming up with inaccurate answers which will potentially prevent you from discovering the true answers. A scenario (shout out to qualiasoup):

Imagine if we went back in time, say... 500 years ago, and showed some people a very convincing projection of a man sprouting wings and flying to the heavens. It's reasonable to assume that many, if not all of these people, would immediately describe this as a miracle and as evidence to god. They would end it there and never find out the truth. They have boxed themselves in ignorance because they have attempted to explain something that, at the time, is unexplainable.

So, I think about the origins of the universe. With our current technology, we cannot definitively know the answers. Some people said "hey, maybe it's this thing that's, like, beyond our universe. Like a god or something." Well, that works. Done! Well, no, because we still don't know. Just because an answer fits doesn't make it any more right (at least in respect to answers such as these which have no legitimate proofs). In fact, it probably just hurts.

 

[Vermanubis]

How can the mind (a non-physical mind) emerge from something physical? If it comes from something physical, is it not, too, physical?

100% false. The whole is not defined by the pieces. However, I wanna stress the word "metaphysical," as it defines what I'm speaking of as being borne <of> the physical, entering the realm of the metaphysical (things that do not occur in nature without the intervention of human thought; synthetic truths).

The reason it can be performed mathematically and not physically? I don't know, but it can, clearly. Why you think it means our mind is non-physical is a definite mystery to me. I don't need to answer why our brain can do it, because as far as anyone can tell, our brain is entirely physical, performing entirely physical processes.

Well, if you don't know, then why were you arguing? That's the type of "I don't know" answer I take issue with, as I said to BPC. It strikes me as escapist, and is brazenly indifferent to possible alternate explanations for the sake of ideological preservation. It's like saying "I don't know why I believe this, but I know I don't believe what you're saying."

If you don't really know why you're arguing, then that tells me that you have an unexamined belief set regarding the topic at hand that you're not willing to critically examine. The reason I say that is because you argued against my viewpoint without really knowing why. That disjunction that even you conceded by saying there was a clear difference between mathematics and physicalities is the kind of suggestion that a curious, discerning mind should investigate instead of eschewing it.

Sometimes it's the best answer, this, in my opinion, being one of those cases. It's not escapism, it's the truth. Sometimes admitting you don't know something prevents you from coming up with inaccurate answers which will potentially prevent you from discovering the true answers. A scenario (shout out to qualiasoup):

Imagine if we went back in time, say... 500 years ago, and showed some people a very convincing projection of a man sprouting wings and flying to the heavens. It's reasonable to assume that many, if not all of these people, would immediately describe this as a miracle and as evidence to god. They would end it there and never find out the truth. They have boxed themselves in ignorance because they have attempted to explain something that, at the time, is unexplainable.

So, I think about the origins of the universe. With our current technology, we cannot definitively know the answers. Some people said "hey, maybe it's this thing that's, like, beyond our universe. Like a god or something." Well, that works. Done! Well, no, because we still don't know. Just because an answer fits doesn't make it any more right. In fact, it probably just hurts.

I think it has its place in some scientific contexts

In a scenario where "I don't know" is a useful answer that doesn't needlessly gamble, then yes, it's a good answer. However, a lot of people mistake that to mean that everything should be an "I don't know." In contexts such as these, "I don't know" is more often apathy from what I've noticed.

 

[Alphicans]

The point of me saying I don't know, is because you don't know either. You cannot explain why non-physical stuff can do this. How can non-physical be borne of physical? It'd be much simpler to say the mind is physical and was borne from another physical entity.

 

[Melomaniacal]

So why do your religious beliefs get exemption? It has nothing to do with apathy or laziness, it's just the most honest answer. There is no definitive, demonstrative proof for god or disproving god. It's not fair to sit there and say "SCIENCE HAS TO DO THIS AND THIS BUT GOD IS REAL BECAUSE I THINK SO." And yes, I've already explained how trying to answer the existence of god is a gamble, one that I would argue sets us back quite a bit.

Also, for the record, I have nothing wrong with believing in god. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe in god. However, believing in the biblical god is different, but that's a different debate.

 

[Vermanubis]

Sometimes it's the best answer, this, in my opinion, being one of those cases. It's not escapism, it's the truth. Sometimes admitting you don't know something prevents you from coming up with inaccurate answers which will potentially prevent you from discovering the true answers. A scenario (shout out to qualiasoup):

Imagine if we went back in time, say... 500 years ago, and showed some people a very convincing projection of a man sprouting wings and flying to the heavens. It's reasonable to assume that many, if not all of these people, would immediately describe this as a miracle and as evidence to god. They would end it there and never find out the truth. They have boxed themselves in ignorance because they have attempted to explain something that, at the time, is unexplainable.

So, I think about the origins of the universe. With our current technology, we cannot definitively know the answers. Some people said "hey, maybe it's this thing that's, like, beyond our universe. Like a god or something." Well, that works. Done! Well, no, because we still don't know. Just because an answer fits doesn't make it any more right (at least in respect to answers such as these which have no legitimate proofs). In fact, it probably just hurts.

The point of me saying I don't know, is because you don't know either. You cannot explain why non-physical stuff can do this. How can non-physical be borne of physical? It'd be much simpler to say the mind is physical and was borne from another physical entity.

I've made it pretty clear that I do know. You've pretty much let every analogy I've used go and haven't challenged a single one. It's not so much me not knowing, so much as you not quite understanding my point. Simplicity is nice, but truth is nicer. One should always seek what is true, rather than what is simple or easy to comprehend. To use another analogy, the concept of infinity in set theory was considered so counterintuitive and in conflict with previous mathematical axioms that pretty much the entire math community laughed Georg Cantor all the way to the grave. Yet here we see 99% of modern mathematics based around his acknowledgment of the metaphysical properties of mathematics, which everyone else eschewed until Godel and Russell came along and provided hundreds of dissertations on its proof.

So why do your religious beliefs get exemption?

Exemption? Where'd exemption come from? It's more about deciding where neutrality and where initiative are more useful.

 

[Alphicans]

Oh, so you can explain how the non-physical and create thought, and how the non-physical can interact with the physical? That would be amazing, because I am pretty sure these two issues are the reasons hardly any philosophers are dualists anymore.

 

[Vermanubis]

Oh, so you can explain how the non-physical and create thought, and how the non-physical can interact with the physical? That would be amazing, because I am pretty sure these two issues are the reasons hardly any philosophers are dualists anymore.

Not non-physical; metaphysical. Duality concerns itself with almost every branch of philosophy; I don't know where you got the idea that duality is dead.

Again, just like time is bound by space, but is an entirely separate dimension, so to is thought bound by the physical by a completely separate realm where, even if not conceded as a specific category, is still, even by you, conceded as different by definition. As you imagine the color green, the process of imagining is physical, but your <experience> of the color is not. The sensation of greenness is caused by physical processes, but that does not mean the sensation itself is.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I've made it pretty clear that I do know. You've pretty much let every analogy I've used go and haven't challenged a single one. It's not so much me not knowing, so much as you not quite understanding my point. Simplicity is nice, but truth is nicer. One should always seek what is true, rather than what is simple or easy to comprehend.

Admittedly, I kind of just jumped in and didn't like that one statement I saw from you. I'm not really looking to get heavily into this discussion.

But I really don't like the way you use "truth" here. Are you implying that the truth is "god is real," while also saying you don't definitely know? Seeking the truth means keeping an open mind (not that I'm saying you don't), not picking an answer (bible) that is loaded with logical contradictions and has little to no legitimate or demonstrable evidence.
And don't try to tell me that belief in god isn't simple. It is by far the most simple and easy to comprehend answer.
"Hey, what are the answers to all these things we don't have answers to?"
"Simple, this guy who can just do all of those things for us."

Exemption? Where'd exemption come from? It's more about deciding where neutrality and where initiative are more useful.

I just meant that you seem to have implied that religious beliefs are exempt from the "I don't know" answer, which I think it's completely wrong.


But, I hate to do this, but I can't really continue now. That makes me a huge ******* because I said some extremely loaded things here, but I have a show to go to in 20 minutes.
No offense meant, all respect.

 

[Vermanubis]

Admittedly, I kind of just jumped in and didn't like that one statement I saw from you. I'm not really looking to get heavily into this discussion.

But I really don't like the way you use "truth" here. Are you implying that the truth is "god is real," while also saying you don't definitely know? Seeking the truth means keeping an open mind (not that I'm saying you don't), not picking an answer (bible) that is loaded with logical contradictions and has little to no legitimate or demonstrable evidence.
And don't try to tell me that belief in god isn't simple. It is by far the most simple and easy to comprehend answer.
"Hey, what are the answers to all these things we don't have answers to?"
"Simple, this guy who can just do all of those things for us."


I just meant that you seem to have implied that religious beliefs are exempt from the "I don't know" answer, which I think it's completely wrong.


But, I hate to do this, but I can't really continue now. That makes me a huge ******* because I said some extremely loaded things here, but I have a show to go to in 20 minutes.
No offense meant, all respect.

I don't understand where all of this is coming from. Most of this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand lol.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I don't understand where all of this is coming from. Most of this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand lol.

I realize that, there's just a few things that caught my eye and implies a lot of things I strongly disagree with. I know I'm pretty far off-base here, my apologies. I'm a bit scatter-brained at the moment, you can just ignore me, haha.

 

[Alphicans]

Not non-physical; metaphysical. Duality concerns itself with almost every branch of philosophy; I don't know where you got the idea that duality is dead.

Again, just like time is bound by space, but is an entirely separate dimension, so to is thought bound by the physical by a completely separate realm where, even if not conceded as a specific category, is still, even by you, conceded as different by definition. As you imagine the color green, the process of imagining is physical, but your <experience> of the color is not. The sensation of greenness is caused by physical processes, but that does not mean the sensation itself is.

I get the idea that dualism is dying from philosophy courses I am taking, both from metaphysics and philosophy of the mind. I respect dualism in some respects, but arguing it the way you're doing right now has been shut down time after time.

Again, why isn't the experience physical????? How can you possibly conceive of two incredibly different things (physical and the non-physical/metaphysical) interacting with each other. Also, how can you just expect to say "metaphysical, not non-physical" and not explain the difference. Is metaphysical somehow more physical than the non-physical? What was the point of the distinction?

 

[Vermanubis]

I get the idea that dualism is dying from philosophy courses I am taking, both from metaphysics and philosophy of the mind. I respect dualism in some respects, but arguing it the way you're doing right now has been shut down time after time.

Again, why isn't the experience physical????? How can you possibly conceive of two incredibly different things (physical and the non-physical/metaphysical) interacting with each other. Also, how can you just expect to say "metaphysical, not non-physical" and not explain the difference. Is metaphysical somehow more physical than the non-physical? What was the point of the distinction?

Well, for one, philosophy courses are notoriously bad. Philosophy isn't something that's meant to be taught in school. Probably 3% of the great philosophers received a formal philosophy education. Just saying that so you know that whatever your teacher said probably has a lot of bias in it; duality is alive and well. Philosophy is something you explore for yourself; as demonstrated by our impasse here, it's not something that is easily shared without highly-structured terminology, axioms and so forth. As for the experience, it's not physical because you can't touch it and cannot physically interact with it. Does the BT paradox exist in nature? Do perfect one dimensional lines exist in nature? Can you physically touch someone that appears in a dream? No. Physical requires two bodies interacting. Nothing physical can interact with a dreamed object or a mathematical construct. The physical world is the conduit; the projector; the metaphysical is what is projected.

Metaphysical is something that interacts with the physical in a sense, whereas non-physical is something that has nothing to do with physicality.

 

[Alphicans]

I've already said that you don't need something to exist in nature for it to be physical. If it doesn't exist in nature, then it exists in our brain/mind or however you want to refer to it. As a physicalist I maintain that the mind is physical. I do not need to show how these physical processes result in our experiences because dualists can't show how the "mental" creates these experiences either. You haven't once explained how the mental can do that, which is a pretty big deal. If you cannot explain it, then how is your theory superior to mine? Mine offers as many explanations and cuts out the need for the mental. It's as efficient and is simpler. I don't need to explain these unanswerable questions because they're unanswerable.

Just to be extra clear, I want you to explain how my idea of "green" can be explained through your theory.

 

[Vermanubis]

I've already said that you don't need something to exist in nature for it to be physical.

Explain.

If it doesn't exist in nature, then it exists in our brain/mind or however you want to refer to it. As a physicalist I maintain that the mind is physical. I do not need to show how these physical processes result in our experiences because dualists can't show how the "mental" creates these experiences either.

You're mistaking "not needing" with "not trying." You may not need to, but you should try, which you haven't, because I don't think you have an evaluated answer (which you yourself admitted earlier).

You haven't once explained how the mental can do that, which is a pretty big deal.
If you cannot explain it, then how is your theory superior to mine? Mine offers as many explanations and cuts out the need for the mental.

Yours doesn't explain the quality of experience, mathematical constructs or otherwise.

It's as efficient and is simpler. I don't need to explain these unanswerable questions because they're unanswerable.

Why are they unanswerable? We're not focused on efficiency, we're focused on finding the truth.

Just to be extra clear, I want you to explain how my idea of "green" can be explained through your theory.

I don't know how many different ways I can explain it. The process of experiencing greenness is likened to a projector and the projected. The brain is the projector and the mind/experience/sensation/qualia is that which is projected. I suppose I could also put it this way, in the simplest way I can: when you think, is the image in your head physical? That which is <facilitating it may be>, but the image itself. And yes, for something to be physical, it has to be touchable; you cannot argue that. Were you to open up your skull and physically fondle your brain, would you be feeling your idea or visualization? You'd be feeling the electric current which facilitates it, but would you be feeling the idea manifest? Can you open up a tower and interact with a computer program, or just that which makes the computer program? These are all categorizations and are synthetic; imaginary.

 

[Alphicans]

You're argument sounds very similar to one I read about. It goes something like this: If you were to shrink yourself down to a size small enough to take a detailed tour through your brain would you see thought and concepts? Could you feel them? The dualist answer is no. Before I continue I want to know if this is basically what you're getting at.

 

[john!]

I don't know how many different ways I can explain it. The process of experiencing greenness is likened to a projector and the projected. The brain is the projector and the mind/experience/sensation/qualia is that which is projected. I suppose I could also put it this way, in the simplest way I can: when you think, is the image in your head physical? That which is <facilitating it may be>, but the image itself. And yes, for something to be physical, it has to be touchable; you cannot argue that. Were you to open up your skull and physically fondle your brain, would you be feeling your idea or visualization? You'd be feeling the electric current which facilitates it, but would you be feeling the idea manifest? Can you open up a tower and interact with a computer program, or just that which makes the computer program? These are all categorizations and are synthetic; imaginary.

experiencing greenness goes something like this:

- light comes into eye at a certain wavelength (green)
- photoreceptor cells convert light into electrical signals
- electrical signals are transmitted and stored by neurons

what part of this is non-physical?

 

[Vermanubis]

experiencing greenness goes something like this:

- light comes into eye at a certain wavelength (green)
- photoreceptor cells convert light into electrical signals
- electrical signals are transmitted and stored by neurons

what part of this is non-physical?

That's the process of receiving information and interpreting it; not the actual experience of greenness.


@Alph: Kind of, but not quite. The concept is that the whole is emergent from the contents. In set theory, the distinction (and a paramount one at that) made is between the proper and improper subset. The improper subset is the set of all constituents of the set, except the set itself. The proper subset is the set of all elements including the set itself. QED, there's a large difference with a diminutive appearance between what makes something up, and what the thing actually is. We define an apple as an apple, when it could be defined as the hundreds of things it actually is. The term "apple" is a synthetic term; a category. The actual abstract concept of an apple does not physically exist, rather, it is what we categorize a collection of properties as. The same applies to ideas and thoughts. It's about what emerges from a closed system that's important; not the system itself. The teleology is important; not the means.

 

[Dre89]

Well, for one, philosophy courses are notoriously bad. Philosophy isn't something that's meant to be taught in school. Probably 3% of the great philosophers received a formal philosophy education. Just saying that so you know that whatever your teacher said probably has a lot of bias in it; duality is alive and well. Philosophy is something you explore for yourself; as demonstrated by our impasse here, it's not something that is easily shared without highly-structured terminology, axioms and so forth. As for the experience, it's not physical because you can't touch it and cannot physically interact with it. Does the BT paradox exist in nature? Do perfect one dimensional lines exist in nature? Can you physically touch someone that appears in a dream? No. Physical requires two bodies interacting. Nothing physical can interact with a dreamed object or a mathematical construct. The physical world is the conduit; the projector; the metaphysical is what is projected.

Metaphysical is something that interacts with the physical in a sense, whereas non-physical is something that has nothing to do with physicality.

Most influential philosophers were formally educated in philosophy, except for perhaps the Greeks because they were the ones who invented the discipline.

People do need formal educations in philosophy. People who pursue other careers and just want to read philosophy to stimulate their mind on the side don't need to, but professionak philosophers do. Philosophy has probably influenced western civilisation more than any other discipline, so it's important those that influence civilisation are educated.

And I think you're classifications of metaphysical and non physical are wrong. A non physical being can act within the physical world, such as a hypothetical angel or ghost for example. Non physical is a specific type of existence, contrasted against physical existence.

Metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of reality. Every being is metaphysical in the sense that they all have metaphysical properties. Saying that a being is contingent or caused is a metaphysical property, Saying that that a being is metaphysically necessary and uncaused is another metaphyical property.

Also, even if your BT paradox is correct, it simply proves the existence of the non physical, not God. Even if it somehow proved God, if you're a Christian, it certainly doesn't prove any of the theological properties you would believe your God to have.

Soz to pick on you, but I'd rather pick on someone who is clearly educated and can defend himself than a lot of other people here who aren't really educated in the topic (no offence to them).

 

[john!]

That's the process of receiving information and interpreting it; not the actual experience of greenness.

to a monist, these are the same thing.

what part of the "experience" isn't explained by that process?

 

[Theftz22]

As with Alphicans and idealism, I'm not sure why you think dualism entails theism, Verm.

 

[Alphicans]

to a monist, these are the same thing.

what part of the "experience" isn't explained by that process?

Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time lol.

 

[john!]

i strive for elegance

 

[GwJ]

one of many issues that I feel science cannot explain.

Get out. What a worthless thing to even bother saying.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I've skimmed through most of this discussion, which is sadly greater than anything going on in the Proving Grounds and probably the Debate Hall as well, and I have to say, I see absolutely no reason to believe in a non-physical anything, it just doesn't make sense and adds bizarre complications to what is actually quite simple and plain, and instead of being an escapist answer to avoid complexity, it is really just acknowledging that the truth is actually rather simple in nature. The truth only does what is necessary, and while mathematical truths and facts can be long and convoluted, their state and logical steps are all very sensible and simple in of themselves. Even saying "God exists and has made everything" doesn't make everything simpler than what evidence shows because what God does would have to make sense, since God would not be some absurd entity or else he wouldn't exist, and not to mention like I've said before, it tries to add all these huge complications to things that are actually simple.

Something is physical when it is created from physical entities, and physical entities can be sensed, and mental images can be sensed. Even when imagining a tiger bouncing around your living room, you aren't projecting the tiger as a non-physical entity in the room subjectively as it moves about, it is actually a 2D image, that, because we understand 3-Dimensional images so well we no how to alter the 2D image to alter its appearance to simply appear as if it is moving, like showing its shoulder or moving it, dissipating the image when physical objects become forefront. (That is in response to a comment I believe I read earlier that I can't recall where it was, my apologies).