A question for Materialists/Atheist/ Humanists and their allies

[seer]

The descriptions mention the property. Once again, you committed the use/mention mistake, confusing a description/statement with that with which the description/statement refers.



I'd like for you to stop moving the goalposts to avoid addressing points. You said in response:

"So mental properties are non-physical. So they don't actually exist anywhere. Really just ideas..."

Show where I said that mental properties are just ideas and don't exist anywhere. If you're unable to show where I said this, then why did you misrepresent me as saying it?

I did not claim that you said mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere. That is a conclusion I drew. So how do you define "property?" And where do they exist?

[Catholicity]

Actually there are about eight species that do pass the mirror test, which suggests some degree of self-awareness.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Cetaceans

Some house cats do this too or at the very least after long enough of trying to engage mirror kitty decide its not real.

[Catholicity]

What chemical reaction is it that allows a chemical
reaction to become aware that it is a chemical reaction?


Anticipated answer: It's not "a" chemical reaction, it's a "set" of chemical reactions.

Okay, so what was the original set of chemical reactions that allowed that set
of chemical reactions to become aware that it was a set of chemical reactions?

Anticipated answer:
"Duhhhh, no one knows but we "do know" that it happened because here we are!"

Jorge

. Jorge I hope you realize the brain and spinal cord are not chemical but electrical. Its a network of nerve impulses carrying messages faster than I can type a letter on my tablet. Hence why a misfiring of electronic signals such as in epilepsy may result in a complete lack of self awareness and or unconscious ness. You actually demonstrate no understanding of the nervous function and less for science.

[Jichard]

I did not claim that you said mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere. That is a conclusion I drew. So how do you define "property?" And where do they exist?

How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people.

[seer]

How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people.

OK, then tell us. What are properties - how do you define them? And where do they exist?

[Jichard]

OK, then tell us. What are properties - how do you define them? And where do they exist?

You didn't answer the question.

How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people.

[seer]

You didn't answer the question.

How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people.

That was my conclusion because you said that mental properties were non-physical. So if they are non-physical how are they real, apart from being mere concepts? Where could these non-physical properties possibly exist?

[Jichard]

That was my conclusion because you said that mental properties were non-physical. So if they are non-physical how are they real, apart from being mere concepts? Where could these non-physical properties possibly exist?

You didn't answer the question. You still seem to be missing the point: how can you draw a conclusion from my post, when you conclusion conflicts with what I said in my post? How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people.

[seer]

You didn't answer the question. You still seem to be missing the point: how can you draw a conclusion from my post, when you conclusion conflicts with what I said in my post? How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people.

I just told you why I drew the conclusions I did. But I see again you have no answers - duly noted.

[Jichard]

I just told you why I drew the conclusions I did. But I see again you have no answers - duly noted.

And still no answer to my points. You still seem to be missing the point: how can you draw a conclusion from my post, when you conclusion conflicts with what I said in my post? I'm waiting for the explanation of why you drew a conclusion from my post, when that conclusion conflicts with my post. How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people. How can I carry on a sensible conversation with someone who intentionally distorts what other people say, and then doesn't explain themselves when caught on it?


It's painfully clear that you have no answer for your gross misrepresentations of me, Chalmers, Searle, Harris, Putnam, the Churchlands, Kim, reductive physicalists, and so on. Sad.

[seer]

And still no answer to my points. You still seem to be missing the point: how can you draw a conclusion from my post, when you conclusion conflicts with what I said in my post? I'm waiting for the explanation of why you drew a conclusion from my post, when that conclusion conflicts with my post. How did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

I want to see how you support your gross misrepresentations and strawmen of other people. How can I carry on a sensible conversation with someone who intentionally distorts what other people say, and then doesn't explain themselves when caught on it?


It's painfully clear that you have no answer for your gross misrepresentations of me, Chalmers, Searle, Harris, Putnam, the Churchlands, Kim, reductive physicalists, and so on. Sad.

Listen Homer, how my times do I have to say they were my conclusions? And until you demonstrate otherwise and answer my two questions I feel justified in holding that opinion.

[Jichard]

Listen Homer, how amy times do I have to say they were my conclusions?

Telling me that there your conclusions, doesn't tell me how you could have drawn a conclusion from my post, when your conclusion disagrees with what I said in my post. How can you conclude "not-X" from "X", seer?

So how did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

And until you demonstrate otherwise and answer my two questions I feel justified in holding my opinion.

Until you demonstrate that you can fairly represent what people say, as opposed to pretending those people implied things they actually didn't (see above), then sensible discussion with you is impossible. Why discuss properties with someone who, when you discuss properties, will draw conclusions from your post that directly contradict what you wrote?

[seer]

Telling me that there your conclusions, doesn't tell me how you could have drawn a conclusion from my post, when your conclusion disagrees with what I said in my post. How can you conclude "not-X" from "X", seer?

So how did you draw that conclusion, when I never said that "mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere", but instead said this?:

"mental properties are non-physical, since they aren't the properties discussed in the science of physics. They don't occur at a physical level of explanation, just as biological properties are non-physics since they don't occur at the level of explanation biology focuses on."

Until you demonstrate that you can fairly represent what people say, as opposed to pretending those people implied things they actually didn't (see above), then sensible discussion with you is impossible. Why discuss properties with someone who, when you discuss properties, will draw conclusions from your post that directly contradict what you wrote?

Are you being dense on purpose? You are the one claiming that mental properties exist and that they are not physical. So what the heck are they. And you are implying that they actually exist. Where do these non-physical things exist? What exactly is a "property?"

[seer]

. Jorge I hope you realize the brain and spinal cord are not chemical but electrical. Its a network of nerve impulses carrying messages faster than I can type a letter on my tablet. Hence why a misfiring of electronic signals such as in epilepsy may result in a complete lack of self awareness and or unconscious ness. You actually demonstrate no understanding of the nervous function and less for science.

But his over all point is correct. The idea of consciousness coming non-conscious matter and energy being shakey. BTW the brain functions are both electrical and chemical. And there is no naturalistic explanation for consciousness, to quote again, the atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness. And no description of C-fibers or pain-avoiding behavior will bring the subjective reality into view...

...Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/t...-consciousness

[Jichard]

I did not claim that you said mental properties were just ideas that didn't exist anywhere.That is a conclusion I drew.

And you failed to answer my question, as usual.

So how do you define "property?" And where do they exist?

Please actually pay attention when things are explained to you, as oppose to distorting, misrepresenting, quote-mining, etc. That way you don't repeat questions that have been answered over and over.

And you're still misled on this. Events are caused by previous events (normally specific constituents of previous events). Those events (and their constituents) have various properties, including computational properties, chemical properties, biological properties, and so on. The various sciences discuss these properties (and the relevant processes) at various levels of description. Now, you erroneously seem to think there is some computational event utterly divorced form the chemical event that occurs at the same time. That's a confusion on your part. Given what I just said, there is instead an event, where that event has a computational description that describes its computational properties, a chemical description that discusses it's chemical properties, a biological description that discusses it's biological properties, and so on. This is philosophy of science 101.

So your "what physically causes these computational events if not chemistry?" is based on a confusion on your part. One natural event causes another natural event, where each of those events have different properties under different descriptions. You would have caught on to this if you bothered to ever fairly address the above bright red claim you've been dodging for awhile now.