954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 6 hours ago, noonereal said: what is it then? where is it then? nothing in the universe exists that does not exist read that again that is what you guys are demanding of the mind and soul. What I meant was based on the definition of mind I found online, that I beleive the mind is a result of the entire physical nervous system. The thought processing, memory, personality, yes all the brain IMO. But your sight, smell, touch, pain, also have an effect on the mind, so I didn't want to limit it just to the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Belly Bob said: You're supposed to be an equal partner in the discussion. But I've done all the hard work. I gave you a bunch of carefully laid out arguments. You mostly ignored them, and you didn't give any of your own. You suggested that science has discovered that numbers are parts of the brain. I asked you for a link. You didn't do that either. You've been like a bad college roommate who wants to have a party but who does't want to pitch in for beer or to clean up afterwards. The discussion isn't stupid at all. It's just that you've been lazy. ok, run with that then if you want any recommendation on books to read, let me know no soul nonsense, neuroscience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Here's an interesting dumbed down vid of some of the differences in philosophies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, 954gator said: What I meant was based on the definition of mind I found online, that I beleive the mind is a result of the entire physical nervous system. The thought processing, memory, personality, yes all the brain IMO. But your sight, smell, touch, pain, also have an effect on the mind, so I didn't want to limit it just to the brain. but you answered none of my questions there is a definition of soul and god in the dictionary being in the dictionary is not proof of existence i am open minded if something is presented that is plausible in science "well you can't prove I am wrong so it's a true" is what has been presented. That kind of logic is crap and I simply won't even engage... it's not stimulating. its actually juvenile. I'd rather watch a bird fly by than waste time hitting keys in reply. i am asking you and billybob to present me with something to consider to support your beliefs. so far all i have gotten are asinine assumptions, presented as fact and then built on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, noonereal said: but you answered none of my questions there is a definition of soul and god in the dictionary being in the dictionary is not proof of existence i am open minded if something is presented that is plausible in science "well you can't prove I am wrong so it's a true" is what has been presented. That kind of logic is crap and I simply won't even engage... it's not stimulating. its actually juvenile. I'd rather watch a bird fly by than waste time hitting keys in reply. i am asking you and billybob to present me with something to consider to support your beliefs. so far all i have gotten are asinine assumptions, presented as fact and then built on I'm confused. I'm basically agreeing with you. I don't believe in the non physical mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, 954gator said: Here's an interesting dumbed down vid of some of the differences in philosophies. you realize he explains in the first 57 seconds where the mind resides. In the brain obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Just now, 954gator said: I'm confused. I'm basically agreeing with you. your better offf, trust me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Yes as I said, I'm a believer in reductive physicalism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 Damn noon ya gotta work on that reading comprehension! Although, I'll admit my writing and grammar suck ballz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, 954gator said: Damn noon ya gotta work on that reading comprehension! Although, I'll admit my writing and grammar suck ballz. sorry, i was gonna say most that post was to bobbill or At least that it was not particular to you..( i am trying not to pound him so i didn't.)... i just went off under a quote to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 25 minutes ago, noonereal said: if you want any recommendation on books to read, let me know no soul nonsense, neuroscience Sure. That would be some kind of contribution. Here's one for you: The Character of Consciousness (2010) by David Chalmers. David Chalmers is a cognitive scientist and Direct of the Centre for Consciousness at the NAU and a Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU. He rejects the view that the mind is the brain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Belly Bob said: Sure. That would be some kind of contribution. Here's one for you: The Character of Consciousness (2010) by David Chalmers. David Chalmers is a cognitive scientist and Direct of the Centre for Consciousness at the NAU and a Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU. He rejects the view that the mind is the brain. must be like one of those climate scientists that the right harvest.... none the less, excellent reference, I will try to be dutifully to look to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 8 hours ago, noonereal said: but you answered none of my questions there is a definition of soul and god in the dictionary being in the dictionary is not proof of existence i am open minded if something is presented that is plausible in science "well you can't prove I am wrong so it's a true" is what has been presented. That kind of logic is crap and I simply won't even engage... it's not stimulating. its actually juvenile. I'd rather watch a bird fly by than waste time hitting keys in reply. i am asking you and billybob to present me with something to consider to support your beliefs. so far all i have gotten are asinine assumptions, presented as fact and then built on I agree with most of this. But I've given you arguments for my views. And I've given you arguments against your views. What have you offered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: Sure. That would be some kind of contribution. Here's one for you: The Character of Consciousness (2010) by David Chalmers. David Chalmers is a cognitive scientist and Direct of the Centre for Consciousness at the NAU and a Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU. He rejects the view that the mind is the brain. its 621 pages.... i was about to buy it.. i can't invest that kind of time though i'll gladly read excerpts but i got a feeling he'll be doing what people that want there to be a god do. basically say, "nothing i believe can be diffidently disproved." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: I've given you arguments for my views. And I've given you arguments against your views. What have you offered? not how i have read this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 7 hours ago, noonereal said: its 621 pages.... i was about to buy it.. i can't invest that kind of time though i'll gladly read excerpts but i got a feeling he'll be doing what people that want there to be a god do. basically say, "nothing i believe can be diffidently disproved." Chalmers doesn't believe in God. Why would you get that feeling? It was written by a eminent cognitive scientist and published by Oxford UP, the most prestigious publisher in the world. He wouldn't be eminent and he would't get published at Oxford if his argument was "You can't prove me wrong. So I'm right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, noonereal said: not how i have read this thread That explains a lot. But check it out. They are all still there. Many have numbered premises. So you can't miss them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 30 minutes ago, noonereal said: its 621 pages.... i was about to buy it.. i can't invest that kind of time though i'll gladly read excerpts but i got a feeling he'll be doing what people that want there to be a god do. basically say, "nothing i believe can be diffidently disproved." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, 954gator said: Yes as I said, I'm a believer in reductive physicalism. "Reductive physicalism"? That's gangster talk. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 3, 2017 Report Share Posted March 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: "Reductive physicalism"? That's gangster talk. Yeah man, I don't get Fk'd with in the streets lol. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 "My own view though is that there won't be a purely physical or reductionist explanation [of the relationship between the brain and consciousness]" (5:51). Gator, the Professor doesn't think that Reductive Physicalism is true. You should e-mail him. Tell him what's up. Tell him who you are in the streets. And CC NOR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 35 minutes ago, Belly Bob said: "My own view though is that there won't be a purely physical or reductionist explanation [of the relationship between the brain and consciousness]" (5:51). Gator, the Professor doesn't think that Reductive Physicalism is true. You should e-mail him. Tell him what's up. Tell him who are in the streets. And CC NOR. Lol he better lay low if he passes through Broward. My problem with dualism, is how can something physical come in contact or affect something non physical? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
954gator Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 Can something non physical be created? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 "That 3 was a prime number a billion years ago, even before there were any human beings who could think about prime numbers or say what it meant to be a prime number, that 3 was still a prime number. If you believe that, you're a platonist [about mathematics]. It is a pretty common way of thinking among mathematicians and scientists today." If the common way of thinking about numbers is true, then numbers aren't in the brain, or in any other spatial or physical location. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belly Bob Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 54 minutes ago, 954gator said: My problem with dualism, is how can something physical come in contact or affect something non physical? 53 minutes ago, 954gator said: Can something non physical be created? I think that this is probably the biggest reason why panpsychism is being taken seriously by Chalmers and by others these days. We're pretty sure there is physical stuff. And we're pretty sure there is non-physical stuff. But we have no idea how the one could create the other or more generally how the two could interact. So why not think that everything at bottom is part physical and part non-physical. If so, the problem of interaction would disappear. But notice that Chalmers is more confident that the mind isn't physical than he is that there is something non-physical in everything. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.