This is proof by the simply impossible and the apparently contradictory.
The former is analytic and the latter synthetic. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Titus Rivas said:
Synthetic, as in Kant's Kritik? Then, both would seem to be synthetic, as both concern the devaluation of something (a method and a person) on the basis of empirically established flaws. So it is a fair comparison, Paul. It's about discarding something altogether because it is fallible. Say like concluding a skeptic is a complete moron (with an IQ of 0 or less, to speak in such terms) because he may make some errors sometimes. That was my point.
Oh yes, that's it. I was refering to Kant.
Don't need to discard introspection altogether. All you need to do is realize that it's imperfect and that you have no idea whatsoever which results are reliable and which are not. Introspection is just a thought process like any other.
A negative IQ? Wow!
Perhaps an interesting topic for a new thread
Dancing David said:
Come on, accept the obvious truth that we live in fairyland (going back to Ayers remark) Touchy indeed.
Just kidding.The reasons to do so provided by Dancing David are certainly among the strongest I've ever encountered
Titus Rivas said:Dancing David, Touchy indeed.
I do have a clue of what I'm telling you're in error of, namely that you reduce real argumentation to playing with words.
No, I say, you just rule out any other view point than your own a priori and then you just repeat yourself endlessly, that is a closed system, if you even chose to study the biological basis of perception then i would say that you are not making a semantic argument. But you are just a priori asserting that qualia are irreducable and therefore something special.
After so much effort on my side, that's not exactly what I deserved.
Nor do i deserve to have my views dismissed because you have some a priori basis for disregarding them, that is not argumentation or debate that is mono-louge
By the way, I haven't explained your error by some neural disorder, but by a simple error of thought based on confusion. It would be shocking if every error were based on a neural problem
The point is that you just dismiss the biological basis of perception because you already have a prejudice against them, my point is that without even listening to the materialst POV, you rule it out. I could just say that your argument is a bunch of crazy wishful thinking, but I do not. I wish you to extend common courtesy.
Talking about boomerangs.
But let's get back to the philosophical level, okay? I have nothing against you personally, just against your position.
Which i feel you have not even tried to understand, you just argue from your previously established tautologies. You haven't ever understood my psoition, so how can you make a rational judgement about it?
I'd welcome you to the illustrious camp of non-materialism. You might even become my servant
If you weren't so seemingly close mindedd you might find that Paul A. has already drawn the conclusion that most of us hold the same beliefs already!
Titus
Titus Rivas said:Just this last point:
No, an epiphenomenon can't be just another brain process! Of course not! The whole point in calling something an epiphenomenon is that it is a byproduct of physical brain processes, rather than just another physical brain process.
The epiphenomenon would possess properties which would make it non-efficacious. Whether the conscious mind is an epiphenomenal non-physical dimension to the brain or an entity in its own right, is another question, but as a presumed epiphenomenon it does not make sense to identify it with just another completely physical process in the brain.
I'm afraid it's this kind of confusion among materialists which sooner or later makes many non-materialists unwilling to continue discussing these issues with them. Now would that apply as name calling?
Truth has to do with a correspondence between theory and reality, not with the counting of noses. Not even on a skeptical forum.
Greetings,
Titus
Oh, perhaps you don't know this yet, but I'm a theoretical psychologist as well as a philosopher. So I do know something about the biological processes involved in (normal) perception. And I even acknowledge that there are biological processes involved. About 13 years ago I wrote a letter to the editor of a parapsychological journal to defend the position that the mechanisms of ESP must be different from normal perception in that the latter uses (or in more dualistic terminology: reads) the results of computational processes in the brain as a basis for qualitative subjective perception. So no denial of biology in my case. What I do deny is that biological processes is all there is to conscious perception.
It's true that it's not your fault if I don't "get" your arguments. But since you believe that your arguments are clearly based in logic, how about presenting them in some sort of semi-formal style? You know, like this :
The interaction problem does not contain "inherent incoherence" as long as you assume that 'non-physical' can interact with 'physical'? The interaction problem is asking "how" - your answer is "it does". I guess that's not incoherent, just avoiding the question? Is the "soul/brain" interaction affected by distance? By time? Does it work by "rearranging atoms"?
Yes, absolutely. Definitely.
Loki said:
Just to satisfy my own curiosity (I promise not to use it against youTitus Rivas said:
), would you mind telling me your psychological focus? I ask only because my colleagues in the psychology department are tremendously varied--I know some humanists who simply could not explain behaviorism if their lives depended on it, and behaviorists who inaccurately dismiss Rogers out of their own ignorance; I know biopsychologists who know nothing about social psychology, and a bioenergetics-trained counselor who does not even include physiological psych in his intro classes because he does not understand it enough to explain it to undergrads. I will gladly admit you know "a little something about biological processes" if you actually do; it is to my utter chagrin that I admit that the majority of my colleagues (all with psychology Ph. D.'s) don't know enough about the topic to be dangerous. But I obviously don't hold that your beliefs are as rational as mine. If I did, I would have not posted what I have. In fact I might not have posted anything at all on this thread. So don't ask the impossible from me. It's one thing to ask me to respect you as an intelligent person. And another to ask me to respect your views as rational. I can't. I find it ludicrous that you keep on seeing my views as mere word games. And in my world, it's actually a matter of respect to be frank about such things. Only if I considered you a very fragile, completely irrational person, I would not tell you what I think.
Interesting Ian said: