Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Materialism ends up claiming that the only thing which exists is something you can never actually be aware of, and that the only thing you can ever be aware of doesn't actually exist. Which is silly.

Idealists have a similar problem. They have to claim that everything is mind, even though I am not directly aware of mind. And they have to claim that things that seem obviously external, like our common views of that chair, are really nonconscious internal things. It doesn't read as cleverly as your statement, but it's there nonetheless.

And neutral monists have to claim that something is nothing.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ah, then I don't understand the proof that p-zombies mean materialism is false. All you required was that I agreed minds weren't brains. You didn't explain that there had to be some special relationship between the two.

But Paul.....EVERYBODY agrees that there is a special relationship between the two! You, me, hammy, Belz....all of us. Except maybe lifegazer, who claims that brains do not exist. There is your eliminative idealist: the idiot boy.

Could you present the entire proof, please?

The proof that the relationship between minds and brains is the same as the relationship between individual minds and objects of perception? No. It is you who are claiming the relationship is similar, so you have to explain why you think it is. I don't have any idea what the similarity between the two cases is supposed to be so how can I prove there is no similarity?

So under idealism I can have a brain without a mind? What does that mean when everything is essentially mindstuff?

[edit: deleted sentence] It exists as an object in your mind, but it doesn't have its own mind. It's just like any other mindless object of which the world is full, except it happens to behave as if it had a mind - like an android.

A p-zombie is identical to a person, except that it has no consciousness. It is a theoretical construct, since there doesn't appear to be any way to create one.

OK.....

A person with brain damage has lost some or all consciousness, because his brain is broken. He is most certainly distinguishable from a normal person.

Sure, but what has this got to do with the debate?

Otherwise we would declare a brain dead person to be a p-zombie, materialism would allow for p-zombies, and this conversation would never have occurred.

We declare a brain dead person to be dead. Again, I'm not sure why this matters.

Then why haven't philosphers abandoned materialism and idealism completely?
Why do they still live?

Many philosophers abandoned materialism and idealism completely a long time ago. The main reason the positions stay alive is that there is a continual stream of new people who come along and defend them. Like Dawkins, for example. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He is a scientist. But he chooses to defend a philosophical position that was widely abandoned by philosophers in 1787. The response is somebody like Chalmers who comes along and say "You think so, do you?", knowing full well that this argument has already been had over and over and over again. He's just playing philosopher. - "You say X? I'll say Y. Now what are you going to do?"

Now you are using the word manifests instead of appears.

~~ Paul

Consider them synonymous. The meaning is the same.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Idealists have a similar problem. They have to claim that everything is mind, even though I am not directly aware of mind.

But you are directly aware of mind....

And they have to claim that things that seem obviously external, like our common views of that chair, are really nonconscious internal things.

Yes, they have to claim something like that. Exactly what they claim depends on the variety of idealism.

And neutral monists have to claim that something is nothing.

I'm not sure they have to do this, but most of them do indeed make claims along those lines.

http://naturyl.humanists.net/diamon.html

A neutral monism based on our modern understanding of reality must take into account the fact that the "potential-filled nothingness" described not only by Eastern philosophy but also by quantum mechanics is the bedrock of the world and is prerequisite to both matter and mind.

In other words, nothing is something.

Conclusions

In light of the Universal Dialectic concept, we see that the problem of reconciling duality (expressed in dualism and pluralism) with oneness (expressed in monism) can be meaningfully resolved within the context of dialectical monism. The majority of metaphysical systems throughout history have found themselves forced to affirm the reality of one frame of reference at the expense of considering the other illusionary or ill-conceived. Some traditional ontologies (those of Indian and Oriental origin in particular) favor oneness, considering unity to be the "real reality," and duality to be illusory. Others consider the common-sense world of duality to be the only reality and reject any talk of unity or oneness as a case of overly-enthusiastic metaphysical abstraction. Dialectical monism shows that both positions settle for a half-truth. The solution offered is the recognition that unity is experienced as duality. There is no unity which does not manifest as duality, and there is no duality which does not reduce to unity. "Ultimate Reality" in the metaphysical sense is not different from "everday reality" in the pragmatic sense, and perhaps this is why the Zen master and the sage are said to spend their days "chopping wood and carrying water."

 

[chriswl]

Many philosophers abandoned materialism and idealism completely a long time ago.

Many of them abandoned the whole mind-matter question as being misconceived. You're the one who is telling us that we are materialists and then telling us, at length, how silly we are. Why are you doing this?

Dawkins is not a philosopher. He is a scientist.

So when he makes coments that sound philosophical you can't pretend that he is a stupid philosopher - he's just an ordinary person talking about the world in that loose way that we ordinary people do. Either that or he's talking as a scientist.

I can't say I've ever noticed anything obviously philosophical in Dawkins' writings. He normally sticks pretty closely to what he knows and argues very precisely and carefully. He's just a naturalist (in both senses of that word).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This is an excellent article....

http://naturyl.humanists.net/diamon.html

Reality Is What It Is

At first glance, one might worry that dialectical monism is yet another attempt to establish a metaphysical "Ultimate Reality" of the sort which somehow transcends the realm of everyday experience. Upon closer examination, however, it should become clear that dialectical monism actually establishes the opposite position. There is no "Ultimate Reality" that is not everyday reality, or (if one prefers), there is no everyday reality that is not "Ultimate Reality." The distinction is meaningless within the context of dialectical monism. There is One Reality, One Nature; we lose sight of this only because the monistic nature of reality can be perceived only in dualistic terms. Dialectical monism is a perspective which restores simplicity to ontology. In the spirit of Nagarjuna and his ruthless negative dialectic, it is a metaphysical system which does away with metaphysical systems.

That is why I compared neutral monism to a post-Kantian form of transcendental realism. Yes, at first glance it does seem to be just another attempt to describe ultimate reality - but on closer inspection it turns out to be very different to materialism and idealism for the exact reasons given above.

And....

http://naturyl.humanists.net/

...which I only just found.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Many of them abandoned the whole mind-matter question as being misconceived. You're the one who is telling us that we are materialists and then telling us, at length, how silly we are. Why are you doing this?

I wasn't necessarily talking to anybody in particular - but if the boot fits, wear it.

So when he makes coments that sound philosophical you can't pretend that he is a stupid philosopher - he's just an ordinary person talking about the world in that loose way that we ordinary people do. Either that or he's talking as a scientist.

I can't say I've ever noticed anything obviously philosophical in Dawkins' writings. He normally sticks pretty closely to what he knows and argues very precisely and carefully. He's just a naturalist (in both senses of that word).

OK, fair enough. Put Dennett in there instead. He's a philosopher, but he thinks like a scientist and does not appear to take any notice of Kant. He just starts from the claim that "it is reasonable to start from the commonsense 3rd-person view on reality", as if Kant had never lived.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But Paul.....EVERYBODY agrees that there is a special relationship between the two! You, me, hammy, Belz....all of us. Except maybe lifegazer, who claims that brains do not exist. There is your eliminative idealist: the idiot boy.

We may agree, but is it required for the proof? Everyone agrees there is a special relationship between mind and objects of perception in idealism, too, don't they?

The proof that the relationship between minds and brains is the same as the relationship between individual minds and objects of perception? No. It is you who are claiming the relationship is similar, so you have to explain why you think it is. I don't have any idea what the similarity between the two cases is supposed to be so how can I prove there is no similarity?

No, I want to see the entire proof that p-zombies mean that non-reductive materialism is false.

[edit: deleted sentence] It exists as an object in your mind, but it doesn't have its own mind. It's just like any other mindless object of which the world is full, except it happens to behave as if it had a mind - like an android.

Right, so I can't have a brain without someone's mind for it to reside in. I wasn't saying my brain had its own mind. And this is idealism, so there are no mindless objects, are there?

Sure, but what has this got to do with the debate?

Sigh. It's not worth resurrecting, because I'm hopelessly confused about the proof that p-zombies ruin materialism anyway.

Many philosophers abandoned materialism and idealism completely a long time ago.

Wow, who knew? So neutral monism has won?

Consider them synonymous. The meaning is the same.

They don't sound the same to me.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But you are directly aware of mind...

No, I'm not. I'm aware of thoughts and sensations and feelings and memories and such. I have no idea what mind feels like. Certainly no idea what some sort of monolithic monist mind is like.

The reason idealism is appealing is that people realize we can only know our internal experiences, not external things. So they say poof! internal experiences are the fundamental existent. But, of course, all those disparate internal experiences can't be the one fundamental existent, so let's call it mind. But now the internal experiences whose mystery I'm supposed to have solved are once again divorced from the single existent. I do not experience mind. I don't even experience how my brain thinks. My experiences are stunningly fragmented.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

At first glance, one might worry that dialectical monism is yet another attempt to establish a metaphysical "Ultimate Reality" of the sort which somehow transcends the realm of everyday experience. Upon closer examination, however, it should become clear that dialectical monism actually establishes the opposite position. There is no "Ultimate Reality" that is not everyday reality, or (if one prefers), there is no everyday reality that is not "Ultimate Reality." The distinction is meaningless within the context of dialectical monism. There is One Reality, One Nature; we lose sight of this only because the monistic nature of reality can be perceived only in dualistic terms. Dialectical monism is a perspective which restores simplicity to ontology. In the spirit of Nagarjuna and his ruthless negative dialectic, it is a metaphysical system which does away with metaphysical systems.

Is he accusing materialism and idealism of trying to establish this dreaded "Ultimate Reality"?

I'd be more comfortable with that paragraph if it weren't for this tricky Zero/Being/Nothingness thing that's required to bifurcate the neutral into the dual. There is only One Nature if you buy into the something = nothing deal, and even then something = nothing seems of a different nature. Everything else isn't nothing, only the something.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We may agree, but is it required for the proof?

Yes, if someone were to dispute this they would threaten a problem. Except they wouldn't, because nobody would take any notice of them. If minds and brains both exist, they are clearly closely correlated, unless you are stupid.

Everyone agrees there is a special relationship between mind and objects of perception in idealism, too, don't they?

Erm....yes, I guess so, but it's not the same relationship as in the first case. Or maybe it is...... There doesn't seem to be much difference between a mind and all of its contents. Ah....but it still isn't the same relationship because they would actually be identical, not correlates.

No, I want to see the entire proof that p-zombies mean that non-reductive materialism is false.

Oh no. Not again.

Right, so I can't have a brain without someone's mind for it to reside in.

Welcome to lifegazer territory.

I wasn't saying my brain had its own mind. And this is idealism, so there are no mindless objects, are there?

There are plenty of mindless objects. Not sure where that came from.

Wow, who knew?

90% of people with a philosophy degree and any common sense?

So neutral monism has won?

Nowhere near. But I think its prospects look very good, and a small but growing number of people seem to agree with me. It has been forgotten about amidst the bar-room brawl which currently dominates as people with clashing ideologies fight to defend materialism from gazerism and naturalism from the cretinists. It's currently lost in the crossfire.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is he accusing materialism and idealism of trying to establish this dreaded "Ultimate Reality"?

Yes, because that is exactly what they do.

I'd be more comfortable with that paragraph if it weren't for this tricky Zero/Being/Nothingness thing that's required to bifurcate the neutral into the dual. There is only One Nature if you buy into the something = nothing deal, and even then something = nothing seems of a different nature.

Check out that humanists link.

 

[hammegk]

Everyone agrees there is a special relationship between mind and objects of perception in idealism, too, don't they?

Everyone? Who knows? An objective idealist would say that without that difference it would all be One, or None.

Right, so I can't have a brain without someone's mind for it to reside in.

A neural system that's not alive; of course you can. This is the necessary vs sufficient problem.

And this is idealism, so there are no mindless objects, are there?

Better to say that nothing exists without intent.

So neutral monism has won?

For any position, there is nothing to win, other than a logically defensible worldview, and acting in accord with it.

 

[I less than three logic]

I thought humanism (humanist) was an ethical philosophy not a metaphysical one.

 

[hammegk]

Materialism is a metaphysical position, and only a materialist could aver at 100% certainty "god does not exist".

 

[I less than three logic]

Materialism is a metaphysical position, and only a materialist could aver at 100% certainty "god does not exist".

Are all your responses non sequitur? Humanism doesn't claim or require 100% certainty that God does not exist. It only denies the importance of deities or the supernatural in human affairs, regardless of whether it exists or not. So there is no logic to claim that all humanists are or must be materialists as well.

 

[hammegk]

OK. I always like to learn. What is a "Non-secular" Humanist? Er, I know! An illogical-by-definition dualist. Sounds like the right person to set up, teach, and enforce adherence to an ethical system.

Or does everyone get to make up their own ethics and morality? A larger version of JREF posters, maybe?

 

[DreadNiK]

I wonder if this question is worth asking again:

JG, could you briefly summarise how our philosophies differ from yours, and how as a result, your actions are different?

 

[I less than three logic]

OK. I always like to learn. What is a "Non-secular" Humanist? Er, I know! An illogical-by-definition dualist. Sounds like the right person to set up, teach, and enforce adherence to an ethical system.

Or does everyone get to make up their own ethics and morality? A larger version of JREF posters, maybe?

How about an objective idealist that believes in a God that maintains the universe but couldn’t care less what happens to humans on this nearly inconceivably tiny blue dot within the vast universe he/she/it created.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Erm....yes, I guess so, but it's not the same relationship as in the first case. Or maybe it is...... There doesn't seem to be much difference between a mind and all of its contents. Ah....but it still isn't the same relationship because they would actually be identical, not correlates.

Under idealism, a mind is identical to its objects of perception? That doesn't make any sense. That would mean the mind is changing as its objects of perception are.

Oh no. Not again.

Geoff, I'm obviously confused about the proof.

Welcome to lifegazer territory.

Clearly the continuity of the conversation has been lost.

There are plenty of mindless objects. Not sure where that came from.

It's idealism. Everything is mind, isn't it?

A neural system that's not alive; of course you can. This is the necessary vs sufficient problem.

Obviously I don't understand what idealism says. I thought every object was a product of mind.

Is this the correct definition from http://www.filosofia.net/materiales/rec/glosaen.htm:

idealism
the view that the existence of objects depends wholly or in part on the minds of those perceiving them or that reality is composed of minds and their states. There are many varieties of idealism, ranging from Plato's doctrine of independently existing ideas or forms to Berkeley's subjective idealism and Hegel's absolute idealism. Kant attempted to combine empirical realism with transcendental idealism.

Then I read the article at Wikipedia and I have no idea what idealism says.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I printed the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on zombies. I'll have a read this weekend.

~~ Paul