I've read his thesis and it's cringe af. I already posted a lengthy refutation here but it turned out to be pearls before the swine. The puerile followers of his cult are too intellectually immature to argue on a factual or logical level.
>physicalism
can't account for qualia >idealism
can't account for the material world
Dualism is the obvious answer. But for the last 100 years ACKadummia has conditioned its npc scholars into a violent kneejerk reaction denouncing dualism as soon as it's mentioned.
explain how the presence of a pattern of neuron activation (which is the stage where the material chain of events ends) *IS* the same as the impression of red, tasty, rough etc...
Identities don't admit of explanation, so asking how it is that certain brain states are identical to certain mental states would just be an illegitimate question.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Identities don't admit of explanation
Where did you hear that nonsense? Establishing the identity is its explanation. Otherwise all equations in science were just arbitrary claims that happen to work
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Where did you hear that nonsense?
What I said is utterly uncontroversial in philosophy. You can't explain why a thing is identical to itself. That will just be explanatorily basic.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>You can't explain why a thing is identical to itself
yes, but you would have to establish why things conventionally treated as different are in fact the same. Otherwise you could just stop at "everything is One (nature/universe/being...)" and dismiss any further investigations.
5 months ago
Anonymous
The justification is Occam's razor. Mind-brain identity theory is simpler than dualism, so unless you can show that dualism has some explanatory advantage over the identity theory, you ought to prefer the latter.
5 months ago
Anonymous
That would be valid if mind-brain actually established that identity, and not simply claimed it. It's applying Occams razor to a metaphysical opinion, not an explanation.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>It's applying Occams razor to a metaphysical opinion
Which is perfectly reasonable. When doing philosophy, one tries to construct theories that best explain the data while minimizing one's theoretical commitments, and you pick the theory that best manages that tradeoff.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I watched this video recently and I'm curious what would you answer to that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rovWYKsqzm8
Basically it says that if you consistently apply the Occam's razor you end up in Solipsism because it's simpler.
You see red. Does something cause this red? Why does this red consistently correlate with some other qualia? Kastrup doesn't want to answer these questions. He says "it just is, okay?"
Dualism is inconceivable. Panpsychism is more plausible; experience is inherent in nature and you let go of the notion that physics is the ultimate answer to explaining all reality. why should it even be?
there's an infinite number of modes, or modes are infinite, what do you want?
Is this the moron who made the whirlpool metaphor or something?
>moron
Stop it, you’ll make him cry.
but he worked at CERN though. must be true
I've read his thesis and it's cringe af. I already posted a lengthy refutation here but it turned out to be pearls before the swine. The puerile followers of his cult are too intellectually immature to argue on a factual or logical level.
Post it again
He already refuted himself by malding at being called silly
oh my, sounds like you have destroyed them with facts & logic
>physicalism
can't account for qualia
>idealism
can't account for the material world
Dualism is the obvious answer. But for the last 100 years ACKadummia has conditioned its npc scholars into a violent kneejerk reaction denouncing dualism as soon as it's mentioned.
Based, anyone who doesn't believe in panpsychic dualism can suck my balls.
>the material world isn't qualia because it just isn't ok?
explain how the presence of a pattern of neuron activation (which is the stage where the material chain of events ends) *IS* the same as the impression of red, tasty, rough etc...
Identities don't admit of explanation, so asking how it is that certain brain states are identical to certain mental states would just be an illegitimate question.
>Identities don't admit of explanation
Where did you hear that nonsense? Establishing the identity is its explanation. Otherwise all equations in science were just arbitrary claims that happen to work
>Where did you hear that nonsense?
What I said is utterly uncontroversial in philosophy. You can't explain why a thing is identical to itself. That will just be explanatorily basic.
>You can't explain why a thing is identical to itself
yes, but you would have to establish why things conventionally treated as different are in fact the same. Otherwise you could just stop at "everything is One (nature/universe/being...)" and dismiss any further investigations.
The justification is Occam's razor. Mind-brain identity theory is simpler than dualism, so unless you can show that dualism has some explanatory advantage over the identity theory, you ought to prefer the latter.
That would be valid if mind-brain actually established that identity, and not simply claimed it. It's applying Occams razor to a metaphysical opinion, not an explanation.
>It's applying Occams razor to a metaphysical opinion
Which is perfectly reasonable. When doing philosophy, one tries to construct theories that best explain the data while minimizing one's theoretical commitments, and you pick the theory that best manages that tradeoff.
I watched this video recently and I'm curious what would you answer to that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rovWYKsqzm8
Basically it says that if you consistently apply the Occam's razor you end up in Solipsism because it's simpler.
You see red. Does something cause this red? Why does this red consistently correlate with some other qualia? Kastrup doesn't want to answer these questions. He says "it just is, okay?"
Dualism is inconceivable. Panpsychism is more plausible; experience is inherent in nature and you let go of the notion that physics is the ultimate answer to explaining all reality. why should it even be?
>Dualism
No. You're right that both are incomplete but dualism is even worse. You may be interested in Schelling.
In what sense is dualism worse? And what is Schelling's opinion? I haven't read his work yet.