|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2016 20:56:18 GMT -5
I believe it is safe to assume that in your post that "experts" = "theists". Should I google and get a list of 'experts' that can refute your claim? You group a number of activities into 'consciousness'. These things are not entities in themselves but activities that the brain does. Consider 'digestion'. It is not an entity. It is something that the stomach/intestines do. You cannot pick up digestion nor thinking and put it in a box. But you can see the various organs preforming these tasks. Pain is a state of mind but not only so. Can you offer support for this premise?According to you. There are prosaic explanations that can be verified independently and are based on observations and not belief.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2016 22:42:27 GMT -5
What type pf specialist did you read? Honors project at Bowling Green State University and a philosophy professor at Bristol University, England. Never heard of them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2016 22:48:20 GMT -5
We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks? ehum.. I wonder if you will be giving thanks when you have a difficult time peeing because you were so wonderfully made that your urethra which goes through your prostate gland often enlarges in older men causing stricture on the urethra.He could have been born with a permanent stent in his prostate.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 28, 2016 22:52:42 GMT -5
I have to agree with you here. One is an entity that has been formed and the other is a philosophy.You might but you could be proved to be wrong in so many areas. Perhaps what you mean is that they should be treated equally. Or you could even create a set of statutes that would provide the framework.I think the main difference is that physicalism is based on reality and whatever 'creation' is, there is no need to verify any of the claims regarding what it represents. A electro-bio-chemical reaction creating and storing these creations form the building blocks with which you build your worldview, a worldview that exists only because of the richness of the actions/reactions found in your cells. You can only speak of the possible imagined richness of your worldview because of the actual richness that make it possible. We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks? Thank your dad for fertilising your mum.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 29, 2016 0:28:30 GMT -5
What type pf specialist did you read? Honors project at Bowling Green State University and a philosophy professor at Bristol University, England. Can you give us the links?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 29, 2016 0:37:23 GMT -5
ehum.. I wonder if you will be giving thanks when you have a difficult time peeing because you were so wonderfully made that your urethra which goes through your prostate gland often enlarges in older men causing stricture on the urethra. One way people express gratitude is by moderating their response to adversity for a greater good. In your view of physicalism is this just the brain replicating/repackaging itself to secure the greatest odds for its survival? Or do we exist in relationship to a greater good. Something ontologically greater? J ust you wait, Lee! With your bladder full and you can't pee! You won't be thinking about the "greater good" or "physicalism" or ANYTHING "ontologically" or otherwise!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 29, 2016 1:06:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 29, 2016 7:56:18 GMT -5
A paper from the Philosophy Department of Bristol University. and this one: Explaining Consciousness: an Argument against Physicalism and an Argument for TheismBenjamin Dobler It appears to be dissertation for a Philosophy degree. With the exception of David Chalmers I don't see a lot of experts in the primary fields being discussed - physics, biology, and chemistry in either of your refrences. How can a valid argument be made when the 'experts' are all defending their transient beliefs without exploring the opposite side of the equation? I see that you did not mention any of the 20+ papers that were submitted in response to Chalmers' initial paper, which appears to have been the basis for your references. These responses have been collected and published in Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem, Jonathan Shear(ed.). The writers do appear to be the experts for whom you were looking.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 30, 2016 0:58:49 GMT -5
Why do you think David Chalmers is an expert?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 30, 2016 2:40:37 GMT -5
Thanks for giving the links that I asked. Here is my answer to this one. It didn't seem to be a "project" in the sense of work of several people but only the work of one person, Benjamin Dobler Explaining Consciousness: an Argument against Physicalism and an Argument for Theism AbstractConsciousness, the mental phenomenon of our subjective experience of the world, has long been the subject of philosophical debate. The world we experience is full of sights, sounds, taste, smells, and feelings--phenomenal experiences. As the vehicle of phenomenal experience, consciousness is one of the most familiar and readily accessible features of our world, and perhaps the hardest to deny. Yet science tells us that our world is entirely composed of matter and energy, and physical phenomena can be explained as just that. In Part I, I argue that consciousness stands wholly at odds with this scientistic worldview, providing evidence against physicalism, the doctrine that everything that exists depends exclusively upon the physical world.
In Part II, I argue that consciousness provides evidence in favor of theism. By postulating a conscious Creator of the world, theism explains consciousness precisely where physicalism fails.The above statement does in no way convince me that his argument proves his premise if he has to postulate there being a "conscious" Creator of the world in order to explain " consciousness" in a person.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 30, 2016 6:27:30 GMT -5
Why do you think David Chalmers is an expert? He has knowledge and on both sides of this discussion. 0Also, when you posted: I googled "arguments against the worldview of physicalism" and read a couple articles. In the view of many "experts" physicalism cannot offer an explanation for consciousness. In the references you provided the bulk of the material was based on the work of Chalmers. I did not see anyone else mentioned in either of the papers that would be considered an expert. I was going along with your observation. Unless, of course, the reason you quoited the word expert was because you were using some other meaning. However, in rebuttal to Chalmers there were a number of people who could also be considered experts, without the need for quotes.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2016 10:46:40 GMT -5
With the exception of David Chalmers I don't see a lot of experts in the primary fields being discussed - physics, biology, and chemistry in either of your refrences. How can a valid argument be made when the 'experts' are all defending their transient beliefs without exploring the opposite side of the equation? To state that physics, biology, and chemistry are the primary fields under discussion is to beg the question of the nature of the phenomenon of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 3, 2016 11:04:01 GMT -5
With the exception of David Chalmers I don't see a lot of experts in the primary fields being discussed - physics, biology, and chemistry in either of your refrences. How can a valid argument be made when the 'experts' are all defending their transient beliefs without exploring the opposite side of the equation? To state that physics, biology, and chemistry are the primary fields under discussion is to beg the question of the nature of the phenomenon of consciousness. That is indeed the question when you are discussing whether consciousness can be explained by physical events alone. Good to ask people who understand the physical world. If you state that a stork and not biology is responsible for human reproduction and neglect to get some ideas from a biologist can you really say that 'experts' have concluded that the stork is the answer?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 3, 2016 12:13:47 GMT -5
To state that physics, biology, and chemistry are the primary fields under discussion is to beg the question of the nature of the phenomenon of consciousness. That is indeed the question when you are discussing whether consciousness can be explained by physical events alone. Good to ask people who understand the physical world. If you state that a stork and not biology is responsible for human reproduction and neglect to get some ideas from a biologist can you really say that 'experts' have concluded that the stork is the answer? If you haven't studied the writings of ornithologists about human reproduction, can you really conclude that storks are not responsible?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 3, 2016 14:42:15 GMT -5
That is indeed the question when you are discussing whether consciousness can be explained by physical events alone. Good to ask people who understand the physical world. If you state that a stork and not biology is responsible for human reproduction and neglect to get some ideas from a biologist can you really say that 'experts' have concluded that the stork is the answer? If you haven't studied the writings of ornithologists about human reproduction, can you really conclude that storks are not responsible? I guess I was thinking that biology covered the sub-branches of zoology and ornithology. But as a secondary verification check perhaps enlisting an embryologist and/or geneticist to verify the zygote development and source of the DNA!
|
|