Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Are Thoughts Causal?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Anomaly View PostYes, they have souls of a lesser sort than humans. The word typically used to make the distinction between animal and human soul is intellect, arguably the highest form of soul with powers of abstraction the moral sense. The intellect is the sort of soul under consideration here. You're correct that the affiliation feature is logical conjecture. But logical conjecture can, if it provides sufficient logical connections, advance to levels of empirical testability. I assume you're aware that conjecture is used by empiricists and non-empiricists (religionists) alike in their approach to solving problems?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostMany materialists do not believe that thoughts have a causal role in any sense, they are in effect epiphenomenal. To quote T.H. Huxley:
"Consciousness would appear to be related to the mechanism of the body simply as a collateral product of its working, and to be as completely without any power of modifying that working as the steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery..."
What he refereed to as "conscious automata."
In other words our thoughts have no real effect on behavior. This seems like a way to counter any form of dualism. But it seems to be that immaterial thoughts do play a causal role in behavior, this I believe is obvious in everyday experience.
One possible solution is some sort of 'neutral monism' or 'dual aspect' theory. This would solve the 'interaction problem,' and other problems inherent in substance dualisms, although it may lead to panpsychism or proto-panpsychism. Chalmers and others have proposed a 'dual-aspect information theory,' in which everything decomposes ultimately into information bits which present in dual-aspect form, as either intrinsic or extrinsic, ie, information 'from the inside,' or 'from the outside.'
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostScience doesn't have an explanation for consciousness period, regardless of whether we're talking about humans or higher mammals.
Arguing from ignorance is a fallacy and not coherent for arguing against a scientific explanation for consciousness which humans share in common with all higher animals.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Anomaly View PostYes, they have souls of a lesser sort than humans. The word typically used to make the distinction between animal and human soul is intellect, arguably the highest form of soul with powers of abstraction the moral sense. The intellect is the sort of soul under consideration here. You're correct that the affiliation feature is logical conjecture. But logical conjecture can, if it provides sufficient logical connections, advance to levels of empirical testability. I assume you're aware that conjecture is used by empiricists and non-empiricists (religionists) alike in their approach to solving problems?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFirst, primates and some higher mammals hive a primitive forms of intellect, and capable of problem solving, and memorizing complex behavior. Regardless there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain.
Your 'observation', which you've made ad nauseam, is as always, entirely beside the point and has absolutely nothing to do with the 'hard problem' which you have never exhibited the slightest shred of evidence for having understood any aspect of, or any willingness or curiosity to try to learn about.. You're clearly out of your depth. Please go back to cutting and pasting science articles. I won't engage with you any more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI thought you were banned from this thread. Please observe the rules.
Your 'observation', which you've made ad nauseam, is as always, entirely beside the point and has absolutely nothing to do with the 'hard problem' which you have never exhibited the slightest shred of evidence for having understood any aspect of, or any willingness or curiosity to try to learn about.. You're clearly out of your depth. Please go back to cutting and pasting science articles. I won't engage with you any more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRather, I think that the intellectual distinction between animal and human is called a bigger more complex physical brain, not a bigger more complex soul/mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThen all higher mammals have souls. By the evidence a 'the affiliation or fusion of the non-empirical soul with the empirical body.' is conjecture based on religious belief and unnecessary to explain consciousness in the animal kingdom.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFirst, primates and some higher mammals hive a primitive forms of intellect, and capable of problem solving, and memorizing complex behavior. Regardless there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI thought you were banned from this thread. Please observe the rules.
Your 'observation', which you've made ad nauseam, is as always, entirely beside the point and has absolutely nothing to do with the 'hard problem' which you have never exhibited the slightest shred of evidence for having understood any aspect of, or any willingness or curiosity to try to learn about.. You're clearly out of your depth. Please go back to cutting and pasting science articles. I won't engage with you any more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOh, you have actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain do you? Pray tell.
There are good reasons to believe that consciousness and intellect goes beyond the physical activity of the brain, but everyone here knows you're an extremely hardline empiricist who will never acknowledge any reasons that are not supported by empirical evidence, even when the issue at hand is not amenable to empirical study.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post...but no actual evidence.Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post. . .everyone here knows you're an extremely hardline empiricist who will never acknowledge any reasons that are not supported by empirical evidence, even when the issue at hand is not amenable to empirical study.
And no one was surprised.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
611 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment