Eric Holloway: A philosopher explains why thinking matter is impossible

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 21, 2020

Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

He’s right but Captain Kirk tumbled to it before him on Star Trek:

What’s there to do about lying liars who lie about their own lying?
Analytical philosopher Richard Johns’s recent paper in an analytical philosophy journal susses out the fact that if any such liars exist, then the lying part of them must be non-physical. That is, he offers an argument against physicalism, the popular philosophy that only physical things exist and that therefore, if humans exist, we are merely physical.
His argument is deeper version of Captain Kirk’s scheme to defeat enemy robots in I, Mudd, a 1967 episode of Star Trek. Kirk posed a paradox that led to circuit meltdown.
Eric Holloway, “A philosopher explains why thinking matter is impossible” at Mind Matters News

Comments

@5 Panpsychism is the theory of choice, brain DOESNT generate consciousness, instead all matter is conscious to begin with, the brain simply gives the Facilities to which it expresses itself. So everything is conscious outside of the brain, thoughts can develop in clouds in the middle of a nebulous storm in space. The structure just has to be complex enough for it to cultivate. So according to this scientific theory that is excepted and growing in acceptance, thoughts can be generated outside of the brain all over the universe because everything has a degree of consciousness Not that I agree with thisAaronS1978_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

MS, kindly explain how continuously varying signals makes a substantial difference to the basic semantic gap here. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

ET (attn Sev): Reppert is withering:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
KFkairosfocus_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

@5 Seversky
If anyone comes across some thoughts which don’t emerge from a physical brain then please let us know.
Necessary and sufficient are not the same. A car is necessary to do the driving but it is not sufficient. Without a driver, there is no driving. Truthfreedom_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

If anyone has any evidence that thoughts emerge from a physical brain, please present it. I have never heard of a neuron or group of neurons creating a thought. I have never heard of the electricity flowing down a neuron creating a thought. So does anyone know of any such evidence? How about evidence that materialistic processes can produce brains? No?ET_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

If anyone comes across some thoughts which don't emerge from a physical brain then please let us know,Seversky_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

@3 Mung
And yet humans are material beings who think!
Are thoughts material? :)Truthfreedom_{February 22, 2020
February
02
Feb
22
22
2020
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

And yet humans are material beings who think!Mung_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Eric, did you read John's original article? I didn't because I don't have $40.00 to pay for it or $99.00 for a subscription. I notice that his article seems to depend on the brain operating in a totally digital/logical/mathematical manner and I think it actually has an awful lot of analogue in it, which would invalidate any mathematical proofs. It would also help if somebody could explain the author's claim that lies have to be non-physical.MatSpirit_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

The sad truth is that Star Trek makes more sense than the stupid things naturalists/ materialists/ physicalists (or whatever they choose to call them-selves nowadays) spout.Truthfreedom_{February 21, 2020
February
02
Feb
21
21
2020
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply