Jump to content

OT-Savants and Geniuses


AztecPadre

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, noonereal said:

Cut away your attitude, this has merit.

The last line is simply not true however. 

------------------------------------------

Where is this mind? Is it a gas, mineral, yet to be discovered anomaly?  

Try to get into this a little bit. I'm not saying you have to buy it. But at least try to get a sense of what the problem is supposed to be.

The movie botches the point, but I think you can get the main idea. 

The argument goes like this.

1. If the mind is the brain, then Mary knows everything about color prior to looking at the sky.

2. It's not the case that Mary knows everything about color prior to looking at the sky.

3. Therefore, the mind is not the brain.

More generally:

1. If the mind is the brain, then it's impossible to know every fact about the brain without knowing every fact about the mind.

2. It's possible to know every fact about the brain without knowing every fact about the mind.

3. Therefore, the mind isn't the brain. 

These arguments are valid. That means that if the premises are true, the 1s and 2s, then the conclusions are true, the 3s. 

The physicalist has to reject either the 1s or the 2s (or both). But that's not easy to do, since it's pretty clear that she learns a new fact when she looks at the sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leibniz gave a related argument. If you study the brain, you'll find physical bits and chemical reactions and electrical activity etc. But you won't find any thoughts. So

1. If the mind is the brain, then you'd find thoughts in the brain.

2. But you won't find thoughts in the brain.

3. Therefore, the mind isn't the brain.

Now, I take it that you'd reject (2). You'd say, "That electrical activity you see are thoughts."

But Leibniz anticipated that response. And he appealed to the logical principle that now bears his name, Leibniz's Law, or the Non-Identity of Discernables.

He says that if some state or event in the brain were identical to some thought, then, by the Non-Identity of Discernibles, the state or event would have all and only the properties of the thought. But when you compare a brain state or event to what it's like to see blue, for example, the two things do not share all the same properties. So they're not the same thing. 

So there is a problem here. Leibniz wasn't stupid or uninformed. And neither is Chalmers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, noonereal said:

If you want to talk so much, answer my questions.

The ones below? I've answered them a few times now.

19 hours ago, noonereal said:

Where is this mind? Is it a gas, mineral, yet to be discovered anomaly?  

If the mind isn't physical, which is my view, then it won't be physically located. So you won't be able to point to something and say, "There's your mind." I think that's a pretty obvious logical implication of the view. So you probably don't want to ask that question again. 

If the mind were a gas or a mineral, then it would be a physical thing. So another pretty obvious logical implication of the view is that it isn't any physical thing. So you probably want to stop asking which physical thing it is. 

I don't know what you mean by a yet-to-be-discovered anomaly. We know that we have minds. So they've already been discovered. The question is whether the mind is identical to the brain or some part of the brain or some activity in the brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, noonereal said:

Like I said several pages back, this is just stupidity. 

I'm thinking that giving and evaluating reasons isn't your thing, which is cool with me.

I just thought that you might want to have some understanding of what all the fuss is about and to engage a little bit in the discussion. It's kind of a neat topic. 

But it's not looking very good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I'm thinking that giving and evaluating reasons isn't your thing, which is cool with me.

I just thought that you might want to have some understanding of what all the fuss is about and to engage a little bit in the discussion. It's kind of a neat topic. 

But it's not looking very good. 

we do not communicate, that was clear pages ago. 

you operate in myth and metaphysics, I in reason and realities... 

philosophers are needed, don't be dissuaded. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, (as to your video)

How does blue feel? 

Color has feeling? 

Well, yes I suppose it can, I know I have tasted sound. 

But when I tasted sound, was that magical or physical?

It was a physical perception. But it was cause by chemical. 

Mary's introduction to color was simply different shades of black and white being introduced, if you will. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

we do not communicate, that was clear pages ago. 

I think it's my fault. Sorry. I think you have very powerful and discerning brain. And I'm just a regular guy. 

It's too bad that you're only a hobby scientist. I think you could have been a monster in the field.

Maybe you still can be. If you put your "God bless" and your "that's soooo ridiculous" together with your "this is stupid" and your theory on color perception, you might have a publishable paper on your hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I think it's my fault. Sorry. I think you have very powerful and discerning brain. And I'm just a regular guy. 

It's too bad that you're only a hobby scientist. I think you could have been monster in the field.

Maybe you still can be. If you put your "God bless" and your "that's soooo ridiculous" together with your "this is stupid," you might have a publishable paper on your hands. 

thanks

but I think fusing all this together as you suggest would only be appropriate for you and the other invisible man in the sky guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Do you think that you're smarter than Leibniz?

I would have no way of knowing.

I do know his musings were colored by his time and handicapped his philosophical potentials.

In fact, wasn't he accused of being as I have accused you? He started with a conclusion and then did his damnedist to justify it?

No wonder you reference he. 

------------------------------------------------------------

You realize you are all upset because I won't play with you, right? 

You are basically throwing a message board tantrum. 

Just let it be. You are a dreamer, there is  is NOTHING wrong with that. All are needed to make us whole. 

Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...