The relationship between science and materialism

[Tricky]

I haven't. My position has been stable and consistent for 35 pages.

And circular for those same 35 pages.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin

Once more, you do not understand my position.

Around and around we go. Every time your position gets demolished you snip the embarrassing text, complain loudly that I don't understand your position, and then you set up camp a mile down the road peddling exactly the same dodgy goods.

Please, explain for us how you can claim that all purely material conceptions of the human mind are incoherent, but you aren't advocating any kind of immaterialism (idealism, dualism, neutral monism, whatever). I am really looking forward to an explanation of that one.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Around and around we go. Every time your position gets demolished you snip the embarrassing text, complain loudly that I don't understand your position,

No, Kevin, you really do not understand my position. Simple as that.

Please, explain for us how you can claim that all purely material conceptions of the human mind are incoherent, but you aren't advocating any kind of immaterialism (idealism, dualism, neutral monism, whatever). I am really looking forward to an explanation of that one.

I didn't claim this. You understand neither my position nor what I have claimed.

Do you understand the statement "Minds supervene on brains"?
Do you understand why this statement is compatible with my position?

No, you don't. When you do, then you might be in a position to criticise me. Right now, you aren't.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And circular for those same 35 pages.

And how would you know that, Tricky? Did you read those pages? Do you understand my position either? Or are you just another member of the chorus-line who are trotting out the standard responses you throw at lifegazer or Ian, having assumed they work against my position even though they don't know what is? If you think I am defending lifegazer's position you are seriously mistaken.

 

[Mercutio]

Do you understand the statement "Minds supervene on brains"?
Do you understand why this statement is compatible with my position?

I am tempted to say that no one, not even yourself, understands both of these. I thought I had a good grasp of your position, but I cannot see how the second statement here could be true. I suspect that either you do not understand the first, or perhaps that you do not understand the second. If you were Iacchus, I would know you do not understand either.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The challenge is as follows. Please attempt to define the following:

Subjective
Objective
Mental
Physical
1st-person
3rd-person

1) Subjective = Things as appear to cognition (cognition = brain processes)

2) Objective = Things as appear to "second cognition" (thinking)

3) Mental = All that exists, the world we live in.

4) Physical = An abstraction (the same as "objective") contructed integrating cognitions and second cognitions.

5) 1st person = me

6) 3rd person = invention of an hypotetic point of view

IMO you missed "noumena" which could be the most important word in the discussion.

7) Noumena = The "world" as it "is", truly "objective", "real". In the end the words and concepts (second cognition) cant grasp it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am tempted to say that no one, not even yourself, understands both of these.

I understand it perfectly. It may well be the case that not one other person posting here does, though. Which will just go to demonstrate that 35 pages into this thread, not one person has understood the position I am defending. Hardly surprising then that people keep accusing me of being a dualist, is it?

I thought I had a good grasp of your position, but I cannot see how the second statement here could be true. I suspect that either you do not understand the first, or perhaps that you do not understand the second.

Well, you'd be wrong.

Do you understand why the claim that minds supervene on brains is not equivalent to a claim that physicalism is true? Because if you understand that difference you will have a much better understanding of why position is compatible with supervenience with respect to mind.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

4) Physical = An abstraction....

This definition is an outright denial of physicalism. My own position defines physical things to be abstractions.

 

[Mercutio]

Do you understand why the claim that minds supervene on brains is not equivalent to a claim that physicalism is true? Because if you understand that difference you will have a much better understanding of why position is compatible with supervenience with respect to mind.

There is an alternative to the "physicalism is true" version. May be more than one, actually. But the version I see you using is (as Tricky noticed) circular. The X to Y correspondence where mental is supervened on physical can be due (logically, anyway) to physicalism being true, or because some third Z is doing the work of corresponding X and Y while allowing there to be no direct connection between them. In standard dualism, a god can perform the role of Z; in your version of dualism, an inferred neutral monism stands in as Z. Problem is, in both cases, Z is inferred from the correspondence of X and Y with the additional (sometimes explicit) assumption that X and Y are ontologically separate.

Problem is, it's circular. If they are separate, but correspond, there must be some way in which they are the same, or some third thing that does not fit the rules of either X or Y. As long as we are assuming...why not?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.phil.vt.edu/Valerie/6014/glossary.html

Philosophical Aspects of Cognitive Science

Supervenience:

One state or property (A) supervenes on another state or property (B) if B determines A. A good way to think about the relation of supervenience is in terms of change. A supervenes on B if there is no way to change A without also changing B.

So this is the claim of supervenience: There is no way to change the content of a mind without changing the structure of a brain.

And this is the claim of physicalism : Everything which exists is physical.

These are not the same. Indeed, supervenience is also compatible with property dualism - which is itself, IMO, a poorly-specified precursor to the position I am defending. Either way, my own position also entails that there is no way to change the content of a mind without changing the structure of a brain - something which should have been crystal clear to anyone who has been following my posts in this thread.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There is an alternative to the "physicalism is true" version. May be more than one, actually. But the version I see you using is (as Tricky noticed) circular. The X to Y correspondence where mental is supervened on physical can be due (logically, anyway) to physicalism being true, or because some third Z is doing the work of corresponding X and Y while allowing there to be no direct connection between them.

"there is no direct connection between them" violates the claim of supervenience in two ways. Firstly, if you claim they are fundamentally different things (in every respect) then you are a substance dualist. Secondly, if A supervenes on B there must be, in some sense at least, a direct connection between them (i.e. in some sense they are the same thing even though they are not identical). You can think of this as being like two sides of a coin - they are inseperable, you cannot change the shape of one wihout changing the shape of the other, yet they are also distinct.

In standard dualism, a god can perform the role of Z; in your version of dualism, an inferred neutral monism stands in as Z. Problem is, in both cases, Z is inferred from the correspondence of X and Y with the additional (sometimes explicit) assumption that X and Y are ontologically separate.

X and Y only appear to be ontologically seperate in neutral monism. In reality, they aren't seperate. Minds supervene on brains because at the noumenal level, they are the same thing.

Problem is, it's circular. If they are separate, but correspond, there must be some way in which they are the same.....

Correct.

, or some third thing that does not fit the rules of either X or Y. As long as we are assuming...why not?

No third thing assumed.

Physicalists want to say "mind is an illusion" or "mind is an abstraction". I am simply saying "both mind and matter fall into this category", and declare the ONE real thing to be noumenal. So there is no "third thing". In reality, there is only ONE thing. It just doesn't happen to be matter.

Do you understand my position any better now?

Geoff

 

[cyborg]

Physicalists want to say "mind is an illusion" or "mind is an abstraction". I am simply saying "both mind and matter fall into this category", and declare the ONE real thing to be noumenal. So there is no "third thing". In reality, there is only ONE thing. It just doesn't happen to be matter.

Neither mind nor matter exist - just the noumenal. Fine. No-one can complain about this.

But yet you want to single out these things as particularly special in your system and neutralise them. Your neutral crap doesn't help you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Neither mind nor matter exist - just the noumenal. Fine. No-one can complain about this.

Oh, I think they will.....

But yet you want to single out these things as particularly special in your system and neutralise them.

What things?

Your neutral crap doesn't help you.

Calling it crap doesn't achieve anything. If Mercutio didn't understand my position, I'm sure as hell you don't.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What on earth is so scary about my claims about the noumenal anyway? I don't get it. I have made two basic claims :

1) It is mathematical.

I have no idea why physicalists would object to a claim that there is something fundamentally mathematical about the one real existence. Isn't this obvious from the fact that it's behaviour always follows mathematical laws?

2) It is encompassed by Being

This is no more than saying : This is what actually exists.

So my claims about noumenal reality amount to "it's mathematical and it is the fundamental level of existence." "Being" isn't part of the phenomenal world in the same way because the phenomenal world is not the prime reality.

Yet, judging by the reaction of many people in this thread (like Kevin and cyborg) I might just as well have said that ultimate reality is made of green fairy gidgets.

 

[Darat]

Unicorns don't exist.
Unicorns exist.

Both statements are true.

Eliminativism

Minds don't exist.
Minds exist.

Both statements are true.

I can quite accurately claim that unicorns don't exist, yet that does not deny that there are things that people in general usage will all agree that the label "unicorn" should apply to. See http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/magicalrealms/unicorn-800x600-025.jpg for an example.


The same way we can claim (in Eliminativism) that minds don't exist, yet that does not deny that there are behaviours, reactions and so on that people in general usage will all agree that the label "mind" should apply to.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, Kevin, you really do not understand my position. Simple as that.

Sure I don't. Geoff, this stuff really is not hard.

I didn't claim this. You understand neither my position nor what I have claimed.

Actually I understand the variety of positions you have adopted, since your claims aren't consistent over time.

Do you understand the statement "Minds supervene on brains"?
Do you understand why this statement is compatible with my position?

No, you don't. When you do, then you might be in a position to criticise me. Right now, you aren't.

Asking stupid questions and implying you have a point, without stating anything intelligible, is the resort of a cornered weasel.

If you are now admitting that purely physical minds can in theory supervene on purely physical brains, then the thread is over. You've just admitted that materialism was perfectly coherent all along and you were just being a twit for thirty-five pages.

If not, you're still peddling dualism in a dress and you owe us all an explanation of why dualism deserves to be rescued from the philosophical rubbish bin.

 

[Darat]

What on earth is so scary about my claims about the noumenal anyway? I don't get it. I have made two basic claims :

1) It is mathematical.

I have no idea why physicalists would object to a claim that there is something fundamentally mathematical about the one real existence. Isn't this obvious from the fact that it's behaviour always follows mathematical laws?

Yet you have not shown us any mathematics. (1-1=0 is not showing us any mathematics that relate to your faith.)

2) It is encompassed by Being

This is no more than saying : This is what actually exists.

Then why invent a new term, why not just say "the stuff that exists"?

So my claims about noumenal reality amount to "it's mathematical and it is the fundamental level of existence." "Being" isn't part of the phenomenal world in the same way because the phenomenal world is not the prime reality.

Yet, judging by the reaction of many people in this thread (like Kevin and cyborg) I might just as well have said that ultimate reality is made of green fairy gidgets.

All you have done is made assertions - you have yet to even show the so-called mathematical equations behind your "reasoning".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Unicorns don't exist.
Unicorns exist.

Both statements are true.

Eliminativism

Minds don't exist.
Minds exist.

Both statements are true.

I can quite accurately claim that unicorns don't exist, yet that does not deny that there are things that people in general usage will all agree that the label "unicorn" should apply to.

All correct. Just like the sunrise.

The same way we can claim (in Eliminativism) that minds don't exist, yet that does not deny that there are behaviours, reactions and so on that people in general usage will all agree that the label "mind" should apply to.

Yes, this is the claim. But there is a problem with it. The problem is that with the case of the sunrise:

a) It is quite literally true to say that the sun has never risen over the Earth.
b) It is quite clear why this is the case, because we have a rock-solid theory to replace "sunrise"
c) (and this is the one that matters...) If I claim that there really is such an event as the sun rising over the Earth you can prove I am wrong.

None of these things apply to minds.

a) We have no resolution on the claim "it is quite literally true that there is no such thing as a mind".
b) We have no coherent theories of how to reduce minds to brains. All we have are various claims which contradict each other, and most of them either contradict themselves or introduce useless definitions
c) (and this is the one that matters...) If I claim that there really is such a things a mind you don't have a cat's chance in hell of proving I am wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you are now admitting that purely physical minds....

I have no idea what the statement "purely physical mind" refers to. It is a meaningless phrase.

If not, you're still peddling dualism in a dress and you owe us all an explanation of why dualism deserves to be rescued from the philosophical rubbish bin.

Sorry, Kev. You still don't understand my position - not even remotely. I'm not going to respond to any of your posts unless you ask me a question worth answering.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yet you have not shown us any mathematics. (1-1=0 is not showing us any mathematics that relate to your faith.)

Forget the mathematics. The only claim I making right now is that ultimate reality is mathematical. If it isn't, why do you think it's behaviour follows mathematical laws?

Then why invent a new term, why not just say "the stuff that exists"?

To stop people confusing the stuff which exists with material stuff, which doesn't (in the same way minds don't).

All you have done is made assertions - you have yet to even show the so-called mathematical equations behind your "reasoning".

Of course, Darat. 36 pages of discussion and I made no arguments during the whole time. :yawn:

Same goes for you as I just said to Kevin. Unless you have something to ask worth my answering I'll not reply to any more of your posts in this thread. I can't be bothered, Darat. It's not interesting for anyone else following the thread.