The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2019, 9:44 am Reading words on a screen is a demonstration of consciousness? How so?Why don't YOU answer MY question?
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 25th, 2019, 1:50 pmI have to agree with Tamminen, materialism is absurd. It is entirely reliant on the imagined concepts of cause and effect…??? Materialism is compatible with various realistic conceptions of causation, and even with antirealism about it. For example, materialism is perfectly compatible with the universe being as described by Heil, i.e. such that causal relations aren't real but merely apparent:
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2019, 11:39 amOnce again, an inferral based on one's own experience. There is no sense of other's senses, just an empty assumption. The direct experience of other's experience never comes, there is only an intention read into symbols from one's own experience.That I'm not the only subject of consciousness in the world is anything but an "empty assumption". There is indirect (biological/physiological/neurological/psychological) evidence for other consciousnesses, on the basis of which analogical inferences to other consciousnesses are justified. For example, don't you think you're justified in believing that your parents are conscious beings just like you?
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2019, 4:32 pmThis guy heil is saying a substance has no parts, no connection to its modes, it doesn't change, no causation between its modes, but it does evolve, and its modes change spontaneously? This guy sounds crazy, and he has eliminated any area of dispute. I can't argue with him.The modes of a substance are its attributes, properties, or qualities; and these are certainly ontologically connected to it: Substances have/possess/exemplify/instantiate attributes.
Besides the point on a substance's evolution making it temporal, and giving it parts, there is nothing else I can argue with him about.
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2019, 11:56 amLife is not simple. Materialism is complicated. It was designed to replace naive dualism and it has never failed since then, but has grown in meaning and scope as more is uncovered about the universe through its method.
Why are you so willing to ignore everything contradictory about materialism? You don't question cause and effect, substance, subjectivity or conditionality. You don't look at any of the concepts behind materialism and yet you insist it is the obvious truth. How is life so simple for you?
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2019, 4:20 pmHow can a substance have modes of existence? This implies that it changes, or that it is more than one, both of which contradict the idea of a substance. If a substance changes, it must have interactions with something other than substance, and if it is more than one, it is not a substance, because there can only be one.No, Heil does not say "a substance does not change". He says "the source of the change is either spontaneous or the result of an interaction with something"; but if there is only one substance, qualitative change cannot result from interactions with other substances and must hence be spontaneous, i.e. result from an "inner drive", an internal impulse or propensity.
However, he clearly says a substance does not change, nor does the substance act on its modes, but that its modes change spontaneously. I don't get it. What is a mode to a substance? Is it a form of existence? Does a substance have different forms of existence? This means it changes, so how can things be phrased that way? How does a thing go from one form to another without changing? Unless you assume said things have always been in existence, but that can't be true because he said things are subject to spontaneous change. So how can a thing have modes of existence but not change?
Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑May 26th, 2019, 5:42 pmYour response meets my empirical requirements. If that is not good enough for you, it is not relevant. We live in a material world and all evidence of consciousness derives from clearly definable matter.
Where's the demonstration of other's consciousness? A demonstration that is not deduced but directly experienced. Once that is posted, then materialism has never failed.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
"Feeling it in the brain" does […]
I don’t see why SRSIMs could not also evolv[…]