| UF Philosophy Corner: Metaphysics |
by MatthewDBA |
2009-04-02 09:52:58 |
(sorry it's late)
I'm starting to get into philosophy of mind and the mind-body problem. I'm interested in people's views on the following quote from J.B.S. Haldane:
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Comments? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Sounds like a free will:determinism question (n/t) | by Illiad | 2009-04-02 09:54:09 |
|
It's more a mind/body question, I think | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 10:01:17 |
|
OK then. | by Illiad | 2009-04-02 10:14:53 |
|
Basically it comes down to "Cogito Ergo Sum." | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-02 10:57:16 |
|
Heh, you beat me too it (n/t) | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 11:02:17 |
|
That's more or less the idea | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:03:18 |
|
Non sequitur | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 11:08:39 |
|
I'm not sure what you mean. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:10:30 |
|
He unquestioningly accepts several assumption | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 11:18:26 |
|
I don't see him assuming "an unexplained process" | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:21:11 |
|
Ah, yes, that was about your rephrasing | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 11:43:02 |
|
You BOTH missed the point: | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-02 11:47:49 |
|
Indeed | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 11:53:25 |
|
What leads you to believe | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:05:29 |
|
Anything more requires an assumption | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 12:09:13 |
|
I still feel like I'm missing something | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:11:59 |
|
Your argument mentions natural processes | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 12:20:24 |
|
But either natural processes exist, | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:24:38 |
|
Not quite | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 12:40:14 |
|
Okay I assume that you'd agree that | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:46:02 |
|
You're assuming an "either/or" scenario | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 13:01:32 |
|
Okay, I'll bring it back up tomorrow | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 13:04:56 |
|
The diskworld spins on the back of 4 elephants. | by RetiQlum2 | 2009-04-02 12:18:29 |
|
You are all NOT my imagined fever dream. | by Illiad | 2009-04-02 11:55:14 |
|
Right. Diane Lane incarnated as a llama, maybe. | by Adiplomat | 2009-04-02 15:10:56 |
|
That was a camel. :p (n/t) | by Illiad | 2009-04-02 16:30:50 |
|
Branching out, are we? | by Adiplomat | 2009-04-02 18:17:29 |
|
I'm still not sure I follow | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:59:52 |
|
3 degrees of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 11:09:12 |
|
This strikes me as a subset of a larger question | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 10:59:48 |
|
I don't think we can ever determine that. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:09:34 |
|
Did you ever watch Dark Star? | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 11:40:45 |
|
Can't watch U Tube from here :-( (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:00:26 |
|
Be sure to check it out when you get the chance (n/t) | by PeKaJe | 2009-04-02 12:10:21 |
|
Basically I *don't* think therefore I am not | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 11:06:16 |
|
No, it means that | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:13:43 |
|
what about if the atoms make up molecules that | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 11:16:39 |
|
Since they're still atoms | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:17:03 |
|
they are no longer atoms on their own, they are | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 11:18:22 |
|
They're not atoms *on their own* | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 11:21:50 |
|
Molecules have a different behavior than a single | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 11:52:35 |
|
I'm not certain I follow you | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:02:03 |
|
Does the molecule of sugar behave the same | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 14:24:17 |
|
Chicken or egg? Which came first? | by jdelphiki | 2009-04-02 12:40:15 |
|
I still don't see where Heisenberg comes into it. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-04-02 12:42:50 |
|
His premise is based upon the uncertanty of | by Classic_Jon | 2009-04-02 14:50:05 |
|
irrelevant. | by subbywan | 2009-04-02 18:37:24 |
