Materialists......

[Z]

Yes, but what about the quality of those case studies?

[/smarta$$edcommentary]

 

[hammegk]

This claim is instantly refuted by neurological case studies.

As that claim by you is instantly refuted by noticing that it adds nothing to the discussion, to the dismay of materialists everywhere, but is just more "assume it true" followed by "see! that proves it true".

Just can't get your head around that problem, can you?

 

[rocketdodger]

It always involves words like "inconceivable" or that funny word Ian uses. .

You mean "qualia?"

 

[DreadNiK]

As that claim by you is instantly refuted by noticing that it adds nothing to the discussion, to the dismay of materialists everywhere, but is just more "assume it true" followed by "see! that proves it true".

Just can't get your head around that problem, can you?

How does 'noticing that it adds nothing to the discussion' refute a claim? And how does refuting a claim 'add nothing to the discussion'?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just can't get your head around that problem, can you?

No.

And it's so easy.

I just had to sit an exam on Sartre, Derrida and Levinas. They are a problem worth not getting you're head around. Even Heidegger's "Worldhood of the World" is comprehensible compared to Sartre. "The Other makes me feel like the world is disappearing from me, down a drainhole". :

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How does 'noticing that it adds nothing to the discussion' refute a claim?

Because the claim is irrelevant, because the claim itself is based on purely circular reasoning.

And how does refuting a claim 'add nothing to the discussion'?

Because we've heard it several thousand times before.

Materialism is true, therefore materialism is true. See? Evidence!

 

[I less than three logic]

Because the claim is irrelevant, because the claim itself is based on purely circular reasoning.



Because we've heard it several thousand times before.

Materialism is true, therefore materialism is true. See? Evidence!

Neither of those answers made any sense in terms of the questions posed.

“How does 'noticing that it adds nothing to the discussion' refute a claim?”

First, noticing that a claim adds nothing to the discussion, does not inherently refute the claim. The claim may still be completely true, it may just be irrelevant to the discussion, and is therefore merely wasted words. A Blu-ray disk player uses a laser with a wavelength of 405nm, while a standard DVD player uses a laser of 650nm in wavelength.

Second, what exactly is the circular logic being used?

And how does refuting a claim 'add nothing to the discussion'?

The only time refuting a claim will add nothing to the discussion if the claim itself added nothing to the discussion.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Second, what exactly is the circular logic being used?

"Materialism is true, therefore materialism is true. See? Evidence!"

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"If the Bible is true, then God made the world in seven days. See? Evidence!"
"If Materialism is true, then minds are nothing more than brain processes. See? Evidence from neuroscience!"

 

[hammegk]

And to me it seems so immediately obvious. What am I missing that allow some to either fail to see it, (or pretend otherwise )?

 

[I less than three logic]

"If the Bible is true, then God made the world in seven days. See? Evidence!"
"If Materialism is true, then minds are nothing more than brain processes. See? Evidence from neuroscience!"

Yes, you’ve said that before… Now, please point out where and who said this or made this argument. If neuroscience provides evidence that our experiences are the result of brain processes, then it is not circular logic to say neuroscience provides evidence that our experiences are the result of brain processes.

In science it makes no difference what you thought before the evidence was provided. All that matters is what the evidence tells you. Is it circular logic to say that GPS satellites provide evidence that time dilation occurs at high speeds because it was believed, by some at least (Einstein for example), that time slowed down at high speeds before the satellites were launched and the evidence collected?

 

[hammegk]

We agree that we perceive bodies and brains, and that human consciousness, or consciousness in any animal with a neural system depends on that perceived stuff in the perceived configurations.

Why do you believe your claim that what we perceive is in essence "physical"?

The one thing you could believe most certainly actually exists is "thought", although 'will, not-inert-matter.energy' might be a better word.

Well, I admit that's actually a way to state an idealist's choice.

 

[DreadNiK]

Neither of those answers made any sense in terms of the questions posed.

Yes, you’ve said that before… Now, please point out where and who said this or made this argument.

Take heed.

First, noticing that a claim adds nothing to the discussion, does not inherently refute the claim. The claim may still be completely true, it may just be irrelevant to the discussion, and is therefore merely wasted words. A Blu-ray disk player uses a laser with a wavelength of 405nm, while a standard DVD player uses a laser of 650nm in wavelength.

Second, what exactly is the circular logic being used?


The only time refuting a claim will add nothing to the discussion if the claim itself added nothing to the discussion.

Yes. That is indeed what I was getting at.

 

[hammegk]

How does 'noticing that it adds nothing to the discussion' refute a claim? And how does refuting a claim 'add nothing to the discussion'?

Yeah, I know I take getting used to -- most never do.


His claim made as much sense to this discussion as, say, you asked me how much I weighed, and in answer I held up a fish -- while stating "this is a fish".

 

[jj]

The one thing you could believe most certainly actually exists is "thought", although 'will, not-inert-matter.energy' might be a better word.

And thought is the result of a chemical process in a brain.

So, now where are we?

 

[I less than three logic]

We agree that we perceive bodies and brains, and that human consciousness, or consciousness in any animal with a neural system depends on that perceived stuff in the perceived configurations.

Why do you believe your claim that what we perceive is in essence "physical"?

“Physical” is merely the term coined to represent the perceived properties this stuff seems to incorporate. So far, science has done a fairly good job of describing and categorizing these properties. Like all science, our understanding is far from complete, but the evidence gathered so far and the prospects of future evidence are enough to satisfy my skepticism. Perhaps your criteria are more demanding.

 

[DreadNiK]

Yeah, I know I take getting used to -- most never do.


His claim made as much sense to this discussion as, say, you asked me how much I weighed, and in answer I held up a fish -- while stating "this is a fish".

You take getting used to tolerating.

You've just proved my point for me, amusingly. If I asked you how much you weighed, and you held up a fish -- while stating "this is a fish", me noticing that your claim is totally irrelevant to my question, does not in any way refute the claim, and in fact since you have stated it is a fish you are holding up, then the claim is actually totally correct.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Read ILTL's post.

 

[hammegk]

And thought is the result of a chemical process in a brain.

I'd say, at minimum, electro-chemical, and quantum level effects are involved in ion transfer across synapses.

So, now where are we?

Discussing the essence of what we perceive (or I should say, name) electro-chemistry. We could also discuss what the "perceive" begins to mean at this level of reality.

“Physical” is merely the term coined to represent the perceived properties this stuff seems to incorporate.

Sure, but we are actually discussing what the underlying properties are, and neither perception, nor scientific epistemology provides an answer.

So far, science has done a fairly good job of describing and categorizing these properties.

So far it goes, yup.

Like all science, our understanding is far from complete, but the evidence gathered so far and the prospects of future evidence are enough to satisfy my skepticism. Perhaps your criteria are more demanding.

It would make life easier and more certain if science actually did address ontology. It doesn't, and can't.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I plead guilty to providing a bad -- actually irellevant -- analogy. and don't plan on trying for a better one. Sorry.

The point was and is that Paul's claim was just the circularity argument one more time. "Assume materialism True, now Materialism is proved by .... in this case what we perceive as brain function."

 

[Robin]

I just had to sit an exam on Sartre, Derrida and Levinas.

Oh my God - you have my sympathies.

I guess the only way to pass an exam like that is to put down as many words as possible on the page and hope they are in the right order.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, you’ve said that before… Now, please point out where and who said this or made this argument. If neuroscience provides evidence that our experiences are the result of brain processes, then it is not circular logic to say neuroscience provides evidence that our experiences are the result of brain processes.

True, but the above paragraph contains the words "are the result of", and the argument we are currently having is bypassed by the ambiguity of those three words. "are the result of" is compatible with various metaphysical positions such as supervenience, property dualism and others, as well as materialism. Neuroscience provides evidence that there is a tight correlation between the two, but is absolutely incapable of explaining the relationship between them. The reason it cannot do so is that the relationship between them is conceptual - they are two different conceptual schemas for refering to "the same thing". The problem with the sorts of solutions to the mind-body problem that the materialists believe are going to be available in the future is that it mistakes the conceptual problem which is the mind-body problem for an empirical problem of the sort which can be solved by neuroscience. Actually, there is no real consistency in most materialists on this question - and this is telling. Half of the time, materialists admit there is a problem and claim that neuroscience can solve it in the future, and the other half of the time they claim it is a conceptual problem and try to solve the conceptual problem by claiming that mental things do not exist. All of the time they are wrong. They are wrong in claiming neuroscience can solve the problem, because the problem is conceptual/metaphysical instead of empirical. And they are wrong when they claim that minds don't exist because this solution to the conceptual problem simply doesn't work.

In science it makes no difference what you thought before the evidence was provided.

True. But science cannot answer this question. It is the wrong tool for this job.

All that matters is what the evidence tells you. Is it circular logic to say that GPS satellites provide evidence that time dilation occurs at high speeds because it was believed, by some at least (Einstein for example), that time slowed down at high speeds before the satellites were launched and the evidence collected?

I don't know how many different ways there are to explain this. I shall try another....

The reason I keep comparing this situation to believers in the Bible is because I am trying to shift discussion away from where it currently is, and into an examination of the logic behind the materialistic claims being made. The specific problem is the application of evidence which is not relevant rather than a willingness to confront the actual problem itself. The reason I make the comparison with Christians is that it is obvious to all of us here that this is what happens when you try to debate a creationist about evolution. The fundamental problem - the reason the creationist will never "get it" - is because he has already made his mind up about the creation/evolution debate based upon some other consideration. That can be blind faith or any number of other things but whatever it is, by the time the creationist approaches the creation/evolution debate he has already made his mind up that creationism must be true and no evidence of any sort from evolutionary theory will make a blind bit of difference to him. The underlying logical problem, from the evolutionists point of view, is that the Christian is using an invalid inductive argument (he experiences God, lots of other people believe it, whatever....) to over-ride the actual evidence in the creation/evolution debate. Materialists, when conducting these debates, do exactly the same logical maneuouvre, but they do not see themselves doing it. In their case, the invalid inductive argument involves an inference that materialism is true, based upon the success of empirical science. It is invalid because it is quite impossible for empirical science to provide any evidence whatsover to back up any metaphysical position whatsoever to any extent whatsoever. It is an entirely invalid inductive argument. The conclusion of this argument is then imported into the debates about conciousness in exactly the same way that the creationists import faith in God into the creation/evolution debate. The materialist does not approach the conceptual/metaphysical problem looking for a conceptual/metaphysical answer. Instead, he treats the argument as an annoyance - a loose end to be tied up - what he will NOT do is actually look at the mind/body problem as a conceptual problem in its own right, entirely divorced from empirical science. As soon as the importation of invalid conclusions from elsewhere ceases and the mind/body problem is examined in its own right, this whole debate could move on. But as hammegk pointed out, most materialists just can't get their heads round the fact that this is a metaphysical problem and that science can't fix it.

Geoff