UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> Sartre's-Existence precedes essenc


7/7/06 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 1228
Subadie, Ok maybe anti-depressants were a bad choice and perhaps they don't work too well. But this in no way shows materialism to be wrong or promotes some kind of dualism. It could simply mean that depression is more complex than serotonin levels etc...a person still needs to make behavioral changes, and learn coping skills to deal with the underlying problems. Anyway..that isn't the point.. The point was to show that Drugs do effect consciousness. If you don't like my example of anti-depressants-try cocaine, acid or mushrooms. and tell me that those DON'T WORK.
7/7/06 8:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06 08:19 PM
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 1229
"If you disagree then show me where do meanings exist objectively and without any consciousness perceiving them. Where are values or thoughts running around - where can you SEE them or TOUCH them?" I think there is a language problem in here somewhere. However, i might say in X Neuron when connected to Y region of brain or however it works. For instance when get in an accident and hurts there head, they get amnesia. How do you account for that? Or someone injures another part of their brain and they lose their ability to recognize faces or remember names. I.E alzheimer's disease.. "There is a difference between the consciousness being determined by the brain or influenced by the brain or having physical correlates in the brain and between the consciousness being the brain." I think this is all a language problem, but I couldn't explain exactly how without using more brain cells than i feel like using at this moment. "It is only the irrational belief in physicalism (irrational in the sense that it is not seen as falsifiable) " Is it really not falsifiable? The fundamental presupposition of neurobiology is "there can be no change in the mental states of a person without a change in brain states." So wouldn't this be easily falsifiable? Simply hook a machine up to a human being that observes the brain, have him change his mental state and if NOTHING changes in the brain. BAAM...its falsified. Or you can do the opposite, give the person a drug that changes brain states and see if their mental state changes. If it doesn't WALA ..it's proven false. Of course this has never happened, a change in mental state has coincided with a change in brain state every single time..EVEr. Now you might say something along the lines of well brain states cause mental states, and mental states are something different.( i think this is a language problem, but supposing i'm wrong) then your mental states are still caused by brain states which are physical properties which follow the laws of physics which are determined, and therefore DETERMINISM.
7/7/06 10:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Six of Swords
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-06
Member Since: 05/23/2006
Posts: 5
Given the advancements in the social and neurological sciences since 1943 (Being and Nothingness) I can't imagine accepting the strong form of Sartre's existence/essence argument. It is now quite clear that virtually everything in the behavioral catalog emerges from a neurological substrate, much of which has a predetermined form and means of operation. There is simply no way that consciousness is as plastic as JPS suggests. The real contribution of the 20th century existentialists is the idea of the human need to operate in a universe devoid of meaning. (Kierkegaard, on the other hand, didn't discuss an absurd universe but, rather, recognized the irrationality of faith.) Ultimately, this is where is see this thread leading. I doubt anyone here seriously subscribes to the notion of mind as tabula rasa. When one talks about Sartre, usually the meat of the analysis goes to determinism vs. non-. Might this be an intractable problem? Perhaps. It might be that Sartre was prescient in a manner he didn't foresee. He seemed to be arguing for absurdity based on indeterminism when perhaps the ultimate absurdity might emerge from our inability to meaningfully discuss, understand, or integrate free will and determinism given the limited scope of our evolved tools of perception and cognition. ~d[2]
7/8/06 3:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Indrek R.
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jul-06
Member Since: 07/04/2002
Posts: 1259
sanguine you need to read my posts again... you don´t seem to understand what I argued for with the mind-body problem...

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.