Leibniz's mill and the "Hard problem of consciousness"

[mickthinks]

post-death subjectivity is a meaningless phrase.

I believe I understand it, HC. If you mean that it refers to something which (you believe) cannot happen, then say that. And then perhaps you will care to explain why you believe it cannot happen.

[Greta]

Whatever consciousness is; it is physical. The problem is more about devising metaphors to describe the physical, and not seeing the fact that ideas have to be 'hard', as indeed they must.
Ideas are not immaterial. They inhere in neurones, like it or not. Whilst we might want to dream that we live on incorporeally, there is not a shred of evidence for this, and all the evidence points to the certain fact that what we are, who we are, and how we feel all relies on our physicality.

As I suggested earlier, the "immaterial" is the undiscovered material.

This is what I like to call an abuse of langauge. When people use immaterial they never mean it in that way. It is always used, and defined as something that is DISTINCT from physical

This is pretzel logic. There can only be two things in existence - stuff we know and stuff we don't. You are overcomplicating.

However, I am not convinced that death must necessarily result in loss of subjective being altogether, which is an unproven assumption. Based on what we know today that seems likely but, then again, it once seemed likely that the Earth was flat and the geocentre of the universe. Like those former controversies, our notions of life and death may be a perspective issue.

And THIS is what I call an unfounded assertion, and one that moreover is counter to reason and evidence.


No Hobbes, I am not assuming that you are making assumptions, I am noticing it. That you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions in not in question. The fact is you do not know but you speak as though you do. No mention probabilities or likelihoods - just flat statements. Assumptions.

IMO both atheists and theists are in a hurry to resolve the debate one way or another. That is sensible and practical - put the issue to bed and then get on with living.

There is no issue here, just idle notions from theists governed by myths from the dawn of human fear.

From one who always tried to immediately neutralise and ridicule any thoughts of what happens subjectively after clinical death.

I'm sorry about your sister. People die. It is sad and we miss them. But they only survive in memories.

The revival of those who have had NDEs brings us to the end of our knowledge.
The thing about NDEs is the N bit. Think it over!

When I was young I went to vocational guidance and I did an IQ test for them. They did not tell me my score and said, "Let's just say you're well within the top 10% as compared with graduates in NSW". So yeah, I considered the "N" many years ago. You simply don't get it. For you it's all an abstract game without physical reality. These experiences in themselves are incredibly profound and how "metaphysical" they may or may not be is not important, even if you and most others seem obsessed with one side of it.

NDEs are not just dreaming - dreaming involves completely different brain activity and inactivity.

There's much about the fabric of reality that we don't understand. I find myself in no hurry to resolve the question - to plump for an assumption, as I do not believe we have enough information, especially about quantum and Planck scale dynamics, nor about the fabric of the cosmos generally. If Penrose and Hameroff are right and consciousness is closely tied to neuronal microtubules, then quantum strangeness comes into play with death, as well as information retention.
Blah, blah.
A fashionable and typical response in this age of deified ignorance. For thousands of years people have thought like you - that today's knowledge covers almost all of reality and now we are just filling in small details.

[Hobbes' Choice]

As I suggested earlier, the "immaterial" is the undiscovered material.

This is what I like to call an abuse of langauge. When people use immaterial they never mean it in that way. It is always used, and defined as something that is DISTINCT from physical

This is pretzel logic. There can only be two things in existence - stuff we know and stuff we don't. You are overcomplicating.

However, I am not convinced that death must necessarily result in loss of subjective being altogether, which is an unproven assumption. Based on what we know today that seems likely but, then again, it once seemed likely that the Earth was flat and the geocentre of the universe. Like those former controversies, our notions of life and death may be a perspective issue.

And THIS is what I call an unfounded assertion, and one that moreover is counter to reason and evidence.


No Hobbes, I am not assuming that you are making assumptions, I am noticing it. That you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions in not in question. The fact is you do not know but you speak as though you do. No mention probabilities or likelihoods - just flat statements. Assumptions.

IMO both atheists and theists are in a hurry to resolve the debate one way or another. That is sensible and practical - put the issue to bed and then get on with living.

There is no issue here, just idle notions from theists governed by myths from the dawn of human fear.

From one who always tried to immediately neutralise and ridicule any thoughts of what happens subjectively after clinical death.

I'm sorry about your sister. People die. It is sad and we miss them. But they only survive in memories.

The revival of those who have had NDEs brings us to the end of our knowledge.
The thing about NDEs is the N bit. Think it over!

When I was young I went to vocational guidance and I did an IQ test for them. They did not tell me my score and said, "Let's just say you're well within the top 10% as compared with graduates in NSW". So yeah, I considered the "N" many years ago. You simply don't get it. For you it's all an abstract game without physical reality. These experiences in themselves are incredibly profound and how "metaphysical" they may or may not be is not important, even if you and most others seem obsessed with one side of it.

NDEs are not just dreaming - dreaming involves completely different brain activity and inactivity.

There's much about the fabric of reality that we don't understand. I find myself in no hurry to resolve the question - to plump for an assumption, as I do not believe we have enough information, especially about quantum and Planck scale dynamics, nor about the fabric of the cosmos generally. If Penrose and Hameroff are right and consciousness is closely tied to neuronal microtubules, then quantum strangeness comes into play with death, as well as information retention.
Blah, blah.
A fashionable and typical response in this age of deified ignorance. For thousands of years people have thought like you - that today's knowledge covers almost all of reality and now we are just filling in small details.

RISIBLE
So what you are saying is that you are right because there is much we don't understand and I don't understand it , but you do understand what no one else understand.

LOL. Yeah the finally and convincing argument "You don't get it".
ie You don't understand my delusion, because you have not suffered it!

[Greta]

As I suggested earlier, the "immaterial" is the undiscovered material.

This is what I like to call an abuse of langauge. When people use immaterial they never mean it in that way. It is always used, and defined as something that is DISTINCT from physical

This is pretzel logic. There can only be two things in existence - stuff we know and stuff we don't. You are overcomplicating.

However, I am not convinced that death must necessarily result in loss of subjective being altogether, which is an unproven assumption. Based on what we know today that seems likely but, then again, it once seemed likely that the Earth was flat and the geocentre of the universe. Like those former controversies, our notions of life and death may be a perspective issue.

And THIS is what I call an unfounded assertion, and one that moreover is counter to reason and evidence.


No Hobbes, I am not assuming that you are making assumptions, I am noticing it. That you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions in not in question. The fact is you do not know but you speak as though you do. No mention probabilities or likelihoods - just flat statements. Assumptions.

IMO both atheists and theists are in a hurry to resolve the debate one way or another. That is sensible and practical - put the issue to bed and then get on with living.

There is no issue here, just idle notions from theists governed by myths from the dawn of human fear.

From one who always tried to immediately neutralise and ridicule any thoughts of what happens subjectively after clinical death.

I'm sorry about your sister. People die. It is sad and we miss them. But they only survive in memories.

The revival of those who have had NDEs brings us to the end of our knowledge.
The thing about NDEs is the N bit. Think it over!

When I was young I went to vocational guidance and I did an IQ test for them. They did not tell me my score and said, "Let's just say you're well within the top 10% as compared with graduates in NSW". So yeah, I considered the "N" many years ago. You simply don't get it. For you it's all an abstract game without physical reality. These experiences in themselves are incredibly profound and how "metaphysical" they may or may not be is not important, even if you and most others seem obsessed with one side of it.

NDEs are not just dreaming - dreaming involves completely different brain activity and inactivity.

There's much about the fabric of reality that we don't understand. I find myself in no hurry to resolve the question - to plump for an assumption, as I do not believe we have enough information, especially about quantum and Planck scale dynamics, nor about the fabric of the cosmos generally. If Penrose and Hameroff are right and consciousness is closely tied to neuronal microtubules, then quantum strangeness comes into play with death, as well as information retention.
Blah, blah.
A fashionable and typical response in this age of deified ignorance. For thousands of years people have thought like you - that today's knowledge covers almost all of reality and now we are just filling in small details.

RISIBLE
So what you are saying is that you are right because there is much we don't understand and I don't understand it , but you do understand what no one else understand.

LOL. Yeah the finally and convincing argument "You don't get it".
ie You don't understand my delusion, because you have not suffered it!

As with climate denialists, you are so deeply wedded to your denial that you have no concept or notion of the leaps of logic and assumptions you expect others to believe without question. You are as inappropriate as any theist for sheer blustering unwarranted certainty. This is made clear by your silly interpretation of the points forward:

1) Science does not yet have a handle on the nature of subjective reality

2) Throughout history, people (just like you) have made claims of certainty about the nature of subjective being, and they have all made unjustifiable assumptions.

[Hobbes' Choice]

As I suggested earlier, the "immaterial" is the undiscovered material.

This is what I like to call an abuse of langauge. When people use immaterial they never mean it in that way. It is always used, and defined as something that is DISTINCT from physical

This is pretzel logic. There can only be two things in existence - stuff we know and stuff we don't. You are overcomplicating.

However, I am not convinced that death must necessarily result in loss of subjective being altogether, which is an unproven assumption. Based on what we know today that seems likely but, then again, it once seemed likely that the Earth was flat and the geocentre of the universe. Like those former controversies, our notions of life and death may be a perspective issue.

And THIS is what I call an unfounded assertion, and one that moreover is counter to reason and evidence.


No Hobbes, I am not assuming that you are making assumptions, I am noticing it. That you are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions in not in question. The fact is you do not know but you speak as though you do. No mention probabilities or likelihoods - just flat statements. Assumptions.

IMO both atheists and theists are in a hurry to resolve the debate one way or another. That is sensible and practical - put the issue to bed and then get on with living.

There is no issue here, just idle notions from theists governed by myths from the dawn of human fear.

From one who always tried to immediately neutralise and ridicule any thoughts of what happens subjectively after clinical death.

I'm sorry about your sister. People die. It is sad and we miss them. But they only survive in memories.

The revival of those who have had NDEs brings us to the end of our knowledge.
The thing about NDEs is the N bit. Think it over!

When I was young I went to vocational guidance and I did an IQ test for them. They did not tell me my score and said, "Let's just say you're well within the top 10% as compared with graduates in NSW". So yeah, I considered the "N" many years ago. You simply don't get it. For you it's all an abstract game without physical reality. These experiences in themselves are incredibly profound and how "metaphysical" they may or may not be is not important, even if you and most others seem obsessed with one side of it.

NDEs are not just dreaming - dreaming involves completely different brain activity and inactivity.

There's much about the fabric of reality that we don't understand. I find myself in no hurry to resolve the question - to plump for an assumption, as I do not believe we have enough information, especially about quantum and Planck scale dynamics, nor about the fabric of the cosmos generally. If Penrose and Hameroff are right and consciousness is closely tied to neuronal microtubules, then quantum strangeness comes into play with death, as well as information retention.
Blah, blah.
A fashionable and typical response in this age of deified ignorance. For thousands of years people have thought like you - that today's knowledge covers almost all of reality and now we are just filling in small details.

RISIBLE
So what you are saying is that you are right because there is much we don't understand and I don't understand it , but you do understand what no one else understand.

LOL. Yeah the finally and convincing argument "You don't get it".
ie You don't understand my delusion, because you have not suffered it!

As with climate denialists, you are so deeply wedded to your denial that you have no concept or notion of the leaps of logic and assumptions you expect others to believe without question. You are as inappropriate as any theist for sheer blustering unwarranted certainty. This is made clear by your silly interpretation of the points forward:

1) Science does not yet have a handle on the nature of subjective reality

2) Throughout history, people (just like you) have made claims of certainty about the nature of subjective being, and they have all made unjustifiable assumptions.

You don't know what subjective means.

[Greta]

1) Science does not yet have a handle on the nature of subjective reality

2) Throughout history, people (just like you) have made claims of certainty about the nature of subjective being, and they have all made unjustifiable assumptions.

You don't know what subjective means.

Weak ad hominem and another baseless assertion to go with your baseless assertions about subjective aspects of dying and death. At the current stage of scientific progress it would appear more likely that subjectivity ceases entirely at death but it's only a probability and we have been surprised by new phenomena many times before.

Unqualified claims in this area simply betray people's personal preferences and/or "tribal" allegiances. Certainty in this area is philosophically and scientifically naive.

[raw_thought]

" Calling different hypotheses 'silly' and insisting that images are 'not physical' is neither argument nor valid empirical support."
Wyman
Yes, I think it is silly to say that when I visualize a triangle what I am seeing is my neurons firing in a triangular form. * So you can see your neurons without special equipment?
* or are you saying that we see atoms or subatomic particles that are triangular in shape? What physical thing do we see when we visualize a triangle?Since ( at least to me ) it seems silly to say that we see atoms or neurons firing, what physical triangle are we seeing? Or are you saying that we cannot visualize anything?

Where did this 'special equipment' caveat suddenly come from? You've never mentioned that before. Curious

You claimed that when we see a visualized triangle it is possibly physical. I am saying that that is only possible ( in your scenario ) if we can see it without special equipment. I am also saying that it is silly to say that one can see neurons ( firing in a triangular form and/or even subatomic particles that have the triangular shape) without special equipment.

[raw_thought]

In other words , if we can see the visualized triangle without special equipment that implies that we can see the visualized triangle without special equipment. That I find silly. Can you see your neurons and/or subatomic particles without scientific equipment?

[Londoner]

I think it would be better if we avoided saying we 'see the visualized triangle'. To visualize something is not to see it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

1) Science does not yet have a handle on the nature of subjective reality

2) Throughout history, people (just like you) have made claims of certainty about the nature of subjective being, and they have all made unjustifiable assumptions.

You don't know what subjective means.

Weak ad hominem and another baseless assertion to go with your baseless assertions about subjective aspects of dying and death. At the current stage of scientific progress it would appear more likely that subjectivity ceases entirely at death but it's only a probability and we have been surprised by new phenomena many times before.

Unqualified claims in this area simply betray people's personal preferences and/or "tribal" allegiances. Certainty in this area is philosophically and scientifically naive.

neither do you seem to know what ad hominem means.
Use a dictionary for once in your life.

[Greta]

You don't know what subjective means.

Weak ad hominem and another baseless assertion to go with your baseless assertions about subjective aspects of dying and death. At the current stage of scientific progress it would appear more likely that subjectivity ceases entirely at death but it's only a probability and we have been surprised by new phenomena many times before.

Unqualified claims in this area simply betray people's personal preferences and/or "tribal" allegiances. Certainty in this area philosophically and scientifically naive.

neither do you seem to know what ad hominem means.
Use a dictionary for once in your life.

So you are claiming that only explicit insults count as ad hominem attacks?

I'll take this last post of yours as a concession. It's obvious that you can't address any points I've made. Your little incoherent stabs are typical of how prideful people concede debates that they lose on philosophy forums.

It would be more graceful for you simply to admit that you don't actually know what happens subjectively at the time of death, and that one can validly speak of possibilities and probabilities in the area, but not certainties.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Weak ad hominem and another baseless assertion to go with your baseless assertions about subjective aspects of dying and death. At the current stage of scientific progress it would appear more likely that subjectivity ceases entirely at death but it's only a probability and we have been surprised by new phenomena many times before.

Unqualified claims in this area simply betray people's personal preferences and/or "tribal" allegiances. Certainty in this area philosophically and scientifically naive.

neither do you seem to know what ad hominem means.
Use a dictionary for once in your life.

So you are claiming that only explicit insults count as ad hominem attacks? .

No I'm claiming that ad hominem is an ad hominem; nothing to so with an insult at all.
You can keep up with your hot air, but you've made all the claims, and based them on nothing.

[Greta]

neither do you seem to know what ad hominem means.
Use a dictionary for once in your life.

So you are claiming that only explicit insults count as ad hominem attacks? .

No I'm claiming that ad hominem is an ad hominem; nothing to so with an insult at all.
You can keep up with your hot air, but you've made all the claims, and based them on nothing.

Ad hominems are not necessarily insults. Do you not understand the reason why ad hominems are logical fallacies? You can blather on with your own hot air about my alleged flaws, but it's the same logical fallacy - you are unable to address my refutation of your truth claims and avoiding them by trying to undermine my credibility.

I have made no claims. The claim are all yours. I have pointed out that your certainly is illogical and misplaced and since then you have been busy trying to find things wrong with me, not the refutations. The fact is that you cannot know for sure the claims you make about consciousness. The evidence points in a direction but that's all, so qualifiers must be used when making the claim that all consciousness ceases at death. Wait for the evidence.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So you are claiming that only explicit insults count as ad hominem attacks? .

No I'm claiming that ad hominem is an ad hominem; nothing to so with an insult at all.
You can keep up with your hot air, but you've made all the claims, and based them on nothing.

Ad hominems are not necessarily insults. Do you not understand the reason why ad hominems are logical fallacies? .

Can't you even be bothered to read what I said?

No wonder you can' follow a thread!!

[Greta]

No I'm claiming that ad hominem is an ad hominem; nothing to so with an insult at all.
You can keep up with your hot air, but you've made all the claims, and based them on nothing.

Ad hominems are not necessarily insults. Do you not understand the reason why ad hominems are logical fallacies? .

Can't you even be bothered to read what I said?

No wonder you can' follow a thread!!

No, I can't be bothered. You have had nothing useful to say for some time, other than ad hominem attacks, so I tuned out.

Now please go away and let people discuss the topic. I have tried to get you to address your illogical and unsubstantiated assumptions about the subject matter enough times. It's not going to happen.