• 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

Yes. I was technically wrong on this one, but I've explained my error to wasp.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to sift through everything that has been written today, but I cannot accept your explanation.

The only abstraction in regards to an actual computer sitting over there is that I do not completely understand what matter "is". In my world there really is a computer sitting over there. It really performs actions. So if I see it doing something, I can describe its actions. I can relate to it. It is not a description, it is a "thing" to which I can relate. My describing its actions is not a desription of a description of X. It is a description of X in which I have limited information.

The action is X. There is a difference between the description of an action and an action itself.

The other possibility is that you mean that the computer is an abstraction. It is a mental construct that has no real existence except in my mind. But that is just idealism.


In a dress.

You guys carry on. There hasn't been any progress in two weeks. I don't anticipate any for the next two weeks.
 
JustGeoff said:
I have no idea why you think there is anything faulty about asking someone to define their terms and defend their position. They can define any terms they like. If they cannot define a coherent set of terms in order to defend their position then their position is incoherent. Period.
Click to expand...
The problem is, you chose a particular set of words to define. The set you chose is incoherent, because they are all defined dualistically in our current usage of these terms. I cannot think of any combination of definitions of those particular terms which would not be wanting.
Let's see your "better construction". You've seen mine.
Click to expand...
Ah, it's about time! I thought you said you understood me, so I have been dropping hints at this for some time. I sent most of it to Wasp in a PM when he asked me, earlier.

Not trying to dodge just now, but this thread is still about your own view. When it reaches some reasonable settlement, then I'd be happy to write about mine. I would have thought I had dropped enough hints about it in this thread that you'd be able to guess it by now, though... :D
 
Mercutio said:
The problem is, you chose a particular set of words to define. The set you chose is incoherent, because they are all defined dualistically in our current usage of these terms. I cannot think of any combination of definitions of those particular terms which would not be wanting.
Click to expand...

Then think of some others, Mercutio. I've waited the whole thread for you to actually defend a position, but so far there's no sign.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
So what words do I use to distinguish a nonconscious brain event from one that I am aware of?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

You can't. There are none. And you can't define any. Stupid, isn't it? :D

Here is wikipeida on eliminative materialism:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rialism.png/380px-Eliminative_Materialism.png

All the words you need are in the red box called "folk psychology". That's got to go the way of astrology. There's no such thing as minds, Paul. That's woo-woo talk, just like Merc says.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JustGeoff said:
We cannot, in theory, ever tell we had created consciousness - even if we had done it.
Click to expand...
Only in the same way that we can't be sure that other people are conscious. After all, the fact that someone else has a physical brain like mine does not prove anything if consciousness is something that cannot be explained by the physical anyway. Which is why the ideas of human and machine p-zombies are equivalent and why they cannot exist if you reject solipsism. Which we both do.
 
JustGeoff, your reply to my last post is so riddled with inaccuracies, contradictions, logical errors, and outright falsehoods that there's obviously no use replying even if I knew where to begin.

So knock yourself out, brother. Enjoy the ride. You're in for a long one.
 
Geoff said:
You can't. There are none. And you can't define any. Stupid, isn't it?
Click to expand...
So you've essentially set up a jack-booted* terminology police force to prevent anyone from talking in a way that doesn't funnel their ideas right down into your metaphysic. I commend you.

Nevertheless, there are events in my brain that do not make their way into my awareness, and other events that do. According to you, this is empirical evidence that your metaphysic is correct.

All the words you need are in the red box called "folk psychology". That's got to go the way of astrology. There's no such thing as minds, Paul. That's woo-woo talk, just like Merc says.
Click to expand...
You forgot the box where you cross out the sunrise.

~~ Paul


* I do not use this term lightly.
 
Piggy said:
JustGeoff, your reply to my last post is so riddled with inaccuracies, contradictions, logical errors, and outright falsehoods that there's obviously no use replying even if I knew where to begin.

So knock yourself out, brother. Enjoy the ride. You're in for a long one.
Click to expand...

Was that someone turning tail and running? Cos it sure looks that way. I mean - this is such an illuminating post, piggy. Lot's of unfounded claims and conspicuous abscence of anything at all resembling an argument. :D
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
So you've essentially set up a jack-booted* terminology police force to prevent anyone from talking in a way that doesn't funnel their ideas right down into your metaphysic. I commend you.
Click to expand...

It wasn't me who set it up! The originators of this absurd position are Paul and Patricia Churchland - two of the heroes of "cognitive science" and two of my main targets for several years now.

Nevertheless, there are events in my brain that do not make their way into my awareness, and other events that do. According to you, this is empirical evidence that your metaphysic is correct.
Click to expand...

No. I didn't say it was that. I can't prove metaphysics with empirical evidence. I can only prove some metaphysical systems to be incoherent with logic.

You forgot the box where you cross out the sunrise.
Click to expand...

That one doesn't cause any logical problems.

* I do not use this term lightly.
Click to expand...

I understand completely. This is a very good example of something which works in theory but is absurd in practice. It just happens to be the only logical way to defend materialism. I don't know what else to say. Perhaps Mercutio is going to come riding over the hilltop with the cavalry to save the day, but I doubt it.

I'm not in control of the jack-boot materialists. I'm offering you a way of using all the folk pychological terms you like without incurring a logical problem. All you've got to do is dump materialism, which you claim you don't believe anyway. So what's the problem?
 
Geoff said:
It wasn't me who set it up! The originators of this absurd position are Paul and Patricia Churchland - two of the heroes of "cognitive science" and two of my main targets for several years now.
Click to expand...
Indeed, if they claim that there is nothing in the brain that corresponds to the mental state of fear, then it is absurd. Your overbearingness comes in not allowing anyone a softer position than theirs. You have set up an unescapable dichotomy.

No. I didn't say it was that. I can't prove metaphysics with empirical evidence. I can only prove some metaphysical systems to be incoherent with logic.
Click to expand...
If you claim that I cannot utter a coherent sentence about awareness in the context of physicalism, then you are making an empirical claim.

That one doesn't cause any logical problems.
Click to expand...
Neither does allowing me to redefine some of the words you will not allow me to utter.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Indeed, if they claim that there is nothing in the brain that corresponds to the mental state of fear, then it is absurd.
Click to expand...

From the wiki article:

Eliminativism maintains that our common-sense understanding of the mind is radically mistaken, and that neuroscience will one day reveal that the mental states we talk about in every day discourse using words such as intend, believe, desire, and love do not refer to anything real. They maintain that it is only due to the inadequacy of our language that people mistakenly think that they have beliefs and desires.
Click to expand...

Yep, absurd.

Your overbearingness comes in not allowing anyone a softer position than theirs.
Click to expand...

Paul, I have spent at least 4 years trying to explain to you and countless others on this forum that there was a logical problem with materialism. Nothing I said ever registered. "Show us the proof", went the chorus, but no matter how many times I showed it people were convinced they'd seen no proof. My "overbearingness" is the result of wanting people to understand that there really is a problem with materialism and it really does matter and I really can explain what the problem is if only people will try to understand me instead of just attacking me. Logic is my only tool. Do you think anyone would defend a position as absurd as eliminative materialism unless they really believed they had no other option?

You have set up an unescapable dichotomy.
Click to expand...

I've shown you how to escape from it. The unescapable dichotomy wasn't set up by me. It was the result of the mathematisation of nature and the rise of objective physicalism. Nobody is to blame. But there is a problem nevertheless.

If you claim that I cannot utter a coherent sentence about awareness in the context of physicalism, then you are making an empirical claim.
Click to expand...

OK, but it's a claim that only follows from an initial assumption of materialism. I'm not saying it is impossible for other people to utter a coherent sentence about awareness. It's only materialists who can't.

Neither does allowing me to redefine all the words you will not allow me to utter.
Click to expand...

You can't logically redefine them in a way that is going to help the situation.

You seem to be blaming me for this mess. I didn't create it.

Geoff
 
Geoff said:
You seem to be blaming me for this mess. I didn't create it.
Click to expand...
I am not blaming you for the mess. I am saying that you are taking advantage of the mess to set up a situation where no one is allowed to talk about anything except in your language.

~~ Paul
 
Well, I think I've about used up my energy here. I've certainly learned to be more careful when flinging about terms like mind and experience. I think that as time goes on, we will find that our folk psychology terms are sadly misleading. I'm not sure how there will ever be a day when the word fear won't refer to something to do with fearful behavior. I can't really tell how seriously to take the idea that fear refers to absolutely nothing real. I'm not sure how harsh the Churchlands really are. From http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/eliminativism.html:
It is natural for psychologists to assume that the Churchlands are making the same claims for neuroscience that Skinner once made for behaviorism, and to resist eliminative materialism for fear that it would compel a similar narrowness of focus. The Churchlands recognize, however, that as long as there are important nuances in folk psychology that the neuroscientific view cannot capture, folk psychology is not ready to be eliminated. As Paul Churchland puts it "If and when the change ever happens, it will be because we are all gleefully pulled rather than grudgingly pushed. We will be pulled, if at all, by the manifold, personal, social, and practical advantages of the new framework: by the clarity it represents, by the freedoms it makes possible, by the cruelties it diverts, and by the deeper interactions it affords."
Click to expand...

This neutral monism is certainly interesting. It seems to me, though, that mind/body duality has been eliminated in the Neutral, but reintroduced with the Being as subject/noumenal duality. Instead of being unable to reduce the mind and body to each other, I cannot reduce the subject and the noumenal. Maybe it's a better sort of duality, because one of the things is nothing.

If someone asks me why P1 and P2 can't both be physical, I can't explain it to him. For some reason, I have not been able to grok that part of the proof.

If neutral dualists are going to be so unforgiving with language, I think they will continue to be accused of begging the question. Perhaps they represent the other side of the coin from the Churchlands.

~~ Paul
 
JustGeoff said:
My "overbearingness" is the result of wanting people to understand that there really is a problem with materialism and it really does matter and I really can explain what the problem is if only people will try to understand me instead of just attacking me.
Click to expand...
But there are problems that your system has also. Following on from my last post, and repeating a question you didn't answer from a few days ago, you evidently believe that p-zombies are logically possible, but not that they actually exist. What ensures that they don't exist? Why do we live in a world peopled by "real" conscious beings and not mere biological automatons?

For supervenience physicalism the mind and brain are so tightly associated that this question can never arise - if I know I am conscious then I know that people with similar brains to me must be conscious too.
 
hammegk said:
You missed the point. Neither the machine nor the human are conscious -- just a program running. :)
Click to expand...
Actually, why is it impossible for a computer to be conscious, from an idealist point of view? I thought everything was mind anyway. Isn't the existence of physical things the "hard problem" for you?
 
Okay, from what I've read the only thing I can put together as JustAToysRUsKid's actual position is that since science can't actually explain WHY our mental processes create that wonderous phenomenon of awareness, we must throw out the entire scientific method completely.

I'm not sure I follow. Science can't explain why the universe exists at all, nor can it explain WHY the laws of physics are the way they are. It can state what magnetism is, and it can state what can create it, but as of yet it can't say WHY or HOW such an arrangement actually goes about creating a magnetic force.

So? So there's some unexplained stuff. Why is that such a big deal? Is it your position that since science is unable to explain the "ultimate cause" of all that is, it has to throw out it's entire viewpoint? We must be capable of attaining ultimate knowledge (if such a thing can exists) or abandon all pretense of knowledge whatsoever? What purpose does that serve?
 
JustGeoff said:
Then think of some others, Mercutio. I've waited the whole thread for you to actually defend a position, but so far there's no sign.
Click to expand...
This thread is not about my position, but about yours. You have not asked (until just recently) about mine, but instead made assumptions about what my philosophy was.

Anyway, Of course I will talk about mine--that's why I mentioned that I had PMed Wasp with a lengthy explanation. I don't want any to think I am trying to dodge the issue...but speaking of that, the issue of this thread was your philosophy, which should stand on its own, independent of mine. I do not want my thoughts to distract from the point of this thread.

Perhaps Mercutio is going to come riding over the hilltop with the cavalry to save the day, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
I will not be saving your philosophy. I doubt you will like mine, as it does not preserve the terms you hold so dear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom