ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th January 2013, 02:56 PM   #921
levi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yes, that is what it implies.
One more thing I wanted to add when I say "I exist" I mean , "my consiousness" does not exist according to mereological nihilism.

If this doesn't change marplots response than ignore it.

Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 03:03 PM.
levi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:06 PM   #922
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,023
Originally Posted by levi View Post
One more thing I wanted to add when I say "I exist" I mean , "my consiousness" does not exist according to mereological nihilism.

If this doesn't change dafydd response than ignore it.
Your consciousness may or may not exist. If it does, it can't be said to be attached to anything reliably called "you."

Consciousness isn't a special property in mereological nihilism, it's just one of thousands of things we could talk about, like mass or pinkness or "smells like a fish." None of that matters one wit and isn't part of the concept. The concepts are only about the existence of physical things.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:33 PM   #923
levi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 495
I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process.

How can consiousness not be a physical process? Unless someone discovers a soul even though it is incredibly unlikely.

Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 03:50 PM.
levi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:42 PM   #924
levi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 495
double post
levi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 03:54 PM   #925
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,023
Originally Posted by levi View Post
I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things. But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process.
Levi,
Let me try it from a different direction.

Suppose I deny that faeries exist. I lay out my reasons and so forth.

Your question about consciousness would then be something like, "Well, what about pink faeries?" If I deny all faeries, then I've denied pink faeries as well.

But then you shift to something like, "Well, aren't you saying 'pink' doesn't exist then?" No, not at all. Pink may very well exist, just not attached to anything reasonably identified as faeries.

Perhaps the mistake comes in because you have tied in the notion of consciousness with your sense of self and existing. The "you" that mereological nihilism is denying would be the same you, conscious or not. The "you" they are talking about is a well outlined, eternal, definable entity -- something they say doesn't not exist. That's what they are denying, not consciousness directly.

In mereological nihilism, consciousness is something you have, like you might have a shirt on. It's a property, not an essential ingredient or constituent. It's a has this not an is this.

My dog has a bark, it is not composed of a bark. Barking is added to whatever it means to exist as a dog. If the dog doesn't exist, then a barking dog doesn't exist, but dealing with the barking isn't part of the argument.

You can certainly disagree with this formulation and say that without consciousness, there is no you to talk about, but under mereological nihilism, that's a separate issue.

By the way, there's a good reason to avoid addressing consciousness directly. To do so, you'd have to pin down a great many other issues about consciousness that are still actively argued about. The whole thrust of mereological nihilism would get lost (as it has in this thread) in a tangential discussion about consciousness. Keeping that out allows them to focus on the main point.

Last edited by marplots; 6th January 2013 at 03:58 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 04:06 PM   #926
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,299
Originally Posted by levi View Post
This is pretty much my last question on the subject.

Can someone answer?
Originally Posted by levi View Post
I assume consiousness is denied if there is nothing immaterial according to mereological nihilism? This is correct?
Originally Posted by levi View Post
Are you implying that I must exist to write my post?
Can someone answer my previous post from the perceptive of mereological nihilism?
Originally Posted by levi View Post
I assume from the philosophers response that mereological nihilism implies I don't exist, can someone comfirm this?
Originally Posted by levi View Post
I will ask one more time. Can someone answer simply?
Originally Posted by levi View Post
Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

How can consiousness not be a physical process?
Seriously.

After more than 900 posts, it's time for you to go on to some other concept, one that isn't troubling you quite as much. No one here is apparently able to fully satisfy you regarding your constant repetitive questioning.

Take a year off from this question and come back later with a fresh perspective. In the meantime, maybe someone in real life will have been able to answer to your satisfaction.
__________________
"It started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that, it was excellent."
- Blackadder
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 04:32 PM   #927
levi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 495
Consciousness means pink.

Fairies equal my physical body.

Originally Posted by marplots View Post

The "you" that mereological nihilism is denying would be the same you, conscious or not. The "you" they are talking about is a well outlined, eternal, definable entity -- something they say doesn't not exist. That's what they are denying, not consciousness directly.
It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles.

Bark also means consciousness and dog means my physical body.

If any of this incorrect than correct me.

Do you believe in a soul?

Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience.

Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?

Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 05:02 PM.
levi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2013, 04:52 PM   #928
levi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 495
I edited it now it makes more sense. Someone can delete this post.

Last edited by levi; 6th January 2013 at 05:05 PM.
levi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:45 AM   #929
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,156
Originally Posted by levi View Post
I realize mereological nihilism treats every fundamenatl particle as seperate and never combines to create more complex things.
Which is just a POV that defies appearances.
Quote:
But an single fundamental particle doesn't create consiousness it is a collection of particles that creates consiousness. Is this a correct summary?

So than how can mereological nihilism deny consiousness?
Ask them.
Quote:

What does this mean? "reliably called "you.""

How is ,"reliably called "you."", different than consiousness?

I am assuming consiousness is phyiscal process.

How can consiousness not be a physical process? Unless someone discovers a soul even though it is incredibly unlikely.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:54 AM   #930
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,156
Originally Posted by levi View Post
Consciousness means pink.

Fairies equal my physical body.



It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles.
Which is silly because it ignores a whole bunch of apparent physics.

While one can model a single electron theory, it is easier to say there are a bunch of electrons.

The oxygen atoms around proxima centauri are NOT the oxygen atoms in my body. the two are NOT equivalent. They are translocated in space and time and have different contingent histories.
Quote:
Bark also means consciousness and dog means my physical body.

If any of this incorrect than correct me.

Do you believe in a soul?

Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience.

Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?

I suggest you read this thread
Does the traditional atheistic worldview contradict materialism?

It covers much of the same ground and may help you.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2013, 05:57 AM   #931
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,023
Originally Posted by levi View Post
It almost sounds like mereological nihilists are denying a soul. From my understanding mereological nihilism doesn’t mention a soul. It denies whole materialistic objects, except fundamental particles.
Exactly. It really doesn't deal with the soul either. You can't just wedge in things and expect to get a meaningful answer.

Quote:
Do you believe in a soul?
Not in the religious sense of the word. I usually translate the word to mean a combination of personality, emotional bent and biases -- a "secular soul" if you like.

Quote:
Sorry I am not very smart so thanks for your patience.
But you are getting smarter. I, on the other hand, am not getting any more patient. This gives you the advantage.

Quote:
Also I would like to say without consciousness there is no you. How could there be any you without consiousness?
Well, you sleep right? Sometimes a deep and dreamless sleep where you are unconscious? Is there still a "you" there or not?
(I don't think there's a sure and certain answer to this, but there are different opinions.)
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.