A priori synthetic statements

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David said:
Why does blueness have to have an effect on my brain in order for me to say something about it? I think this is the assumption you are making that is not necessarily true. And if it isn't true then your argument doesn't carry any weight.

If blueness has no effect on my brain, then I would not move my mouth to utter words that describe the blueness. Either that, or you have to believe that my mouth is not controlled by my brain.

Only if you assume that non-physical existence must affect my brain in order for me to refer to it. But that would mean that you have re-defined non-physical existence as physical. Would you accept that your assumption may be wrong?

I might if you can explain how nonphysical stuff can make my mouth move. Also please explain whether that same nonphysical stuff makes my hamster's mouth move.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Kevin said:
After all, if blueness can be some kind of goings-on in an immaterial mind-thingy, why can't it equally well be some kind of goings-on in a material mind-thingy?
...
Immaterialism is in no better state. All you can do to "explain" such things in immaterialist terms is to make up ad hoc properties of immaterial stuff to do the work, and I can do exactly the same for a non-immaterialist position if I want to waste my time.

Except that in the non-immaterialist position, people immediately jump on it and try to verify it with pesky experiments. No such headache with the immaterialist position. The immaterialist position requires less aspirin.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

If blueness has no effect on my brain, then I would not move my mouth to utter words that describe the blueness. Either that, or you have to believe that my mouth is not controlled by my brain.

That doesn't matter. Dr Cat's argument only works if your utterance or brain activity in saying you experience blueness is logically necessitated. But at the very most it is only nomonologically necessitated. See my refutation of Cat's argument in my post above in blue.

 

[davidsmith73]

If blueness has no effect on my brain, then I would not move my mouth to utter words that describe the blueness.

Which indicates that this line of reasoning is flawed, since blueness does exist as a non-physically definable experience and we can refer to it (not describe it though). The existence of this explanatory gap is not grounds for rejecting the nature of experience! Rather, we must examine the nature of our explanations.

I might if you can explain how nonphysical stuff can make my mouth move.
~~ Paul

Why does blueness have to affect the brain in order for us to know about blueness?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So Ian wants me to read blue text with flashing smilies and far too many occurences of the word not.

But lets leave aside this objection. Dr Cat is saying we only know of our consciousness through its causal powers. But as I have repeated stated, non-materialists reject this thesis. When we say we know we are conscious, we are not saying that consciousness causes some other process whereby we come to know it. No, we are saying that our recognition of our our consciousness is unmediated. In other words there is no causal relationship between the fact of my consciousness and me knowing it. The fact that I might say I know I am conscious does not mean I could not logically know it without saying it. Indeed it does not mean that I could not know it without any brain activity whatsoever. Of course it may be nomonologically necessary that there will be brain activity whenever I think anything at all, but since my position is that the appropriate brain activity follows consciousness, rather than vice versa, then Dr Cat's argument doesn't hold.

You appear to be saying that brain activity is an epiphenomenon of the mind, nomologically necessitated for some reason. In particular, then, knowing and thinking and memory are functions of the mind, not the brain. So let's reword the premises:

Premise 1: Consciousness is non-physical
Premise 2: One is directly aware of ones own consciousness
Premise 3: Ones direct awareness of ones consciousness might necessarily affect the brain nomologically.

By "nomologically" we mean as relates to physical laws, right?

So, my first question: What does it mean for a non-physical thing (consciousness) to affect a physical thing (brain) nomologically? In particular, what exactly is a physical thing? It's not a separate existent, because you are not a dualist.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David said:
Which indicates that this line of reasoning is flawed, since blueness does exist as a non-physically definable experience and we can refer to it (not describe it though). The existence of this explanatory gap is not grounds for rejecting the nature of experience! Rather, we must examine the nature of our explanations.

Why does blueness have to affect the brain in order for us to know about blueness?

That question sounds absurd, so I must not understand how you're looking at this. Where do we "know" things, if not in the brain? Also, I'm not sure why you think we can't describe blueness. In particular, I can point at a blue object and say "It feels like that color, only less well defined. It reminds me of blueberries. I associate it with being sad. It's one of my favorite colors. My mother had a nice blue dress."

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

So Ian wants me to read blue text with flashing smilies and far too many occurences of the word not.


You appear to be saying that brain activity is an epiphenomenon of the mind, nomologically necessitated for some reason. In particular, then, knowing and thinking and memory are functions of the mind, not the brain. So let's reword the premises:

Premise 1: Consciousness is non-physical
Premise 2: One is directly aware of ones own consciousness
Premise 3: Ones direct awareness of ones consciousness might necessarily affect the brain nomologically.

By "nomologically" we mean as relates to physical laws, right?

Not necessarily.

So, my first question: What does it mean for a non-physical thing (consciousness) to affect a physical thing (brain) nomologically?

It means what it says. It's mental causation.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Not necessarily.

This is like pulling teeth. What does nomologically mean?

It means what it says. It's mental causation.

How does a nonphysical thing affect a physical thing without being itself physical? What is the distinction, in your metaphysic, between a nonphysical thing and a physical thing? Is it just that physical things have to obey natural laws established by the nonphysical thing?

~~ Paul

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How does a nonphysical thing affect a physical thing without being itself physical? What is the distinction, in your metaphysic, between a nonphysical thing and a physical thing? Is it just that physical things have to obey natural laws established by the nonphysical thing?

Is exactly the same question we all ask to the good ol' Ian.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This is like pulling teeth. What does nomologically mean?


How does a nonphysical thing affect a physical thing without being itself physical? What is the distinction, in your metaphysic, between a nonphysical thing and a physical thing? Is it just that physical things have to obey natural laws established by the nonphysical thing?

I've told people countless times. Physical things or processes are exhausted by their causal efficaciousness. Once we have completely specified their role in some scientific theory, that is all their reality amounts to. If they have any other aspect which, in principle, cannot be encompassed by any scientific theory, then this aspect cannot be known scientifically. If it cannot in principle be known scientifically, then this is what I mean by non-physical. I'm talking about the basic sciences here; namely physics, chemistry and biology.

Simple.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I've told people countless times. Physical things or processes are exhausted by their causal efficaciousness. Once we have completely specified their role in some scientific theory, that is all their reality amounts to. If they have any other aspect which, in principle, cannot be encompassed by any scientific theory, then this aspect cannot be known scientifically. If it cannot in principle be known scientifically, then this is what I mean by non-physical. I'm talking about the basic sciences here; namely physics, chemistry and biology.

Okay, so nonphysical things are those things that have no effect on physical things, and thus cannot be investigated scientifically. Consciousness is a nonphysical thing, I think.

Yet you said that consciousness might affect the brain nomologically.* I don't see how it can't, since it can make my mouth move to talk about it.

Seems like an obvious contradition, so I guess I still don't understand.

I wonder why consciousness ended up being the thing science can't investigate, rather than rocks?


~~ Paul

* You still have said what you mean by this term.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Simple.

Nope. Its not simple. You ignored the question: How does a nonphysical thing affect a physical thing? Are there any mechanisms?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Nope. Its not simple. You ignored the question: How does a nonphysical thing affect a physical thing? Are there any mechanisms?

Do you have any problems with the notion that a physical thing can affect a physical thing?

Or is that ruled out too?

 

[omegablue]

Okay, so nonphysical things are those things that have no effect on physical things, and thus cannot be investigated scientifically. Consciousness is a nonphysical thing, I think.

Yet you said that consciousness might affect the brain nomologically.* I don't see how it can't, since it can make my mouth move to talk about it.

Seems like an obvious contradition, so I guess I still don't understand.

I wonder why consciousness ended up being the thing science can't investigate, rather than rocks?

So you think consciousness cannot be scientificaly investigated?? oh come one man.... And how did you came up with the idea that consciousness is non-physical? What is physical?

You are not thinking the right way in order to understand how it would be possible for consciousness , which seems to be unsubstantial, affecting "physical" things.

I invite you to define to me what is matter. What is something "physical" other than just a reference to what our poor minds perceives as solid matter? Remember that matter in ultimate instance, is unsubstantial all the way. Approaching to the planck scale, things become even more bizarre and uncertain. What are atoms made of? What are quantum particles made of? What are the new hypothetical strings made of? In the quantum scale, matter cant be thought of as being solid at all!! Laws of physics (classical) are just a poor but useful sloppy tool to describe our universe on the scale we can poorly experience with our poorly developed senses with their narrow and short frequency variations. Don´t you already realized that freeing our minds from the ordinary state of waking consciousness, be that due to halucinogens, meditation, or just having a NDE, makes you able to see more colours in different spectrums, hear more sound frequencies, as well as being able to sense time being stopped or like it never existed?? Come on dont tell me you did never realised how real are these experiences.

The illusion of hardened things are just what our induced sensory and nervous system makes us to think of as being substantial. Nobody actually touches anything, because in fact , there is nothing to touch. Atoms are just repelled by opposite forces when they approach too much of each other. So you could easily say that matter dont exist, all that exists are tendencies, uncertainty, that collapses to form up this illusion of life, which we only perceive this way, if we are on our ordinary and induced waking state. Supressing the actions of some nutrients such as sugar and other enzymes in our brains, means that you are freeing your brain from the reducting valve and experiencing some expansion on your senses, and hell how it is natural!! In the end, it is fairly possible that consciousness could be everything, matter would be just an extension to it. What do you think? Plain b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Do you have any problems with the notion that a physical thing can affect a physical thing?

Or is that ruled out too?

Huh, I need to think that you are not joking. There are models that can explain pretty well the notion of physical things altering physical things. Yes.

And, sorry, you still dont answer the question.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Okay, so nonphysical things are those things that have no effect on physical things,

Who said this? This is Stimpson J Cat's absurd definition. And maybe other materialists.

If consciousness has no effect on physical things, then how come we can move our bodies?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Huh, I need to think that you are not joking. There are models that can explain pretty well the notion of physical things altering physical things. Yes.

And, sorry, you still dont answer the question. [/B]

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. I have no idea why non-physical things shouldn't be able to affect physical things. I mean what is it about physical things that they can have such an effect, but not non-physical things. Their causal power?

BTW I know of no such models. Indeed I can quite catagorically state that there aren't any. But tell me what you have in mind.

 

[Interesting Ian]

So you think consciousness cannot be scientificaly investigated??

As far as reductionist science is concerned we could simply be unconscious automatons. Science deals exclusively with the quantitative -- that which can be measured. Consciousness concerns the subjective -- that which cannot be measured.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. I have no idea why non-physical things shouldn't be able to affect physical things. I mean what is it about physical things that they can have such an effect, but not non-physical things. Their causal power?

BTW I know of no such models. Indeed I can quite catagorically state that there aren't any. But tell me what you have in mind.

Lets forget about physics (no quantum paraphernalia, lets even ignore Newton). Shall we? Lets remain at a folk psychological level.

When I hit a ball, playing with my little daughter, I "know" that it will rebound on the floor. But the interesting thing is that my daughter knows it too, even when she cant speak (she already learned to seek the ball where it will be after the rebounding).

Now, this is astonishing if you think about it. I said I "know" because I have a mental model on why does the ball behaves in that way, but she doesnt, yet, she "knows".

Of course, you know the explanation too. The ball rebounds because it hit the floor and its flexible and light. You dont need flashy arguments to explain it or understand it.

Now, your turn. Show me one model, just one, about how a non physical "thing" (how can "it" be "a thing" if it is not physical, big problem, but lets ignore that for the moment), can affect a physical thing.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Lets forget about physics (no quantum paraphernalia, lets even ignore Newton). Shall we? Lets remain at a folk psychological level.

When I hit a ball, playing with my little daughter, I "know" that it will rebound on the floor. But the interesting thing is that my daughter knows it too, even when she cant speak (she already learned to seek the ball where it will be after the rebounding).

Now, this is astonishing if you think about it. I said I "know" because I have a mental model on why does the ball behaves in that way, but she doesnt, yet, she "knows".

Of course, you know the explanation too. The ball rebounds because it hit the floor and its flexible and light. You dont need flashy arguments to explain it or understand it.

Now, your turn. Show me one model, just one, about how a non physical "thing" (how can "it" be "a thing" if it is not physical, big problem, but lets ignore that for the moment), can affect a physical thing.

Well the ball rebounds because it obeys physical laws.

The fact that the non-physical effecting the physical does not obey physical laws, but in fact unfolds according to the intention of a sentient being, does not at all make it more problematic. Indeed, if anything, it makes it less so.