The relationship between science and materialism

[UndercoverElephant]

You do seem to have a basic comprehension problem.

I was informing you that unlike yourself (i.e. "... It had never occurred to me that how I use words may not be how someone else uses them ...") your fellow students and lecturers were probably already aware of the lesson you'd only just learnt.

Then you're still being a complete fool, Darat. This whole thread has revolved around a discussion of what people mean when they use a particular word at a particular time. It has involved a detailed analysis by myself of precisely where people are confused about their own uses of words.

So thank's for your helpful hint. Now would you like to explain to me how to brush my teeth and tie my shoelaces?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Mercutio

Odd...using dualistic terms to create an oxymoron where none need exist.

I should have said more. If ever you want an example of why belief in materialism causes peoples brains to atrophy, you have it here. Defending materialism causes them to define purposeless oxymorons and yet they still believe that anyone denying the possibility of "physical minds" is somehow not thinking straight. Something isn't quite right here.....

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger1.shtml

Finaly as a matter of some entertainment value, not all the mail I have received about this book has been intelligent and thoughtful. I have recieved several quite nutty and unintentionally funny poison-pen letters from two groups of dogmatists -- Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Materialists.

The Fundamentalist Christians have told me that I am a slave of Satan and should have the demons expelled with an exorcism. The Fundamentalist Materialists inform me that I am a liar, a charlatan, fraud and scoundrel. Aside from this minor difference, the letters are astoundingly similar. Both groups share in the same crusading zeal and the same total lack of humor, charity, and common human decency.

These intolerable cults have served to confirm me in my agnosticism by presenting further evidence to support my contention that when dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

One more attempt to explain the point of the system I described:

It should now be obvious, at least to some people, that our normal concepts for thinking about reality are shot through with dualism from start to finish. It is very difficult to escape from it. It pops up everywhere. The ferocity and absoluteness of Kevin's physicalism just led to him trying to define something he calls "physical minds", which is, as Mercutio pointed out, a meaningless and unjustifiable oxymoron composed of dualistically opposed concepts. So you can't escape the dualism by being a materialist (or an idealist) no matter how hard you try.

I am arguing that all of these dualistic confusions can be traced to a single source. That source is our failure to recognise that our two most basic concepts for discussing what exists (Everything/Being/Infinity/Existence and Nothing/Nonbeing/Zero/Nonexistence) are in fact identical. As soon as we think of these things as dualistic opposites (as nearly everybody does), dualism will spring up everywhere else there are questions about Being or Nothing. All you have to do to fix the problem is to recognise that these concepts have ONE referent, not two, and all of the other dualisms disappear. That is the reason why metaphysics ends up equating being and nothing.

And if anyone out there is still worried that this is a backdoor attempt to prove the existence of God, you should know that the conclusion being=nothing was the central topic of both the most notorious atheist of the 20th Century (Jean-Paul Sartre) and the most well-respected theologian (Paul Tillich). The question about God therefore remains unanswered.

Geoff

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not true. They are empirically equivalent. Your claim depends on the implicit claim that metaphysics is impossible. I don't believe you are in a position to defend that implicit claim. Not without a decent grasp of the relevance of Kant to the history of human thought.

And of what practical interest are the purported nonempirical differences between monisms?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am arguing that all of these dualistic confusions can be traced to a single source. That source is our failure to recognise that our two most basic concepts for discussing what exists (Everything/Being/Infinity/Existence and Nothing/Nonbeing/Zero/Nonexistence) are in fact identical. As soon as we think of these things as dualistic opposites (as nearly everybody does), dualism will spring up everywhere else there are questions about Being or Nothing. All you have to do to fix the problem is to recognise that these concepts have ONE referent, not two, and all of the other dualisms disappear. That is the reason why metaphysics ends up equating being and nothing.

Who cares whether dualism springs up in the context of metaphysics? Is monism inherently better?

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

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.

Yes, Geoff, I've read them, and I do not think for one instant that you are in lifegazer or Ian's camp, but some of the same difficulties beset you.

You set your terms to mean a certain thing, then you go about showing that those terms mean what you set them to mean. It is circular. It is begging the question. I doubt seriously that I could say anything that others here have not said at great length, but I'm telling you Geoff, they do understand you. They are not stupid people. They just don't agree with the way you've set the terms.

I've known you in your various incarnations and it is at this point that you begin to make enemies here. I am not one of them. I am pointing out to you that you are spiraling into that pattern which led to such frustration and bitter recrimination before, and I urge you to break out of it because it will give you no joy or satisfaction. Everything you are discussing here is little more than semantics. It ain't worth it to git yer knickers in a twist 'cause o' semantics, young feller.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Who cares whether dualism springs up in the context of metaphysics? Is monism inherently better?

~~ Paul

Yes. It means we don't have to define "physical minds" into existence.

The dualisms don't just spring up in metaphysics. Exactly the same problem sits at the core of all the confusion about quantum mechanics, for example - and the people arguing about that quite often do not even realise that unacknowledge dualisms are at the root of the physicalistic confusions about QM. The same applies to cognitive science - because it is trying to be monistic and physicalist it doesn't even consider equating being=nothing as means to escape from the blind alley it is currently trapped in. And the more physicalist the cognitive scientist, the more likely he is to deny there is a blind alley - as well as denying he has a metaphysical belief. "Metaphysics? Piffle! I'm a materialist." The problem is that people's metaphysical beliefs influence their thinking far more widely than they usualy realise or acknowledge.

 

[Darat]

Then you're still being a complete fool, Darat. This whole thread has revolved around a discussion of what people mean when they use a particular word at a particular time. It has involved a detailed analysis by myself of precisely where people are confused about their own uses of words.

It hasn't - it has mostly revolved around you trying to impose your definitions on others. A prime example of this is how you have repeatedly misrepresented the eliminative materialism statements and conclusions by using your definition of mind in their arguments instead of theirs.

So thank's for your helpful hint. Now would you like to explain to me how to brush my teeth and tie my shoelaces?

If you wish to get help about cleaning your teeth and tying your shoelaces that I would suggest a thread in the Community as it will probably be considered a bit of a derail for this thread and inappropriate for this section of the Forum. However since you have asked for such help, here are two sites that may be useful to you:

http://www.ehow.com/how_3063_brush-teeth.html for teeth brushing

and

http://wiki.ehow.com/Tie-Your-Shoe-Lace for tying your shoelaces.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, Geoff, I've read them, and I do not think for one instant that you are in lifegazer or Ian's camp, but some of the same difficulties beset you.

You set your terms to mean a certain thing.....

Rubbish, Tricky. I have done NO SUCH THING. I have allowed people a free hand to define whatever they like.

, then you go about showing that those terms mean what you set them to mean.

Total Rubbish. What you are saying is simply wrong.

I've known you in your various incarnations and it is at this point that you begin to make enemies here.

You mean when certain people opposing me have run out of arguments and start to turn the thread into a p*ss*ng contest? Yep, that's when it all gets nasty. Some people are bad losers. Others just want to derail the thread.

The REAL problem, Tricky, is when people have run out of meaningful rebuttals to the position described. Then they make it personal. Then, when I defend myself, others join in the p*ss*ng contest. This doesn't just happen to me. It happens to anyone and everyone who comes to this forum and challenges either materialism or atheism. The stronger the challenge, the worse the reaction. The entire point is to get to the point where you just got and start claiming that all the bad feeling is the fault of Ian/Geoff/whoever. Nothing to do with any bad losers making it personal or anything. Nothing to do with people defending themselves from idiots who don't understand anything but have lots of attitude. People don't like having their beliefs challenged, especially when they don't realise their beliefs are beliefs.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The same applies to cognitive science - because it is trying to be monistic and physicalist it doesn't even consider equating being=nothing as means to escape from the blind alley it is currently trapped in. And the more physicalist the cognitive scientist, the more likely he is to deny there is a blind alley - as well as denying he has a metaphysical belief. "Metaphysics? Piffle! I'm a materialist." The problem is that people's metaphysical beliefs influence their thinking far more widely than they usualy realise or acknowledge.

What blind alley, and how will some bogus math help?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It hasn't - it has mostly revolved around you trying to impose your definitions on others.

Utter twaddle, Darat.

A prime example of this is how you have repeatedly misrepresented the eliminative materialism statements and conclusions by using your definition of mind in their arguments instead of theirs.

Which simply goes to show that you are a very confused little bunny.

Eliminative materialism is the position there is no such thing as a mind. Anyone who thinks it isn't, doesn't understand what Eliminative materialism is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What blind alley, and how will some bogus math help?

~~ Paul

The one that led Kevin to start talking about "physical minds". Or are you going to defend such a phrase?

And it's not bogus mathematics. It's where the whole of metaphysics ends. If it makes you happier, remove zero and infinity from the list.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eliminative materialism is the position there is no such thing as a mind. Anyone who thinks it isn't, doesn't understand what Eliminative materialism is.

And anyone who thinks it is will surely find us a description of eliminative materialism that says this.

The one that led Kevin to start talking about "physical minds". Or are you going to defend such a phrase?

It cannot be defended against people who read it as "physical dualistic minds," such as yourself.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

Rubbish, Tricky. I have done NO SUCH THING. I have allowed people a free hand to define whatever they like.

And then you tell them why their definition is wrong, for example;

Eliminative materialism is the position there is no such thing as a mind. Anyone who thinks it isn't, doesn't understand what Eliminative materialism is.

Can you not see that you have just told someone where their definition is wrong? In order for you to give them a "free hand", you must agree, for the purpose of the point being made, that their definition is correct. If you cannot do that, then you are simply arguing definition.

Total Rubbish. What you are saying is simply wrong.

It could be. Or it might not be. But there is no reason to shout. I'm telling you what I've observed from watching but not participating significantly in this thread.

You mean when certain people opposing me have run out of arguments and start to turn the thread into a p*ss*ng contest? Yep, that's when it all gets nasty. Some people are bad losers. Others just want to derail the thread.

I realize that you are totally certain in your mind that they are losers, but I don't find that to be the case. Nor do I think you have lost because your are correct assuming that one accepts your definitions. That is why it is a semantical argument. And calling people poor losers is one reason why these threads turn nasty, wouldn't you agree?

The REAL problem, Tricky, is when people have run out of meaningful rebuttals to the position described. Then they make it personal. Then, when I defend myself, others join in the p*ss*ng contest. This doesn't just happen to me. It happens to anyone and everyone who comes to this forum and challenges either materialism or atheism. The stronger the challenge, the worse the reaction.

This is simply not correct, Geoff. I have seen many polite discussions about materialism and atheism here. Darat, whom you have been having some heated exchanges with here, is not even a materialist, but you treat him exactly as if he were. For the record, I am a materialist and I disagree with Darat on that issue. Mercutio and I have major differences on some issues, yet we manage to discuss them without resorting to shouting.

There are others here with whom I have had heated discussions, but whenever that happens, it is because all parties have decided to let it get to that (and I even agree that there is a place for such things). But once that happens, any hope of returning to the issuse is gone until such point as the parties stop flinging poop. This thread has long since passed the poop-flinging marker. To paraphrase Emperor Joseph from the play Amadeus, "Geoff, do you like this?"

 

[Mercutio]

Because we aren't all saying the same thing. Idealists and materialists make an additional claim - a claim of transcendental realism:

"All of reality is one kind of stuff and that stuff is mental stuff."
"All of reality is one kind of stuff and that stuff is physical stuff."

Both of these are straw-monisms. These are not claims, but axiomatic assumptions. I explained this in my post.

Both these are claims that one half of Descartes duality is the one stuff that exists and that the other does not. My position is fundamentally different to this. First Kant comes along and argues for transcendental idealism:

"Reality as we percieve it seems like is made of two kinds of stuff, but that's not actually reality. Reality is one kind of stuff and it's neither mind nor is it matter nor is it spatio-temporal (we can only make negative claims about it). The true nature of noumenal reality is beyond our comprehension."

Not only its true nature, but its existence.

The most important difference is the rejection of the claim that either of the concepts which constitute the poles of cartesian dualism are suitable concepts for describing mind-independent noumenal reality.

And the reason for the rejection is...? In your case, emotional, did you not agree? You find one pole "insane".

My position is descended from Kant's, in so much as it agrees with everything but the last sentence.

You go on to say that we can indeed comprehend it. It has the characteristics we assume...

I've explained this in great detail, although I am glad you have now worked it out on your own. That is the whole point of my system. I can tweak it so it can turn into something very similar to either idealism or materialism by changing the status of Being/Nothing to either Being or Nothing. This is not an accident. It was a quite deliberate. There are many benefits to this, including the fact that I have not built naturalism or non-naturalism into my system so I can actually claim that if I don't believe in supernatural phenomena it is based on empirical results rather than a straightforward assertion which I have built into my belief system and subsequently refuse to question. Naturalism becomes a religion if it cannot be challenged. Materialism makes naturalism impossible to challenge. Therefore I can accuse people who take materialism too literally of turning it into a religion. That is the main point of the opening post of this thread.

So far, all the "benefits" seem to be greater power to kill strawmen. Are there any practical benefits? Can one hold your philosophy and still deny things based on assertions built into your belief system? (this thread would argue in the affirmative.)

So long as I allow for either naturalism or non-naturalism to be true, I can claim that my position is that of the true agnostic and that materialism is not.

Straw-materialism is not agnostic, no. Materialism that recognises its axiomatic assumption is...an axiomatic assumption...is agnostic.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And then you tell them why their definition is wrong.

Again, this is simply NOT true.

In order for you to give them a "free hand", you must agree, for the purpose of the point being made, that their definition is correct. If you cannot do that, then you are simply arguing definition.

If people provide a set of definitions which is internally contradictory then I will challenge it. ANY OTHER set of definitions is acceptable. So your accusation is simply false. Self-contradictory definitions are invalid. They should be rejected by everyone.

I realize that you are totally certain in your mind that they are losers....

I am quite certain that they haven't got the first clue what I believe, why I believe it or what position I am defending. This doesn't apply to everyone, but does apply to most of the people who get angry or personal.

And calling people poor losers is one reason why these threads turn nasty, wouldn't you agree?

It is posts like this which turn it nasty, Tricky. I know you are trying to help but I have no choice but to defend myself from the accusations you are making. I never mentioned "poor losers" until YOU made a post accusing me of making enemies.

Can we get back on-topic please?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Both of these are straw-monisms. These are not claims, but axiomatic assumptions.

That is not true. You are trying to argue that "nobody really believes that reality is made of mind/matter" - it's just an axiomatic assumption. That may be true for you, but it is certainly not true for "most materialists". No, materialism is not a strawman. It's very real.

I explained this in my post.
Not only its true nature, but its existence.
And the reason for the rejection is...? In your case, emotional, did you not agree? You find one pole "insane".

And other people find the other pole insane. I find both poles unsuitable concepts for applying to fundamental reality.

So far, all the "benefits" seem to be greater power to kill strawmen.

I do not accept they are straw men. On the contrary, they are foundational belief systems. In terms of ideas/beliefs, materialism is as powerful as Christianity.

Are there any practical benefits? Can one hold your philosophy and still deny things based on assertions built into your belief system? (this thread would argue in the affirmative.)

Like what? Denying the existence of "physical minds"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It cannot be defended against people who read it as "physical dualistic minds," such as yourself.

~~ Paul

What else is it supposed to mean?

"Physicalistic physical minds"?

I can think of little that is more dualistic than the term "Physical mind". What is it supposed to mean?

The non-dualistic version is simply "physical brain".

 

[Mercutio]

That is not true. You are trying to argue that "nobody really believes that reality is made of mind/matter" - it's just an axiomatic assumption. That may be true for you, but it is certainly not true for "most materialists". No, materialism is not a strawman. It's very real.

Perhaps I am biased from arguments here, but my experience here has been that the materialists and idealists are both well aware of their assumptions. Stimpy, for instance, has had some wonderful posts on the matter. I am certain there are people who do not realize they are assumptions, just as there are christians who have never read the bible. Does the existence of the latter invalidate the defining characteristics of christianity? No.

And other people find the other pole insane. I find both poles unsuitable concepts for applying to fundamental reality.

The question remains...why?

I do not accept they are straw men. On the contrary, they are foundational belief systems. In terms of ideas/beliefs, materialism is as powerful as Christianity.

see above.

Like what? Denying the existence of "physical minds"?

I don't understand why you wrote this. Is this a benefit of your belief system? I asked for a practical benefit. Of what practical use is this? Does it allow us to research something? Cure cancer? Brighten teeth? Get floors cleaner? Of what practical use is your philosophy?

 

[Mercutio]

What else is it supposed to mean?

"Physicalistic physical minds"?

I can think of little that is more dualistic than the term "Physical mind". What is it supposed to mean?

The non-dualistic version is simply "physical brain".

No. And this post, as much as any, demonstrates that you project your own definitions on others.