The relationship between science and materialism

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff-mind : Totality of subjective experiences
Kevin-mind : Completed neuroscientific description of brain processes

ZD (summary of Kevins claim):

What everyone thinks is a Geoff-mind inside a Kevin-brain, where the two are vaguely intermingled, the eliminative-materialist simply is pointing out that the Geoff-mind, as such, does not exist; rather, what we experience is a Kevin-mind inside a Kevin-brain, which is purely Kevin through and through, and that only conventions of archaic thought and language insist have anything to do with Geoff.

Kevin (confirms summary and qualifies it) :

I'm arguing that this has not been shown to be impossible, not that it is true.

Kevin says: "Geoff-mind, as such, does not exist". However, before his post is finished, he's invented a yet another new term to describe this thing which supposedly doesn't exist.

Let's see what this is actually saying, translated back into English:

"What everyone thinks is a mind inside a brain, where the two are vaguely intermingled, the eliminative-materialist simply is pointing out that the mind, as such, does not exist; rather, what we experience is a brain inside a brain, which is purely brain through and through, and that only conventions of archaic thought and language insist have anything to do with mind."

...and out flops the logical problem once more. Kevin probably thinks what I see as a logical problem is in the "brain inside a brain" phrase, but in this case it isn't (it's just a pointless repetition of physical terms). The real problem lies in the introduction of the phrase "what we experience". He has now invented a new term. "Geoff-mind" has followed the long list of terms which were defined to refer to subjective experiences but were then either disqualified or redefined by the physicalists to mean something new. However, Kevin still wants to be able to claim that eliminativism is not absurd, and his position is not coherent, so he has now introduced the phrase:

"what we experience IS a brain inside a brain which is purely brain through and through."

"What we experience" is now a new noun, invented to refer to what I previously called "Geoff-mind". So we are right back where we started. The point in eliminativism was to eliminate the meaningless "IS" in the phrase "minds are brain processes". But there's the meaningless "is". It's back again! What does it mean? Nothing. "Geoff-mind", which was already supposed to refer to "what we experience" has now been subsumed into the physical description and yet another level of description has been introduced to refer to Geoff-minds (and therefore avoid EM seeming insane). But if I ask him to define "What we experience" he will say "It's physical, and part of your brain". At which point Kevins position has become: "Brains (what-we-experience) are brains (Geoff-minds, originally defines as what-we-experience) inside brains (kevin-minds)".

So, Kevin, you now have your dualistic terms back again. You are using a new term "what we experience" to refer to Geoff-minds. Please explain again, clearly, the relationships between:

a) "What we experience" and Geoff-minds
b) Geoff-minds and Kevin-minds
c) Kevin-minds and Kevin-brains (another new term you invented)

I haven't got a clue what you think these three different levels are describing, and I don't think you have either. It's a logical mess, all held together by the assertion "Everything is physical".

Kevin is stuck in an endless loop, continually having to make up new words to refer to minds because each word which currently means mind gets subsumed into the physical description. Let's see how long it takes him to go round his loop again. How many brains inside brains inside brains will it take before he figures out he is in a loop and allows somebody to define a mind properly?

Geoff

 

[Z]

And why should 'what we experience' be immaterial, rather than material? Why should 'what we experience' not be entirely physical brain processes?

In fact, let's think, for a moment: what does it mean to 'experience light', for example? It means photons have interacted with receptors in our eyes, causing neurochemical reactions to travel from eyes to specialized areas in our brain; where the signals are interpreted and compared to other signals and patterns (all of this accomplished through purely neurochemical means). This IS experiencing light.

A machine can experience light. And we understand, for the most part, how that works.

So what part of the human being is not machine? What part of 'experiencing light' cannot be explained via a description of the mechanisms of the precise neurochemical interactions?

So no, Geoff, 'what we experience' is not another dualist or immaterialist term at all. I'm afraid it's you who have to keep searching our posts, seeking something you can pry and twist to force our statements into unintentional dualistic meanings.

Furthermore, the 'brain within a brain' is nonsense; rather, it's like a program within the brain. A program, as you might be vaguely aware, is just an electrical process. It exists within/among the computer, and doesn't exist at all - if you understand that. Same thing with 'mind' - it's a program within the biological computer. It's not a 'computer within the computer' - that's another strawman you've built.

 

[69dodge]

That would require me to find and install a C compiler. I am an ex-software engineer. I am not a current programmer. Looks to me like it will compile but crash with a divide by zero error if you try to run it.

Ah. Sorry.

If they were ints, it would probably crash.

Doubles are often IEEE 754 floating point numbers. IEEE 754 knows about infinity. One over zero is infinity. One over infinity is zero. As might be expected.

The point is simply that zero and infinity are well-defined and have well-understood properties. Zero plus any number is that number, e.g., 0 + 123 = 123. Infinity plus any number is infinity, so infinity + 123 = infinity, not 123. They're just different.

If your philosophy doesn't rely on the literal truth of "zero equals infinity", but rather you just use "zero equals infinity" as some sort of metaphor to try to explain it, then the fact that zero doesn't equal infinity doesn't mean you need to abandon your philosophy, but it does mean that you should at least find a better metaphor. This one certainly doesn't help me understand your point of view. My first reaction is, obviously this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Now, after a while, my reaction is, maybe you do know what you're talking about (philosophically, not mathematically) but I still don't.

 

[Mercutio]

Kevin,

I'm not sure there's much point in a long response to your post, but I'll ask you this one for now:



When hammegk asked mercutio to comment on your concept of "physical mind", he responded with "Odd. He's taken dualistic concepts to create an oxymoron when none was needed."

Why do you think he said that? Why do you think that there are people on YOUR side of this debate who think that your terms are oxymoronic and unneccesary? Is mercutio also infected with Geoff's "woo-woo beliefs"? Or did he just make a mistake?

Let's put a bit more context with what I said. "I can see where in a particular conversation, that phrase might have meaning, but it would take some serious setting of ground rules first, and probably would be a poor term to try to gain consensus about. Odd...using dualistic terms to create an oxymoron where none need exist." The setting of ground rules is exactly what Kevin spoke of, and exactly what you disregard. And the "where none need exist" refers to my (considerably earlier) comment that it is the question itself, the very division into those dualistic terms, that is not needed. These problems arise because the wrong question is being asked.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Let's put a bit more context with what I said. "I can see where in a particular conversation, that phrase might have meaning, but it would take some serious setting of ground rules first, and probably would be a poor term to try to gain consensus about. Odd...using dualistic terms to create an oxymoron where none need exist." The setting of ground rules is exactly what Kevin spoke of, and exactly what you disregard. And the "where none need exist" refers to my (considerably earlier) comment that it is the question itself, the very division into those dualistic terms, that is not needed. These problems arise because the wrong question is being asked.

What are those ground rules, Mercutio?

I agree that there are situations in which it is still OK to use the word "mind". However, I do not believe that Kevin's last post could possibly satisfy any rules you would lay down. His usage is the one which is prohibited, and if the rules were laid down, this would be clear.

He just proved, in the space of one post, that he cannot eliminate the word "mind". Since he has taken the word "mind" to refer to "brain processes" I had to provide a new word "Geoff-mind" to refer to my subjective experiences. I then criticised his position and in his response he simply redefined "Geoff-mind" to mean "brain processes" and introduced the new phrase "What we experience is a geoff-mind (now:brain) inside a brain-process". I had already defined "Geoff-mind" to mean "What we experience". Where next? Does he define "what we experience(1)" to mean "only a brain process"? If he does that then we will be back to eliminativism again, but have no term for subjective experiences --- until Kevin wants to refer to his subjective experiences and has to introduce YET ANOTHER new term :

"What we experience(2)(*MINDS*) is what we experience(1)(now:brain), which is a Geoff-mind(now:brain), inside a Kevin-mind(now:brain) inside a brain."

Problem? What problem?

The problem is being caused by the refusal to allow a definition of mind which clearly demarcates it from the physical level. I cannot refuse this definition, even though it assumes physicalism is true. All I can do is demonstrate that it leaves Kevin going round in an endless loop of using words to refer to minds, then defining those new things to be physical, and then having to invent more new terms to refer to minds. He will go around this loop forever, unless he allows a definition of mind as non-physical, or stops trying to refer to subjective experiences at all.

 

[Tricky]

The problem is being caused by the refusal to allow a definition of mind which clearly demarcates it from the physical level. I cannot refuse this definition, even though it assumes physicalism is true. All I can do is demonstrate that it leaves Kevin going round in an endless loop of using words to refer to minds, defining minds to be physical and then having to invent more new terms to refer to minds.

It's easy to allow that definition, but you cannot show that a mind, that is clearly demarcated from the physical level exists. To do so, you would have to demonstrate that something non-physical exists. If you assume that non-physical things exist, then you are just going around in an endless loop. I understand your definition, I simply cannot see any reason to accept the assumption on which it is based.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's easy to allow that definition, but you cannot show that a mind, that is clearly demarcated from the physical level exists. To do so, you would have to demonstrate that something non-physical exists. If you assume that non-physical things exist, then you are just going around in an endless loop. I understand your definition, I simply cannot see any reason to accept the assumption on which it is based.

The reason to accept it is because if you fail to accept it you end up in Kevin's endless loop. There are two ways to end the loop:

1) Observe the rules of eliminative materialism and STOP refering to minds or inventing new words to refer to minds.

2) Allow a definition of minds which do not specifically imply physicalism, as in : Minds supervene on brains.

There is no other way out of the loop. There is your reason. You have one of the two choices above, but Kevin rejects both of them. I cannot PROVE he is wrong in any other way than to chase him round and round the loop (with logical arguments) and demonstrate to all the people reading this thread that each time he goes round the loop he has to invent a new term.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Doubles are often IEEE 754 floating point numbers. IEEE 754 knows about infinity. One over zero is infinity. One over infinity is zero. As might be expected.

Whose idea was it to mix limit operations in with simple math? The result of those two operations should be NaN.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1) Observe the rules of eliminative materialism and STOP refering to minds or inventing new words to refer to minds.

What you are really saying here is this:

1) Observe the rules of eliminative materialism and STOP refering to Geoff-minds or inventing new words to refer to Geoff-minds.

We agree! We're all in agreement! We should stop refering to Geoff-minds in the context of materialism, period. And all of us have done so, except for you.

Once we've all done this, we can redefine mind to refer to a set of brain processes, as long as we are careful. Perhaps in the long run we will decide it's simply too dangerous and stop doing it altogether. If this thread is any indication, it is too dangerous.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And why should 'what we experience' be immaterial, rather than material? Why should 'what we experience' not be entirely physical brain processes?

Answer is in post #1567

In fact, let's think, for a moment: what does it mean to 'experience light', for example? It means photons have interacted with receptors in our eyes, causing neurochemical reactions to travel from eyes to specialized areas in our brain; where the signals are interpreted and compared to other signals and patterns (all of this accomplished through purely neurochemical means). This IS experiencing light.

That is a meaningless use of the word "IS". In fact, all you have described is a physical process and used the word "IS" to connect that process to subjective experiences. Physicalists have now spent 40 pages trying to this.

A machine can experience light.

You think so?

And we understand, for the most part, how that works.

You don't understand.

So what part of the human being is not machine?

Subjective experiences.

What part of 'experiencing light' cannot be explained via a description of the mechanisms of the precise neurochemical interactions?

The actual experiences.

Furthermore, the 'brain within a brain' is nonsense

Yep. Physicalist nonsense.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ah. Sorry.

If they were ints, it would probably crash.

Doubles are often IEEE 754 floating point numbers. IEEE 754 knows about infinity. One over zero is infinity. One over infinity is zero. As might be expected.

The point is simply that zero and infinity are well-defined and have well-understood properties. Zero plus any number is that number, e.g., 0 + 123 = 123. Infinity plus any number is infinity, so infinity + 123 = infinity, not 123. They're just different.

You are talking about +infinity. I am talking about something else: Infinity (or The Absolute).

If your philosophy doesn't rely on the literal truth of "zero equals infinity", but rather you just use "zero equals infinity" as some sort of metaphor to try to explain it, then the fact that zero doesn't equal infinity doesn't mean you need to abandon your philosophy, but it does mean that you should at least find a better metaphor.

I have several metaphors. Different people find different metaphors useful.

This one certainly doesn't help me understand your point of view. My first reaction is, obviously this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Now, after a while, my reaction is, maybe you do know what you're talking about (philosophically, not mathematically) but I still don't.

Yes, the point is philosophical. Explaining it using maths just makes it easier for some types of people to understand it:

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm

 

[Tricky]

The reason to accept it is because if you fail to accept it you end up in Kevin's endless loop. There are two ways to end the loop:

1) Observe the rules of eliminative materialism and STOP refering to minds or inventing new words to refer to minds.

2) Allow a definition of minds which do not specifically imply physicalism, as in : Minds supervene on brains.

There is no other way out of the loop. There is your reason. You have one of the two choices above, but Kevin rejects both of them. I cannot PROVE he is wrong in any other way than to chase him round and round the loop (with logical arguments) and demonstrate to all the people reading this thread that each time he goes round the loop he has to invent a new term.

So the only way out of the loop is to accept an assumption that, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for and evidence against it is growing every day? That doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Once we've all done this, we can redefine mind to refer to a set of brain processes, as long as we are careful. Perhaps in the long run we will decide it's simply too dangerous and stop doing it altogether. If this thread is any indication, it is too dangerous.

~~ Paul

Or (if the eliminative materialists are correct) we now have a word that means different things depending on its context!

Which means we would end up being able to say things which are semantically interesting but have no profound meaning i.e.:

Minds exist and minds don't exist....

You may be correct that this may be "too dangerous" however in this thread it seems only to be beyond the understanding of one poster so I think for the rest of the world we can assume that they'll just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh you mean mind is like unicorn? That's no big deal".

 

[Darat]

You are talking about +infinity. I am talking about something else: Infinity (or The Absolute).

...snip...

Please define your use of the mathematical term "infinity" - i.e. provide the mathematics that you use to define it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What you are really saying here is this:

We agree! We're all in agreement! We should stop refering to Geoff-minds in the context of materialism, period. And all of us have done so, except for you.

That's simply false. I just explained EXACTLY where Kevin did this:

"What we experience are Geoff-minds inside Kevin-minds"

"What we experience" was an attempt to refer to a Geoff-mind in the context of experience, after Geoff-mind had already been redefined as physical.

So Kevin just did what you are claiming nobody is doing except me. I didn't invent this new "what we experience". Kevin did.

Once we've all done this, we can redefine mind to refer to a set of brain processes, as long as we are careful. Perhaps in the long run we will decide it's simply too dangerous and stop doing it altogether. If this thread is any indication, it is too dangerous.

~~ Paul

In order to defend materialism coherently you must, in the context of this discussion, ACTUALLY STOP using new words to refer to geoff-minds. There aren't any geoff-minds. This is the claim of the eliminative materialism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Please define your use of the mathematical term "infinity" - i.e. provide the mathematics that you use to define it.

It's a philosophical metaphor, Darat.

 

[Darat]

It's a philosophical metaphor, Darat.

So then you don't have any mathematical underpinnings for your metaphysics?

(ETA) Can you then give me a definition for your use of the word "infinity"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So the only way out of the loop is to accept an assumption that, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence for and evidence against it is growing every day?

There was never any evidence that minds ARE brain processes. There is only evidence that minds SUPERVENE on brains.

That doesn't sound right to me.

I am providing you evidence that my claim is correct, in the form of forcing other people to go round in logical loops if they reject it. Additionally, I can demonstrate to you that there is no evidence, NONE, to support the claim : Minds are brain processes. This is the result of confusing science and materialism, the very problem this thread is supposed to be discussing.

All that science has shown is that it looks like it is impossible to change a mind without changing a brain. The additional bit which claims minds ARE brain processes has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with an unsupportable metaphysical assertion (physicalism). Eliminative materialism is an attempt to solve this problem by removing the word "mind" so the word "are" is no longer needed. Supervenience solves the problem by "sectioning off" the word "are" by replacing it with the weaker claim "supervenes on".

I can clarify any of that if you need me to.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Geoff-mind : Totality of subjective experiences
Kevin-mind : Completed neuroscientific description of brain processes

Those definitions are probably okay.

Kevin says: "Geoff-mind, as such, does not exist". However, before his post is finished, he's invented a yet another new term to describe this thing which supposedly doesn't exist.

Let's see what this is actually saying, translated back into English:

"What everyone thinks is a mind inside a brain, where the two are vaguely intermingled, the eliminative-materialist simply is pointing out that the mind, as such, does not exist; rather, what we experience is a brain inside a brain, which is purely brain through and through, and that only conventions of archaic thought and language insist have anything to do with mind."

Stop right there. Nobody is saying that the mind does not exist. Nobody is saying the Geoff-mind does not exist. Nobody is saying the Kevin-mind does not exist.

The claim you have to deal with is "it is possible that the mind exists, and it is purely physical, and this is not a contradiction unless you have sneaked in the covert assumption that the mind is partially immaterial, as Geoff is constantly trying to do."

...and out flops the logical problem once more. Kevin probably thinks what I see as a logical problem is in the "brain inside a brain" phrase, but in this case it isn't (it's just a pointless repetition of physical terms). The real problem lies in the introduction of the phrase "what we experience". He has now invented a new term.

So? That is not a logical problem.

"Geoff-mind" has followed the long list of terms which were defined to refer to subjective experiences but were then either disqualified or redefined by the physicalists to mean something new. However, Kevin still wants to be able to claim that eliminativism is not absurd, and his position is not coherent, so he has now introduced the phrase:

"what we experience IS a brain inside a brain which is purely brain through and through."

What I'm experiencing now is more like a straw man on a straw man, which is purely straw through and through.

My point is much simpler than you are trying to make it out to be. I'm saying that there is no good reason to believe that it is impossible that our minds are purely physical, and that the arguments you have put forward for the impossibility of this are nonsense.

Since I haven't played your game by giving you a metaphysical position to attack, you seem to have decided that you will make a really complicated position up for me and attack that. You can knock yourself out with this approach, but it won't do anything to rescue your own position.

"What we experience" is now a new noun, invented to refer to what I previously called "Geoff-mind". So we are right back where we started. The point in eliminativism was to eliminate the meaningless "IS" in the phrase "minds are brain processes". But there's the meaningless "is". It's back again! What does it mean? Nothing. "Geoff-mind", which was already supposed to refer to "what we experience" has now been subsumed into the physical description and yet another level of description has been introduced to refer to Geoff-minds (and therefore avoid EM seeming insane). But if I ask him to define "What we experience" he will say "It's physical, and part of your brain". At which point Kevins position has become: "Brains (what-we-experience) are brains (Geoff-minds, originally defines as what-we-experience) inside brains (kevin-minds)".

Well, if in straw-land you are equating "Geoff-mind" and "what we experience", this complicated-looking statement of my position just boils down to:

Geoff-minds are Geoff-minds, and Geoff-minds are something that go on inside brains.

Where's the problem? You just made a very simple and obvious statement look complicated so you could pretend there was a logical problem there. That is straight out of the Creation Science playbook.

So, Kevin, you now have your dualistic terms back again. You are using a new term "what we experience" to refer to Geoff-minds. Please explain again, clearly, the relationships between:

a) "What we experience" and Geoff-minds
b) Geoff-minds and Kevin-minds
c) Kevin-minds and Kevin-brains (another new term you invented)

Make them up yourself. I'm not particularly interested in defending a position you made up for me. I want to know how you justify your covert position that the mind must have an immaterial component.

Kevin is stuck in an endless loop, continually having to make up new words to refer to minds because each word which currently means mind gets subsumed into the physical description. Let's see how long it takes him to go round his loop again. How many brains inside brains inside brains will it take before he figures out he is in a loop and allows somebody to define a mind properly?

Here's the actual loop:

1. Geoff declares that some term I use really refers to immaterial minds. He's had lots of practise at covertly assuming that terms refer to immaterial minds, so this is easy for Geoff.
2. He correctly predicts that I will respond by saying "Geoff, knock it off, there's no implication of immaterial minds in that term".
3. Geoff jumps up and down and says "Ha ha! You can never completely avoid terms that assume immaterial minds, not as long as I can continue covertly assuming that whatever terms you use refer to immaterial minds! You are stuck in a loop!".

Get this straight, Geoff. Kindly assume from this point forward that no term or phrase I use is intended to convey the assumption that an immaterial mind is necessarily in play. If you think that I have assumed that, you are wrong.

You can continue to pick out terms to deliberately misinterpet so you can yell "Gotcha!" if you like, but I'll just keep pointing out that you are doing it.

Let's get back to the point. How do you justify the claim that it is a contradiction in terms to have a mind which is purely physical? So far you have not produced an argument for this position which holds up, you've just played dumb or attempted to derail the discussion.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So then you don't have any mathematical underpinnings for your metaphysics?

Correct. I am not a mathematician. My interest is in the philosophy of maths more than maths itself. These aren't the same thing. I live with a person who has a mathematics degree. He neither knows nor cares about philosophy of maths.

(ETA) Can you then give me a definition for your use of the word "infinity"?

Not in words you are familiar with or would be likely to accept, no.