neurophysiological processes don't make us decide something or judge something, we judge.
What about love?
I think love is where we are to "weak" to judge, at least sometimes. Many people often fall in love with people they are likely to be able to be together with for a long time. Love boiled down to an "instinct" isn't really any judgment of ours, just a feeling. We still have the power though to judge if we should act upon our feelings or not. Despite the fact that it is incredibly hard to define "love".
See, I disagree with you there. What evidence do you have for the existence of anything nonphysical?
I have no and cannot possibly have any empirical evidence, that is kind of the point of my argument.
So then there could be brains that do not think? Why haven't we noticed any?
How would you notice a brain that could not think? My point here was more a long the lines that we always need some sort of "input" to be able to think.
There is no evidence that some sort of process transforms the physical neurophysiological processes into what we call thought or consciousness.
Just going to throw in quickly. Are you making the difference between the brain, the physical, and the mind, the non-physical.
Yes, to a degree. I usually don't like bringing up Descartes in an argument but I think it fits in here quite well. Descartes argued that we can imagine our body and "geist" to be separate and that just being able to imagine that they are separate proves that they cannot be identical.
Just going to throw in quickly. Are you making the difference between the brain, the physical, and the mind, the non-physical.
Yes, to a degree. I usually don't like bringing up Descartes in an argument but I think it fits in here quite well. Descartes argued that we can imagine our body and "geist" to be separate and that just being able to imagine that they are separate proves that they cannot be identical.
While the poet in me would rather side with Descartes than Nietzsche, Nietzsche rather accurately pointed out that Descartes arguments often pure semantics and full of fallacies of definition.
Than before I go to sleep I'm just going to say that Kirpke states that there is no case in which X is imaginable but not possible, thus confirming Descartes.
Than before I go to sleep I'm just going to say that Kirpke states that there is no case in which X is imaginable but not possible, thus confirming Descartes.
Please post the greater context and break the argument down. Treating philosophical texts like they are hallmark card quotes makes for a very weak discussion.
Than before I go to sleep I'm just going to say that Kirpke states that there is no case in which X is imaginable but not possible, thus confirming Descartes.
I hate solipsism, but that argument is weak as shit, broha.
This is the basis of two years of heated debate with a Muslim friend of mine, on the existence of his god. Suffice it to say, this is not correct.
I'd like to hear why.
Please post the greater context and break the argument down. Treating philosophical texts like they are hallmark card quotes makes for a very weak discussion.
I try not to do so, but Kripke really doesn't say much more.
I would argue that it is ultimately a pointless, useless and waste of time. In my brief learning's i never once met someone, be it teacher or student, who followed this theory unironically.
I would argue that it is ultimately a pointless, useless and waste of time.
This forum's problem is never to look at something practically, and always take analysis to the logical extreme. Personally I don't care if free will exists, or if solipsism is true, or if there is no point to life and the universes.
What interests me is PRACTICAL philosophy. As in, what conscious thoughts influence you to make decisions on daily basis, and your basis for morality.
For moral questions, personally, I think Desire Utilitarian is a workable model. Instead of maximizing "good", which is nebulous, the aim is to try to enable as many people to fulfill their desires as possible. Some people have "bad" desires, but I think they are in the minority, and working to change their desires to better suit desire utilitarianism is easier than fitting them into another model of morality (for me).
For political questions, I like to consider designing or working towards a society with the premise that you don't know where in it you might find yourself. And that includes not knowing what knowledge or skills you might have in your brain, or who you might know in high places. This stops idiotic thoughts like Big L Libertarianism, who say "Well, if I had no money, I'd just find a job, save, and pull myself up by my bootstrings!" It can also temper the views of extreme communists and other lefties.
I have other things like this that I think about on a daily basis, but I have a feeling this post might be ignored completely, and everyone will go back to the boring low level stuff which, while important, isn't up for Meaningful Debate.
This forum's problem is never to look at something practically, and always take analysis to the logical extreme.
Yep agree with you there. Though it is fun to question and argue the validity of what we see and do, at the end of the day it is irrelevant. Like I said at the start of the thread, I try to follow virtue theory when it comes to moral problems. It works for me in that it allows me to look at each situation indivudualy and not be bound by a serries of restrictuve bonds.
I try to avoid politics, especially as a student at the moment. Not because I don't care what happens or what is done its the people and the pain in the arse that comes with them. If I had to choose a theory, or set of beliefs for that, then i would choose to follow Plato's idea for a society. Not to be confused with the kinda dumb stuff that came from that. But the idea of a society where everyone works towards a common goal in an area that best suits them.
Gah curse you for making me think. I would have to be brutal and say that you would be thrown out of the society, or forced to contribute. ie menial work.
Gah curse you for making me think. I would have to be brutal and say that you would be thrown out of the society, or forced to contribute. ie menial work.
Right. So imagine you are one of those people. Cool system, eh? I don't have an overarching political ideology, but there are certain things I can point at and say "Nice" or "Not nice" and impersonal empathy really helps in this regard.
How does Luke not works towards a common goal? What is the common goal? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? He's an entertainer. If that's not pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is.
How does Luke not works towards a common goal? What is the common goal? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? He's an entertainer. If that's not pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is.
You are missing my entire point.
For political questions, I like to consider designing or working towards a society with the premise that you don't know where in it you might find yourself. And that includes not knowing what knowledge or skills you might have in your brain, or who you might know in high places.
See? There is no point in talking about Plato's ideals unless you say "What if I suddenly end up in a disadvantaged portion of society?"
Comments
I have no and cannot possibly have any empirical evidence, that is kind of the point of my argument.
There is no evidence that some sort of process transforms the physical neurophysiological processes into what we call thought or consciousness.
Brain damage maybe? Also how would we judge an active brain? As in though and things that qualify 'person hood'.
Sonic Baby don't hurt me no more......
IMAGINING SOMETHING
DOES NOT MAKE IT REAL.
I give you my love, but you don't care
So what is right and what is wrong
Gimme a sign.
Never change, FRCF.
What interests me is PRACTICAL philosophy. As in, what conscious thoughts influence you to make decisions on daily basis, and your basis for morality.
For moral questions, personally, I think Desire Utilitarian is a workable model. Instead of maximizing "good", which is nebulous, the aim is to try to enable as many people to fulfill their desires as possible. Some people have "bad" desires, but I think they are in the minority, and working to change their desires to better suit desire utilitarianism is easier than fitting them into another model of morality (for me).
For political questions, I like to consider designing or working towards a society with the premise that you don't know where in it you might find yourself. And that includes not knowing what knowledge or skills you might have in your brain, or who you might know in high places. This stops idiotic thoughts like Big L Libertarianism, who say "Well, if I had no money, I'd just find a job, save, and pull myself up by my bootstrings!" It can also temper the views of extreme communists and other lefties.
I have other things like this that I think about on a daily basis, but I have a feeling this post might be ignored completely, and everyone will go back to the boring low level stuff which, while important, isn't up for Meaningful Debate.
Like I said at the start of the thread, I try to follow virtue theory when it comes to moral problems. It works for me in that it allows me to look at each situation indivudualy and not be bound by a serries of restrictuve bonds.
I try to avoid politics, especially as a student at the moment. Not because I don't care what happens or what is done its the people and the pain in the arse that comes with them. If I had to choose a theory, or set of beliefs for that, then i would choose to follow Plato's idea for a society. Not to be confused with the kinda dumb stuff that came from that. But the idea of a society where everyone works towards a common goal in an area that best suits them.