Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.philosophy    |    Didn't Freud have sex with his mother?    |    170,335 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 169,545 of 170,335    |
|    D to All    |
|    Re: Philosophy hasn't managed to offer a    |
|    19 Aug 24 19:58:18    |
      From: nospam@example.net              On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, someone37 wrote:              > (Just repostings as there were some formatting issues)       >       > THESIS       >       > By a "type 1 physicalist ontology", I mean an account of what exists, in       which nothing other than the physical       > exists and in which physics is thought of as modelling the rules followed by       the physical.       >       > This thesis is that philosophy hasn't managed to offer a type 1 physicalist       ontology which can explain the       > evidence through its model.       >       > DEFENCE OF THESIS       >       > For the purposes of this thesis when I claim that I am consciously       experiencing, I mean it is like something to       > be me.       >       > In this defence I am going to use the term experiences to mean conscious        experiences.       >       > Premise 1: I can tell from my experiences that I am experiencing.       >       > It could be claimed that through the evidence of the objects each of us       experiences, which I will refer to as       > experiential objects, there is indirect evidence of a physical. I would       disagree, though accept there is evidence       > of what I shall refer to as environmental objects.       >       > With a type 1 physicalist ontology, there might not be physical objects       corresponding to those experienced in a       > VR type situation. The environmental objects being modelled on a computer.              Let me introduce you to G.E. Moore       (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand). This is a solved       problem, and physicalism is supported by a majority of academic       philosophers ph.d. and above.              You got it backwards. You need to instead show what proof there exists       that the material world does not exist.              That would be revolutionary, and you would surely get some kind of Nobel       prize.              In 2500 years no one has succeeded, and the nr of physicalists is       steadily increasing.              Let idealism and skepticism die an honorable death and come join the       living. ;)              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca