Quote:
Originally Posted by tisonlyi
all of what I said should all have been prefaced with "I muse" - though I think that's redundant on a forum such as this), most of which are up for debate
|
It seems that it does not matter if we put our sentences into the negative, or use question marks, everything we write will be reversed and also questioned.
Quote:
|
As for where do thoughts come from, your answer looks distinctly idealistic. Asserting the existence of entities and sources of knowledge outside of the observable universe we'll have to agree to disagree about.That's a discussion that pretty much ends up in qualia, and there's no agreement on that at all.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, qualia is made up by the atheist materialist camp, as a word to replace the idealists: phenomena. What is the difference between qualia considerations and phenomenology? Qualia is a science propaganda word, Dennett coined it, popularized by Dawkins. Nice word for this thread actually with its association with homosexuality: "Believers in qualia are known as qualophiles; non-believers as qualophobes." Propaganda obviously, and a tool of the homosexual agenda. As philosophers and not science-zombies; we don't stand a chance against the budget and media power of the atheist-objectivist agenda. (If we explore this longer, we can show that qualia is a capitalist concept.)
Quote:
|
"You are nothing. Thus you are free."... I'd rephrase that to: "You are utterly inconsequential within your time, the time of your species and the time of your sector of the universe. Thus you are free."
|
No. Not my meaning. You are not nothing because you are insigniicant, not because of your objective rank. Nothing is free. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose", the phenomenological reduction (complete doubt, total skepticism), that is: deconstruction of all frames and constructs, leaves a consciousness that can not be touched by objective cause and effect, it does not play in the relation of things.
Quote:
|
My view of the brain is of many massively parallel processing apparatus independently dealing with senses, etc. (Neural nets, as a horribly obtuse analogy) Shaped and 'wired' in different ways to suit different tasks, interlinked in some way, and passing information to other, similarly specialised structures which then deal with decision making, aspects of memory above the localised, orientation and motion, spacial awareness, etc and then on to towards speech, etc. There's a massive gap in human knowledge here, but it's getting there.
|
Neurology has nothing to do with philosophy of mind, where is this going?
Quote:
|
If you can direct me towards an excellent source for the assertion of radical free will as an equally valid truth, I'll be very glad to go read it.
|
How about "Being and Nothingness"?
Quote:
|
Nature and nurture are similar concepts in many ways, but not the same. The genetic material with which you are endowed, combined with the physical development processes you are exposed to aren't the same thing as the culture you are indoctrinated with.
|
Culture is physical, it is part of the meaning of "physical development processes".
Quote:
|
Also, Materialist I am. Objectivist I am not. Rand can rot.
|
How do you view these as being different?
Quote:
|
(You got me with the Asian language thing, I couldn't profess to speak any Asian languages. I'm aware of the rudiments of Indonesian, and was mostly regurgitating information from sources I'm scrabbling around to find)
|
You fell for debate tactics, and worse, the fallacy: Argument from Authority.
Seeing as Asian languages speak and write in the reverse order of particularity that the West does: West: Orlando, Florida, United States; East: United States, Florida, Orlando, I think there could be an interesting case made for a metaphysical meaning of this John Smith/Smith John...?
Quote:
|
Your mother tongue shapes and informs your reality, your worldview, which shapes your metaphysics.
|
Witt, "The limits of my language are the limits of my world."
Quote:
|
Are you a student of Linguistics?
|
If I said yes or if I said no, there would be no certainty possible, so no sense claiming anything.
Quote:
|
Aside: Until there's a point of view that has the capability of solving the developing energy crisis, reliably describing the motion of the heavenly bodies, growing enough crops to feed the 10 billion who are coming and designing the logic machines and networking systems that allow you to flippantly toss it away or equate it to... well... some mysterious source of thought and truth... I'll keep my materialism, empiricism and skepticism with the scientific method applied (careful with the induction, which probably goes some way towards what seems to be your problem with (hard)determinism.
|
You have moral problems mixed in with objective ones. "No is implies an ought." - Hume. Do you propose to solve moral problems with science?
Why not? You\re left with a half-true mitigation if you attempt to resolve the two: seems to me more sensible to maintain
both Hard Determinism
and Radiclal Freewill.
Quote:
|
Myos... "Vana" = Eesti? (Minä asuin lähellä. Suomessa.)
|
Are you Finn?