5 ms·

That's precisely the point, right?

by dnadler 7y ago

gbrown 7y ago
The above poster was making magical assertions as if they were well established without presenting evidence.
- yters 7y ago
  The evidence is literally the very things by which we perceive all other scientific evidence: consciousness, abstract thought, mathematics. All three are clearly non physical. People have to make up elaborate, incoherent explanations to try and explain how they are physical. The fact it is so hard, even impossible, to do shows the items are not physical.
  - gbrown 7y ago
    Consciousness is clearly nonphysical? No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Why is consciousness modified by drugs? Why can consciousness be damaged by physical trauma? When you can interact with something in the physical world, that is a pretty strong indication that you're dealing with a physical phenomenon In fact, it's not even clear what a "non-physical" phenomenon is if you drill deep enough. The existance of abstractions doesn't change granular reality. For example, a neural network implemented on a computer is highly abstracted, but still implemented on physical silicon. I suggest you look up the philisophical history of dualism - you're a bit behind.
    - yters 7y ago
      If I turn off your computer you cannot respond to me. Does that mean you are your computer?
      - gbrown 7y ago
        If I smash my computer to atoms, I've destroyed it entirely - not severed a mysterious connection to its incorporeal self. Your assertion is essentially: "I am conscious, therefore consciousness is non-physical". The conclusion does not follow from the observation.
        yters 7y ago
        Returning to your counter argument, do you see the connection with my computer analogy?
        gbrown 7y ago
        Yes - your computer analogy conflated me (a human person, existing in the physical world) with a nonphysical intelligence, of which we have no evidence and which isn't even characterized in a meaningful way - it's just a placeholder for "mystical stuff I feel but don't understand". If you want to say you believe what you do on faith, or that it's your own spiritual belief and therefore none of my business, I won't begrudge you that and I won't bother you about it. You seem to be asserting, however, that there exists empirical evidence of non-corporeal souls (though you didn't use this word). I disagree on that point, vigorously.
        yters 7y ago
        Not quite. Your counter argument is "doing things to the brain affects our mind, which shows our mind is physical." The analogy I offer shows that the fact doing something to X affects Y does not mean that X is Y. So, the evidence you offer that the mind is physical does not actually show the mind is physical.
        gbrown 7y ago
        You've either failed to understand, or you're being intentionally obtuse. > Not quite Yes quite. > The analogy I offer shows It does not, for reasons I explained. You're observing physical phenomena, and concluding there must be magic hiding behind them.

That's precisely the point, right?

gbrown 7y ago

The above poster was making magical assertions as if they were well established without presenting evidence.

yters 7y ago
The evidence is literally the very things by which we perceive all other scientific evidence: consciousness, abstract thought, mathematics. All three are clearly non physical. People have to make up elaborate, incoherent explanations to try and explain how they are physical. The fact it is so hard, even impossible, to do shows the items are not physical.
- gbrown 7y ago
  Consciousness is clearly nonphysical? No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Why is consciousness modified by drugs? Why can consciousness be damaged by physical trauma? When you can interact with something in the physical world, that is a pretty strong indication that you're dealing with a physical phenomenon In fact, it's not even clear what a "non-physical" phenomenon is if you drill deep enough. The existance of abstractions doesn't change granular reality. For example, a neural network implemented on a computer is highly abstracted, but still implemented on physical silicon. I suggest you look up the philisophical history of dualism - you're a bit behind.
  - yters 7y ago
    If I turn off your computer you cannot respond to me. Does that mean you are your computer?
    - gbrown 7y ago
      If I smash my computer to atoms, I've destroyed it entirely - not severed a mysterious connection to its incorporeal self. Your assertion is essentially: "I am conscious, therefore consciousness is non-physical". The conclusion does not follow from the observation.
      - yters 7y ago
        Returning to your counter argument, do you see the connection with my computer analogy?
        gbrown 7y ago
        Yes - your computer analogy conflated me (a human person, existing in the physical world) with a nonphysical intelligence, of which we have no evidence and which isn't even characterized in a meaningful way - it's just a placeholder for "mystical stuff I feel but don't understand". If you want to say you believe what you do on faith, or that it's your own spiritual belief and therefore none of my business, I won't begrudge you that and I won't bother you about it. You seem to be asserting, however, that there exists empirical evidence of non-corporeal souls (though you didn't use this word). I disagree on that point, vigorously.
        yters 7y ago
        Not quite. Your counter argument is "doing things to the brain affects our mind, which shows our mind is physical." The analogy I offer shows that the fact doing something to X affects Y does not mean that X is Y. So, the evidence you offer that the mind is physical does not actually show the mind is physical.
        gbrown 7y ago
        You've either failed to understand, or you're being intentionally obtuse. > Not quite Yes quite. > The analogy I offer shows It does not, for reasons I explained. You're observing physical phenomena, and concluding there must be magic hiding behind them.