From: x@x.org   
      
   On 8/19/24 03:00, someone37 wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > While experiencing typing this, I have experienced looking at an object,   
   then looking away from it and then   
   > looking back to it.   
   >   
   > While looking away from it, the experiential object I had been looking at,   
   was no longer an experiential object   
   > of mine. The only experiential object I would have of it would be a memory.   
   But when I experienced looking back   
   > at it again, it became an experiential object.   
   >   
   > But what do I mean "experienced looking back at it again"?   
   >   
   > With the environmental objects idea, there is an environment, often referred   
   to as the universe. And there are   
   > objects in that environment, which I'll refer to as environmental objects.   
   The idea being that while I only ever   
   > experience the experiential human form, and experiential objects, there is   
   an environmental human form   
   > corresponding to the experiential human form that I experience having, and   
   environmental objects.   
      
   Cats are cats.  Dogs are dogs.  Do any of these two statements describe   
   what a cat or dog is?  But I will go with this, however   
      
    >My   
   > understanding is that the experience correlates with the brain activity  ...   
      
   Yo.  Once again, the fundamental reasoning flaw of the belief system,   
   religion, or pseudoscience called 'psychology'.   
      
   Do 'minds' exist?  Perhaps?   
      
   Do 'brains' exist?  Perhaps?   
      
   Do 'ideas' exist?  Perhaps?   
      
   Do 'minds' have 'ideas'?  Perhaps?   
      
   But are 'minds' necessarily exactly the same thing   
   as 'brains', or are 'minds' and 'brains' something   
   different from each other?   
      
   Then there is the confusion of ideas, with theories   
   about how ideas are formed.   
      
   The idea is that if you control theories about how   
   ideas are formed, then you control the content of   
   the ideas.  Once again that is flawed thinking.   
      
   Once upon a time many thousands of years ago, people   
   thought that the heart or liver were seats of the   
   human mind in the body rather than the brain.  In   
   essence the brain generally 'cooled blood'.   
      
   When people thought this, many people now are of   
   the idea that those ancient views of what the brain   
   did were wrong.   
      
   However, if they had wrong ideas of what the brain   
   did back then ... .   
      
   Were they incapable of having ideas on any subject   
   whatsoever?   
      
   If someone contemplates something on the order of   
   a theory about anatomy and physiology.   
      
   And that theory is wrong.   
      
   They will not instantly explode and cease to exist.   
      
   So let's stop.   
      
   Will you admit that if you were to have a wrong   
   theory about anatomy or physiology, that you   
   would not explode and cease to exist?   
      
    > ...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)