Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

[Crossbow]

Now let's see that in an instant replay:

Stimpy continually claims that he is a materialist/physicalist, but that neither ontology or metaphysics play any role in his particular version of physicalism. There is a simple disproof of this. In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical. But supervenience itself is a metaphysical claim. Therefore to be a physicalist necessarily commits you to making at least one metaphysical claim

You have been soundly slammed Ian; do you wish to retort?

By the way, I noticed that no one, not even you, took up my proposed bet.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

By the way, I noticed that no one, not even you, took up my proposed bet.

*Waves hands in the air frantically*

Ok, is this whole thing settled yet or is there a few more rounds left in the match...

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Over here!

I will bet on Interesting Ian, with one caveat. You have to get Ian to admit he has lost. Takers?

Hey it's not just death and taxes that are certainties you know...

 

[Gregor]

Hey, it's no fair people posting items INTENDING them to be sig material. You have to earn your sig. You have to debate someone until rather than admit they're wrong, they pull out the crazy stick.

See mine . . .

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

Now let's see that in an instant replay:



You have been soundly slammed Ian; do you wish to retort?

By the way, I noticed that no one, not even you, took up my proposed bet.

If you have discovered any errors in my proof then I'd be delighted to hear them. As a physicalist Stimpy necessarily believes consciousness supervenes on the physical. But this supervience must be of metaphysical necessity rather than logical necessity. Okie dokie?? Now please state my errors.

 

[Crossbow]

Re: Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

If you have discovered any errors in my proof then I'd be delighted to hear them. As a physicalist Stimpy necessarily believes consciousness supervenes on the physical. But this supervience must be of metaphysical necessity rather than logical necessity. Okie dokie?? Now please state my errors.

Er, Stimpy did issue a reply to your proof. Have you read it?

And if so, do you have any responses?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

Er, Stimpy did issue a reply to your proof. Have you read it?

And if so, do you have any responses?

He issued a reply but hasn't said anything. Anyway, I was asking you the question.

 

[Crossbow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

He issued a reply but hasn't said anything. Anyway, I was asking you the question.

You were the one who claimed such a vast intellect,
and you were the one who wanted a debate with Stimpy,
and now that you are the one who has to respond to his comments.

Let us focus on one issue at a time for dealing with me will side-track the debate you requested.

 

[Gregor]

Go Crossbow, go. You're well on your way to a new sig.

 

[atarian]

Ian.

Your "proof" rests on the premise that Stimp is a physicalist, whatever that is.

Stimp's response: I am not a physicalist.

How in the world is that not saying anything?
One of the best ways to refute a proof is to refute it's premises.
What's your evidence that he is a physicalist?

 

[Interesting Ian]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stimpy continually claims that he is a materialist/physicalist, but that neither ontology or metaphysics play any role in his particular version of physicalism. There is a simple disproof of this. In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical. But supervenience itself is a metaphysical claim. Therefore to be a physicalist necessarily commits you to making at least one metaphysical claim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not a physicalist as you define the term. This is just yet another strawman argument.

Your so called "physicalism" fails to distinguish itself from naturalism. Are you going to admit this finally??? If not then explain where I have made the error in the above paragraph? Do you claim that to be a physicalist, consciousness need not supervene on the physical??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicalism holds that the physical logically necessitates consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not sure what you mean by this.

That in all logically possible worlds appropriate conscious states supervene on appropriate physical states.

I think that consciousness is a physical process in the brain.

But presumably one does not hold that conscious states and their correlated physical states are synonymous.

It is not logically necessitated by the physical.

It is a subset of that which is physical. It is a physical process.

The point is that there are conscious states and physical states and these are not synonymous. Even identity theorists say that consciousness supervenes on the physical.

This statement is no more metaphysical than the statement that computation is a physical process occurring in my computer's CPU.

Is the computation a logical necessity?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this is not an a priori necessity, but rather an a posteriori necessity. That is to say that although consciousness is necessitated, we cannot know it is necessitated without reference to the world. One needs to be acquainted with the world. Therefore consciousness is not a case of logical supervenience, but rather metaphysical supervenience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I cannot make any sense of this.

An a priori logical necessity? You know! Like all unmarried men are bachelors? But doesn't say anything about the world does it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no debate to be had. My statement is a knockout proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How could there be a debate? All you have done is misrepresent my position, and attack it. I'll give you this, you chew through strawmen like a weed-wacker through dandelions.

So how have I misrepresented your position? If you are merely a naturalist, then fine. But as a physicalist you are commited to asserting consciousness supervenes on the physical. Are you denying you believe this?

Please enlighten all of us.

Also tell me why any non-solipsistic position on the nature of reality avoids metaphysical conclusions.

Thanks.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

You were the one who claimed such a vast intellect,
and you were the one who wanted a debate with Stimpy,
and now that you are the one who has to respond to his comments.

Let us focus on one issue at a time for dealing with me will side-track the debate you requested.

You have declared I have been soundly slammed. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this assertion?? Come now. You said it. Back up your assertions.

 

[Yahweh]

consciousness supervenes on the physical

You continually make that reference. Please, using English words we can all understand, define what that means (by define, I mean dont use the word supervene).

I'm not a dumb philosopher, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

You were the one who claimed such a vast intellect,

Please tell me where I have ever claimed that I have a vast intellect where it was not said in jest.

Thanks.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian.

Your "proof" rests on the premise that Stimp is a physicalist, whatever that is.

Stimp's response: I am not a physicalist.

How in the world is that not saying anything?
One of the best ways to refute a proof is to refute it's premises.
What's your evidence that he is a physicalist?

If he concedes he's not a physicalist but merely a naturalist, then I am happy and we can drop this discussion. I want him to admit it though.

 

[atarian]

Did he ever claim to be a physicalist?

If he didn't, why is it on his shoulders to "concede" anything?

 

[Yahweh]

Did he ever claim to be a physicalist?

Stimp's response: I am not a physicalist.

It looks like he did everything but claim he was a physicalist...

 

[Interesting Ian]

It looks like he did everything but claim he was a physicalist...

{Shrugs} Obviously if that is so, then this discussion is at an end. I suspect that statement might have been taken out of context though.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Just to add that if he is merely a naturalist, I don't think this involves any metaphysical or ontological assumptions. Merely epistemological ones.

I mean even solipsism is compatible with naturalism isn't it?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Actually he is definitely a physicalist. He has stated in this very thread:

(Consciousness) is a subset of that which is physical. It is a physical process.

That is a tenet of physicalism. Naturalism merely declares that consciousness is susceptible to scientific explanation (ie it can be scientifically explained). Naturalism does not take a ontological or metaphysical stance on anything, where as explicitly stating that consciousness is a physical process does.

And of course this gives even further proof that his position that his physicalism does not involve any metaphysics is a lie, since stating that consciousness is one and the very same thing as a physical process is a very powerful metaphysical stance!

Give up the argument Stimp. You have comprehensively lost the debate. Admit you're merely a naturalist and not a physicalist and let it go.