/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10925303]

Strong emergence & consciousness Pt. 2.

[Anonymous No.10925305]

>>10924046
Psyciatrists dont ask what a persons mind is then treat later. They see a set of symptoms and employ a treatment that has evidence. There is no need to ruminate on the nature of the mind... Youre talking boswellox.
Regardless of your ontological view there will always be an explanatory gap though.

>invalid reasoning
No its nothing to do with what youre saying. Its completely empirical. We study how the brain and mind relate and there is no good reason to suggest that dream characters have their own consciousness.

>awhile
Later today

[Anonymous No.10925475]

is there a chart or something that maps all the different positions in a hierarchical way? Like monism/dualism, physicalism, emergentism, panpsychism, etc... I'm not even sure what I am after last threadand if I say I'm one then people ascribe all slrts of bullshit ideas to me which makes me think I'm another, but then that has a lot of bullshit too.

[Anonymous No.10925521]

>>10925303
Obviously 4chan is the missing topmost cone

[Anonymous No.10925562]

>>10925303
>& consciousness
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.10925718]

Is a lack of belief a belief system, a lot of lack of any faith whatsoeverin our generation? They are restricted in the material and logical to their unfortunate vexation with the world.

I suppose the Marxists and nihilists don’t produce many babies or last very long with genocides for the glorious leap towards and the evil bad n boujee

[Anonymous No.10926159]

>>10925718
What the god's honest fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10927043]

>>10925305
Yes they do ask that, it's absolutely fundamental to the field. Like I said, this is what distinguishes them from a geologist: they are identifying a completely different phenomenon, the mind, and studying that scientifically and using their metaphysical and scientific findings to treat patients.
>there will always be an explanatory gap though
Not with idealism which is a purely monistic view that can keep irreducible consciousness without a gap unlike materialism or dualism.
>No its nothing to do with what youre saying.
It has everything to do with what you're saying, see pic related
>there is no good reason to suggest that dream characters have their own consciousness.
Yes there is since we've tested them, repeatedly mind you, and we've observed them having unique cognitive abilities. Denying their consciousness will give grounds to the solipsist to deny your mind as well.
>Later today
going to solve the hard problem of consciousness in a day? I'd like to see it

[Anonymous No.10927091]

>>10927043
>we've observed
No we haven't.

[Anonymous No.10927101]

>>10927091
Yes we have. Here's just a few studies that came to mind:

Dream characters were shown to successfully draw or write, to name unknown words, to find rhyme words, and to make verses, however they performed poorly on arithmetic problems. The researchers concluded nothing contradicts them being conscious and that we should treat them as rational beings in lucid dream therapy.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2717365

The previous study was replicated by different researchers and they observed same results as before. This time they focused more so on arithmetic problem solving. Surprisingly dream characters are better at multiplication and division than addition and subtraction.
>https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-14179-007

Though dream characters tend to perform poorly on logical/mathematical tasks, they are surprisingly creative and can even provide plausible creative advice to the dreamer.
>https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-14177-005

[Anonymous No.10927173]

>>10927101
>Unfortunately the researchers couldn't verify the dreams and had to go off self reporting.
And nothing of value was gained.

[Anonymous No.10927184]

>>10927173
>solipsism is true!
you just went full retard

[Anonymous No.10927205]

>>10925303
your chart is all wrong

[Anonymous No.10927234]

According to panpsychism or emergetism, would the analogy be correct that, just like any computer can process binary data and output programs, but you can't run an intense protein-folding program on a pocket calculator, rocks are not self-aware for the simple reason that they lack the necessary "brain power" to access the "consciousness code" that is already available?

[Anonymous No.10927255]

>>10927234
this, exactly. Each moment in time, there is the rocks existence, but also the reality that is the rocks existence. That reality is qualia. But that qualia isn't going anywhere, its not getting experienced.

[Anonymous No.10927264]

>>10925521
>t. not a man of culture.

[Anonymous No.10927642]

>>10927043
If you say they ask that then give me an explicit example because I disagree with you and have said why but you just say "yes they have" with absolutely no explanation. And dont just say "I already have", just say yout explanation even if that requires recopying and pasting something youve said before.

------

There will always be an explanatory gap because in whatever world youre in you cant explain experiences with relational or functional terms and we have no explanatory model of experiences in and of themselves. Experiences dont reduce to physical facts but they dont reduce to eachother. there is no fundamental unit of experience like an atom. we have no laws of experience. if experiences are a monistic substance we have no idea how the quale of smell relates to say touch. There is just as much of an explanatory gap. None of these viewpoints actually explain anything. They just let you label the worls without feeling youre explicitly contradicting yourself.

>RE: see pic related
One can use this fallacy to argue against many accepted beliefs in science. You cannot definitevly prove anything in science and we dont accept or reject theories necessarily by using foolproof logical arguments. But using empirical data I think we can assess certain probabilities of things. Whilst you can say some one technically is being fallacious I can also say that through our empirical knowledge about the mind and brain there really is no reason to support your view on the antecedence of mind and brain nor the dream characters consciousness. The way youre arguing about this is lretty much exactly the same way creationists argue against evolution. Precisely because there is definitive proof and evolutionists cant rule out certain alternatives nor show perfect empirical or methodological records and so creationists can exploit loopholes to present arguments that without their belief in the infallibility of the bible seem patently absurd.

[Anonymous No.10927643]

>>10927101
>RE: testing the characters
yes I dont doubt people can test their characters but this isnt evidence of their own separate consciousness since these characters are arguably just doing things youve generated just like your brain is generating the scenery of any odd dream.

>RE: Solve hard problem in a day
You dont even remember what I was going to send do you. Why bother.

[Anonymous No.10927846]

>>10927642
I literally just gave you an explicit example in the last reply... We can't even identify them as psychiatrists without identifying the mind, otherwise you'll just confuse them for geologists or something else. I gave an explanation, you just can't read apparently.
>you cant explain experiences with relational or functional terms
You're just explaining why you have an explanatory gap. I already explained idealism holds experience to be irreducible so there's no concern about this and hence no explanatory gap.
>no fundamental unit of experience like an atom.
Good thing I'm not an atomist. I don't hold the parts as prior to the whole, the whole is prior to its parts.
> laws of experience.
good thing I'm not some materialist newtonian who takes the world to be governed by these abstract "laws." All you've done so far is say "you're not a materialist like me!" and yeah that's true because materialism is a terrible philosophy.
>One can use this fallacy to argue against many accepted beliefs in science.
1. that doesn't make invalid logic all of a sudden valid. if a lot of people believe x that doesn't mean you should also believe x. if the logic is bad then you shouldn't use such bad logic
2. you've given no support for this claim.
> there really is no reason to support your view on the antecedence of mind and brain
My view? That's your view, and it's fallacious. make as many excuses as you want but your logic is bad.
>creationism
how is me pointing out your fallacious logic the same as me arguing for creationism? I'm not saying "you can't perfectly prove x so check mate!" I'm pointing out how your logic sucks.
>>10927643
>but this isnt evidence of their own separate consciousness
if that's so then you're giving a ton of ground to the solipsist who will use your own logic against you being conscious.
>Why bother.
so you can't solve the hard problem. figures

[Anonymous No.10927962]

>>10927846
>confuse psychiatrists for geologists
how in gods fuck does that make any sense? All psychiatrists do is identify diseases througg observation and self report. what else is there to it?

>experience irreducible
yes hence why you cant give me a model as to why there are separate experiences of smell and touch and how they relate. If there is a fundamentalism in experience we clearly dont know it and we cant model explanations out of it. Hence there still is some sort of explanatory gap

>whole prior to the parts
You cant even identify the whole, its just some abstract concept to fill in the blanks without an operational model of what exactly you mean by that. Its our very own philosophical God of the gaps. This theoretical mysterious whole that we cant really get a sense of is just like "mysterious matter".

>RE: laws of experience
Mate whether you are a materialist or like Kastrup, our experiences of the world have rules and regularities. We investigate them and call that science. You cant just fucking dismiss empirical evidence or critical reasoning because youre not a physicalist. Believing on Idealism doesnt mean you can suddenly just throw out all rules.

>RE: 1
Not saying it invalidates logic but Im saying that we make reasonable evidenced inferences and theories about the world through more than sheer logic or skepticism. Your logic is invalid but using your logic to the extreme is just like pure cartesian skepticism which while valid isnt useful and like ive said, you cant absolutely prove anything but that doesnt make it not a useful explanation or something you can use as a basis for further inference.

>RE: 2
Creationism is an example. There are many examples of people using ad hoc explanations to prolong a theory which is ultimately redundant but still hasnt technically been disproven. e.g like aether vs. special relativity.

[Anonymous No.10927993]

>>10927846
>Re: thats your view
your view on whether there is antecedence or not.
Its based on empirical evidence and reasonable belief. Though your view maybe logically correct theres no actual real evidence against my view. Its considered a reasonable belief by most people. Like I said science isnt just about logic and pure skepticism. Logicians dont make good scientists.

>Pointing out how my logic sucks
And yeah im pointing out how scientific logic sucks or else all scientists would be cartesians hence people like creationists can create lots of arguments that contradict well known science but cant be logically ruled out. But like I said acience often operates on heuristics which arent necessarily logical like occams razor perhaps

>supporting sollipsism
no because they operate on pure cartesian skepticism and im operating on arguments about what is likely the case based on what we already know and not know. I cant even conceive of what. consciousness they might have without the concept of consciousness dissolving.

[Anonymous No.10928535]

>>10927184
I think solipsism can refer to realizing the fact that you can't tell if others are conscious, or thinking that others aren't conscious. If the former, it's obviously a reasonable stance.

[Anonymous No.10929129]

>>10927962
>how in gods fuck does that make any sense?
Because what's the difference between a geologist and a psychiatrist? The phenomenon they are studying. One studies rocks, the other studies the mind. You can't even distinguish between the two without first identifying the phenomenon they are studying. You can't avoid metaphysics, it's necessary.
>yes
So you're agreeing that consciousness is irreducible? You've just given a lot of ground: since consciousness is irreducible the only way you can avoid dualism and the mind-body problem in general is to accept idealism. With idealism there is no explanatory gap since it's a seamless monism.
>give me a model
now this is what isn't making sense
> we clearly dont know it
you couldn't be more wrong. it's one of the few things we can say for certain: I think, therefore I am.
>rules and regularities
Nope, I'm not committed to believing there are any abstract "laws" or "rules" that actually exist in reality. I'm an instrumentalist so I take such regularities to merely be useful conceptions to navigate the empirical world but not necessarily indicative of an abstract objective reality.
>You cant even identify the whole
Yes I can, I already did awhile ago: a single mind.
>critical reasoning
you're the one dismissing critical reasoning by defending denying the antecedent unabashedly.
>we make reasonable evidenced inferences
denying the antecedent is not a reasonable inference, it's the total opposite of a reasonable inference. I'm the one defending valid logic, you're the one defending invalid logic...
>ad hoc explanations
sounds a lot like materialism... "we'll solve the hard problem one day when the materialist messiah comes to save us!"

[Anonymous No.10929131]

>how in gods fuck does that make any sense?
Because what's the difference between a geologist and a psychiatrist? The phenomenon they are studying. One studies rocks, the other studies the mind. You can't even distinguish between the two without first identifying the phenomenon they are studying. You can't avoid metaphysics, it's necessary.
>yes
So you're agreeing that consciousness is irreducible? You've just given a lot of ground: since consciousness is irreducible the only way you can avoid dualism and the mind-body problem in general is to accept idealism. With idealism there is no explanatory gap since it's a seamless monism.
>give me a model
now this is what isn't making sense
> we clearly dont know it
you couldn't be more wrong. it's one of the few things we can say for certain: I think, therefore I am.
>rules and regularities
Nope, I'm not committed to believing there are any abstract "laws" or "rules" that actually exist in reality. I'm an instrumentalist so I take such regularities to merely be useful conceptions to navigate the empirical world but not necessarily indicative of an abstract objective reality.
>You cant even identify the whole
Yes I can, I already did awhile ago: a single mind.
>critical reasoning
you're the one dismissing critical reasoning by defending denying the antecedent unabashedly.
>we make reasonable evidenced inferences
denying the antecedent is not a reasonable inference, it's the total opposite of a reasonable inference. I'm the one defending valid logic, you're the one defending invalid logic...
>ad hoc explanations
sounds a lot like materialism... "we'll solve the hard problem one day when the materialist messiah comes to save us!"

[Anonymous No.10929138]

>>10927993
>antecedence
You're mistaken, that's your view not mine and your view is based on invalid logic as I proved earlier. Science is built on logic and to abandon logic is to abandon science.
>theres no actual real evidence against my view
this is exactly how creationists argue: from ignorance. I don't need evidence against your view, you're the one who needs evidence for your view and you've to do so since you've presented an invalid argument. You have no warrant for your conclusion.
>scientific logic
there's no such thing there's just logic upon which science is built. If your theory is logically and mathematically incoherent then your theory sucks, period.
>based on what we already know and not know
the solipsist while use your own logic against you to show you don't actually know other minds than your own exist. it doesn't matter if you don't like cartesian skepticism you're still falling on your own sword.
>>10928535
You can't take that route without engaging in a double standard: if you're using epistemological solipsism to doubt the consciousness of people in dreams then this same skepticism will apply to people in waking life.

[Anonymous No.10929140]

>>10927993
>antecedence
You're mistaken, that's your view not mine and your view is based on invalid logic as I proved earlier. Science is built on logic and to abandon logic is to abandon science.
>theres no actual real evidence against my view
this is exactly how creationists argue: from ignorance. I don't need evidence against your view, you're the one who needs evidence for your view and you've to do so since you've presented an invalid argument. You have no warrant for your conclusion.
>scientific logic
there's no such thing there's just logic upon which science is built. If your theory is logically and mathematically incoherent then your theory sucks, period.
>based on what we already know and not know
the solipsist while use your own logic against you to show you don't actually know other minds than your own exist. it doesn't matter if you don't like cartesian skepticism you're still falling on your own sword.
>>10928535
You can't take that route without engaging in a double standard: if you're using epistemological solipsism to doubt the consciousness of people in dreams then this same skepticism will apply to people in waking life.

[Anonymous No.10929438]

>>10929129
1. Ive already told you i think people use metaphysics in science bit psychiatrists dont need to formally.define the mind and they dont. Simple as. No need for this to continue unless you can show me a psychiatrist's metaphysical treatise on it.

2. I havent given any ground if you would only understand what Ive said instead of resorting to your usual stereotyped spiel. Youd make a better salesman than philosopher.

3. >not making sense
you havent contextualised this comment so it doesnt make sense either.

4. Theres a difference between knowing you feel and explanations about feeling. For instance you know what its like to smell and touch but cant tell me how those sensations are related.

5. Im an instrumentalist too. Regardless of what you think causes the data, the data happens anon. You cant ignore it which you are willfully trying to do.

6. "a single mind" is a label not an operational definition or description.

7, 8. Ive not made any inference in and of itself. Ive made it as a reasonable explanation based on evidence. That in itself is not fallacious. It would be a fallacy if i wasnt using evidence. So accuse me of making a fallacy all you want but I have not.

9. youve stopped making sense. Another example of yiu trying to use spiel for rhetoric effect without actually making an argument. you need to stop doing that.

[Anonymous No.10929439]

>>10929138
1. any philosopher of science will tell you that science being built.on logic is a gross mischaracterisation of how science seems to work. you clearly dont know anything about the subject.

2. I actually meant to say no evidence for your view.
and on the contrary we both need to present evidence for eachothers views. And again havent used invalid reasoning because theres evidence enough to make a reasonable claim on my side whilst none for yours.

3. if you could fucking read youd see i never claimed there was an actual thing called scientific logic. I was saying that science isnt based on logic. Now read some philosophy of science.


4. I dont care what the Cartesian says and if anyone really did then science wouldnt exist. According to the cartesian everyone is falling on their own sword including you anon because Cartesian arguments work just as well against Bernardo Kastrup as they do against physicalists.

Brains demonstrably link to consciousness whether youre an instrumentalist physicalist or idealist.
People in dreams dont have their own brains so they couldnt have the same type of consciousness we do if you could even say that at all.
Simple as.

[Anonymous No.10929554]

>>10929438
You're failing to refute my argument about how we distinguish between a geologist and a psychiatrist: the only way we distinguish between the two is by the phenomenon they study and we can't do that without first identifying the phenomenon.
>I havent given any ground
You agreed to the mind being irreducible, that's giving tons of ground to the idealist who holds the mind to also be irreducible.
>contextualised
Yes I did, I quoted you regarding your statement about models. Apparently not even you can make sense of your own quote lol
>cant tell me how those sensations are related.
of course I can they're related to the entities I experience: the rose smells sweet.
>Im an instrumentalist too.
you must have no idea what instrumentalism then because you're talking like a scientific realist and projecting that onto me.
>causes
this is exactly what I'm talking about: instrumentalists aren't necessarily concerned with "causes," but more so regularities and predictions.
>a label
Nice try, it's not some mere label I've identified the fundamental entity that grounds existence. This is a conscious mind whose nature is exhausted by their being conscious.
>I've not made any inference in and of itself.
yes you did, you tried to infer dream characters aren't conscious since they have no brain, which is a fallacy known as denying the antecedent.
>youve stopped making sense.
what don't you get about the materialists failure to solve the hard problem and excusing themselves from this by using ad hoc explanations and promises of someone else solving it for them?

[Anonymous No.10929573]

>>10929439
>you clearly dont know anything about the subject.
You clearly have no argument to support your claims here. There's no way you can identify a phenomenon without the law of identity, there's no way you can falsify any theory without the law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle, there's no way you can infer any conclusion without rules of inference, you're just talking out of your ass...
>science isnt based on logic
>Now read some philosophy of science
lmao the irony
>no evidence for your view.
Except all this scientific evidence I referenced here: >>10927101
>havent used invalid reasoning
yes you did when you tried to infer dream characters aren't conscious from them having no brain, which is just fallaciously denying the antecedent
>work just as well against Bernardo Kastrup
Prove it. You keep making claims and failing to provide a shred of support for them.

P1. if they have a brain then they're conscious
P2. they don't have a brain
C. they're not conscious

this is the epitome of denying the antecedent, a perfect example of invalid logic.

[Anonymous No.10929609]

>>10929554
Distinguishing a rock and peoples behaviour is fucking insignificant anon. It doesnt take philosophy to do such.

I probably mean ineffable not irreducible

Im not scrawling the internet for my own quotes anon so you better tell me wt didnt make sense.

But you cant tell me why a rose smells sweet or what makes a smell feel different to a taste.

Im not talking like a realist. All im expressing is there is evidence. Regularities which people generally cant ignore like you are trying to.

Causes are just another type of regularity or the latent form of such. Causes are where predictions come from.

The only mind you can have knowledge of is in your own perspective mate. You have no model of how your little mind relates to big mind or what big mind is like.

Can you formally elucidate this fallacious inference that ive made.

I dont know shy you posted the ad hoc comments. They arent a reply to mine. You literally just saw ad hoc and decided to say something else. No one can solve the hard problem. There will always be an explanatory gap regardless of views.

[Anonymous No.10929613]

>>10929573

>>10929573
Again ignoring my point. SCIENCE ISNT BASED ON LOGIC. Please actually read something about philosophy of science like "what is this thing called science?"
Normal people get on fine without knowing about those inference rules.
Now actually provide me with a psychiatric metaphysical treatise.

>lmao the irony
again, proving yourself to be more of a salesman than someone that makes arguments. If this was in anyway a serious statement you would elaborate.

In the context of what we know about the brain and dreams, that isnt evidence anon.

It isnt fallacious if the brain is necessary for consciousness and we have good reason to believe that these are part of a normal process in your brain. Theres no other reasons to suggest dream characters have consciousness and there is no feasible mechanism for them to have consciousness. Its a completely reasonable belief which the majority of scientists would agree on.

[Anonymous No.10929629]

>>10929609
>peoples behaviour
very sneaky, but behaviorism is dead and anyone who studies this subject knows that. Very dishonest of you to switch it up to behavior when we were talking about the mind. Metaphysics answers the question: "what is" and you can't even start your scientific investigation without answering that question.
>not irreducible
so you're telling me you can reduce consciousness? prove it.
>I'm just not going to support my own claims!
suit yourself, it's your burden that you're failing to carry so it's on you.
>why a rose smells sweet
that's a completely different question and thus moving the goal post.
>Im not talking like a realist.
You sure are. You insist on there being these abstract laws of nature and causes.
>like you are trying to.
nice lie
>Causes are just another type of regularity
wrong, a cause is what brings something about. regularity is just something that occurs frequently and predictably.
>The only mind you can have knowledge of is in your own perspective mate
proof?
>no model
Yes I do, I went into detail in the previous thread.
>formally elucidate
I have multiple times already, such as pic related here: >>10927043 and in text here: >>10929573
>ad hoc comments.
You tried to claim I'm being ad hoc when I pointed out that actually its the materialists that are being ad hoc. If you're a materialist then this applies to you directly, if not it still applies generally as it's the mainstream alternative to idealism.
>No one can solve the hard problem.
good thing the idealist doesn't need to solve the hard problem. the idealist avoids the assumptions that generates the problem in the first place so the hard problem is dissolved altogether for the idealist.
>an explanatory gap
I've already explained how there's no explanatory gap with idealism since this is a purely monistic view: everything is reducible to the mental. There can't be a gap between the mental and non-mental since there's only the mental.

[Anonymous No.10929632]

>>10925303
Disgusting materialist

[Anonymous No.10929636]

this is the most autistic argument I've seen in a while

[Anonymous No.10929641]

>>10929636
but anon how will youvever distinguish a psychiatrist from a geologist if you don't solve the hard problem of consciousness? Next time you go for therapy you might end up getting a lecture on sedimentation instead.

[Anonymous No.10929643]

>>10929613
>Again ignoring my point.
This is incredibly ironic, you're the one who just ignored my argument about how we can't identify phenomenon without the law of identity or how we can't falsify without the law of non-contradiction. You're simply repeating the claim that I already gave a counter argument against and failing to provide your own counter argument.
>Normal people
they're still using these exact same rules of logic even if they don't know them by name.
Now actually provide me a counter argument to my distinction about geologist and psychiatrists: we distinguish them by the phenomenon they study hence we can't distinguish the two without identifying the phenomenon they study, hence identifying the mind is necessary first so metaphysics comes first.
>salesman
I'm the one who actually provided an argument, a a valid one with true premises at that, you're the one who is just name calling right now... you really don't see the irony here...?
>elaborate.
I already did elaborate. I gave several arguments that science is based on logic and you failed to give a counter argument and just called me a salesman while telling me to read philosophy of science. Pretty sure philosophy of science literature is filled with arguments instead of name calling...
>that isnt evidence anon.
that isn't an argument anon. fail
> if the brain is necessary for consciousness
you need to prove this is true first, you don't get that for free. the burden of proof is on you. also, what about AI? what about other aliens who may be conscious but are different than us? how do you know brains are necessary for consciousness?
Argumentum ad populum is fallacious as well...

[Anonymous No.10929646]

>>10929641
>being this illiterate

[Anonymous No.10929653]

>>10929643
>Now actually provide me a counter argument to my distinction about geologist and psychiatrists: we distinguish them by the phenomenon they study hence we can't distinguish the two without identifying the phenomenon they study, hence identifying the mind is necessary first so metaphysics comes first.
I'm not your butt buddy, but what is your explanation for the fact that literally nobody in the real world has any trouble distinguishing those two professions?

[Anonymous No.10929655]

>>10929653
I literally just gave you the explanation you illiterate faggot: we distinguish them by the phenomenon they study: one studies the mind, one studies rocks.

[Anonymous No.10929683]

>>10929629
Send me the metaphysical treatise anon. I wont say anymore than that about this until you do so.

Consciousness clearly supervenes onthe brain as neuroscience demonstrates.

Dont know what claims youre talking about

I started the question fuckwit

The laws of physics are models or descriptions of the world. You can be both an instrumentalist or a realist about them. No contradictions here anon. What is contradicting is to ignore the fact that there is an order to things - physics.

>doesnt realise that something that brins something else about is by necessity a regularity.
Honestly theres no point going into a longwindedness about the definition of cause anon.

>proof
because you dont exist in other peoples minds. because your perspective is unique to yourself.

>model
it wasnt operational

Everyones ad hoc in science but theres a difference between ad hoc postulates to alter a theory to make it better and ad hoc postulates to things that dont need it like how the brain relates to the mind without the mind supervening on the brain how to postulate how the world is created which can account for all the things in the world explained more easily by darwinian theory.

Im not going to support idealism purely on the fact it avoids assumptions anon.

You may conceptualise non mental amd mental concepts under one label but thay doesnt mean the differences between the two are resolved.

>>10929643
The whole point of my argument is that psychiatrists dont formalise things. Like you said normal people might behave as if abiding by those laws without knowing anything about them. Identifying the mind is so trivial there is no metaphysics for it in paychiatry and the hard problem wont affect it unless you can demonstrate to me.

[Anonymous No.10929686]

>>10929629
Im making a criticism of you and using the word salesman as a metaphor.

You said nothing about science and logic. You said people make inferences under some logical rules (though im sure its actually known that people make inferences irrationally) which isnt necessarily about science.

Brains are necessary for our consciousness through the experiments and observations done in neuroscience. When you bring abiut things outside of humans we cant really comment as tbey are so different. the familiaruty of consciousness dissolves whilst things like a.i. are probably too simple for consciousness. Whilst hypothetically a.i. can be consciousness the a.i. would have a hypothetical mechanism for it which dream characters dont. They dont have the hardware. Arguing at populum may be fallacious but it doesnt mean there isnt a point there. Its not intrinsically fallacious anon.

[Anonymous No.10929699]

>>10929683
>>10929686
I will respond to these later today. Unlike you I actually have a life and don't have the time to sit on 4chan all day

[Anonymous No.10929704]

>>10929699
Lool very ironic message considering the patterns of our convos before today. Youre so hostile. Its clear you only chat to try to win arguments without any real interest in discussion.

[Anonymous No.10929746]

Eliminativism ftw. Fuck physicalism. Fuck Idealism. Both retarded faggots.

[Anonymous No.10929917]

>>10929704
You realize that guy was not the only idealist in that last thread, right?

[Anonymous No.10931163]

>>10929683
You really are illiterate: I never once claimed there's a metaphysical treatise only that the phenomenon needs to be identified, otherwise you can't distinguish them from geologists.
>Consciousness clearly supervenes
way to beg the question. Supervenience falls prey to the exclusion problem and thus you will fail to maintain mental causation.
>Dont know what claims youre talking about
sounds like a personal problem, once again you fail to carry your burden.
>I started the question fuckwit
you moved the goal post is what happened
>No contradictions here anon
Yes there is: instrumentalism is non-realism, which means they don't take these "laws" to be actually real, they just see them as useful descriptions. Do you even know what instrumentalism is?
>causes are regularities therefore regularities are causes!
you suck at logic so bad
>because you dont exist in other peoples minds.
this doesn't prove epistemological solipsism (ES) at all. fail.
>because your perspective is unique to yourself.
neither does this prove ES either.
>it wasnt operational
you're moving the goal post again. do you even know the difference between metaphysics and science?
>Everyones ad hoc
nice tu quoque fallacy, this doesn't abdicate you of the responsibility to to carry your burden.
>it avoids assumptions anon.
1. I'm not saying you should, I'm giving deductive arguments for idealism.
2. why not? idealism is more parsimonious and has more explanatory power and scope. this is easily more theoretically virtuous than what you're presenting.
>the differences between the two
I already told you I'm a monist not a dualist: I don't make that distinction since all is mental.
>psychiatrists dont formalise things
more goal post shifting: I didn't say they did. Only that there's a starting point and it lies in metaphysics. The mind has to at least be identified as a phenomenon otherwise the word "psychiatrist" literally means nothing...

[Anonymous No.10931178]

>>10929686
>salesman
your "criticism" consisted of pure ad homs and no arguments.
>You said nothing about science and logic.
yes I did, liar. I've said this multiple times now: you're the one who just ignored my argument about how we can't identify phenomenon without the law of identity or how we can't falsify without the law of non-contradiction. You're simply repeating the claim that I already gave a counter argument against and failing to provide your own counter argument. You can't make an inference if you're not relying on logic.
>Brains are necessary for our consciousness
what happened to you? I thought you were an instrumentalist?? You want to say scientific theories aren't mirrors of the real world but are actually just useful descriptions but then you want to claim not only that your scientific theory is true but that it is necessarily true. You've jumped the shark dude... Which is it? are you an instrumentalist or not? Also, just saying the word "neuroscience" doesn't prove your claim. Idealism actually has a much better handle on neuroscience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
>Arguing at populum may be fallacious but it doesnt mean there isnt a point there.
yeah it kind of does actually. The geocentrists back in the day said the exact same thing you said just now... just stop using fallacious logic, it's pure shit it doesn't help anybody.
>>10929704
>considering the patterns of our convos before today.
what this anon said: >>10929917
your pattern recognition sucks
>Youre so hostile.
dude you're on 4chan quit being a bitch
>Its clear you only chat to try to win arguments without any real interest in discussion.
the projection is strong in this one. you started up a whole new thread in a desperate attempt to get the last word lmao

[Anonymous No.10931234]

>>10931163
>>10931178
I admit it anon, you won; well done. Idealism is the truth of the matter!

[Anonymous No.10931236]

>>10925303
Who else saw a condom and four thongs?

[Anonymous No.10931242]

>>10931234
So passive like a bitch, no wonder you just roll over

[Anonymous No.10931280]

>>10931242
Im not being passive, Im agreeing with you, your view makes more sense! Youre clearly a smart guy, they are some good arguments.

[Anonymous No.10931286]

>>10931280
>still being passive aggressive
we're hitting low test levels that shouldn't even be possible

[Anonymous No.10931318]

>>10931286
Im being honest, I couldn't reply to your arguments could I.
>low test
Duly noted

[Anonymous No.10931440]

>>10931318
Why are you such a little bitch? Why can't you just be honest?