- 23 May 2018 13:16
#14917280
The correct term is logic, but we all make mistakes.
Correct, which only means that people observe correlations and sequences, not causes. Nothing more and nothing less.
Congrats, you have advanced nothing.
Besides the fact you cannot prove this as an absolute, but only by induction (which is also a fallacy arguing from part-to-whole), it is still quite irrelevant to the problem that you and everyone else can see. No causal relationship between brains and thought can be established from observation and this is ultimately because the constituent elements of phenomenal states (the mental) are irreducible and our knowledge of physical properties reduces to our observation of said-properties (the mental/phenomenal).
Essentially, everyone is trying to put the cart-before-horse in trying to reduce the irreducible mental-content/sensations, etc to physical properties (which are in fact reducible to the mental/sensations). They do this because they are not willing to accept the philosophical conclusion demanded by logic.
Which is that the scientific worldview of physicalism is an abject failure and that the Occamist worldview of Berkeley remains what it has always been: irrefutable and (for some unknown reason) unpopular.
[Berkeley's arguments] "admit of no answer and produce no conviction."
- David Hume.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry
Rugoz wrote:Which is frankly irrelevant mumbo-jumbo.
The correct term is logic, but we all make mistakes.
Rugoz wrote:All that matters is that I know when I do something, it leads to something else, and that's what observation can provide.
Correct, which only means that people observe correlations and sequences, not causes. Nothing more and nothing less.
Congrats, you have advanced nothing.
Rugoz wrote:I can see the problem, but I would argue there are definitely sensations that are felt and expressed almost equally by everyone. Needless to say an equal brain at an equal state would always report the same sensation.
Besides the fact you cannot prove this as an absolute, but only by induction (which is also a fallacy arguing from part-to-whole), it is still quite irrelevant to the problem that you and everyone else can see. No causal relationship between brains and thought can be established from observation and this is ultimately because the constituent elements of phenomenal states (the mental) are irreducible and our knowledge of physical properties reduces to our observation of said-properties (the mental/phenomenal).
Essentially, everyone is trying to put the cart-before-horse in trying to reduce the irreducible mental-content/sensations, etc to physical properties (which are in fact reducible to the mental/sensations). They do this because they are not willing to accept the philosophical conclusion demanded by logic.
Which is that the scientific worldview of physicalism is an abject failure and that the Occamist worldview of Berkeley remains what it has always been: irrefutable and (for some unknown reason) unpopular.
[Berkeley's arguments] "admit of no answer and produce no conviction."
- David Hume.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry