1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion
Reality is fundamentally flux
There is nothing to redefine here, because there aren't any commonly established definitions for physicalism or materialism.
On this, he and Chalmers do agree. For Dennett we're conscious in the functional sense, which can cause a cognitive illusion that we experience more than that.
Yeah, physicalism isn't the same thing as materialism.
So, we must, in order to be free, be able to reject every want we have but if you'll notice this situation arises because we want to be free and that want - to be free - is programmed into us, without our consent as it were.
Also, 'Mary's Room' thought experiment demonstrates the existence of qualia almost perfectly. The thought experiment is described in the entry. So I do recommend reading it
If we stick to its principles, we are forced to conclude that everything has some sort of experience caused by interaction with environment.
Do you have a point you want to make using the case of such reflex action?
I thought it was settled that not all experience comes with some sorta delay. Most are caused by mental states or a combination of mental states. Only in certain primitive reflex responses, where the brain is not involved in decision making, does the experience come later.
I realize that these claims will sound utterly outlandish to most people. But the reason I believe them is that I find this to be the simplest explanation for what we know and observe.
The goal is to describe how things are in reality, not to produce mutually exclusive categories.
Do you agree or not?
I disagree that there’s no ghost in the machine and the mind is only a virtual machine program.
Do you agree, that if you divide that line at C, it then consists of the parts AC, CB, and is therefore not a continuous line from A to B?
Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 20 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered).
This doesn't support the "bear" example the way you like but it does point towards determinism or scientific determinism. The latter i would agree with.
The problem is you have drawn conclusions that cannot be drawn from the Libet experiment. Humans may not have a say in their future decisions based on billiards table effect of the universe, but your interpretation of the "bear" example is not found in the Libet experiment.
However, it cannot actually be divided anywhere or else it is not continuous.
what keywords do i google?
Do you have an article?
Nope. Try again. Perhaps you are misinterpreting WebMD or is that your own philosophy? That doesn't line up with reality
The above quote encapsulates an argument against free will for if we didn't chose our preferences (likes and dislikes) and all our actions are determined by our preferences then it follows that we're not free; we are automatons, each with its own preprogrammed set of dispositions that will ultimately determine every course of action that we'll ever choose in the course of our lives.
Also, I never said I believe in panpyschism. But it is worth considering.
However, what happens when you see a sad movie. You obviously don't start crying before processing its content and experiencing the mental state of 'sadness'.
To answer the first point, I say that the mind is the ego; the I as it meant in the original Latin. Cogito ergo sum as Rene Descartes said.
Given that there is enough evidence from the medical literature that the mind can still act and perceive in states without any brain activity; it’s a foregone conclusion to me that the mind cannot be reduced down to the brain.
What is the mind?
What is being measured in brain scans like MRIs?
The present is not distinct from the past and the future, it is an indefinite moment such that we directly perceive the continuous flow of time.
Right, an "instant" is not a real part of time, and that is why time cannot be continuous. There is something which breaks the continuity, which is called the "instant".
Are you familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. The substance of his paradoxes is that what is described in theory does not occur in practise. In theory Achilles cannot reach the tortoise in the race, in practise this is not so. The paradox is resolved by realizing that the theory is based in faulty premises, the infinite divisibility of space and time.
I get my information from studying philosophy, where continuity is the feature of an undivided existence. So when mathematicians look at the divisibility of the undivided, it produces the paradox I described. The paradox is maybe easier to understand in Zeno's terms.
I can promise you even people who stay and don't run from the bear are still scared, its not that simple.
If you go by panpyschism or functionalist panpyschism, then all of those are conscious.
Sure, anything that can reasonably be considered an object can also be considered a subject of experience.
The functionality of things is what groups them. The way information flows through systems, the causal connectedness or isolation of them.