geye1234

8 ms·

61.
by geye1234 1y ago
Where am I going wrong? If the answer is "everywhere", what's the single worst part? You must at least agree with points 1, 2 and 3, and probably point 4?
62.
by geye1234 1y ago
Point 5 is sound, and it's actually impossible for a configuration of neural fibers to refer to something outside itself (and therefore, if physicalism is true and thought = neural fibers, it's impossible for a thought to refer to
63.
by geye1234 1y ago
> (I cannot edit my other comment any longer, but I want to add that it's far from my intention to sound as if I'm lecturing anyone, I'm well aware a lot of these are open questions -- possibly unresolvable -- and I don&#x
64.
by geye1234 1y ago
Here's what I just posted to the other person. Perhaps you can tell me where I'm going wrong, because it seems to me that physicalism is impossible. The UMD paper you link to elsewhere describes the central proposition of mind-bra
65.
by geye1234 1y ago
The UMD paper you link to elsewhere describes the central proposition of mind-brain identity physicalism as follows: > a pain or a thought is (is identical with) some state of the brain or central nervous system or > ‘pain’ doesn’t
66.
by geye1234 1y ago
I will try to respond later, but briefly: > "right" or "wrong" are human values Would 2+2=4 be correct, and 2+2=5 be incorrect, only if there were a human being to say so?
67.
by geye1234 1y ago
I'm afraid the physicalist position is absolutely impossible. When I think about something, I'm thinking about something different from the brain state that represents it. There is nothing difficult or subtle about this: if I thin
68.
by geye1234 1y ago
Here's something I posted a while ago, I'm copying and pasting with a few slight edits: It is wrong to claim that brain states (neurons firing) are the same as mental states (thoughts). There are several reasons for this. One is t
69.
by geye1234 1y ago
> And it's a far cry from "there's no proof of x" to "x is invalid". Oh this is undoubtedly true, and my argument was limited to the statement that the most common argument for physicalism is invalid. I was
70.
by geye1234 1y ago
Several reasons. One is that my experience of looking at a tree is one thing, but the neurological firing that takes place in my brain when I look at a tree is another. They are not the same. If you can reduce your experience of looking at
71.
by geye1234 1y ago
Much of the mind-body problem comes from Descartes, who assumed that physical reality was nothing more than a bunch of particles bouncing around. Given that the mind cannot be reduced to this (whatever my experiences are, they are different
72.
by geye1234 1y ago
One big problem with physicalism is that many alleged arguments in its favor are nothing of the sort. Any argument for physicalism that refers to neurological observation is invalid. Physicalism claims that all mental events can be reduced
73.
by geye1234 1y ago
Interesting, thanks. Do you mean he would write the code out by hand on pen and paper? That has often struck me as a very good way of understanding things (granted, I don't code for my job). Similar thing in the historian's profes
74.
by geye1234 1y ago
Please, everybody, preserve your records. Preserve your books, preserve your downloaded files (that can't be tampered with), keep everything. AI is going to make it harder and harder to find out the truth about anything over the next f
75.
by geye1234 1y ago
I have also concluded that it is more likely a bubble than not. Anyone looked at buying S&P sector-specific ETFs? For people who want to keep their portfolio spread as widely as possible, but are frightened by how tech-heavy the S&P
76.
by geye1234 1y ago
Do you have any thoughts on GLP-1s for ADHD? I have tried the stimulants (legally) without success, and am reluctant to try the non-stimulants since their success rate seems pretty poor and side effects seem worse.
77.
by geye1234 1y ago
Thanks. Sanest comment on this thread. The fact that something "feels" very real and insightful doesn't make it so.
78.
by geye1234 1y ago
> there are two methods of implementation: either it's done in a supernatural way that defies physics and logic; or it's done in a way that accords with the structure of reality (as in, chemically.) Why not both? Everyone agree
79.
by geye1234 1y ago
If you wanted to explain to someone what the 00s-blogging phenomenon was all about, and to given them an example of the best of it, you may well point to this. Photos of NK like these are incredibly difficult to come by. What a beautiful co
80.
by geye1234 1y ago
As St. John Henry Newman put it: "Contemplate the objects of this people's praise, survey their standards, ponder their ideas and judgments, and then tell me whether it is not most evident, from their very notion of the desirable
81.
by geye1234 1y ago
Did you see the magisterial quotes I linked to? Do you think they're wrong? Examples of the importance of metaphysics to theology are innumerable. To take a few off the top of my head: If you don't hold to a classical metaphysics,
82.
by geye1234 1y ago
Please see my reply to your other post. He does explicitly assert metaphysical* differences, but this no no way implies what you think it implies. *Assuming by metaphysical you mean formal.
83.
by geye1234 1y ago
https://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/our-patron/popes-st-thom... Metaphysics is not some interchangeable bolt-on to theology, like the parts of a vacuum cleaner. If you change metaphysics, you change theology. Nomi
84.
by geye1234 1y ago
You may be familiar with it, but you haven't understood it. 'Soul', for Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy, simply means the form of a living thing. A form of anything is what makes it what it is. The form of quartz is what ma
85.
by geye1234 1y ago
The word 'soul' is used by Aquinas and Aristotle in a very different way from how modern people (from Descartes onward) use it, and this is the cause of an enormous amount of confusion. Edward Feser's book Aquinas is a good
86.
by geye1234 1y ago
Vitalism is utterly foreign to anything found in Aquinas or Aristotle. Check out Edward Feser's Aquinas for a beginner-friendly discussion of what they say.
87.
by geye1234 1y ago
You are correct, I should have added that.
88.
by geye1234 1y ago
In Britain, I believe only four documents were written in the 200 years following the departure of the legions in 410. (Two were by St. Patrick, and the other two elude me.)
89.
by geye1234 1y ago
Mathematical ignoramus writing here, but I have a long-term project to correct my ignorance of statistics so this seems a good place to start. He isn't talking about how to calculate the linear regression, correct? He's talking
90.
by geye1234 1y ago
Relevant: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/04/22/spain-hits-first-week...

More ›