• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The relationship between science and materialism

If your position is eliminative materialism then you've got to stop saying that minds are brain processes. You've got to say that there is no such thing as a mind.
Click to expand...

I thought I made that clear. "Minds are brain processes" is a sloppy way of trying to say that what we call "mind" is not a thing but a verb. We don't really have language for it. That is why I have been saying that brains "mind".
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I thought I made that clear. "Minds are brain processes" is a sloppy way of trying to say that what we call "mind" is not a thing but a verb. We don't really have language for it. That is why I have been saying that brains "mind".
Click to expand...
Wasp--check your PM box. And feel free to cut and paste anything onto here, if you think it might help.
 
The trouble with not using mind anymore is that I can't say "I'm of a mind ...," "I've changed my mind," "time out of mind," "the public mind," "he's lost his mind," and so forth. I'll be so sad.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
The trouble with not using mind anymore is that I can't say "I'm of a mind ...," "I've changed my mind," "time out of mind," "the public mind," "he's lost his mind," and so forth. I'll be so sad.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Of course you can, just as we still say "what a beautiful sunrise". The only time you must be out of your mind, so to speak, is when you are speaking in a strict manner.
 
Mercutio said:
Of course you can, just as we still say "what a beautiful sunrise". The only time you must be out of your mind, so to speak, is when you are speaking in a strict manner.
Click to expand...
Okay, so there won't be any mind police coming 'round to stop me from using the word completely. Geoff had me scared there for a moment.

Now, the brain police, that's another matter altogether ...

~~ Paul
 
JustGeoff said:
Empirical science does not solve conceptual philosophical problems. Ever.
Click to expand...
That depends on what qualifies as a "conceptual philosophical problem".

For example, questions regarding the nature of the soul can be "solved" by being voided as non-questions, as empirical evidence demonstrates that the soul-theory is not necessary to explain human consciousness and action, just as empirical evidence regarding the nature of light demonstrated that the theory of the ether (a physical theory) was not necessary.

Conceptual philosophical problems regarding the capacity of divinely created beings to do evil are also solved empirically in the same manner, by filling the previously philosophical space with empirical data and material explanations. As the theory of divine origins falls and the question is re-cast as an issue of human behavior rather than the presence of evil, answers appear where previously there were none.

On the other hand, if a "conceptual philisophical problem" is, by definition, one which never touches on objective reality, then there is no need to solve it. It may simply be ignored, at which time it disappears, leaving no trace, like a dead man's dreams.
 
JustGeoff said:
The fact that non-eliminative materialism is logically incoherent but still believed by most physicalists is a real problem. A real conceptual problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry to insist, but this would be irrelevant. That is why, even when I have reached more or less the same conclusions than you, I still see that physicalism is the best theory we have to deal with what you would call "the noumena".

What is gained if in general people stop assuming that the world is physical?
 
BDZ said:
What is gained if in general people stop assuming that the world is physical?
Click to expand...
Well, if they do that, and entertain the other requirements for an epoche, we're supposed to have the potential for big breakthroughs in something, because we've thrown off the shackles of hegemonic materialism and scientism. What that something is, however, I do not know.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Well, if they do that, and entertain the other requirements for an epoche, we're supposed to have the potential for big breakthroughs in something, because we've thrown off the shackles of hegemonic materialism and scientism. What that something is, however, I do not know.
Click to expand...
And you never will know, unless you do it! Just like you'll never know what you're missing until you get yourself trepanned! Afterwards, the benefits will be clear to you.
 
mm I dont know Paul. Something is certain, at least for me, this "paradigm shift" would led us to discover new things and to create new tools to deal with the same "thing" we have faced since gods and demons, then matter and now... noumena? huh, maybe something even better: Advaita ;)

It would be interesting to see it, but I dont believe it will happen any soon.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
I thought I made that clear. "Minds are brain processes" is a sloppy way of trying to say that what we call "mind" is not a thing but a verb. We don't really have language for it. That is why I have been saying that brains "mind".
Click to expand...

So, what you are really saying is that your brain experiences, your brain feels, your brain loves. In few words, YOU are your brain.
 
Mary Dennett said:
There is nothing unique about YOU, nothing special. Just a bunch of grey matter and electrical impulses.
Click to expand...
That's what I am, for one. You got a problem with that?

I don't decide to have thoughts. They arise on their own. They present themselves. If this were not the case, then I would have to first decide to decide to have the thought, ad infinitum.

No somos nadie.
 
Mary said:
Yes, Paul. Say it loud and believe it! There is nothing unique about YOU, nothing special. Just a bunch of grey matter and electrical impulses. A p-zombie.
Click to expand...
You appear still to be suffering under the impression that I ever thought anything else. I was griping at philosophers for always assuming some dualistic notion when people say the word mind. Are you a philosopher? If not, then I shall have to extend the domain of my statement.

~~ Paul
 
You appear still to be suffering under the impression that I ever thought anything else.
Click to expand...

But Paul, don't you want to be special? I mean com'on!
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I'm not sure I understand what that means. Can I try this way of stating it?

There is awareness, which in a sense is Being (I know this is simplification and it makes no sense to say that Being is anything, but is the parallel basically correct?). Is that part correct?
Click to expand...

And we can have awareness from a viewpoint.
Click to expand...

No "and". Awareness is always from that viewpoint.

The subject is awareness from the viewing point, is it not? -- neither the viewing point nor awareness itself, but awareness from that viewing point. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

No. The subject is the viewpoint. There isn't any awareness "from" anywhere else.

Because the way I see the viewing point is as a conceptual "space" (not physical) where the contents of consciousness are made available to awareness (we seem to need these spatial metaphors). This somehow happens in the noumenal brain (simplification, I know, because Being/awareness is not restricted to such spatial limitations, but for purposes of communication it is easier to talk this way, our language for these ideas being so sparse).

Have I properly understood your view or have I muddled it?
Click to expand...

You've muddled it a bit. You can't replace the viewpoint with a concept. That would be to try and replace Being with a concept. That doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom