The relationship between science and materialism

Mary said:
You just need to accept there is a problem with physicalism. It does not mean that you have to accept the alternative: idealism.

I´ve been waiting 18 pages to know what exactly Geoff has to offer as another alternative. I still don´t get it. Let´s say that I am not in Paul´s position, I fully agree that physicalims is false, so what?.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what is the problem with physicalism? You keep saying things that I don't understand.

Otherwise, yes, so what?

~~ Paul
 
Geoff said:
When I used the word "I", it is a place holder for the subject, not the mind. I am not my mind. I am merely aware of my mind.
Click to expand...
But the awareness is caused by Being, which is undifferentiated. There is no you in Being. You must be in the differentiated portion, which I thought was Neutral, but now you've said it's undifferentiated, too. As far as I can tell, we've eliminated mind and subject. The baby and the bathwater are gone.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Sorry, what is the problem with physicalism?
Click to expand...

The one that forces materialists to choose between the defence of an illogical position and the removal of half the dictionary. The problem which has forced you, against your will, to stop using the word "mind" in discussions about philosophy.

That problem. :oldroll:

Please don't say "why is that a problem". You've already acknowledged it's a problem:

Okay, I give. Merc and Mary are right. I shall stop using the word mind in any philosophy discussions. The word has been hopelessly hijacked by the Pirates of Dualism. It pisses me off, but sometimes you just gotta give in.
Click to expand...

All you've still got wrong is that you haven't understood that this problem wasn't caused by "the Pirates of dualism". It is caused by the non-eliminative attempts to defend physicalism. It is caused by people using illogical statements like "minds are brain processes" as an explanation that is supposed to mean something.
 
If the subject is anything at all it is the viewpoint itself.
Click to expand...

OK, I have no idea what the subject is the viewpoint means. Could you explain better? What is the relationship between awareness and the subject?
 
JustGeoff said:
The one that forces materialists to choose between the defence of an illogical position and the removal of half the dictionary. The problem which has forced you, against your will, to stop using the word "mind" in discussions about philosophy.

That problem. :oldroll:
Click to expand...

GOD F-ING DAMN.

When did abstractions take over reality?

Anybody?

Please? I've got a pocketful of abstractions some of which may or may not be fundamental existents. All these words with the power to change reality: that's too much responsibility for one man!

Are you going to stop with this strawman any time in this reality Geoff?
 
Geoff said:
The one that forces materialists to choose between the defence of an illogical position and the removal of half the dictionary. The problem which has forced you, against your will, to stop using the word "mind" in discussions about philosophy.

That problem.

Please don't say "why is that a problem". You've already acknowledged it's a problem:
Click to expand...
That's not a problem, it's just a requirement.

All you've still got wrong is that you haven't understood that this problem wasn't caused by "the Pirates of dualism". It is caused by the non-eliminative attempts to defend physicalism. It is caused by people using illogical statements like "minds are brain processes" as an explanation that is supposed to mean something.
Click to expand...
Saying "minds are brain processes" is only a problem if there is some dualistic baggage attached to the word mind. Otherwise mind can just be a term naming a set of brain processes. Now why is it that mind has been loaded with dualistic notions?

~~ Paul
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
OK, I have no idea what the subject is the viewpoint means. Could you explain better? What is the relationship between awareness and the subject?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(philosophy)

In philosophy, a subject is a being which has subjective experiences or a relationship with another entity (or "object"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. This concept is especially important in Continental philosophy, where 'the Subject' is a central term in debates over human autonomy and the nature of the self.
Click to expand...

Subjects are aware. Minds aren't aware. Brains aren't aware. Mind is the name for the whole frame of what the subject is aware of. Objects are a name for some parts of what the subject is aware of.

I should mention at this point that even this is a temporary position. Once you get deeper into Heidegger, this notion of the subject is deconstructed in favour of what Heidegger calls "Dasein". But in order to understand Dasein, you've got to know what "subject" means first.

It's known in Hinduism as "Atman", if this helps.
 
Geoff said:
The one that forces materialists to choose between the defence of an illogical position and the removal of half the dictionary. The problem which has forced you, against your will, to stop using the word "mind" in discussions about philosophy.
Click to expand...
No, that's not why I have to stop using the word.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
That's not a problem, it's just a requirement.


Saying "minds are brain processes" is only a problem if there is some dualistic baggage attached to the word mind.
Click to expand...

Not true. The dualistic baggage is attached to the concept of matter. This is the bit you don't understand. It isn't us that's forcing dualism to keep popping back up. It's YOU. As soon as you declare the fundamental thing which exists to be matter, you've unwittingly created a problem for yourself in the future.

Otherwise mind can just be a term naming a set of brain processes. Now why is it that mind has been loaded with dualistic notions?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

It hasn't. MATTER is loaded with dualistic notions.

ARRRRRGHHJHHHHHWDRRRGGGRHHHHH! :D
 
a subject is a being which has subjective experiences
Click to expand...

Is a subject just a viewpoint or is it a being that has subjective experiences? Those two concepts don't mean the same thing to me. It doesn't seem to me that a viewpoint could be aware or do anything. So I ask again, is subject awareness from a particular view point (when we are discussing the macro environment of "beings" like us)?
 
Paul,

Q) What is the difference between neutral monism and materialism?

A) Neutral monism describes "ultimate reality" in terms of a concept which has nothing to do with the dualism of mind and matter. Materialism tries to describe "ultimate reality" in terms of one of the two concepts involved in dualism - matter.

So WHO is it who has tried to use a concept loaded with dualistic baggage to describe ultimate reality?

Me?

Or you?

:)
 
JustGeoff said:
The one that forces materialists to choose between the defence of an illogical position and the removal of half the dictionary. The problem which has forced you, against your will, to stop using the word "mind" in discussions about philosophy.
Click to expand...
One word: supervenience.

And when you explain to me what a stupid, incoherent concept that is, be sure also to expalin why so many philosophers take it seriously. Otherwise, not being a philosopher myself, I might just assume the experts know what they are talking about.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Is a subject just a viewpoint or is it a being that has subjective experiences?
Click to expand...

I already defined that "subject" was interchangeable with "Being". So the term "The subject is a Being....." isn't exactly surprising. Are you not a Being?

It's the subject which makes you a Being, and not an object.

Those two concepts don't mean the same thing to me. It doesn't seem to me that a viewpoint could be aware or do anything. So I ask again, is subject awareness from a particular view point (when we are discussing the macro environment of "beings" like us)?
Click to expand...

I can't answer your question because I don't know what you mean by "awareness". Is it a verb or a noun? I am scared there's going to be another "The brains minds." statement lurking round the next corner.
 
Geoff said:
Q) What is the difference between neutral monism and materialism?

A) Neutral monism describes "ultimate reality" in terms of a concept which has nothing to do with the dualism of mind and matter. Materialism tries to describe "ultimate reality" in terms of one of the two concepts involved in dualism - matter.

So WHO is it who has tried to use a concept loaded with dualistic baggage to describe ultimate reality?

Me?

Or you?
Click to expand...
This is crap. First of all, you have a dualism: Being and Neutral. You haven't said anything to convince me otherwise. Second, according to our new careful wording, materialism doesn't mention mind at all, so it is only describing reality in terms of one thing.

However, since I am no materialist, you could convince me that materialism is inherently dualistic. Maybe matter and energy are the two existents. Or matter and concepts. I certainly don't claim a perfect understanding of what a fundamental existent is. It sounds like each philosopher gets to decide based on preference.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Geoff said:
I already defined that "subject" was interchangeable with "Being". So the term "The subject is a Being....." isn't exactly surprising. Are you not a Being?
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Have you got the concept of "a Being"? Did I miss that?

~~ Paul
 
Neutral monism describes "ultimate reality" in terms of a concept which has nothing to do with the dualism of mind and matter. Materialism tries to describe "ultimate reality" in terms of one of the two concepts involved in dualism - matter.
Click to expand...

Would idealists run into similar logical problems in a statement like, "Matter is all in my mind"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom