Sorite’s Paradox Reconsidered: Materialism Defeated

Some things can be darker shades of gray than others.

@dkman, Going from the Heap definition to not being a robot is a huge leap of faith, and not something I would agree with.

The thing is the brain is always comparing to what it has just seen – a single grain of sand removed from a heap is not very different than the previous heap. What a conventional computer would do different is that we would most likely program it to count the sands, or count the weight, or count the radius, and give a definition.

However, it would be just as easy to make a computer compare the new heap to the old heap, and make a qualitative distinction; is it pretty similar, or pretty different? If its pretty similar, its still a heap.

Now the mind isn’t stupid, so eventually we go out of context – we see from a new angle “If I were to simply sit down here now, I would probably not call this a heap”

This could not be done so simply with a computer as above, however it would be simple enough to program it do to do so – every few seconds or minutes re-check to make sure the total radius of the heap is in a certain range.

I was thinking along some similar lines, and I’m sure you’ve come across this question as well; if the entire human body was arranged, molecule by molecule, in the fraction of a second (don’t need to know how/why) – would this human body be conscious?

@zhaetur, modern neuroscience is materialist in nature. You may want to look into methodological naturalism.

@dalniente, What differentiates us being magical wether we have a soul or not? even if we don’t I would say our existence is amazing on its own without glitter added. What you speak of is paradox. All things funneling to the Tao end in paradox. I would say that’s pretty magical. LOL.

@dalniente, Exactly, the infinite that cannot be understood by our simple, finite minds. Is this all there is? Going so deep down the rabbit hole until you realize what you seek cannot be understood with out paradox but only experienced? Are our brains the creator of consiousness or are they the receivers? That’s the trick.

@dalniente, For sure! Cheers!

@dkman, hows it contradictory?

Greens my favorite color, the sunrise is beautiful, but I believe consciousness is still pretty much a side effect. Its not contradictory, right?

@dalniente, <_<

actually if that were true it would be quite a discovery, we don’t process subjective thing, I don’t think – we process objective things in incredible feats of neurology. We can say something is the same, when its not, because we have ranges of acceptability…

@dalniente, I don’t think we have qualitative anything, just a summation of quantitative which emerge as “qualitative: There is no such thing as qualitative in my book…

Let me use the example as the Heap;
The “Heap” is a qualitative thing; we see a thing, its pretty large, its big, its a heap!

But really what we are seeing is its at a distance of X (+/-) Y
And has a radius of Z (+/-) W
Thus our heaps equal { >/= (x-5) ; >/= (z-5) }
Or some bullshit like that, but the brain doesn’t work like a hard drive or a mother-board. The values change, day to day, and the relationships change as well. This brings about an emergent “free-will” I guess. But, overall, we are just incredibly dynamic beings, bent on trying to define consciousness.

Edit: dude i tried just tried to read what I wrote and i am drunk and this may be terrible. drink me more beer for me.

@dalniente, the real fucked up thing is the mind is able to contemplate “consciousness” in its own actions. Like I am doing now. The brain believes it is consciousness, at least the conscious part, but most of the brain remains unconscious – no?

It is quite odd to simply hear – in consciousness – “I am conscious” – no?

It means there is some kind of communication between consciousness and the mind, be it physical or “metaphysical”…

I have thoroughly enjoyed tuning in on this discussion, but I ask that @ijesuschrist restates what his position on the mind’s capacity to find mutual understanding in matters that are, to simply say, enumerated.

I understand the rational behind @dalniente‘s argument here. He makes a strong, conservative perspective.

Are you in some way eluding to the concept of “inherited experiences” or are you suggesting that, given science’s minimal understanding of the brain, there is some shared, omnipotent consciousness on which brainwaves travel?