Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gurgoth t1_izc9ubh wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

You will not invest in approaches based on reality? Sounds like we done here.

It's not really the future of physics that is important here. It's the ability for us to inspect claims that were previously impossible to investigate. We have the ability, and increasingly so, to inspect how the brain functions. This path is likely to give us better answers then the last three millenia of speculation with deferrement to untestable metaphysical concepts - such as the soul.

3

iiioiia t1_izcdbm6 wrote

> You will not invest in approaches based on reality?

One problem is with your demonstration here today of "what we know". Another is "backed by this style of thinking" - that you equate your thinking with reality itself is a big problem for me.

Also, dodging of questions is a black mark in my books.

−1

Gurgoth t1_izfb2rq wrote

We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly, we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.

We require no metaphysical concept to understand that. My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.

My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.

2

iiioiia t1_izfi4xn wrote

> We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly

On a percentage basis, how close are we to having perfect understanding of the entire system (including when brains are networked)?

> ...we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.

We don't actually, but there is certainly no shortage of belief who have faith that that is true.

> We require no metaphysical concept to understand that.

To understand what is really going on here, I believe it inevitably gets deep into metaphysics, depending on one's definition - for me, I use this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

> My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.

Oh, I didn't realize your statements were an argument.

If it isn't too much trouble, would you be willing to continue this conversation in a form of only objectively true statements? (And if not: why not?)

> My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.

Your thinking may be correct, but it may also be incorrect.

Consider: what are the odds that your cognition and the "knowledge" that it rests on has zero substantial flaws?

0