Why do we love scenery?

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#81  Postby Thommo » Feb 06, 2018 1:54 pm

LucidFlight wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:The fact that I treat you as an individual is a reflection of my beliefs.


:rofl:

And you called SAM insincere. Everyone treats everyone as individuals. This isn't a fucking achievement!

I dunno, Thommo. That takes quite a bit of philosophical reasoning to think that there is some other individual beyond the observed orchestration of words on a screen in a non-existent physical world. How do we know you're not just some fancily-programmed AI, akin to a Nazi NPC or some such in Call of Duty?


Well, that's as maybe. I guess you interpreted my post as being thrust in the metaphysical, rather than empirical. But in fact, you can see that I inherited any metaphysical assumption about what is meant by "fact that I treat you as an individual" from the antecedent post, to which I was replying. Of.

So, once again, I welcome your clarification, and can agree that it might be that I am discussing the fact of treating others as individuals, or it might be that I am discussing the illusion of the fact of treating others as individuals. In either instance however, there is parity with with whether James was talking about the fact of treating others as individuals, or the illusion of the fact of treating others as individuals.

But as you can see, I am replying to you with a different message than I have ever replied to anyone before, meaning either I am treating you as an individual, or (the illusory) I am treating (the illusory) you as the illusion of being an individual.

QED!
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why do we love scenery?

#82  Postby LucidFlight » Feb 06, 2018 2:59 pm

Well, I suppose, the treatment thereof of said "individuals" as individuals may indeed in itself be as illusory as the observed orchestrations of text on a screen, of which, any achievement therein may in fact not depend on any metaphysical suppositions, and may be treated on face value.

So, that very well may be the case. Perhaps, then, the metaphysical underpinnings of these discussions by means of text on a screen, have no bearing on the value of treatment between the involved parties. And so, on face value, the treatment of individuals, whether real or not, is not necessarily an achievement in reasoning, but merely a display of interactional norms. Is that what you're saying?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10796
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#83  Postby Thommo » Feb 06, 2018 3:09 pm

Hear, hear.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#84  Postby GrahamH » Feb 06, 2018 3:17 pm

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:Why do you have to be so personal and so childish?

As a materialist/physicalist, you should find no objection to me being personal. That you do, undermines your whole fucking shebang. There's no 'personal' in machine/robot.

The bottom-line is that I don't retain your retarded mindset. The fact that I treat you as an individual is a reflection of my beliefs.


:shock:

Those would be your beliefs that we are not individuals and there is only One talking to itself in it's own fantasy world?

:roll:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#85  Postby LucidFlight » Feb 06, 2018 3:26 pm

Thommo wrote:Hear, hear.

I wonder, then, from the position of Idealism, if there is any distinction to be made between investment of belief in real individuals, and investment of belief in the orchestrations and observations thereof? I suppose it doesn't really matter, so long as the observation is real enough. This would apply for adherents to Physicalism, too. The thought of talking to an AI bot might carry hollow feelings, only if it is known that one is talking to such an entity. However, given that an artificial intelligence might respond in such a real matter that is so utterly real, that one could not tell the difference, that hollowness disappears along with the very thought that you are speaking to something other than an intelligence of biological origin. The orchestration of intelligence is sufficient, whether it be biological or not.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10796
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#86  Postby Thommo » Feb 06, 2018 3:37 pm

Image
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#87  Postby jamest » Feb 08, 2018 11:51 pm

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:Why do you have to be so personal and so childish?

As a materialist/physicalist, you should find no objection to me being personal.


Here we go again. :roll:

Don't tell me what I think. You clearly don't know.

To state the obvious there's absolutely nothing in physicalism that says people don't have emotions, values and social inclinations. You cannot possibly misunderstand what physicalism says this badly, can you?

ETA: Just to be clear, physicalism says that everything is (underpinned by the) physical, in a clear statement that would be wherever any value differs, there must be an accompanying physical difference.

I don't give a tuppence about what you think 'physicalism' says, when you come out with trash such as this, for physicalism can underpin nothing other than physicalism. Emotions, values, etc., these are the subjective values of 'folk-psychology' which are undermined (presumed to be some sort of deluded/ignorant stupidity) by physicalists who think that our language was basically formed by scientific retards. Yet, physicalists are philosophers [devoid of reason] and scientists don't come within an inkling of providing them with it.

So, in future please spare me the fucking lecture on stating the obvious. I know far more about the issues here than you. You're defending a red herring, probably because you're worried about your supply of frozen badgers. I know your sort.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why do we love scenery?

#88  Postby SafeAsMilk » Feb 09, 2018 12:16 am

jamest wrote:Emotions, values, etc., these are the subjective values of 'folk-psychology'

No they aren't. You objectively feel emotions, you objectively hold values. Just because your preference for black raspberry ice cream is subjective, does not mean you don't objectively prefer black raspberry ice cream. How many times are you going to make this incredibly basic, incredibly idiotic mistake?
Last edited by SafeAsMilk on Feb 09, 2018 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14254
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#89  Postby Thommo » Feb 09, 2018 12:16 am

jamest wrote:I don't give a tuppence about what you think 'physicalism' says, when you come out with trash such as this, for physicalism can underpin nothing other than physicalism.


"Physicalism can underpin nothing other than physicalism". Does that actually mean something to you? Because it's just a tautology.

Look, in philosophy when you critique a view, you are not critiquing your own made up version of a view, you're talking about what someone else has said and how they think it represents the world, what it's implications are, what it's assumptions are, whether it's internally consistent, whether it's consistent with known facts and so on and so forth.

When you use the word "physicalism" you're not talking about your own misapprehensions, you're talking about a recognised philosophical school of thought, and for that word and critique to be even remotely meaningful you need to know what that school of thought is, what it says and how its internal logic works.

A basic summary of physicalism is provided at each of those links.
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental.


As you can see (in a lot of detail if you read the whole of both articles) this is in line with what I said.

jamest wrote:Emotions, values, etc., these are the subjective values of 'folk-psychology' which are undermined (presumed to be some sort of deluded/ignorant stupidity) by physicalists who think that our language was basically formed by scientific retards. Yet, physicalists are philosophers [devoid of reason] and scientists don't come within an inkling of providing them with it.


That sentence lacks a referent. You appear to be quite badly confused. I suggest you read the link and reply with at least some regard to what physicalism actually says, and the syntax of the English language.

jamest wrote:So, in future please spare me the fucking lecture on stating the obvious.


I will, when you get the fucking obvious correct. Even in this reply, you still haven't shown the least comprehension of the topic, which is, frankly, concerning.
Last edited by Thommo on Feb 09, 2018 12:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#90  Postby Spinozasgalt » Feb 09, 2018 12:18 am

OR maybe Thommo is familiar with the claim that supervenience physicalism is one of the better candidates for what physicalists have in common generally? And maybe you're assimilating all physicalist views to eliminativism and thus trying to saddle him with that view when it's not his?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Thommo himself. :shifty:
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18740
Age: 33
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#91  Postby Thommo » Feb 09, 2018 12:21 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:OR maybe Thommo is familiar with the claim that supervenience physicalism is one of the better candidates for what physicalists have in common generally? And maybe you're assimilating all physicalist views to eliminativism and thus trying to saddle him with that view when it's not his?


Since I'm unlikely to get a sensible reply there, maybe I should try asking you instead.

If we put aside other forms of physicalism and assume eliminativism, would you then say that the eliminitavist must forbid themselves the use of mental language? I'd always understood that they generally wouldn't, but would simply relegate it to metaphor, or having illusory content.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#92  Postby jamest » Feb 09, 2018 12:33 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
jamest wrote:Emotions, values, etc., these are the subjective values of 'folk-psychology'

No they aren't. You objectively feel emotions, you objectively hold values. Just because your preference for black raspberry ice cream is subjective, does not mean you don't objectively prefer black raspberry ice cream. How many times are you going to make this incredibly basic, incredibly idiotic mistake?

I had you down as an intelligent guy. I intimately KNOW [qualitatively] the values of my emotions and sensations. Of course, a physicalist cannot. If you don't understand the difference between "I love you" and "Chemical X wants me to fuck you" [or suchlike] then perhaps you're a bot.

In either case, up your fucking game. At the moment it's in the gutter. I'm speaking to you now because I like you, but if you continue acting the political goat I'll get bored. Actually, I'm bored already, so consider this post as a charitable gift.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#93  Postby Thommo » Feb 09, 2018 12:40 am

jamest wrote:If you don't understand the difference between "I love you" and "Chemical X wants me to fuck you" [or suchlike] then perhaps you're a bot.


Without assuming that such a difference exists, how can one ascertain such a difference? How can one describe what the one "feels like" but the other doesn't? What properties does the one have that the other doesn't?

It seems to me that there's absolutely no example of one occurring without the other (allowing for the extremely vague language - clearly the chemicals are not separate from the person, and also relate to more general structures than neurochemicals such as neural pathways, they are a part of the person and they don't "want" anything in their own right), and this is precisely the question at stake.
Last edited by Thommo on Feb 09, 2018 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#94  Postby jamest » Feb 09, 2018 12:41 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:OR maybe Thommo is familiar with the claim that supervenience physicalism is one of the better candidates for what physicalists have in common generally? And maybe you're assimilating all physicalist views to eliminativism and thus trying to saddle him with that view when it's not his?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Thommo himself. :shifty:

Welcome to The Absolute, squire. Where reason holds sway, such as here, you cannot be an advocate of physicalism and attest to the reality of any narrative which negates its explanatory potential. In other words, physicalists need to stop using the language of folk-psychology. The language of science is rife with it, currently, as is [apparently] the language of physicalists here.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#95  Postby Thommo » Feb 09, 2018 12:42 am

You know that's fucking stupid right? You don't have to believe that Bart Simpson exists or that cartoons have their own ontology to talk about an episode of the Simpsons, or why Homer did what he did.

I don't know why you talk so much about "reason" whilst not exercising it.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why do we love scenery?

#96  Postby Spinozasgalt » Feb 09, 2018 12:44 am

Thommo wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:OR maybe Thommo is familiar with the claim that supervenience physicalism is one of the better candidates for what physicalists have in common generally? And maybe you're assimilating all physicalist views to eliminativism and thus trying to saddle him with that view when it's not his?


Since I'm unlikely to get a sensible reply there, maybe I should try asking you instead.

If we put aside other forms of physicalism and assume eliminativism, would you then say that the eliminitavist must forbid themselves the use of mental language? I'd always understood that they generally wouldn't, but would simply relegate it to metaphor, or having illusory content.

I haven't done the whole eliminativist thing in absolutely ages, but yeah I assume it could end up looking like non-cognitivism in ethics: that is, you keep the language but attempt to fill in the background with something else and make this "something else" do all the work that the cognitive view was doing. It becomes a different sort of debate then, obviously, and maybe there's something in the language that the eliminativist can't capture and it tells against the view, but I figure that at least the initial attempt at such a project isn't ruled out without an argument.
When the straight and narrow gets a little too straight, roll up the joint.
Or don't. Just follow your arrow wherever it points.

Kacey Musgraves
User avatar
Spinozasgalt
RS Donator
 
Name: Jennifer
Posts: 18740
Age: 33
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#97  Postby Thommo » Feb 09, 2018 12:50 am

That makes sense, thanks.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#98  Postby jamest » Feb 09, 2018 12:53 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:If you don't understand the difference between "I love you" and "Chemical X wants me to fuck you" [or suchlike] then perhaps you're a bot.


Without assuming that such a difference exists, how can one ascertain such a difference? How can one describe what the one "feels like" but the other doesn't? What properties does the one have that the other doesn't?

Surprisingly, that's quite an interesting question to me. For instance, without intending to be lewd, I find some women far more attractive than others. Why is this? Rather, within the context of this discussion, which of our perspectives offers the best answer?

I mean, as far as I can tell, from the PHYSICALIST perspective alone, I'm doomed to finding all 'birds' outside of the teens-thirtyish band as relatively ugly, for what other values other than physical values does science have to play with? I mean, "her taste in music" doesn't even register on a physical scale, squire, so consider the question seriously.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#99  Postby jamest » Feb 09, 2018 12:59 am

Thommo wrote:You know that's fucking stupid right? You don't have to believe that Bart Simpson exists or that cartoons have their own ontology to talk about an episode of the Simpsons, or why Homer did what he did.

I don't know why you talk so much about "reason" whilst not exercising it.

I have NO idea how you even think that this point is relevant. I mean, my [idealist-ic] point has NEVER been that 'you' do not exist, just that you are not who you think that you are. That point is not relevant to Bart, squire. He simply does not exist, to the point where that 'he' doesn't even consider it.

I get the distinct impression that we're treading water at different levels, to the point that you don't even know there's a deep end.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18475
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Why do we love scenery?

#100  Postby Thommo » Feb 09, 2018 1:03 am

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:If you don't understand the difference between "I love you" and "Chemical X wants me to fuck you" [or suchlike] then perhaps you're a bot.


Without assuming that such a difference exists, how can one ascertain such a difference? How can one describe what the one "feels like" but the other doesn't? What properties does the one have that the other doesn't?

Surprisingly, that's quite an interesting question to me. For instance, without intending to be lewd, I find some women far more attractive than others. Why is this? Rather, within the context of this discussion, which of our perspectives offers the best answer?

I mean, as far as I can tell, from the PHYSICALIST perspective alone, I'm doomed to finding all 'birds' outside of the teens-thirtyish band as relatively ugly, for what other values other than physical values does science have to play with? I mean, "her taste in music" doesn't even register on a physical scale, squire, so consider the question seriously.


Right, so even there, you've completely failed to understand the physicalist perspective.

On the physicalist perspective you form neural connections made from physical objects between neurons, which are themselves physical. These encode memories and other information, literally "hardwiring" them into your brain.

Thus your reaction to someone about whom you have made these associations is in no way predicted to be the same as your reaction to someone about whom you haven't. The nonphysical "knowledge" that changes your reaction is one and the same as (or supervenes on) the physical changes in the brain that encode it.

jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:You know that's fucking stupid right? You don't have to believe that Bart Simpson exists or that cartoons have their own ontology to talk about an episode of the Simpsons, or why Homer did what he did.

I don't know why you talk so much about "reason" whilst not exercising it.

I have NO idea how you even think that this point is relevant. I mean, my [idealist-ic] point has NEVER been that 'you' do not exist, just that you are not who you think that you are. That point is not relevant to Bart, squire. He simply does not exist, to the point where that 'he' doesn't even consider it.

I get the distinct impression that we're treading water at different levels, to the point that you don't even know there's a deep end.


So let me get this straight, you read a post, admit you cannot see the point and then conclude from that that you fully understand what's going on, and I don't?

I suggest you reconsider the possibility that maybe the one who admits they don't know what's going on is the one who doesn't have a full grasp on the conversation.

I can certainly explain in more detail what you're missing, should you ask, although I am genuinely surprised you would need it.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27036

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest