"Her"

Discussion in 'SciFi & Fantasy' started by Magical Realist, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Personally I think its consciousness (or life) itself - IOW its not something that can be broken down into any smaller subset of matter.
    IOW life arises from life .... which of course is a plain fact that has never been observed to the contrary.


    No doubt you disagree and think that consciousness is dependent on some material arrangement (physicalism) or alternatively , the manner we commonly acknowledge consciousness is false (eliminativism)... however if life itself possesses irrevocable qualities that perpetually distinguish it from matter (at least until it is "dead") then these ideas will always be relegated to the field of science fiction.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    A couple of problems with dualism - the idea that mind is separate from matter:

    1. Why does consciousness end when the brain ceases to function?
    2. If consciousness is separate from the brain, how can it interact with it? That is, what forces or physical principles form the interface between the disembodied "mind" or free-floating consciousness and the physical body?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,930
    Or better yet (since some will claim that the consciousness does survive after death), why would injuries or other external effects on the brain alter consciousness? Why would we lose consciousness when hit on the head hard enough? Why can our very thought processes be altered by altering brain chemistry? (either by ingesting alcohol or other intoxicants, or going the other way, treating mental illness with drugs that restore normal brain chemistry.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,889
    Qualiaphobes scoff at the supposed realism of qualiaphiles, considering qualia to be illusions. But both stances can be confusing.

    To declare something "subjective" or private [as a quale is often defined] should mean that it is not "real" to begin with, if the latter is normally attributed to items available in outer perception or the public / interpersonal world.

    But on the other side, how do subjective properties classified as "deception" escape the need to explained? Even if the qualitative character of colors and feelings was unreal, how do the "showings" of those properties in the experience of the applicable person become satisfactorily accounted for by simply declaring that they are actually something else? That is, when the "something else" does not remotely resemble the "illusion", then how does the illusion get a free pass for not having to be explained any further?

    As an analogy: Yes, we know that Zandar the Magician is tricking his audience, but could we have arrived at that conclusion properly if we refused to expose in detail, and in terms of known and accepted concrete things and perceivable actions, how he does it? Photos taken of Zandar's hidden legerdemain or clear descriptions of the content of those photos would be self-evident. But what if that empirical peeling away of his illusions was instead replaced by abstract constructs which themselves [though claimed to be useful] were questionable or short on solid evidence in corresponding to "real" objects, as well as deficient in fully accounting for Zandar's feats (leaving dangling loose ends or generating yet more questions after some of the initial ones are answered).

    The mess that qualiaphiles and qualiaphobes wallow in seems to stem from a blurring of scientifc realism's version of an "external world" with the perceived or everyday external world -- of making little or no distinction when passing back and forth from one to the other in discourse.

    With regard to scientific realism, the so-called subjective properties of outer entities/events have been stripped away and substituted with measurements, quantitative relations, and observationally neutral descriptions. Phenomenal affairs are not real in its context.

    But with regard to everyday realism, the so-called private properties -- qualia -- do become public or intersubjective [real]. Ralph sees the "green" of leaves and so does Helen and Drew. It's not a "paintbrush" exclusively owned by a single individual, applied to certain outer objects.

    Granted, Alonzo is a member of a colorblind minority and may not perceive the green or the same quale as others; and this is part of how scientific realism acquires its validity, and how the qualitative character of color [etc] becomes classed as private property. (And from there the qualiaphobe's declaration of it being illusion, etc, begins.)

    Older philosophers recognized that both the outer appearance of a mind (as brain tissue, neurons, etc) and the inner appearance of a mind (as intellections, feelings, etc) were produced by either a cause normally devoid of either such "showing" or a source that was neither of those rival representations (material appearance versus mental appearance). Or that both appearances combined could even constitute the nature of how it existed, like two sides of a coin avoiding contradiction by their parallel interdependence, neither more or less real than the other.

    Perhaps the only vestige of that transcendental solution surviving actively in Anglophone philosophy today are generic neutral monism and double aspectism; arguably only resembling it in some respects rather than having direct ancestry.

    The quantitative and microphysical / cosmophysical world of scientific realism is superimposed on or interweaved into that material appearance half of the dichotomy -- is an intellectual augmentation to that outer half of human experience that features corporeal phenomena which behave independently of personal will and desires. That is, it would be yet another manner of representation (derived from a history of social interactions [experiment / ideas]) and still mutably evolving / being editable, rather than literally being a realm or territory that was completely free of psychological affairs, interpretations, or contaminations of perception and reflective thought.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    You've brought these issues up before, but again, just in brief ...
    Kind of like saying why does electricity end when the lightbulb ceases to function. Of course it doesn't end because the lightbulb is merely an aparatus that provides a certain threshold for channeling electricity as opposed to being the source of it.

    Through the agency of a third power which is actually the source of both matter and consciousness (ie god). Iow both energies are not dualistic, but sister energies of a superior third agency. Just like the independently distinct qualities of heat and light find cause for simultaneous expression through the existence of a seperate superior third agency ( such as the sun) as opposed to being classified to some sort of dualistic approach.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You do realize that you now have to provide evidence of this etc. etc.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Kind of like saying that using different sized or shades of light bulbs suggests the voltage of the circuit is being tampered with. Iow in all cases the light bulb is either connected to a power source or isn't regardless of what ever arrangement is made for the exceptional, mediocre, or barely adequate display of light.

    Iow manipulating the expression of consciousness through a particular apparatus doesn't make it non consciousness ... merely greater or lesser. For instance you may have exceptional thought processes compared to when you were six months or when you are ninety years old .... However through out all these states, the act of possessing consciousness (ie being alive) is a constant.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Well life is commonly observed to arise from life. If one wants to talk otherwise through the agency of eliminativism or physicalism, its those people who have a more immediate problem of evidence
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Well, it is commonly observed that those people do not see themselves as having that kind of problem to begin with.
    Occham's Razor cuts both ways ...
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Or alternatively, at least on a certain level of discussion, solutions to this problem are not solved via the tool of evidence.
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So how do you propose to proceed communication with someone who insists on evidence?
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    By pointing out how they themselves don't meet this criteria when discussing this subject.
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    But they utterly resent being reminded of that.
    What do you propose to do about that resentment?
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I dunno.
    Maybe write a poem about it.
    :shrug:
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I mean, the same scenario repeats over and over again:

    Theist: There is God.
    Atheist: Provide evidence.
    Theist: You first need to understand what evidence is and how to qualify to know evidence.
    Atheist: You're just evading! Provide evidence of God, or else!
    Theist: You first need to understand what evidence is and how to qualify to know evidence.
    (follow a loop of the last two lines sometimes ad nauseaum)
    Atheist: *resentment*
    Theist: *shrugs* or *resentment*

    The regularity and predictability of this scenario is baffling. Like the whole thing is staged or something, like we're in a matrix.
     

Share This Page