 Interesting Ideas #11732 posted by nitin on 2007/02/14 10:19:18 guys.
Plus I can (I think) understand your arguments which puts you one up on most philosophers :)
Physicalism Isn't Testable Or Falsifiable Though #11733 posted by BlackDog on 2007/02/14 10:27:58 If it was wrong, how would you know?
distrans: anaesthesia and other drug effects only seem to affect the mind when applied to the brain, which suggests against it. Of course, it's not that simple...
Blackdog #11734 posted by wrath on 2007/02/14 12:59:12 What the hell kind of masturbational argument is that?
Fap Fap Fap Splort #11735 posted by BlackDog on 2007/02/14 16:11:13 It goes like this:
You can't just assume universal negatives are true. Physicalism is a universal negative. You can't just assume physicalism is true.
Is that "masturbational"?
/me wipes the seat down
#11736 posted by Zwiffle on 2007/02/14 16:22:22 That's fucking confusing is what the fuck that is.
Thread closed by moderator.
#11737 posted by wrath on 2007/02/14 16:24:02 ohmygod we're all in the matrix, and you can't prove otherwise!
My point is of course that it's a statement that sounds very profound, but isn't really.
What are you after? The existence of god?
You Silly Twit You Just Have It Backwards #11738 posted by BlackDog on 2007/02/14 17:18:28 That is MY FUCKING POINT, that physicalism isn't a valid theory because it's untestable.
Was "you can't assume physicalism is true" not clear enough?
Hmm #11739 posted by Preach on 2007/02/14 17:54:47 Surely if it's untestable then you HAVE to assume it...
Blackdog: #11740 posted by metlslime on 2007/02/14 20:26:48 Only scientific theories have to be testable. Philosophy is almost entirely concerned with questions which are outside the bounds of science.
Please #11741 posted by inertia on 2007/02/14 20:54:41 move to philosophy thread
Yes. However... #11742 posted by BlackDog on 2007/02/14 21:08:15 We are discussing some questions here which aren't outside the bounds of science at all - whether there is an energy cost to consciousness, whether it is an adaptation, whether it is computable/can be produced with Turing complete computing devices, etc. Imo answering those with a philosophical style where you can take whatever assumptions you like for the purpose of argument isn't quite kosher.
Blackdog: #11743 posted by metlslime on 2007/02/14 21:55:57 responding in PHIL 101 thread
OH GOD #11744 posted by R.P.G. on 2007/02/14 22:29:37 i thought i failed this class once already! isn't that enough for you?!
I Thought #11745 posted by pope on 2007/02/15 01:29:50 the only way to fail philosophy class was to not attend
THANK GOD #11746 posted by than on 2007/02/15 01:59:33 someone started a thread for you guys to post all this shit in.
Lol #11747 posted by Tronyn on 2007/02/15 02:51:45
that all rules.
Now We Can Discuss A Real Topic Of Great Debate cakes vs. pies vs. cookies
(cookies all the way)
Actually, I Didnt Fail #11749 posted by R.P.G. on 2007/02/15 04:04:07 But by god it sure felt like I would.
Cookie Pie #11750 posted by pope on 2007/02/15 07:09:00 yes thats my vote
Peanut Butter Cookies #11751 posted by HeadThump on 2007/02/15 08:03:59 #1
Oh, And #11752 posted by HeadThump on 2007/02/15 08:05:45 Little Debbie! little Debbie! Oatmeal Creme Cookie Pies
Cheese #11753 posted by than on 2007/02/15 11:25:52 fuck cookies!
...unless they are cheese cookies.
Cheese Scones. #11754 posted by Shambler on 2007/02/15 12:35:27 You just got pwned, fatboy.
Or #11755 posted by Vigil on 2007/02/15 13:33:43 Did we ever manage to find out if fiends have eyes or not?
OMG NO !!!!! #11756 posted by JPL on 2007/02/15 14:02:31 This stupid discussion should not restart !! Please !!
|