I have no idea why I separated that into two posts. 

well, I don't know if I would classify it as metaphysical in the usual sense, but I guess literally, it is. It's an idea that the conscious self, the thing doing the experiencing, is outside of the material world. This is why i don't think evolution has a bearing on it, becuase there's no energy cost as that is relevant only to material processes, and consciousness is not (or so I argue.)

I guess my other unspoken assumption here is that "Physicalism" is true, that the entire universe is governed by natural laws. Physicalism doesn't require the existence of conscious selves, but our direct experience confirms that at least one conscious self exists.

I see epiphenominalism as a natural result of theory of physicalism and the fact of consciousness. There are plenty of other approaches to the mind/body problem, of course. 

I hear his dog enjoyed ice cubes? 

...and i seem to remember ELEK having a penchant for chives.

The consciousness, or the sense of awareness, must be physically represented somewhere in this organised chaos of neurons.

Indeed, maybe we need to adopt a radical attitude to observe it. Did eliminative materialism come close? Another few questions that keep giving me the raspberry are "What about the body? Aren't the brain and the body a system, maybe consciousness is represented in this larger system?"

Then the slippery slope opens up and I fall to my death. 

.. should be created :) 

guys.

Plus I can (I think) understand your arguments which puts you one up on most philosophers :) 

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... 

What the hell kind of masturbational argument is that? 

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 

That's fucking confusing is what the fuck that is.

Thread closed by moderator. 

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? 

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? 

Surely if it's untestable then you HAVE to assume it... 

Only scientific theories have to be testable. Philosophy is almost entirely concerned with questions which are outside the bounds of science. 

move to philosophy thread 

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. 

responding in PHIL 101 thread 

i thought i failed this class once already! isn't that enough for you?! 

the only way to fail philosophy class was to not attend 

someone started a thread for you guys to post all this shit in. 

that all rules. 

cakes vs. pies vs. cookies

(cookies all the way) 

But by god it sure felt like I would. 

yes thats my vote 

#1