Sign in to follow this  
BaalChatzaf

A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I don't have a mind.  I have a brain which works quite well.  

You see, Bob, I don't believe you. I know you have a consciousness, and this chose a philosophy I abhor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anthony said:

You see, Bob, I don't believe you. I know you have a consciousness, and this chose a philosophy I abhor.

My consciousness is organized electrochemical activity in my brain and nervous system.  Your consciousness is more miraculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2017 at 8:07 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

My consciousness is organized electrochemical activity in my brain and nervous system.   

The "philosophy" I was talking about, has roots in exactly that. For one, negating the reasoning, conceptual mind for this 'reductive- materialism' empties it of the individual self, so inviting any authority to take over the vacant space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

The "philosophy" I was talking about, has roots in exactly that. For one, negating the reasoning, conceptual mind for this 'reductive- materialism' empties it of the individual self, so inviting any authority to take over the vacant space. 

My consciousness is an epiphenomena (a side effect) of electrical and chemical process taking place in my brain and nervous system.  I have been scanned by some of the most sensitive technology available and there is a perfect correlation between the electro-chemical activity in my brain and the subjective experience of thinking and remembering.  In short my perceived "mental" activity correlates perfectly  with the measured and observed physical activity measured.  

Perhaps your consciousness is the result of a non-physical  process taking place in your non-physical  non-material Mind.   But that is you.  I know how I operated because I have checked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

My consciousness is an epiphenomena (a side effect) of electrical and chemical process taking place in my brain and nervous system.  I have been scanned by some of the most sensitive technology available and there is a perfect correlation between the electro-chemical activity in my brain and the subjective experience of thinking and remembering.  In short my perceived "mental" activity correlates perfectly  with the measured and observed physical activity measured.  

Perhaps your consciousness is the result of a non-physical  process taking place in your non-physical  non-material Mind.   But that is you.  I know how I operated because I have checked

When there is a correlation between A and B and we reject coincidence, we have multiple possibilities.

Maybe A causes B.

Maybe B causes A.

Maybe C causes both A and B.

Maybe C causes A, and D causes B, and E causes both C and D.

Maybe more than 1 of the above is true.

Maybe your mind causes what is happening in your brain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jts said:

When there is a correlation between A and B and we reject coincidence, we have multiple possibilities.

Maybe A causes B.

Maybe B causes A.

Maybe C causes both A and B.

Maybe C causes A, and D causes B, and E causes both C and D.

Maybe more than 1 of the above is true.

Maybe your mind causes what is happening in your brain.

 

The best scanners on the planet have not revealed the presence of a mind.  Until they do, I will assume that it does not exist in my body.  I am totally physical.  Perhaps your are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The best scanners on the planet have not revealed the presence of a mind.  Until they do, I will assume that it does not exist in my body.  I am totally physical.  Perhaps your are not.

As you always say. You go one up (down) on Descartes: "I have seen my scan, therefore I am".
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, anthony said:

As you always say. You go one up (down) on Descartes: "I have seen my scan, therefore I am".
 

I would be even if I were not scanned.  As would you.  

However, I am totally physical.  Perhaps you are in part  Soul Stuff and Fairy Dust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: However, I am totally physical. end quote

Past sight and sound, past reflexive behavior, past instinctual behavior, and past causation, there are minds that exist in a place Bob calls the Twilight Zone.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: However, I am totally physical. end quote

Past sight and sound, past reflexive behavior, past instinctual behavior, and past causation, there are minds that exist in a place Bob calls the Twilight Zone.   

when and where did I ever call anything "the Twilight Zone"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

when and where did I ever call anything "the Twilight Zone"

You call electro chemical brain activity completely physical as your personal SELF chuckles and writes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I would be even if I were not scanned.  As would you.  

However, I am totally physical.  Perhaps you are in part  Soul Stuff and Fairy Dust. 

That's total reductionism, trite and uninformative.

You are actually a physicalist, as you admit, but someone who truly knows he is one doesn't go on about how he has no "mind" or consciousness. (These are the same things in this context.) He would merely say he is conscious as a result of the physical properties that made him a viable organism.

To some extent even plants have consciousness. Apparently without the need for a brain.

--Brant

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

You call electro chemical brain activity completely physical as your personal SELF chuckles and writes.

My personal self does not chuckle.  It laughs out loud as Normals  extrapolate on what other people don't say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's total reductionism, trite and uninformative.

You are actually a physicalist.

--Brant

 

I am a physicalist (and physical) down to the subatomic level.  And I am a reductionist too,  while you are at it.  

Two cheers for reductionism.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 10:21 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

My consciousness is an epiphenomena (a side effect) of electrical and chemical process taking place in my brain and nervous system.  I have been scanned by some of the most sensitive technology available and there is a perfect correlation between the electro-chemical activity in my brain and the subjective experience of thinking and remembering.  In short my perceived "mental" activity correlates perfectly  with the measured and observed physical activity measured.  

Perhaps your consciousness is the result of a non-physical  process taking place in your non-physical  non-material Mind.   But that is you.  I know how I operated because I have checked

There isn't a better response to these repetitive arguments, than here:

"Epistemology, the theory of knowledge,  the science that defines the rules by which man is to acquire knowledge of facts, has been disintegrated by the notion that facts are the subject matter of "synthetic", "empirical" propositions and, therefore, are outside the province of philosophy--with the result that the special sciences are now left adrift in a rising tide of irrationalism". [The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, L. Peikoff]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

There isn't a better response to these repetitive arguments, than here:

"Epistemology, the theory of knowledge,  the science that defines the rules by which man is to acquire knowledge of facts, has been disintegrated by the notion that facts are the subject matter of "synthetic", "empirical" propositions and, therefore, are outside the province of philosophy--with the result that the special sciences are now left adrift in a rising tide of irrationalism". [The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, L. Peikoff]

The physical sciences are doing quite well, thank you.  And the technology that they generate is first rate.   Physical science is kept honest by empirical  verification.  In short, the results are checked in the laboratory, the field and the observatory.  Which is why we have computers and GPS.   What has philosophy ever delivered? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

  What has philosophy ever delivered?

1

Uh, not sure, the small matter of knowing how to think for oneself? Not much, I know.

Your game is to keep the (false) dichotomy going I've seen. Philosophy-science, analytic-synthetic, apriori- a posteriori, logic-experience ...etc.

If you knew it, this is a disservice to science, which deserves a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

Uh, not sure, the small matter of knowing how to think for oneself? Not much, I know.

Your game is to keep the (false) dichotomy going I've seen. Philosophy-science, analytic-synthetic, apriori- a posteriori, logic-experience ...etc.

If you knew it, this is a disservice to science, which deserves a lot better.

Keep in mind.  Physical science works.  The world is currently like it is precisely because physical science works.  What has philosophy delivered to the world?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Keep in mind.  Physical science works.  The world is currently like it is precisely because physical science works.  What has philosophy delivered to the world?  

Science.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Science.

--Brant

Wrong.  Philosophy (particularly  Aristotle's and Plato's) delayed the development of physical science using the hypothetico-deductive method   by over 1000 years.  Science finally broke free of the clutches of Aristotelian based  metaphysics and physics  in the 17 th century of the common era.  Copernicus  enabled Galileo and Kepler to dom some of the preparatory work  and Newton completed the liberation. 

One of the most important works of the modern era is Sadi Carnot's paper on how heat engines operate.  Not one word of metaphysics,  not a syllable.  But Carnot invented thermodynamics and grasped the concept of entropy (Clausius provided the name "entropy").   Sadi Carnot   joined up the efforts of industrial  inventors such as James Watt  to the principles of physical science.  The single most important physical science is thermodynamics  and that was created by Carnot, Clausius, Kelvin, Maxwell and Boltzmann  completely free of the clutches of Aristotelian metaphysics.  Boltzmann's statistical approach provided the means  by which Planck and Einstein invented quantum theory.

Nothing Aristotle or Plato  wrote provided any material for the development  of the kind of mathematics that describes  change and motion,  such mathematics  being indispensable to the development of physical science.  Both Aristotle and Plato objected to the concept of the infinite.  And Aristotle opposed the notion of atoms  (the ultimate elements or building blocks of matter). Aristotle's thinking was so influential that it wasn't until the 16 th century  people would even entertain the idea of Earth's motion through space.  Ptolemy's system of cosmology is predicated on the proposition that Earth does not move in space. Ptolemy derived this  from Aristotle and his followers. 

All of the beginning good ideas of the Ionian pre-Socratics  were  discredited by Aristotle and Plato.  Aristotle was more of an empiricist than was Plato,  but even so  Aristotle did not check out most of his conclusions  empirically.  What is worse,  he did not think he had to.  A critical, skeptical approach to physical science did not emerge until the 16 th century in Europe and did not become fully established until the 19 th century. 

Aristotle believed that using philosophical thought and the observation of the senses (unaided)  would eventually lead us  to discover the axioms  (a priori) principle of reality.  As Aristotle put it we must progress from what is best known by man  to what is best known by Nature.  Because Aristotle believed in the unlimited divisibility of matter he did not think it important to study the Little Things to much as they would not tell us anything new.  Plato was even more of an a priorist than was Aristotle.  Plato believed that our senses  deceive us and only the Forms   are real.  Aristotle disagree to the extent that we must pay attention to Matter to understand the Forms.  That was only part of the way to proper fact based physical science.  

Aristotle was very intelligent, it I can imagine that if Aristotle had telescopes and microscopes (which he did not)  he would not have made so many of the errors that he made. Unfortunately for the world Aristotle's followers began to believe that Aristotle  had gotten us to The Truth.  This misfortune  held  up proper physical  science for over a thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Keep in mind.  Physical science works.  The world is currently like it is precisely because physical science works.  What has philosophy delivered to the world?  

I suggest you look closer. You will see not only "physical science" and technology, but ~people ~ using and sometimes abusing technology. Or scientists themselves acting dishonestly for fame and money.

You understand the fallacy of intrinsic value, but constantly contradictorily place an intrinsic value upon science! That is, of unmistakeable, intrinsic "value" to any and all regardless of a valuer. As for science, all of its theories should therefore merely be accepted gratefully by we non-scientists without question...

"The concept "value" is not a primary, it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" [AR]

The first - "to whom?"- neatly does away with the idea, intrinsic value; a value has to have a valuer, one who has a specific nature.

Then, "for what?" questions his *purpose*. Has he identified it? What is he wanting to attain with this 'value'? Is he subjective ... or objective and rational? Something objectively "good" in one person's hands, could easily be manipulated into "bad" by an irrational subjectivist.

(With a North Korea, their missile technology is a pronounced objective dis-value, while the same technology possessed by America is of objective value).

See? You always distance the sciences from people, people's reality and therefore individual values and an individual's mind.

To the extent one is rational, science and technology is generally a boon. If one is not - and with the identical technology - one is a liability or danger to oneself and to others. Technology magnifies good or bad. You can see this simply by the reported deluge of 'predators and prey' amongst online users. Same, for a bright future of robotics etc.. Robots can equally be used by subjectivists for harm.

Science will not ~ magically~ somehow turn those irrational to rational beings. That's not even its purpose. You have to start off rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Wrong.  Philosophy (particularly  Aristotle's and Plato's) delayed the development of physical science using the hypothetico-deductive method   by over 1000 years.  Science finally broke free of the clutches of Aristotelian based  metaphysics and physics  in the 17 th century of the common era.  Copernicus  enabled Galileo and Kepler to dom some of the preparatory work  and Newton completed the liberation. 

One of the most important works of the modern era is Sadi Carnot's paper on how heat engines operate.  Not one word of metaphysics,  not a syllable.  But Carnot invented thermodynamics and grasped the concept of entropy (Clausius provided the name "entropy").   Sadi Carnot   joined up the efforts of industrial  inventors such as James Watt  to the principles of physical science.  The single most important physical science is thermodynamics  and that was created by Carnot, Clausius, Kelvin, Maxwell and Boltzmann  completely free of the clutches of Aristotelian metaphysics.  Boltzmann's statistical approach provided the means  by which Planck and Einstein invented quantum theory.

Nothing Aristotle or Plato  wrote provided any material for the development  of the kind of mathematics that describes  change and motion,  such mathematics  being indispensable to the development of physical science.  Both Aristotle and Plato objected to the concept of the infinite.  And Aristotle opposed the notion of atoms  (the ultimate elements or building blocks of matter). Aristotle's thinking was so influential that it wasn't until the 16 th century  people would even entertain the idea of Earth's motion through space.  Ptolemy's system of cosmology is predicated on the proposition that Earth does not move in space. Ptolemy derived this  from Aristotle and his followers. 

All of the beginning good ideas of the Ionian pre-Socratics  were  discredited by Aristotle and Plato.  Aristotle was more of an empiricist than was Plato,  but even so  Aristotle did not check out most of his conclusions  empirically.  What is worse,  he did not think he had to.  A critical, skeptical approach to physical science did not emerge until the 16 th century in Europe and did not become fully established until the 19 th century. 

Aristotle believed that using philosophical thought and the observation of the senses (unaided)  would eventually lead us  to discover the axioms  (a priori) principle of reality.  As Aristotle put it we must progress from what is best known by man  to what is best known by Nature.  Because Aristotle believed in the unlimited divisibility of matter he did not think it important to study the Little Things to much as they would not tell us anything new.  Plato was even more of an a priorist than was Aristotle.  Plato believed that our senses  deceive us and only the Forms   are real.  Aristotle disagree to the extent that we must pay attention to Matter to understand the Forms.  That was only part of the way to proper fact based physical science.  

Aristotle was very intelligent, it I can imagine that if Aristotle had telescopes and microscopes (which he did not)  he would not have made so many of the errors that he made. Unfortunately for the world Aristotle's followers began to believe that Aristotle  had gotten us to The Truth.  This misfortune  held  up proper physical  science for over a thousand years.

Wrong. You ignore the philosophy of science. Are you telling us science has no philosophy?

Reality and reason--with explication--are the basis of both Objectivism and science qua science.

The only divergence is when Objectivism goes into ethics and politics. Science and scientists need not follow, although perhaps a scientist should. But that's personal.

Objectivism, properly rendered, has no conflict with science. I can't say the same about many Objectivsts.

Please note you keep declaiming about how Aristotle screwed up science--with philosophy. The implication is he wouldn't have if he had had the right philosophy.

You keep trying to eat philosophy and have it too.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, anthony said:

I suggest you look closer. You will see not only "physical science" and technology, but ~people ~ using and sometimes abusing technology. Or scientists themselves acting dishonestly for fame and money.

You understand the fallacy of intrinsic value, but constantly contradictorily place an intrinsic value upon science! That is, of unmistakeable, intrinsic "value" to any and all regardless of a valuer. As for science, all of its theories should therefore merely be accepted gratefully by we non-scientists without question...

"The concept "value" is not a primary, it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" [AR]

The first - "to whom?"- neatly does away with the idea, intrinsic value; a value has to have a valuer who has a specific nature. Then, "for what?" questions his *purpose*. Has he identified it? What is an individual wanting to attain with a 'value'? Is he subjective ... or objective and rational? Something objectively "good" in one person's hands could easily be manipulated into "bad" by an irrational subjectivist.

(With a North Korea, their missile technology is a pronounced objective dis-value, while the same technology possessed by America is of objective value).

See? You always distance the sciences from people, people's reality and therefore their values and their minds.

To the extent one is rational, science and technology is only a boon. If one is not - and with the identical technology - one is a liability or danger to oneself and to others. You can see this simply by the deluge of 'predators and prey' reported amongst online users. Same for a bright future of robotics etc.. Robots can equally be used by subjectivists for harm.

Science will not ~ magically~ somehow turn those irrational to rational beings. That's not even its purpose. You have to start off rational.

Physics is an intellectual tool.  It can be used or misused.  But properly used it has made our modern world a much better place to live in than the world was 200 years ago and before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Wrong. You ignore the philosophy of science. Are you telling us science has no philosophy?

Reality and reason--with explication--are the basis of both Objectivism and science qua science.

The only divergence is when Objectivism goes into ethics and politics. Science and scientists need not follow, although perhaps a scientist should. But that's personal.

Objectivism, properly rendered, has no conflict with science. I can't say the same about many Objectivsts.

Please note you keep declaiming about how Aristotle screwed up science--with philosophy. The implication is he wouldn't have if he had had the right philosophy.

You keep trying to eat philosophy and have it too.

--Brant

The epistemology of modern physics  is nothing like the basis that Aristotle laid.   Modern science had to purge itself of Aristotelian metaphysics  and Aristotelian notions  of matter and motion. 

Aristotle's metaphysics  lead to the Ptolemaic cosmology.  Plato's theory of Forms  had a negative impact on the development of biology and the modern theory of evolution.

Of course sciences has epistemological  and logical metaprinciples   But they are nothing like what Aristotle and Plato produced. 

If you want to see in what philosophical  directions modern physical science has led,  read   Karl Popper and Mario Bunge.  And not it is the science that has done the leading not the philosophy.

Aristotle denied atoms  for -philosophical- reasons.  He denied the existence of a vacuum for philosophical reasons.   His philosophy prevented him from discovering inertia and momentum.  In every instance the errors occurred because philosophy was put first. 

Facts Rule.  Theories sometimes serve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this