Materialism and Mechanisms

I read all the replies. Could you quote the ones that deal with my post #151? Bernardo and I have had this very conversation in another thread and I don't think he deals with the issue. Note that he says "it's very reasonable to expect that reality itself could be generated by a part of consciousness ..." He is not so self-assured as to insist that it is.

~~ Paul

Why do you have to turn every comment I make into a homework assignment for me? You're so nitpicky.

Fine. Hold on a sec. I'll be back, Mr. A.

Oh, the second part of your comment. So what? So his philosophy isn't valid unless he himself expresses absolute certainty in every statement within every argument he makes regarding the philosophy? "Hi. My name is Paul. I am a professional hair splitter."
 
Why do you have to turn every comment I make into a homework assignment for me? You're so nitpicky.
I did my homework and couldn't find it. So of course I asked you to tell me.

Oh, the second part of your comment. So what? So his philosophy isn't valid unless he himself expresses absolute certainty in every statement within every argument he makes regarding the philosophy? "Hi. My name is Paul. I am a professional hair splitter."
Wow. His entire argument against the statement disappears if he cannot show it is incorrect. Yet all he does is show that the external world might be some sort of consciousness or might be physical.

~~ Paul
 
Then you'll be able to quote me where I said something like "Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it is clear that reality is outside consciousness."

I was just joking anyway, Paul. Despite the fact I think Bernardo is right, or more right perhaps, I've very much appreciated and enjoyed yous guys' back and forths. You're a lot smarter than me... but you lack common sense.

Okay, how is everyone today? So when is Linda due back? hehe
 
I was just joking anyway, Paul. Despite the fact I think Bernardo is right, or more right perhaps, I've very much appreciated and enjoyed yous guys' back and forths. You're a lot smarter than me... but you lack common sense.
What does any of this have to do with common sense? ;)

Okay, how is everyone today? So when is Linda due back? hehe
I think she can come back on June 2.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
The video. Watched it twice. I know, I know... thank you. Most of it is laughable. He promotes his usual argument from incredulity by being less inventive and imaginative over physical explanations than the explanations that he is invested in. The verbal acrobatics and misrepresentations employed throughout the video leave even Bernardo looking unconvinced by the end if it.

So the whole of reality is created by a "segment" of consciousness outside of "egoic volition"... you know, like the part of consciousness that gives us nightmares. {snicker} He is making this up out of whole cloth, of course. Or let's be generous and call it a "thought experiment".

Given that "egoic volition" is the part of consciousness that most on here are interested in (and appears to be the most mysterious) I'm not sure where that leaves us. In the extremely unlikely event that, without any supporting evidence, Bernardo has and a lucky guess and there something to his model, where does that leave us? We still have to approach the world as if it is physical, and have no "meaning" or "morality" to bother with.

The video is almost worth its own thread to explore "fallacious" arguments.
 
The video is almost worth its own thread to explore "fallacious" arguments.

I haven't watched the video yet, but I'd be curious about supposed fallacies in another thread.
 
I haven't watched the video yet, but I'd be curious about supposed fallacies in another thread.

Oops, I accidentally posted it in the wrong section. I wonder if I can relocate it. It's no good in 'consciousness and science' or wherever. Btw, does this site run slower than the rest of the internets? Seems that way to me.

Okay, I'm sorry for being off topic.

Let's get back on it people!
 
I dunno what Bernardo's problems are with this simple statement, but I think I would have problems with it too.

"Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it is clear that reality is outside consciousness."

It is clear that reality is outside personal consciousness. Whether that external world is physical or some other form of consciousness is certainly debatable, but it is not personal consciousness.

~~ Paul
 
Problem is, they are only looking for that and nothing else.

But there are also people who are pushing just as hard against immaterialism. Should we also doubt academics who've identified themselves with New Atheism? Consider Searle's & Chalmers' commentary on physicalist/materialist theories of consciousness:

"I believe one of the unstated assumptions behind the current batch of views is that they represent the only scientifically acceptable alternatives to the antiscientism that went with traditional dualism, the belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritualism, and so on. Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives."
-John Searle, "What's wrong with the philosophy of mind?"

"A motivation to avoid dualism, for many, has arisen from various spiritualistic, religious, supernatural and other antiscientific overtones of the view. But those are quite inessential. A naturalistic dualism expands our view of the world, but it does not invoke the forces of darkness."
-David Chalmers, "The Conscious Mind"
 
Back
Top