A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.
Why did you ask the question then?
Interesting Ian wrote: Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object.
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??

I said the scientific story leading us to understand the physical processes in the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why I experience red when looking at a red object. How do you explain it from the perspective of materialism??

This question is not a scientific one. It cannot be answered by science. It is a question regarding metaphysics

Now try to get it through your dumbfuck skull of yours. The same goes for the rest of those who somehow are stupid enough to think it is a scientific question.
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

Interesting Ian wrote:

I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
But then you said.
Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.
So you're interested in an answer to a question but you have no interest in it? Riiigghhhhhhht.
Interesting Ian wrote:I said the scientific story leading us to understand the physical processes in the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why I experience red when looking at a red object. How do you explain it from the perspective of materialism??

Why should I explain something when you have already admitted that you are not interested in it. Or perhaps you are interested in my interest in this interesting subject. Is Yahweh interesting? I'm actually interested in the interests of interesting people. Perhaps you're not. That's interesting.

Interesting Ian wrote:Now try to get it through your dumbfuck skull of yours. The same goes for the rest of those who somehow are stupid enough to think it is a scientific question.
Stimpson J. Cat wrote:As usual, when you run out of meaningless platitudes and circular arguments, and your claims are shown unambiguously to be false, you result to personal attacks and insults.
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Interesting Ian wrote:
CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote: OK, sorry I apologise. I just got infuriated by this point that rainbows need not be in the sky because they could be in front of us etc. I'm not sure if you're being serious, or just trying to annoy me.
So you admit the questionnaire is flawed? In which case - how can your results be accurate?
The questionnaire is fine. You cannot expect such a questionnaire to be totally unambiguous and accurate, and yet have novices at philosophy understand it. You have to keep the questions simple.
Interesting Ian wrote:(From page 1 of this thread.) No-one takes these quizzes seriously, nor should they do.
I'd also like to know how we "experience" color, and how that differs from "perceiving" color. We "perceive" color, as I've linked, because light, which is made of different wavelengths, bounce off an object (say, a red ball), and all the colors of the spectrum are absorbed by the ball, except the red wavelength. This light enters our eyes, hits the rods and cones at the back of the eye, is transmitted through the optic nerve into our brain and is decoded and recognized as a red ball. I don't see how that is "experienced".

Metaphysics is not necessary to tell us how we perceive light and color. Simple physics and biology will do.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

CHARLEY_BIGTIME wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:

I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
But then you said.
Interesting Ian wrote: I have absolutely no interest. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this present topic of discussion.
So you're interested in an answer to a question but you have no interest in it? Riiigghhhhhhht.
Interesting Ian wrote:I said the scientific story leading us to understand the physical processes in the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with why I experience red when looking at a red object. How do you explain it from the perspective of materialism??

Why should I explain something when you have already admitted that you are not interested in it. Or perhaps you are interested in my interest in this interesting subject. Is Yahweh interesting? I'm actually interested in the interests of interesting people. Perhaps you're not. That's interesting.

Interesting Ian wrote:Now try to get it through your dumbfuck skull of yours. The same goes for the rest of those who somehow are stupid enough to think it is a scientific question.
Stimpson J. Cat wrote:As usual, when you run out of meaningless platitudes and circular arguments, and your claims are shown unambiguously to be false, you result to personal attacks and insults.
Charley Bigtime, you're a fucking idiot. If you understand nothing of my posts, then don't friggin' respond to them.
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

Interesting Ian wrote:
Charley Bigtime, you're a fucking idiot. If you understand nothing of my posts, then don't friggin' respond to them.
Ah - so you contradict yourself left right and centre, admit the questionnaire is flawed despite arguing that it's not for three pages then say that the questionnaire is not to be taken seriously then lambast people for not taking it seriously enough and finally admitting that you are not interested in the answer to a question that you, yourself have asked and *I'm* the idiot?

Stimpson J. Cat wrote:As usual, when you run out of meaningless platitudes and circular arguments, and your claims are shown unambiguously to be false, you result to personal attacks and insults.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:I asked the question because I want to know the answer Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
...
This question is not a scientific one. It cannot be answered by science. It is a question regarding metaphysics.
Then you can make up any answer that you like, which is what you have done. The material metaphysicists can do likewise. The fact that you find these answers interesting is quite fascinating, since, if they are not scientific, there is no way you can investigate or verify them.

~~ Paul
[size=84]It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith[/size]
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Post by ceptimus »

OK only just seen this thread and I've only read the OP yet, but I'll bite.

(1) b.
(2) c.
(3) b (if the evidence is compelling). Also c (unless and until we understood the reason) and d (by definition). But my first choice is b.
(4) c.
(5) c.
(6) Difficult. I rule out b, as rainbows can also be captured by cameras. If I must choose one, it must be d.
(7) c. (I'm starting to find this annoying now).
(8) a. (that was the stupidest set of overlapping answer choices so far).
(9) a.
(10) d.
(11) a.
User avatar
Girl on the Moon
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:00 pm
Location: Sitting on the moon

Post by Girl on the Moon »

1 C
2 C
3 C
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 C
8 A
9 B
10 D
11 A

I answered to the best on my ability given the questions and answers available.
[b][i][color=silver]Giant steps are what you take, walkin on the moon[/b][/i][/color]
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Ian has left the building!

Wonder when he'll show up again? Hmmmm......
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Nigel wrote:Ian has left the building!

Wonder when he'll show up again? Hmmmm......
Here I am. Just been suspended from the JREF :)

That'll teach me!
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Re: A quiz: Are you a materialist or idealist?

Post by Interesting Ian »

ceptimus wrote:OK only just seen this thread and I've only read the OP yet, but I'll bite.

(1) b.
(2) c.
(3) b (if the evidence is compelling). Also c (unless and until we understood the reason) and d (by definition). But my first choice is b.
(4) c.
(5) c.
(6) Difficult. I rule out b, as rainbows can also be captured by cameras. If I must choose one, it must be d.
(7) c. (I'm starting to find this annoying now).
(8) a. (that was the stupidest set of overlapping answer choices so far).
(9) a.
(10) d.
(11) a.
Naturalist, fairly close to materialist.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Girl on the Moon wrote:1 C
2 C
3 C
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 C
8 A
9 B
10 D
11 A

I answered to the best on my ability given the questions and answers available.
Naturalist, more near to semi-idealist than materialist.
Pink_Rabbit
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:39 am

Post by Pink_Rabbit »

Okay, I'll play

1. b
2. c
3. b
4. b
5. b
6. a
7. c
8. a
9. b
10. c
11. c
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Pink_Rabbit wrote:Okay, I'll play

1. b
2. c
3. b
4. b
5. b
6. a
7. c
8. a
9. b
10. c
11. c
A semi-idealist PR :( Mind you, you only just to say missed out on being a naturalist :)
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Post by Jeff »

[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??[/quote]
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.
This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.
It appears to answer the question for most of us, so perhaps you could try to refine the question so as to make it clear what hasn't been answered.

~~ Paul
[size=84]It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith[/size]
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Post by Jeff »

Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.
This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.
Which part of the answer are you unable to understand? If you say "All of it", I give up, you are a hopeless ignoramus.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Jeff wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.
This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.
Which part of the answer are you unable to understand? If you say "All of it", I give up, you are a hopeless ignoramus.
I said it doesn't answer the question. I understand your answer; it's just that it's wholly irrelevant.

But what's new? None of you arseholes understand anything, and I get suspended from boards because of it.
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Post by Jeff »

Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
Jeff wrote:[quote="Interesting Ian] Explain why I have the experience of redness rather than greenness when looking at a red object
I asked the question because I want to know the answer :roll: Does anyone ever fucking intend to provide one??
Because you have cones in the retina of your eye that respond to the 3 primary colors, red, blue and green.
When visible light primarily in the longer wavelengths of the visible spectrum stimulate the receptors that respond to red, you see red. In the middle, green. Shorter end, blue.
At birth, you don't know that, but as you learn from other people how to label colors, you can agree with them about what is green or red or blue. Or yellow, which is a combination of responding from the green and red receptors.
This does not at all answer the question. You cannot answer the question using science. Indeed I venture to suggest it is not possible to answer the question by whatever means.
Which part of the answer are you unable to understand? If you say "All of it", I give up, you are a hopeless ignoramus.
I said it doesn't answer the question. I understand your answer; it's just that it's wholly irrelevant.

But what's new? None of you arseholes understand anything, and I get suspended from boards because of it.
You must be simple. The answer is right there. What part don't you understand? I'll try it again in language suitable for a six year old, if you wish.
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Ian, I'm tired of going round in circles. You say there is no answer, certainly none by science. For the sake of argument, let's say that's so. So what is the "answer"? It just "is"? What's the metaphysical take on it?

You obviously don't accept the scientific answer, so lay it on us babe. What can you tell us that we don't know?
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Nigel wrote:You obviously don't accept the scientific answer, so lay it on us babe. What can you tell us that we don't know?
And that isn't just a convoluted question begging.
Ian wrote:But what's new? None of you arseholes understand anything, and I get suspended from boards because of it.
Uh oh, he's found us out! We said it was because he violated Rule 8, but it was actually sooper sekrit Rule X.

~~ Paul
[size=84]It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith[/size]
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Post by Jeff »

Rule #1, No pooftahs.
Rule #2, No member of the faculty is to mistreat the Abbos in any way whatsoever.
etc.
etc.
There is NO rule # 8.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Nigel wrote:Ian, I'm tired of going round in circles. You say there is no answer, certainly none by science. For the sake of argument, let's say that's so. So what is the "answer"? It just "is"? What's the metaphysical take on it?

You obviously don't accept the scientific answer, so lay it on us babe. What can you tell us that we don't know?
Yes, it just is.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

The reason why I experience redness on seeing a red object, is because the object is red. It's very very simple.

That's it. Problem solved.
Jeff
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:01 pm

Post by Jeff »

Simple, indeed.
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Post by ceptimus »

...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

ceptimus wrote:...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.
Ummm . .anyone know what he's talkiong about?
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Interesting Ian wrote:
ceptimus wrote:...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.
Ummm . .anyone know what he's talkiong about?
Right back atcha.

It just is. You know what I say to that?


COPOUT!

If someone asks me how a car engine works, do you think a satisfying answer would be, "It just does"? Not to anyone above a 4 year old.

I give up Ian. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt, then I thought you were amusing, now I have no idea what to think. You're just not enjoyable to talk to. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the way I see it.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

Nigel wrote:
Interesting Ian wrote:
ceptimus wrote:...and thus I show that (my own version of) materialism is incoherent!

Satisfying! :)

I put a lot of effort into showing this incoherence in as many different ways as possible.
Ummm . .anyone know what he's talkiong about?
Right back atcha.

It just is. You know what I say to that?


COPOUT!

If someone asks me how a car engine works, do you think a satisfying answer would be, "It just does"? Not to anyone above a 4 year old.
There's an explanation of how a car engine works. You look at the component parts and how they fit and function together.

An explanation of why we see redness cannot be so reduced. All we have are physical processes. Presumably a particular process in the brain is the particular correlate of the actual experience of redness. But you cannot derive this experience. All you can derive are other physical processes. This is all that's required for a car engine, or indeed anything else pertaining to the world; apart from conscious experiences.

What on earth do you think the mind/body problem is??

You should realise by now that I don't just say these things.
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Post by ceptimus »

You can explain how the parts of a car engine work, but not how the whole engine runs. The individual mechanical and electrical events may correlate with the running of the engine, but running is not explainable in those terms.

Everyone knows that a car engine runs, but no one can explain it!

And so, once again, materialism is refuted!
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

And moreover, the brain neither creates the red object, nor is the red object encoded in the brain. Rather the brain being in a certain state allows the perception of the red object.

Imagine a window in front of you. You cannot see outside because of the condensation on it. But you wipe the condensation off and that allows you to see the red object. That's roughly analogically similar to the relation of self, brain and red object.
User avatar
Interesting Ian
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm

Post by Interesting Ian »

ceptimus wrote:You can explain how the parts of a car engine work, but not how the whole engine runs.
Why not? Once you understand everything about a car engine, and that it's connected to the rest of the car, you can understand perfectly how the car runs. There's no problem here at all.

The individual mechanical and electrical events may correlate with the running of the engine, but running is not explainable in those terms.
No, once we understand the processes, then the running of the car is an inevitable consequence. It's all just functions.

If consciousness (or the self) were also just functions, then we could explain everything about consciousness as well, including seeing red. But some maintain that the experience of seeing red can neither be derived from physical processes (how would you do that??), nor is it the same as physical processes.

Consciousness itself cannot be derived from physical processes because it's the neural correlates which do all the "work". A p-zombie (unconscious automaton) would do everything exactly the same as a real person would.

If a p-zombie is not possible, then you're saying consciousness per se is indispensable. In which case it's not the neural correlates which do all the work. There is this thing called consciousness per se which does some work. But consciousness per se is only what the individual experiences (anyone else can only experience their bodily behaviour or the neural correlates of their consciousness).

This means that something only discernible from the 1st person perspective exists and which has real causal powers.

Ummm . .a direct contradiction of materialism.

Simple.
User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7990
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel »

Interesting Ian wrote:
There's an explanation of how a car engine works. You look at the component parts and how they fit and function together.
So how does that differ between a car engine and an eye (aside from complexity)?
Interesting Ian wrote:An explanation of why we see redness cannot be so reduced.
Why not?
Interesting Ian wrote: All we have are physical processes. Presumably a particular process in the brain is the particular correlate of the actual experience of redness.
How do you experience a color?
Interesting Ian wrote:But you cannot derive this experience. All you can derive are other physical processes. This is all that's required for a car engine, or indeed anything else pertaining to the world; apart from conscious experiences.

What on earth do you think the mind/body problem is??

You should realise by now that I don't just say these things.
What do you mean by derive when you say you "cannot derive this experience", but you can "derive other physical processes"?

Does this experiencing of color extend to other senses? Or sights? When I see a desk, am I experiencing it in the same way I experience the redness of the ball? Which is to say, the desk "is".

I'm really quite baffled by your arguments. I must say, the fellow who came up with the phrase, "It takes all kinds" really had his finger on it.
If you can't laugh, what good are you?

I thought I won't submit this...but who cares...let it roll. -Pillory
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:Consciousness itself cannot be derived from physical processes because it's the neural correlates which do all the "work". A p-zombie (unconscious automaton) would do everything exactly the same as a real person would.
Including answer every question about the experience of consciousness with the same answer?

~~ Paul
[size=84]It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith[/size]
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:20 pm

Post by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos »

Ian wrote:And moreover, the brain neither creates the red object, nor is the red object encoded in the brain. Rather the brain being in a certain state allows the perception of the red object.
This might hold true for seeing a red object for the first time. But that red object is certainly encoded in the brain after it has been seen a few times.

~~ Paul
[size=84]It is a sterile stratagem to insert miracles to bridge the unknown. ---A. G. Cairns-Smith[/size]
CHARLEY_BIGTIME

Post by CHARLEY_BIGTIME »

I reckon Ian's pissed again.
User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by MRC_Hans »

Interesting Ian wrote:Why not? Once you understand everything about a car engine, and that it's connected to the rest of the car, you can understand perfectly how the car runs. There's no problem here at all.
Agreed.
No, once we understand the processes, then the running of the car is an inevitable consequence. It's all just functions.
Exactly.
If consciousness (or the self) were also just functions, then we could explain everything about consciousness as well, including seeing red.
And who says we cannot? OK, we do not CURRENTLY have sufficient knowledge to do that comprehensively, but why do you assume that this knowledge is not obtainable?
But some maintain that the experience of seeing red can neither be derived from physical processes (how would you do that??), nor is it the same as physical processes.
Who (apart from you) maintain that, and on what grounds? The perception of red is a pattern of neurons firing in our brain (actually, a range of patterns, since there are different kinds of redness). When these patterns emerge, we have chosen to call it "I see red", because we have stored earlier sequences where this impression was accompanying the observation of objects with certain optical properties. However, the perception of "seing red" is not exclusive to visual observations. For example, if you sit in total darkness and press your fingers against your eyeballs, you "see red" (or other colors); the same pattern of neurons are firing in your brain as when you observe red light.
Consciousness itself cannot be derived from physical processes because it's the neural correlates which do all the "work". A p-zombie (unconscious automaton) would do everything exactly the same as a real person would.
Quite apart from this being obviously an unfounded claim, how does it support your theory? If a p-zombie is indistinguishable from a human, how do you conclude that it is not conscious?
If a p-zombie is not possible, then you're saying consciousness per se is indispensable.
No, I say consciousness is a function of the physical brain.
In which case it's not the neural correlates which do all the work.
How does that follow?
There is this thing called consciousness per se which does some work. But consciousness per se is only what the individual experiences (anyone else can only experience their bodily behaviour or the neural correlates of their consciousness).

This means that something only discernible from the 1st person perspective exists and which has real causal powers.
Do you generally have any difficulty in discerning whether a person is conscious or not? Do you perceive whether I am conscious as I write this? Consciousness is basically observable from a 2nd person perspective, too.
Ummm . .a direct contradiction of materialism.

Simple.
Even if the first claim was correct, that would not follow. Even if parts of consciousness can be shown to be only observable from within, your conclusion builds on the premise that only observable things can exist in the material world. This premise is obviously wrong.

Hans
[i]Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...[/i]
Saxlover
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Saxlover »

I'll have a go.

(1) (a) impossible,

(2) (b) supplemented with a very different discipline.

(3) (b) unknown causal processes

(4) (b) Likely

(5) (b) unlikely

(6) (b) in people's minds

(7) (b) marks on paper

(8) (d) energy is real and democracy is just an idea.

(9) (a) likely

(10) (c) likely,

(11) (a) more understanding than,
User avatar
Vitnir
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:18 pm

Post by Vitnir »

Too late to play? I'l add my reply anyway.

1. B
2. B (could be A,B or C for all I know though)
3. B
4. C
5. C
6. B
7. C
8. D
9. A
10. D
11. B