Materialists......

[Robin]

Here we go:

Premise: We can clearly, consistently and easily distinguish between mental and physical concepts/predicates/characteristics.

And yet if I ask you what you mean by “physical” when you use it in this context you will tell me that you cannot.

You will tell me that you will answer the same if I ask you 50 times.

You will say that you are tired of telling me that you cannot provide a definition of “physical” in this context.

And yet, and yet you can clearly, consistently and easily distinguish between mental and physical concepts/predicates/characteristics.

Even though you assert explicitly that you do not have even a shred of an idea of what you mean by “physical” in this context.

But I am the Energiser Battery. Here we go again:

What is your definition of physical as you are using it in this premise?

 

[lifegazer]

As for Metaphysics in the sense of the answers we seek to find about our realtionship to reality, we all carry around a worldviews that involve assumptions.

And why is this not an assumption?

It's fine to have Materialism, Idealism, or Netural Monism as your working Metaphysic. Just beware when it makes demands that diminish the quality of your living or claims a certain aspect of your being is wrong.

One's quality of living is dependent upon what one aspires to have within the experience of living... which is dependent upon how one views existence, or whether one even cares to have a view.

watch out for a fear based position.

There's plenty of love-based ones.

Someone might believe in the parental God because that gives them a feeling of security.

Or for other reasons which you have not grasped.

My college Physics professor was a Theist,

Physics isn't the essence of rationale.

but he confessed to me that though believing in God gave him some comfort in some ways, he feared belief in supernatural beings because they could interfere with the course of the physical world and leave him without confidence in the laws of nature.

What are the laws of nature?
They merely describe the order present amongst the sensory-appearance of the world.
The laws of nature did not create the world - they are part of it. They too are part of that which one can observe.

A strickly materialistc-reductionistic-deterministic worldview can utterly rule out freak events that inspire woo-woo.

Stop pretending that you're serious and open-minded. You're just being diplomatic about the way you preach your love for science and the reality of the world that you experience.

It clears the table of all spiritual considerations so one is safe from religion.

Being safe from religion doesn't equate to being "safe" from the actual existence of a creator-God.

(I'm not a Theist, I'm not assigning any value to being one. Theists need to grow up.)

That's a value statement.

(Again: in a nutshell, being spiritual is being a compassionate person.)

Not so. Being spiritual is not desiring all that is physical since one recognises the reality of something underlying the physical experience.

Beware anything that cannot be questioned.

Be aware that this includes atheism and science as the god of truth.

And get rid of the smug routine.

 

[Robin]

This underlying premise of yours clearly contains your conclusion. I am sorry you do not see it.

As I have pointed out a number of times. He seems to be insisting that assuming your conclusion is a valid form of reasoning.

Oh, and I had a look through my old textbook and could not find where calling people idiots was a valid form of reasoning. An odd university he attends.

 

[Robin]

Is that some sort of argument-from-authority-by-proxy, because it won't wash. If you think what I wrote was wrong, then you have to tell me what is wrong with it. You have not done so. You have merely declared I am wrong on the basis of an imaginary argument from authority.

Your lecturers are imaginary?

Not a good start. Two different definitions of the set T. Please have another go.

It was obviously a typo, I think you might have picked that up from the context if you were actually trying to follow, I imagine anybody else reading it would have. Nevermind here it is again with the typo fixed:
Your two statements:

"1. A p-zombie has all the physical characteristics of a human being."
"2. A p-zombie is not conscious".

My characterisation:

Set T=the set of all physical characteristics of a human, set S=a p-zombie and a₁ is consciousness. So we have:

1. The set S contains all the members of the set T
2. The set S does not contain a₁

So my step 1 is identical to your step one (just substitute the definitions back to demonstrate this). And my step 2 is identical to your step 2 (substitute again). And they together they constitute a definition of a zombie that assumes the conclusion.

So when you ask "How do you get from step 1 to step 2". That is a question you have to answer, not me. I simply followed your logic.

But apparently I have to get from step one to step 2, but you don't.

OK, I fixed the typo (you really didn't see that?) and demonstrated that my step 1 and step 2 are identical to your step 1 and step 2

Set T=the set of all physical characteristics of a human, set S=a p-zombie and a₁ is consciousness. So we have:

1. The set S contains all the members of the set T
2. The set S does not contain a₁
3. Therefore T does not contain a₁

So, using the same logic:

1. The set of p-prime numbers contains all the members of the set of prime numbers
2. The set of p-prime numbers does not contain the number 7
3. Therefore 7 is not a prime number.


The exact same logic and I have just used it to prove that 7 is not a prime number. That is why assuming your conclusion is considered a fallacy. If you allowed that as a valid construction then you could prove anything

What logic did you use to get from 1 to 2?

(2) doesn't follow from (1). Simple as that.

You have just refuted your own zombie argument.

The statement "2. A p-zombie is not conscious" does not follow from "1. A p-zombie has all the physical characteristics of a human being.". Simple as that.

QED.

 

[Apathia]

And get rid of the smug routine.

Thank You, Lifegazer. I confess I wasn't quite able to follow where you were coming from before, but now I have a much better understanding with your post. Yes, If my postion is one that's giving me a place of smugness, I ought to ask why am I thinking this way and what I'm trying to protect.

I apologise for the arrogance of my statement that Theists should grow up.
It simply comes from my own experience. I was a Theist for many years but outgrew it. I no longer find any reason to believe in a creator God or a metaphysical ream outside our world of experince. I characterize my current way of seeing things as "Nontheist," because I don't dismiss the spiritual aspect of our lives. But for me the scared isn't something apart from amd outside the secular but permeates it. Instead of the Divine being boxed into certain persons, places, rituals, and whatever, Transcndence is everywhere and in every event. Holiness is inexclusive and open.

I also apoligize for my "Shawn of the Dead" remark in your P-Zombie Thread. It was spamish of me. What I should have said is that there's something oddly nowhere going, or so it seems to me, about the whole let's posit a P-Zombie thingly. It seerms like there's paradox in there that keeps slipping around in the shadows. But I haven't followed this lineof argument ot any detail, so I have no more to say on it.

 

[Robin]

Premise: We can clearly, consistently and easily distinguish between mental and physical concepts/predicates/characteristics.

set H = The set of all physical characteristics of a normal human.
set H* = The set of all characteristics of a normal human (M&P).
set Z = The set of all characteristics of a p-zombie.
set C = The set of characteristics of conciousness.

Definition of a p-zombie:

1. The set Z contains all the members of the set H.
2. The set Z does not contain C.

Conclusion:

3. H does not contain C.

OK, so in the definition of H* you have used two undefined variables M and P.

So please restate the argument with these two missing definitions since we cannot evaluate it until we have these.

So to quote right back at you:

Please try again, this time without making mistakes

 

[Robin]

Premise: We can clearly, consistently and easily distinguish between mental and physical concepts/predicates/characteristics.

set H = The set of all physical characteristics of a normal human.
set H* = The set of all characteristics of a normal human (M&P).
set Z = The set of all characteristics of a p-zombie.
set C = The set of characteristics of conciousness.

Definition of a p-zombie:

1. The set Z contains all the members of the set H.
2. The set Z does not contain C.

Conclusion:

3. H does not contain C.

Now another point about this is that it contains a premise, five definitions, a conclusion and nothing else.

While premises, definitions and conclusions are important features of arguments, isn’t it usual for an argument to also contain an argument???? You know, a “connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition”?

If your conclusion is contained entirely in your premise and definitions, isn’t that the very definition of “assuming your conclusion”?

 

[lifegazer]

I apologise for the arrogance of my statement that Theists should grow up.

Noted. I won't thank you for that yet until I observe some sincerity in future posts.

It simply comes from my own experience. I was a Theist for many years but outgrew it. I no longer find any reason to believe in a creator God or a metaphysical ream outside our world of experince.

There could be many reasons for this, including the belief that literalist Christianity is the way to salvation. I only say this because most Christians I meet are literalists... and most atheists I meet have defeated such dorks.
Regardless, know that there are intelligent theists within this world.

I characterize my current way of seeing things as "Nontheist," because I don't dismiss the spiritual aspect of our lives. But for me the scared isn't something apart from amd outside the secular but permeates it. Instead of the Divine being boxed into certain persons, places, rituals, and whatever, Transcndence is everywhere and in every event. Holiness is inexclusive and open.

I see no reason for equating 'nontheism' with spirituality, transcendence or holiness.

I also apoligize for my "Shawn of the Dead" remark in your P-Zombie Thread. It was spamish of me. What I should have said is that there's something oddly nowhere going, or so it seems to me, about the whole let's posit a P-Zombie thingly. It seerms like there's paradox in there that keeps slipping around in the shadows. But I haven't followed this lineof argument ot any detail, so I have no more to say on it.

Irrelevant. I don't care. My comments to you in this thread revolve around your comments in this thread.

Theism is not just a religious point-of-view, but a serious philosophical point-of-view.
What bugs me more than anything, is those people that smugly mock religion via science without realising that God doesn't need religion to exist.

 

[Apathia]

I see no reason for equating 'nontheism' with spirituality, transcendence or holiness.

There's a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that "Nontheism" has some exclusive monopoly on spirituality. I just use that term rather than the common "Atheism" to indicate my affirmation of a spiritual dimension to life. Often it's assumed that Atehists have no spititual lives because of their nonbelief in a theistic God. That's not really the case at all.

I should ask then if you find that spirituality is only for the Theist.
But I guess you already answered that question when you said,

Being spiritual is not desiring all that is physical since one recognizes the reality of something underlying the physical experience.

The Mahayana foundations of the Zen tradtion don't posit an ultimate reality behind or underlying experience. On the other hand the sect of Orthodox Japanese Esoteric Buddhism (Koyasan Shingon) does teach a personal Cosmic Buddha (Dainichi Noryai), embodying the Buddha Nature. it comes very close to a Theist position, though not in the Creator God sense. More like Panentheism.

It seems from reading your posts, you thought I was a staunch Materialist defending the "materiallistic-reductionistic-deterministic" interpretation of Science. The closest metaphysic you can pin on me is a denial of a metaphysical ultimate and absolute. And even there I'm not much dogmatic.
I don't say that Materialism is illogical, or that Idealism is Illogical. Nor do I say that I don't have assumptions my worldview uses. I just get uncomfortable when people take a Metaphysical postition in ways that are hurtfull. I don't deny that there are intelligent Theists in the world. There are people more intelligent than me who hold a theistic spirituality as well as ones who hold other expressions of spirituality.

My post you took exception to was, except for that unfortunte "Theist's grow up thing," my sincere reply to Belz. I hope that I don't have to prove my sincerity to you by making no more comments in this thread other than blands that you and everyone else can agree with.

 

[Apathia]

Disclaimer: This post I made earlier in the thread is not to be taken as an expression of my own opinions, but what an individual coming to this forum with a Idealistic metaphysic and an Introspective methodology can expect to hear in reply to her posts. I am not telling Bubo he's unwelcome to express his views. I'm just showing some of the high points he will meet in advance.
Also I'm giving opportunity for various people to say, "Hey, wait a minute. That's not what I said!" Belz gave it a very good reply in that respect.

A friendly piece of advice to Bubo. If you have read through the most of the thread from the OP (A task that takes many days of dedication), and now read Belz's response above, you will understand the futility of talking Introspection as a source of knowledge in the JREF Forum.

I sympathise with your approach due to some Buddhist background, and see it's value in a different context.
However, here you will find a number of obstacles to asserting anything of Subjective knowlwedge.

1. Things that you can assert based on your subjective knowledege are in the Skeptical context less than anecdotal. What one person and one person only can witness, has no Scientific value.

2. Metaphysics is either informed by or it's assertions proven by an emperical method or its statements have no meaning whatsoever.

3. The majority position here is that "Mind," "Self-Consciusness," and any other words you use in reporting your introspection are functional to language only and refer to no reality outside of discourse except to physiological events in the brain. Brain and mind are just two words for the same thing and it's made of matter. The OP is incorrect in saying a distinction can be made between them. (The consitant misreading of what the OP said by the majority of the posters in this thread still has me shaking my head in disbelief.)

4. If you insist you have a self-consciouness and that its significant enough to claim as real and worthy of Philosophical discourse, someone here will insist to you that Self-Consciouness is not only an illusion but is delusional and that you are just a piece of meat. Not that anyone here who says that relates to their loved ones and themselves that way. Belz doesn't switch off his prefrontal lobe stop thinking about himself and his life least he tread on the dangerous ground of religion and its wicked sister, Philosophy. He's not a P Zombie or whatever that thing is. This is just what he must say to drive home his point.

5. The point is that the majoriity worldview of the major posters in this thread, excepting JustGeoff & Hammy, (I'm not one of the majors and my preferences are not being argued here.) is Materialism and that Materialism is, if not proven by Science, so integral to Science that it cannot be questioned. Metaphysical arguments can't dislodge it. If you try to use arguments based on Introspection, that's worse than going Metaphysical.

This post is just a disclaimer. Welcome to the JREF Forum and proceed at your own risk. Prepare to be fired upon! LOL

 

[Bubo]

Thanks for the disclaimer. Actually, I have always found that the intellect is best nourished through conflict, so I am sort of looking forward to "duking it out."

I would like to address your points individually, but my meat-processor is a little overheated right now and requires some cooling. 'Nite.

 

[articulett]

JustGeoff's a "Philosopher" what do you expect I really don't know why you waste your energy . Best response possible:

"Yes JustGeoff, your right. Thanks. Bye."

As for the mind-body problem - everything I've seen and know indicates "brain" and "mind" should be one in the same, and that ultimately free will is just an illusion. It's just that it's a VERY persistant illusion.

Articulett / Mercutio what thoughts do you have on this?

I agree. And I am well aware that justgeoff will not change. I just enjoy venting...I am female, and I grew up in a world where very many men are very confident of their views--I thought there was a reason for this...like maybe they understood something that I didn't (they do love to assert how stupid I am and how arrogant I am to ask questions). The problem was, everyone had very different views--and I just wanted the facts...so I could develop my own views--because everyone is convinced of their rightness it seems, but they don't agree with eachother.

My field is genetics...and this whole dishonest ID debate has made me ultra aware of people passing off BS as "truths". I understand where their ignorance is and where they are lying to others and themselves. And I have just developed an extreme distaste for the spreading of ignorance--especially when people use bits and pieces of science and semantics to spin a false truth that they then pass off as "higher truths". It's elitest and divisive--it doesn't serve anyone except the pedant who comes to think of himself as a wise guru while resorting to ad hominen attacks of people who actually have the facts.

In real life I am small and fear true believers of all types because of their imperviousness to logic--I rarely speak out, because I fear the consequences. But online I get a chance to vent--and to strike back at those spreading fuzzy untruths while calling those interested in the facts--"arrogant", "illogical", "p-zombies" and "stupid'. I think "faith" is a bad thing--a shortcut to thinking, and I think it's important to spread that message. I dislike the labels used to divide people, and I like knowing the way that people (including myself) can be fooled. I really value the lessons I've learned from JREF and James Randi, and I'm tired of semantic games used to villainize those bold enough to point out that "the emporer isn't wearing any clothes". I find the facts so much more useful and fascinating then fuzzy mysticism. I know it's not as easy and fun as eternal souls and mystical "clues"--but reality just doesn't really care about what humans think and it smacks of egotism to imply that it does.

 

[PenguinWarrior]

You mean "If I assume my conclusion is true, then....."

Well...no, but I can see how you'd think that. In fact, what I mean is that you are doing that, saying "If materialism is false, then materialism is false". Because unless you assume materialism is false, you cannot be sure that 1. and 2. do not contradict each other, and if you can't be sure 1. and 2. are non-contradictory then you can't draw any conclusions that assume both 1. and 2. are true.

Now think about the logic before you assume your conclusion. P-zombies are indeed incompatible with materialism. However, P-zombies remain conceptually possible. This isn't a problem for P-zombies. It is a problem for materialism.

Have a of your own. They are ONLY conceptually possible if you KNOW materialism is false.

That is a valid question and it is answered in detail in Nagels six-page paper. Please read it:

OK, later. I can't promise to understand it if he starts using philosophical terms though.

Actually, this is an interesting example. You can imagine this very easily, just as you can imagine p-zombies quite easily. Yet both, I believe, are impossible in reality. In both cases, it is the same conceptual error which results in us being able to readily concieve of something impossible. The reason you can imagine being able to transfer thoughts is because you can easily tell the difference between a mind and a brain and it is not obvious why or how there could be a neccesary connection between them. If this neccesary connection, and the reasons behind it, were intellectually transparent to us then neither p-zombies nor thought-transfer would seem remotely credible.

Um...OK? So how does one render materialism useless (even though it's impossible) and the other doesn't render your metaphysic useless (presumably because it's impossible)? Perhaps it's in that paper, I'll pop off and have a look at that now.

How many years....?

Hello.

Hmmmm. Four or five (And that's just reading this thread! *rimshot*)? When was that programme on British television where they had James Randi do a hot reading, and a psychic do a reading first on an audience member (who he reduced to tears) and then on someone behind a curtain (who he completely failed to read, and so moved off into the audience again)? Directly after that.

Edit: I've read the paper and am unsurprisingly unconvinced by it. Simply because I still believe conceivability and logical possibility are completely unrelated beasties. Plus I notice that everything I've said here has been said by other people overnight, but that's the risk of replying before reading all the new responses I guess.

 

[articulett]

OK, that may have not been a particularly helpful example. The problem is the word "mind", which is so readily turned into "brain" by materialists.

If I say "I feel euphoria", how can you replace the mental predicate with a physical one? I think you can only say "My body/brain was in the physical state we associate with feelings of euphoria". This hasn't replaced the mental predicate. It has just associated it with a physical one.

And if you say "my legs are moving quickly" I am associating "running" with a physical body part. That is not illogical nor am I redundantly turning "running" into "legs" though you seem to be making exactly that claim. Mind refers to perception--mental state; brain refers to matter. Your feeling of euphoria is a mental state--you have a euphoric state of mind. On the physical level we might wonder if you have elevated serotonin or dopamine or maybe some extra electrical activity in your left temporal lobe. We might club you on the head with a bat and we'd know we'd affect your brain matter in a way that would cause your euphoria to disappear. What goes on in the brain affects your perception. We can't feel what you feel, but we can get a good idea what you feel by observing you and asking you and listening to you and doing a pet scan on your brain, etc. I feel nauseated--I am not turning nausea into vomit. I am not experiencing a schism in logic. I am not confused. I think there is plenty of evidence (ever increasing I might add) to support this conclusion.

 

[articulett]

See long Nagel quote above. Even better, read the paper. It's very good.

That is directed at everyone, BTW....we would save a lot of time and words if the main contributors in this thread spent 15 minutes reading that paper. ESPECIALLY ARTICULETT. And Mercutio.

Yes...if we would just take the time to read all the crap you posted, we'd soon be able to learn the great wisdom of how illogical materialism is. Of course, you haven't read what Robin or Darat or anyone has asked you to read--because you are certain you have something to teach all of us p-zombies and you are also certain that you have nothing to learn on the topic. You are not an II sock puppet, are you?

 

[articulett]

OK, that may have not been a particularly helpful example. The problem is the word "mind", which is so readily turned into "brain" by materialists.

If I say "I feel euphoria", how can you replace the mental predicate with a physical one? I think you can only say "My body/brain was in the physical state we associate with feelings of euphoria". This hasn't replaced the mental predicate. It has just associated it with a physical one.

And if you say "my legs are moving quickly" I am associating "running" with a physical body part. That is not illogical nor am I redundantly turning "running" into "legs" though you seem to be making exactly that claim. Mind refers to perception--mental state; brain refers to matter. Your feeling of euphoria is a mental state--you have a euphoric state of mind. On the physical level we might wonder if you have elevated serotonin or dopamine or maybe some extra electrical activity in your left temporal lobe. We might club you on the head with a bat and we'd know we'd affect your brain matter in a way that would cause your euphoria to disappear. What goes on in the brain affects your perception. We can't feel what you feel, but we can get a good idea what you feel by observing you and asking you and listening to you and doing a pet scan on your brain, etc. I feel nauseated--I am not turning nausea into vomit. I am not experiencing a schism in logic. I am not confused. I think there is plenty of evidence (ever increasing I might add) to support this conclusion.

 

[articulett]

Where? All I can see is two responses both of them attempting to address something I hadn't posted?

Oh you silly, he's not here to learn--he's here to teach you how illogical materialism is! Who has time to read when you are busy telling everyone else all the stuff they should be reading?...who has time to respond when you have to insult people and make sure you don't absorb a single word they say? You are not being compliant and cooperative, you know--what a p-zombie and an insane elimitive materialist your are! Why geoff was beyond you at 12 (or at least he was beyond me.) And he's the only realist here (he says so himself.) Why or why can't you just be satisfied with all the deep meaning he's tossing your way? You are really messing up your synchronicity --justgeoff has come before us to unite religion and science, you know. Where is your respect!? Don't tell me you get a kick out of seeing him get disgruntled (I thought I was the only one.)

It's true!

 

[LW]

I have already stated on this board, twice, that this argument, when it is finally understood properly from a logical point of view, ends up in an argument about which type of modal logic you wish to employ (edit: I'm guessing it needs S5?).

And that is an argument that I don't think will lead to any useful result. There is really too much space for opinions in there.

The logic S5 in particular has one axiom that makes it unsuitable for many purposes. Namely, that "If X is possible, then X is necessarily possible". Intuitively this is appealing, but it breaks down if you are examining some system that evolves with time. It states that if something is possible now, then it will be always possible. For example, it is possible that I someday attend my granddaughter's wedding. However, for that to happen I must become a father of a child, something that has yet to happen. S5 would force us to conclude that even if I died without leaving children behind me, it would still be possible for me to attend that wedding.

This is the reason why logics that deal with time don't include that axiom, it would mess up the system to the point of unusability. Of course, there are also situations where S5 is appropriate and useful.

I do not pretend I understand how to choose which scheme of modal logic is legitimately appliable to this (or any other) argument.

The basic rule of the thumb is that you should be able to formulate your interesting property using the logic. Beyond that, it is largely "pick your own favourite". Though, it is useful if the logic in question has a proof system that can be effectively automated so that you don't have to compute all the conclusions by hand but can leave that to some black box. This is important when you get out of the domain of toy problems. (However, I have yet to encounter an example of a problem in philosophical logic that would be at the same time large enough to move out of the "toy problem" category and simple enough that we really could write it down completely.)

Like I said before, I have used mainly temporal logics and then in the context of model checking. This means that I have some system that is expressed as a labeled transition system and I want to check if some properties hold for that particular system. A transition system or a Kripke structure is basically just a collection of states linked together by a transition relation that tells what are the allowed state changes. In addition, each state has a set of propositions attached to it that are true in it. A labeled transition system adds a label for each transition so that we can keep track of our path through the states.

These labeled transition systems are very useful in modeling things. For a practical example, most communication protocols can be easily represented with them. Then we can use a temporal logic to express questions like "Is it possible that this system enters a deadlock?" or "If we suppose that the communication channel is not physically broken, do we finally get an answer for every request that we send?" and throw them to a solver that checks whether the formula is true in the structure and, if appropriate, either gives a path through the system for which the property holds or a path that is a counter example.

 

[articulett]

At least I understand logic.

chortle; guffaw

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK....post #2500 and for me, a combination of the arrival if lifegazer and LW's correct summary of the logical consequences of this argument mean this thread has reached something of a natural conclusion.

As LW says, the argument eventually requires an examination of the modal logic (the logic of neccessity and possibility) which would be required to actually conclude that p-zombies [edit] are possible. And as Paul has confirmed, the argument also depends on complicated arguments about the nature of concievability and possibility. We can go there if anyone really wants to, but I see little point in doing so.

Hyparxis and Bubo also made some recent posts which leave me with little more to say/do than tie up some loose ends.

Then there's lifegazer. What can I say about lifegazer? He's already tried to "anihilate Taoism". Now he's trying to anihilate the p-zombie and he's attacking two mind-mannered-mystical-types as if they were religious crazies, even though he's crazy and they're sane. As LG is trying to anihilate the p-zombie, Mercutio assures us that he is a p-zombie.

I could try to tie up the logical loose ends with Robin, but I can't add anything to what LW has posted. Perhaps I should ask Robin if he agrees with LW, and we could leave it at that because LW's stated position is fine by me.

Belz, I'm sorry I've stopped responding to your posts - at least I haven't put you back on ignore.

If anyone else has got any burning unanswered queries and I don't answer them, please raise them again. I've kind of lost track of all the other sub-discussions that have been going on.

Which leaves articulett.....