A critique of skepticism

[hammegk]

Perhaps the very prototypical example of the unanswerable question. What does it mean to say that "the concept remains"?

True, yet here we are discussing something that, if it should exist, would not be as surprising to either of us as seeing a square circle.

Do purely fictional concepts also "remain"?

As concepts, sure. Yet a square circle presents a concept that cannot be actualized.

But the mechanism behind this is quite different from a circularly defined "collective unconscious".

Absolutely true for any materialists who read that. For ~materialists, a bit less certain.

Note that it always returns to one's (you say meaningless) assumption.

 

[Mercutio]

True, yet here we are discussing something that, if it should exist, would not be as surprising to either of us as seeing a square circle.

Why not? Experiencing the existence of something beyond experiencing seems quite surprising. At least we know that squares and circles exist. We only have to get past that "mutually exclusive" bit.

As concepts, sure. Yet a square circle presents a concept that cannot be actualized.

IMO, so is a demonstrably existant noumenon. For much the same reasons.

Absolutely true for any materialists who read that. For ~materialists, a bit less certain.

How so? I would think that ~materialists would frown on "just make [rule8] up" as an explanation; their genetic and mystical explanations are just as far apart as the materialist's.

Note that it always returns to one's (you say meaningless) assumption.

I still think it is meaningless. I have asked you many times for meaningful differences, and have not yet been convinced that they are meaningful. (I very much appreciate the fact that you continue to offer reasons--I do not mean to say you have evaded, merely that I see your differences...differently.)

 

[hammegk]

Why not? Experiencing the existence of something beyond experiencing seems quite surprising. At least we know that squares and circles exist. We only have to get past that "mutually exclusive" bit.

You propose that the meaning is almost, but not quite, mutually exclusive. I say that vis-a-vis a square and a circle in n dimension space they are 100% mutually exclusive.

IMO, so is a demonstrably existant noumenon. For much the same reasons.

On what basis do you declare the probability of noumena as an existent at 0%?

How so? I would think that ~materialists would frown on "just make [rule8] up" as an explanation; their genetic and mystical explanations are just as far apart as the materialist's.

I still think it is meaningless. I have asked you many times for meaningful differences, and have not yet been convinced that they are meaningful. (I very much appreciate the fact that you continue to offer reasons--I do not mean to say you have evaded, merely that I see your differences...differently.)

The answer to both is that 99.99999 does not equal 100, and space is not infinitely divisible. How does your materialist account for the .00001 difference? For some things he can; noumena is something he must assign prob=0.0, and again I ask, on what basis?

 

[Mercutio]

You propose that the meaning is almost, but not quite, mutually exclusive. I say that vis-a-vis a square and a circle in n dimension space they are 100% mutually exclusive.

How do you get "almost, but not quite"? I assume it is something I said, but I can't see it. The only way I can see something less than 100% is by changing the definition and making it a trivial, meaningless question.

On what basis do you declare the probability of noumena as an existent at 0%?

You missed a word: demonstrably. It is the functional equivalent of your "in n dimension space" earlier. Suppose some mathematician demonstrated that a circle with diameter = 0, and a square with side length = 0 are, indeed, identical. You would, quite rightly, complain that this is not what "square circle" is supposed to mean. The whole point of the noumenon is that it exists independently of perception. A demonstrable one has just been perceived.

The answer to both is that 99.99999 does not equal 100, and space is not infinitely divisible. How does your materialist account for the .00001 difference? For some things he can; noumena is something he must assign prob=0.0, and again I ask, on what basis?

Again, a demonstrably existant noumenon. On the basis of definition.

Note, of course, that the concept of noumena/phenomena existance is inherently dualistic. The "demonstrable" noumena is the equivalent of Descartes' pineal gland--some sort of connection between the realms of mind and material. Problem is, for any meaningful definition of the two, there is no meeting place. If there is one, the definitions are not what we have always understood.

 

[hammegk]

How do you get "almost, but not quite"? I assume it is something I said, but I can't see it.

Then why would you look when someone says 'look, here's a circle square"?

The whole point of the noumenon is that it exists independently of perception.

At least photon interaction doesn't appear to involve perceptions of noumena.

Again, a demonstrably existant noumenon. On the basis of definition.

And many people state -- or certainly believe -- they have "sensed" the noumena, undefinable or not. Of course a behavorist who has not had that experience must assume they are all 'defective' in some way.

If and when he experiences the noumena, will he also declare himself defective?

Note, of course, that the concept of noumena/phenomena existance is inherently dualistic.

Only for materialists or admitted dualists. Or for materialists who believe QM nuttiness -- locality fails, many worlds, delayed choice quantum eraser, etcetc -- has no implications for we what deem 'this physical object, here, now'.

The "demonstrable" noumena is the equivalent of Descartes' pineal gland--some sort of connection between the realms of mind and material. Problem is, for any meaningful definition of the two, there is no meeting place. If there is one, the definitions are not what we have always understood.

I not sure what your getting at with that comment?

 

[Mercutio]

Then why would you look when someone says 'look, here's a circle square"?

I am humble enough to recognise that I may be wrong. I am told it happens to everyone.

At least photon interaction doesn't appear to involve perceptions of noumena.

I am not following you here.

And many people state -- or certainly believe -- they have "sensed" the noumena, undefinable or not. Of course a behavorist who has not had that experience must assume they are all 'defective' in some way.

Why do you say that? It could just as easily be that the definition of noumena is defective. Verbal behavior is determined by a whole slew of things, including the prescientific vocabulary of the language community. Examination of a claim does not typically involve taking verbal behavior at face value, but rather, employing a functional analysis of the behavior (verbal, in this case) involved. "Defective" is not a terribly useful label, as it allows one to ignore outliers which might be important. A behaviorist is more likely to follow the dictum "the rat is always right", and attempt to determine what conditions are leading to this particular verbal behavior.

If and when he experiences the noumena, will he also declare himself defective?

This behaviorist...is he made of straw?

Only for materialists or admitted dualists. Or for materialists who believe QM nuttiness -- locality fails, many worlds, delayed choice quantum eraser, etcetc -- has no implications for we what deem 'this physical object, here, now'.

How is a noumenal/phenomenal split any less dualistic from a ~materialist's point of view than from a materialist's? The phrasing of the problem is, itself, dualistic by definition. If you deny that, you are addressing a completely different problem.

I not sure what your getting at with that comment?

Descartes was forced to find some way for the mind to influence the body, even though they were fundamentally different "stuff". He chose the pineal gland as the place where a mechanical body was controlled by an immaterial soul. Of course, your 99.999999...% comment still applies; if the soul is immaterial, and a material body exhibits inertia, the soul can't influence even the pineal gland. Either the two realms are different, or they are not. If a soul can influence a body, either it is of the same stuff as the body, or it violates the laws of physics as we understand them. Thus, as you have said often here, dualism is incoherent. "Experiencing a noumenon" is incoherent, when noumena and phenomena are of different realms, and phenomena are defined as what we experience. "Experiencing a noumenon" is an attempt to connect the two, like Descartes' pineal gland. It doesn't work. It is incoherent.

 

[hammegk]

I am humble enough to recognise that I may be wrong. I am told it happens to everyone.

Hmm. Now you are back to the position that a square circle is improbable rather than 100% impossible. I opt for the 100%.

I am not following you here.

At phenomena level, photon interactions provide the only communication links.

This behaviorist...is he made of straw?

How is a noumenal/phenomenal split any less dualistic from a ~materialist's point of view than from a materialist's?

It isn't. The immaterialist chooses noumena as reality with matter(phenomena) the epiphenomena. A logical choice for a materialist is that reality is the phenomena -- loosing his "mind", so to speak.

 

[Mercutio]

Hmm. Now you are back to the position that a square circle is improbable rather than 100% impossible. I opt for the 100%.

I think we are in agreement--except that I am accustomed to phrasing things in terms of "virtually impossible" and extreme improbability, rather than absolutes. It is, quite likely, simply a stylistic difference.

At phenomena level, photon interactions provide the only communication links.

I am sorry, but I still must plead ignorance. Either I don't know what you are talking about, or I don't recognize it in this guise. If you would try one more time, assuming I am extremely dense, I would appreciate it. I will, however, understand if you choose not to.

I took a gamble that you would enjoy that. No offense intended, of course.

It isn't. The immaterialist chooses noumena as reality with matter(phenomena) the epiphenomena. A logical choice for a materialist is that reality is the phenomena -- loosing his "mind", so to speak.

Heh. Nice to see I do at least appear to understand. So...why, then, are you arguing for a connection? Or do I misread you entirely?

 

[nescafe]

At phenomena level, photon interactions provide the only communication links.

I am sorry, but I still must plead ignorance. Either I don't know what you are talking about, or I don't recognize it in this guise. If you would try one more time, assuming I am extremely dense, I would appreciate it. I will, however, understand if you choose not to.

The electromagnetic force is described in terms of real and virtual photon exchange, and all of our senses rely on the electromagnetic force for their operation. Hammegk is just being pedantic.

 

[nosho]

From different posts:

Give me a coherent definition of noumena and I will try to answer.

No coherent definition of noumena would be possible.

It could just as easily be that the definition of noumena is defective.

By definition, any definition of noumena would be defective.

"Experiencing a noumenon" is incoherent, when noumena and phenomena are of different realms, and phenomena are defined as what we experience.

Different realms? That would mean it's not at the core of being.
Another (unoriginal) analogy: A wave rolling toward shore. It is a wave, yet it also is water. Water is at the core of being of every wave in the ocean.

Problem is, for any meaningful definition of the two, there is no meeting place. If there is one, the definitions are not what we have always understood.

So one would probably have to be willing to set aside that which one has always understood.

What if the notion of "directly experiencable noumenon" is not a square circle, despite the conclusion you have drawn from faulty definitions?

Your position seems to be, "Anything that doesn't make sense to me could never exist. Only things that make sense to me can exist."

 

[hammegk]

I think we are in agreement--except that I am accustomed to phrasing things in terms of "virtually impossible" and extreme improbability, rather than absolutes. It is, quite likely, simply a stylistic difference.

No it is not stylistic. That is the not-quite-100% 'unknown' that allows a closet dualist to pretend he is a materialist.

Any real materialist should have no problem with saying and meaning, "I, materialist, believe at 100% probability that free-will and/or god do not exist". Even though Stimpy believes the "physical" may "actually" have god-like attributes, logic and semantics would say otherwise. Geoff of course goes up a level to yin/yang or 0=+1-1 yada.yada.yada. IMO, Occam says that's a little too complicated.

Or as I say Atman=Brahman.

Note that "I, idealist, believe it's very very improbable that free-will and/or god exist", yet remain with a logically defensible monist worldview.

Our buddy Jeff Corey weaseled in with 'virtually impossible'. No one else has even attempted it. Care to go for it?

I took a gamble that you would enjoy that. No offense intended, of course.

None taken.

Heh. Nice to see I do at least appear to understand. So...why, then, are you arguing for a connection? Or do I misread you entirely?

As I've said before the phenomena of 'matter/energy' to an objective idealist is an epiphenomena while the noumena dance -- if you catch my drift.

Hammegk is just being pedantic.

Accurate per current science as it understands neural systems & bio-support apparatus.