Re: Debunking simplistic physicalism

curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) writes:
Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) writes:

However, the idea that brain activity is non-physical goes to support many
of the concepts of religion.

That seems silly. I don't know of anybody who would claim that brain
activity is non-physical.

It's a lot easier to accept the idea that "we"
can go to hell after death if you already live in a society that trains you
to believe thoughts aren't physical.

Whether thoughts are physical is a different question from whether
brain activity is physical. Reference to thoughts is a figure of
speech. There no clearly identifiable *thing* that constitutes
a thought.

I don't even suggest we start a campaign to change our language. Instead.
I only suggest that people like you, who care to understand these things
and spend time debating and studying these ideas, needs to train yourself,
to think differently so you can grasp what I'm saying.

Sorry to break the news, but I understand what you are saying.
I understand it well enough to see your mistake. Perhaps you need
to understand it better.

Materialism and physicalism is the model without contraction.

That's your theology. But it doesn't work.

It doesn't work because you have failed to think using teh correct model of
reality.

False.

Among other problems, there is no such thing as *the* correct model
of reality.

We disagree because I do not accept your implicit creationism.

You are so invested in the false model of reality taught to you so you
could speak English correctly, you can't even grasp that the universe
doesn't work that way.

This is no minor issue I am talking about here. Very smart, and very
educated people think the hard problem of conscious is actually hard to
solve when it's trivial.

Other very smart people think it is trivial, or that consciousness
does not exist. That seems to be where you fit.

Both groups are mistaken. And the mistake comes from what I am
calling "implicit creationist thinking."

What makes it hard, is the the fact that these
same people have been brainwashed into using a false model of reality.

I guess that applies to you, too. I base that on what you have been
posting.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum physics meets biology.
    ... connection between quantum theory, brain and information. ... usually consciousness and rarely unconsciousness. ... consciousness = virtual reality. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Consciousness: whats the problem?
    ... machines and that there is nothing else we need ... brain here) that would require a rainbow (read sentience, ... consciousness etc here). ... and not defined by the reality itself. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Christopher Hitchens is dead ....
    ... Here's an interesting snippet from How God Changes Your Brain ... Each part of the brain constructs a different perception of God. ... neurological perception of reality itself. ... This consciousness is very different from the ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: consciousness
    ... What you call subjective is simply your brain ... statement without any external reality. ... to say that they're aware of them is meaningless, ... that's what consciousness is all ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Brian Davies - Light and Vision
    ... which provide hints about the brain mechanisms ... our brain constructs the reality in which we live; ... Hoffman the rules of construction are built into the ... they even explain why the evidence of our own senses ...
    (de.soc.weltanschauung.misc)