[Atlantis]

Neither true nor false.

You have to make a statement that goes beyond the four propositions.

[Potemkin]

Neither true nor false.

You have to make a statement that goes beyond the four propositions.

Such as what, Atlantis? They seem pretty comprehensive to me.

[Sivad]

Actually, philosophically speaking, it is absurd. Claiming that mind 'is' matter is a category error.

It's not a category error, Strawson defends that position.

The qualia of human experience are not reducible to material objects.

That might be your opinion, but plenty of physicalists would beg to differ.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That might be your opinion, but plenty of physicalists would beg to differ.

Easily Refuted and just as many Physicalists have admitted that there exists an impasse on this.

Why not?

Because empirical properties (the observed entities we describe as physical) are reducible to sensation and sensation are the same as qualitative states (which are epistemically irreducible), if one were to claim that such sensations/subjective mental states/qualia (the irreducible) are to be understood in terms of observed properties (the reducible), such a claim would be instantly fallacious (petito principii).

Likewise, several thought experiments have basically shown that subjective states cannot be duplicated in terms of third-person access (properties).

Nagel's bat, Mary the color scientists, et al.

But matter is still matter, and mind is still mind. It's just that they are entangled together at the most fundamental level.

There is no reason to believe in matter, but the reality of one's own experiences are undeniable at the epistemic level without a reduction to self-referential absurdity.

You cannot derive rules for imaginary nonsense by inference. But feel free to demonstrate it.

Whatever is necessitated by inference is reality, regardless of what you may want to call it.

If I observe an outcome as a result of my action often enough, I can reasonably assume action -> outcome. Whether there's hidden variable is irrelevant, that's the point.

This is also NOT causation, which has been the point of this entire thread.

There is no physical causation, it does not exist.

I only believe in matter, I don't see where the "absurdity" lies in that.

Well, I will be debating Saeko on this (if she is still willing)

But the absurdity lies in that you have to explain your subjective mental states (which are categorically irreducible) in terms of properties that reduce to those same mental states in order to demonstrate that the former are in fact physical. Otherwise, the mental remains philosophically incorrigible.

A "mind", LoL, what's that even supposed to be. You just replaced the simple laws of physics with an infinitely complex black box. That's the opposite of Occam's razor.

A mind is a consciousness, that which has percepts or collections of irreducible qualitative states.

Furthermore, if the laws of physics are mostly a bunch of ad-hoc and fallacious bullshit, they are exactly the sort of things that Occam developed his razor for.

I didn't know you are ok with the idea that "minds" can be copied, run at different speeds, reset to different states by the click of a button because they run on a computer.

They cannot be copied, there is no reason to believe that computers or brains have any subjective qualitative states whatsoever.

The mind is not the brain and cannot be logically demonstrated to be such.

This debate is guaranteed to be interesting as I take pretty much the exact opposite position in denying the existence of mental entities.

Indeed, though I would probably spend the first part of the debate demonstrating that claim to be false (I don't think that position of yours can actually be held consistently without self-refutation or admitting of a complex system that would then have the burden of proof over-and-against my simpler position).

So, since I am back, how did you want to proceed? I have a format already in mind, but I wanted to hear your input before I start another thread for the purpose.

Let me know your thoughts, or if you are even still interested, thanks.

[Saeko]

So, since I am back, how did you want to proceed? I have a format already in mind, but I wanted to hear your input before I start another thread for the purpose.

Let me know your thoughts, or if you are even still interested, thanks.

Tell me your proposed format, and I'll tell you what I think of it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Tell me your proposed format, and I'll tell you what I think of it.

Way to pass the buck.

I don't have the time to be super-vested in something on PoFo like this and i'm going on vacation again this weekend.

I believe in the old-school disputation method where goals for a clear-cut victory for either side are clearly stated as terms ahead of time and I would like the format to either follow the standard academic format (openings, rebuttals, cross examinations, rebuttals, closings) or be limited to a specific number of free-flowings posts, one-at-a-time, where questions must be answered if asked.

In the latter format, after each persons posts x amount of posts, the debate is over, if the stated goals were not reached under either format option, the debate is regarded as "officially" inconclusive because neither could side could get a "checkmate" in that time. This does not mean there is not a winner per se, only that who everyone thinks won is limited to arbitrary public opinion (as with most debates), and generally speaking, my positions are always unpopular so I know this routine quite well.

So, if we are to follow the checkmate bar for disputation, you would have to tell me what you would consider to be checkmate for you position over mine. Here is my bar:

I intend to demonstrate, from the onset, that if you claim that everything is material and that there is no distinct ontological reality to the mental, that your position is either self-referentially absurd (by implication) because you must deny the reality of your own experiences and knowledge (upon which your arguments rest), or that you must admit that what is called the mental is either ontologically distinct (contra your original claim) or inexplicable/a mystery (which is good enough for me).

Now, if you would fall into the former, that is sufficiently satisfactory for me as a checkmate and I would see no reason to debate further, if I get you to the second possibility, that would also be a checkmate, but I would then want you to prove to me (after conceding the existence of the mental) why anyone should believe the material exists at all(you would then have the burden of proof). If I got you to the third possibility (also a checkmate) where you end up admitting the mental as inexplicable without conceding it being ontologically distinct, at that point I would be willing to demonstrate that such a reality is in fact mental and is also more fundamental than the so-called material (thus leaving the question of matter up in the air for someone else (or you) to prove as existent).

Now, assuming I cannot get you to any one of these three possible outcomes (absurdity, concession, inexplicability) and the debate turns out to be inconclusive, I would then at that point, and that point only give my positive argument for the Existence of God and His necessary nature as Trinitarian while simultaneously demonstrating why no one should believe in matter (and material causation) and thus demonstrate Phenomenal Idealism in general. However, at that point, I would like a new format and would like to discuss a separate set of disputation goals.

Those are my terms and suggested format.

[Rugoz]

Because empirical properties (the observed entities we describe as physical) are reducible to sensation and sensation are the same as qualitative states (which are epistemically irreducible), if one were to claim that such sensations/subjective mental states/qualia (the irreducible) are to be understood in terms of observed properties (the reducible), such a claim would be instantly fallacious (petito principii).

Brain activity is caused by external stimuli, past or present. Sensations are thus reducible to those stimuli, so are empirical properties. No absurdity detected.

They cannot be copied, there is no reason to believe that computers or brains have any subjective qualitative states whatsoever.

The mind is not the brain and cannot be logically demonstrated to be such.

If I simulate a brain on a computer and it is conscious, what is it to you? A misleading sensation of your own mind?

Besides, if only your mind is real, how does God fit in?

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Saeko,

Does your "like" qualify as an agreement to the format and terms?

Brain activity is caused by external stimuli, past or present.

Brain Activity is not the same as mind activity and brain activity is not caused by external stimuli, but occurs in sequence or in correlation to such.

There is no causation in these processes. Only correlations and sequences, no necessary relationships whatsoever.

All of the information you have on such are based on empirical experience and empirical experience reduces to sensation, and sensations are irreducible qualitative states (subjective/mental).

Thus, the brain reduces (epistemologically) to irreducible qualitative states.

In a word, the brain (and all physical objects) reduces to subjective experience (the mental).

To claim otherwise is both fallacious and absurd.

If I simulate a brain on a computer and it is conscious, what is it to you? A misleading sensation of your own mind?

If you simulate a brain on a computer you could not know if it was conscious because you do not have access to its own experiences (first-person subjective access), you only, and can only have, first-person access to your own experiences/sensations (qualitative states).

Thus, like with the brain, a computer is composition of sensations, a perceptual object, and perceptual objects reduce to sensations (qualitative states).

Such are mental, thus brains as such can only exist in a mind and not otherwise.

Besides, if only your mind is real, how does God fit in?

I never said only my mind was real, that position is called solipsism I hold to Phenomenal Idealism.

Thus, I hold to the existence of more than one mind and can only prove necessarily the existence of two by inferential necessity. God is one of those two minds.

[Saeko]

@Victoribus Spolia

I'll get back to you tonight.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I'll get back to you tonight.

And i'll follow up on that Tuesday or Wednesday.

Thanks tho.

[Rugoz]

Brain Activity is not the same as mind activity and brain activity is not caused by external stimuli, but occurs in sequence or in correlation to such.

There is no causation in these processes. Only correlations and sequences, no necessary relationships whatsoever.

All of the information you have on such are based on empirical experience and empirical experience reduces to sensation, and sensations are irreducible qualitative states (subjective/mental).

Thus, the brain reduces (epistemologically) to irreducible qualitative states.

In a word, the brain (and all physical objects) reduces to subjective experience (the mental).

To claim otherwise is both fallacious and absurd.

This is silly. You cannot force definitions on me and then pretend my claims are absurd. I reject the existence of non-reducible sensations. I reject the existence of anything non-reducible.

If you simulate a brain on a computer you could not know if it was conscious because you do not have access to its own experiences (first-person subjective access), you only, and can only have, first-person access to your own experiences/sensations (qualitative states).

Thus, like with the brain, a computer is composition of sensations, a perceptual object, and perceptual objects reduce to sensations (qualitative states).

Such are mental, thus brains as such can only exist in a mind and not otherwise.

Fair enough, but then you cannot claim the consciousness of anything but yourself.

I never said only my mind was real, that position is called solipsism I hold to Phenomenal Idealism.

Thus, I hold to the existence of more than one mind and can only prove necessarily the existence of two by inferential necessity. God is one of those two minds.

Then do it, prove the existence of the other mind you call God.

[Saeko]

Way to pass the buck.

I don't have the time to be super-vested in something on PoFo like this and i'm going on vacation again this weekend.

I believe in the old-school disputation method where goals for a clear-cut victory for either side are clearly stated as terms ahead of time and I would like the format to either follow the standard academic format (openings, rebuttals, cross examinations, rebuttals, closings) or be limited to a specific number of free-flowings posts, one-at-a-time, where questions must be answered if asked.

In the latter format, after each persons posts x amount of posts, the debate is over, if the stated goals were not reached under either format option, the debate is regarded as "officially" inconclusive because neither could side could get a "checkmate" in that time. This does not mean there is not a winner per se, only that who everyone thinks won is limited to arbitrary public opinion (as with most debates), and generally speaking, my positions are always unpopular so I know this routine quite well.

I think we should go with the second format because a) I'm not even sure what your position is exactly so it would be impossible to prepare an opening statement for it and b) the standard academic format is too restrictive.

What number of posts did you have in mind.

So, if we are to follow the checkmate bar for disputation, you would have to tell me what you would consider to be checkmate for you position over mine. Here is my bar:

I intend to demonstrate, from the onset, that if you claim that everything is material and that there is no distinct ontological reality to the mental, that your position is either self-referentially absurd (by implication) because you must deny the reality of your own experiences and knowledge (upon which your arguments rest), or that you must admit that what is called the mental is either ontologically distinct (contra your original claim) or inexplicable/a mystery (which is good enough for me).

Now, if you would fall into the former, that is sufficiently satisfactory for me as a checkmate and I would see no reason to debate further, if I get you to the second possibility, that would also be a checkmate, but I would then want you to prove to me (after conceding the existence of the mental) why anyone should believe the material exists at all(you would then have the burden of proof). If I got you to the third possibility (also a checkmate) where you end up admitting the mental as inexplicable without conceding it being ontologically distinct, at that point I would be willing to demonstrate that such a reality is in fact mental and is also more fundamental than the so-called material (thus leaving the question of matter up in the air for someone else (or you) to prove as existent).

Now, assuming I cannot get you to any one of these three possible outcomes (absurdity, concession, inexplicability) and the debate turns out to be inconclusive, I would then at that point, and that point only give my positive argument for the Existence of God and His necessary nature as Trinitarian while simultaneously demonstrating why no one should believe in matter (and material causation) and thus demonstrate Phenomenal Idealism in general. However, at that point, I would like a new format and would like to discuss a separate set of disputation goals.

Those are my terms and suggested format.

I think to get a "checkmate" against me, it would be sufficient to prove that at least one non-material mental phenomenon exists.

Whatever the outcome of that part of the debate is, I am really interested in seeing how you can defend the notion that idealism proves the existence of God, and, even more specifically, proves the existence of a trinitarian God. I would be perfectly willing to provisionally accept that idealism is true for that part of the debate.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Rugoz,

I shall be debating Saeko because I have seen her debate elsewhere on the Forum and she is clearly informed on how logic and fallacies work (which I am not convinced you do after your responses). You are free to watch that debate unfold when it begins, perhaps you will learn something.

I think to get a "checkmate" against me, it would be sufficient to prove that at least one non-material mental phenomenon exists.

Whatever the outcome of that part of the debate is, I am really interested in seeing how you can defend the notion that idealism proves the existence of God, and, even more specifically, proves the existence of a trinitarian God. I would be perfectly willing to provisionally accept that idealism is true for that part of the debate.

1. I will agree to those terms, I will demonstrate the existence of a mental reality and that such cannot be reduced to physical properties without engaging in fallacious reasoning. I will also attempt to argue beyond this that no mind-independent reality exists. Regardless of whether I will be able to demonstrate this position conclusively to your satisfaction within 8 posts is indeed a tall task and I do not expect to do so; however, at the very least, you will have a sure grasp of what my position actually is and I will be glad to humor you with an unveiling of my preferred theistic proof and my argument/proof as to why God, if existent, must necessarily be Trinitarian after the specifically Latin formulation, all by plain reasoning and inference.

2. The laws of reason and discourse will be the governing principles of the debate. If we notice fallacies in the others reason they must be identified by name and why the fallacy obtains must be briefly explained. These can be rebutted, of course (but we shouldn't let this sort of thing bog us down).

3. questions asked by each side shall be answered as succinctly as possible in the responding post. Every question asked should not warrant 8 paragraph answers, likewise we should ask questions with the intention of getting simple responses unless we specifically ask the other debater to explain themselves or to expand of their point.

4. questions that we intend to have answered by the other poster (that are not intended as rhetoric) shall be numbered, even if they are the only question asked in the post. This will prevent confusion and the ever apparent forum demand "answer my question please.."
. If the questions we want answered are always numbered, with the response identified numerically as well, we shall keep that portion organized.

5. We will allow a couple of posts for general housekeeping and definitions before we start "counting our posts."

6. I suggest 8 full posts each to be the limit for the debate, I shall initiate a seperate thread for the debate which shall count as my first official posts and will include my definitions. We can then do the unofficial posting to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions and when you are comfortable you will make your "First" main post of your eight and then we will go-back-and-forth until the debate has concluded.

7. I will be posting this thread with the next week or two and we should try to "get to" each others post within a week of it being made. Worst case this means the debate could go 16 plus weeks Hopefully we can keep that from happening, but whatever. If we can't post for an extended period for any reason, we should declare it in the thread (vacations, etc.)

8. After the conclusion of the debate, regardless of whether I have convinced you or not, I will
(assuming the Idealist paradigm) give my proof for God's existence and why God must necessarily be Trinitarian after and in the specific manner as given in the Latin version of The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.


Sound like a plan @Saeko?

[Saeko]

Agreed.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia @Saeko

Excuse me, but what type of logic will you two be using in debate? Based on mere comprehension, I assume you two have accepted term logic as the common understanding which will facilitate the debate?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Excuse me, but what type of logic will you two be using in debate? Based on mere comprehension, I assume you two have accepted term logic as the common understanding which will facilitate the debate?

Standard propositional logic and general rules governing acceptable discourse in western debates as well as the commonly accepted fallacies, both formal and informal.

[Rugoz]

I shall be debating Saeko because I have seen her debate elsewhere on the Forum and she is clearly informed on how logic and fallacies work (which I am not convinced you do after your responses).

I never pretended that my position is correct, only that it is consistent. I don't see why a machine embedded in a physical environment cannot derive rules about the environment and its own functioning. There's no need to add non-physical categories like "thoughts" and "sensations".

[Victoribus Spolia]

I never pretended that my position is correct

That ought to be easy to do since the position is in fact, incorrect.

There's no need to add non-physical categories like "thoughts" and "sensations".

Except we do have thoughts, and such need to be explained.

You'll see the issue more clearly in my debate, Lord willing.

I enjoyed sparring with you. Good day.

[Rugoz]

That ought to be easy to do since the position is in fact, incorrect.

As correct/incorrect as yours, even without God, who doesn't fit in both.

Except we do have thoughts, and such need to be explained.

I refuse to use that word, let's just say we'll find out how we function. Our lack of success so far doesn't rule out physicalism though.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As correct/incorrect as yours, even without God, who doesn't fit in both.

We'll see. Perhaps i'll let you have a go once my upcoming debate is concluded.

I refuse to use that word, let's just say we'll find out how we function. Our lack of success so far doesn't rule out physicalism though.

What word? Thoughts?

Are you denying your own experiences right now?