tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post185908674374700749..comments2023-12-18T13:55:50.256-08:00Comments on Thinking as a Profession: Naturalistic DualismDerekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-68949220156851124012012-11-29T21:02:27.412-08:002012-11-29T21:02:27.412-08:00Explaining the creation of an apple doesn't ex...Explaining the creation of an apple doesn't explain WHY it was created. We have a theory about why it was created, but its evidence does not come directly from observing its creation, it comes from cutting it open, recognizing seeds, concluding that this is how the tree manages posterity. <br /><br />This is the same with consciousness and Chalmers' point is that to understand consciousness, you cannot look at the physical function of the brain (apple tree), because this only gives rise to the psychophysical process of "mind" (apple). It doesn't answer why, what is the reason we experience the mind. Hope that helps.<br /><br />Personally, I subscribe to Whitehead's extensive continuum theory for why mind is experienced. In the continuum, identicalness of certain progressive features like atomic and molecular structures and their psychophysical properties, in the case of the mind, exist because of the continuum’s endeavor toward order. "It is not a fact prior to the world; it is the first determination of order – that is, of real potentiality – arising out of the general character of the world." Will Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01856258125395883985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-89795854998231473532008-07-21T09:50:00.000-07:002008-07-21T09:50:00.000-07:00The problem is that you run in to circular logic p...The problem is that you run in to circular logic problems with naturalist thinking too:<BR/><BR/>The mind works this way [long naturalist description involving neural complexs A-L, Genetic variables M-S, and environmental inputs T-Z].<BR/><BR/>How do you know that?<BR/><BR/>I investigated it.<BR/><BR/>But couldn't your personal mind be fooled by input Y? Maybe genetic variable M is steering your belief when combined with U. <BR/><BR/>Well of course.<BR/><BR/>And if Religious guy over there had neural pathway B (outside of his control) and genetic component N, and environmental component V, he would strongly believe in a non-naturalist view right?<BR/><BR/>I suppose.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that your mind can't investigate minds free of the influence of things which influence minds. It is kind of a mental uncertainty principle.<BR/><BR/>[This is NOT relativism. It is very likely that some descriptions are more accurate than others. But ultimately you have to just trust that your mind is capable of accurately describing the products of your investigation. It isn't proveable by investigation.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-60116436524749007832008-07-19T07:31:00.000-07:002008-07-19T07:31:00.000-07:00Yeah, I just don't see that he makes his case beyo...Yeah, I just don't see that he makes his case beyond flatly asserting that certain things are the case and others aren't, and circling back on his own assertions and justifications.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-49871555505544355802008-07-18T12:48:00.000-07:002008-07-18T12:48:00.000-07:00"The tempting induction from these cases fails in ..."The tempting induction from these cases fails in the case of consciousness, which is not a problem about physical structures and functions."<BR/><BR/>How is this not circular logic?<BR/><BR/>Unlike all that other things we thought couldn't be explained physically, consciousness actually cannot be explained physically because consciousness can't be explained physically!Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13237611473834373800noreply@blogger.com