Materialists......

[hammegk]

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.

F. There is no right order.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

That's my position. The key word is "perceived". What you percieve as physical objects, yep, those are physical. Now cut a hole in your forehead and sit in front of a mirror. See that brain you percieve? The one in the mirror? Is that brain the one that give rise to your mind? Or is it just a representation in your mind of something "out there" that's really your brain? Materialism is committed to the latter, but the latter is NOT something you percieve......

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.

That's the invalid inductive argument that materialists always import into this debate. "Science has shown materialism is probably true, so this suggests a materialistic solution to the mind-body problem is likely to be available. We'll just wait for it."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

That was about it, yes.

 

[DreadNiK]

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.



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



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

Perhaps philosophers are inventing a problem that only they can solve so they can feel important.

A "metaphysical problem". Give me a break.

A conceptual problem will only arise as a result of incohesive or flawed concepts, or limitations language. It isn't a real 'problem' with a solution.

Perhaps you could explain what the problem actually is? And proceed from there?

 

[I less than three logic]

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

So you are saying you cannot provide empirical evidence of any sort to provide an answer to this metaphysical problem? The answer must be a conceptual answer to this conceptual problem. It sounds like your just arguing semantics. You arguing to define concepts, that once defined, have no practical application.

 

[DreadNiK]

One step ahead of ya

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps philosophers are inventing a problem that only they can solve so they can feel important.

Is that supposed to be a response to my post?

A "metaphysical problem". Give me a break.

Is that supposed to be a response to my post, either?

A conceptual problem will only arise as a result of incohesive or flawed concepts...

CORRECT.

It isn't a real 'problem' with a solution.

Depends what you mean by "real". Yes, it's a real problem. It's really a problem.

Perhaps you could explain what the problem actually is? And proceed from there?

I did. I posted a long explanation of the problem. You responded to it with:

Perhaps philosophers are inventing a problem that only they can solve so they can feel important.

and

A "metaphysical problem". Give me a break.

How about actually responding to what I wrote, which was an explanation of the problem?

 

[DreadNiK]

Ok let me put this another way:

A problem generally means that, if the problem remains unsolved, there are some sort of negative consequences, or it wouldn't be a problem, it would just be 'the state of affairs'. In this case, what are the negative consequences of this problem?
















Now that you've done that, try again without using the term "conceptual" or a synonym.

EDIT: And no, you didn't provide an explanation of the problem. You were talking about the problem with the materialists' approach to the problem.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So you are saying you cannot provide empirical evidence of any sort to provide an answer to this metaphysical problem?

Absolutely correct.

The answer must be a conceptual answer to this conceptual problem.

Yes. Neuroscience has already it established, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that what we call "minds" occur concurrently with what we call "brain processes". All that it will ever do is improve its understanding of which brain processes correspond to which parts of minds. But at the point where it perfectly understands what physical thing corresponds to what mental thing it will be not one inch closer to having figured out how minds relate to brains in the first place. It cannot answer this question because the one and only difference between these two "things" is that one is a subjective perspective and one is an objective perspective on one and the very same thing. The ONLY difference is subjective/objective. But the question of the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity is absolutely NOT the sort of question that objective empirical science can ever answer, for the simple reason that science is committed to objectivity as its fundamental premise. Philosophy, on the other hand, in the form of metaphysics, phenomenology and ontology, takes an explanation of the relationship between subjective and objective as it's central problem. So you have two answers. You have an explanation why this is not the sort of problem that science is designed to solve whilst on the other hand, at least three major branches of philosophy are deliberate non-scientific attempts to explain the answer to the problem. The response: "Ugh! Metaphysics!"

It sounds like your just arguing semantics. You arguing to define concepts, that once defined, have no practical application.

Absolutely not. I am not anti-science. Science is great. It's just not universally applicable.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ok let me put this another way:

A problem generally means that, if the problem remains unsolved, there are some sort of negative consequences....

, or it wouldn't be a problem, it would just be 'the state of affairs'. In this case, what are the negative consequences of this problem?

That is a big question, to which I could probably write you a 3000 word essay in response.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/husserl.htm

Now that you've done that, try again without using the term "conceptual" or a synonym.

EDIT: And no, you didn't provide an explanation of the problem. You were talking about the problem with the materialists' approach to the problem.

The problem can be stated in a hundred different ways: Why do you have a mind? Why was dualism invented? Why do we experience the world dualistically? Why are there two perspectives? Why isn't everyone a zombie? How could Mary the colour-blind scientist know what red looks like from reading a book? What are qualia?

It is all the same question, over and over and over again. Why do we have two concepts for one thing?

What is the relationship between subjective and objective?

Derrida's version of the answer....

http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=122

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just as a further clarification....

The problem can be explained even more simply than above. It's about the relationship between subjective and objective which itself turns out to be a localised case of a more general relationship between all binary oppositions.

That relationship is this:

0 = 1 + -1.

Or perhaps....

That's the strange thing about philosophy. From Lao Tsu to Hegel to Derrida, the answer has always been the same.

 

[DreadNiK]

Could you please answer the question I posed.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Could you please answer the question I posed.

Which question do you think I haven't answered?

 

[lifegazer]

Hello Geoff. Just wanted to pass-on my regards.
... However, I'm struggling to understand what you're doing here. We both know that idealistic arguments are wasted here, except as a court for practising one's forearms & backhands, so to speak.
... But what bugs me is that you're not even close to linking any of this wasted effort to your ultimate belief - that everything is, in fact, 'Nothing'.

You're wasted here Geoff. You need to find individuals who are willing to discuss your ultimate conclusion. You shouldn't be wasting so much time on individuals who refuse to differentiate between their experience and what might be real beyond their experience. You have no chance of intelligently discussing that conclusion of yours, here, except with a small handful of individuals.

Whatever... just wanted to pop in and say hi.

 

[Piscivore]

Whatever... just wanted to pop in and say hi.

Good to hear from you, man. I was worried something bad had happened to you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Geoff. Just wanted to pass-on my regards.
... However, I'm struggling to understand what you're doing here.

There's lots of things you struggle to understand.

We both know that idealistic arguments are wasted here, except as a court for practising one's forearms & backhands, so to speak.

I'm not an idealist.

... But what bugs me is that you're not even close to linking any of this wasted effort to your ultimate belief - that everything is, in fact, 'Nothing'.

?

Yes, you're struggling to understand. That's one of the binary oppositions I have just been talking about. As is the one between idealism and materialism.

You're wasted here Geoff. You need to find individuals who are willing to discuss your ultimate conclusion.

Thanks all the same, but I'm not sure you are a person from whom I'd take advice on, well, anything at all.

You have no chance of intelligently discussing that conclusion of yours, here, except with a small handful of individuals.

Possibly, but you aren't one of them.

Whatever... just wanted to pop in and say hi.

Hi.

 

[lifegazer]

Good to hear from you, man. I was worried something bad had happened to you.

Don't read the press man. I'm fine & dandy. Nice to see you too... I remember you.

 

[RandFan]

Don't read the press man. I'm fine & dandy. Nice to see you too... I remember you.

Hi lifegazer. Good to see you back and it is good to hear that you are doing well.

RandFan

 

[hammegk]

The only problems you will face in philosophy are logical ones as you attempt to defend the coherency of your worldview.

Materialism provides a logically consistent and defensible worldview; if you agree "god" cannot exist, materialism is for you. Leaving any hint of the possibility of "god" opens the door to illogical dualism. That is, if it effects or affects reality, it's made of the same stuff reality is made of, and matter/energy is what you have chosen to have faith in. One name for what I so far find as equally logical and defensible is the choice objective idealism. Will and intent are also difficult concepts to associate with matter/energy in any usual meaning of 'physical matter', imo difficult but less so with idealism.

LOL. I believe I've confused myself ...



Hmm. Hi, lifegazer.

 

[Z]

Hello Geoff. Just wanted to pass-on my regards.
... However, I'm struggling to understand what you're doing here. We both know that idealistic arguments are wasted here, except as a court for practising one's forearms & backhands, so to speak.
... But what bugs me is that you're not even close to linking any of this wasted effort to your ultimate belief - that everything is, in fact, 'Nothing'.

You're wasted here Geoff. You need to find individuals who are willing to discuss your ultimate conclusion. You shouldn't be wasting so much time on individuals who refuse to differentiate between their experience and what might be real beyond their experience. You have no chance of intelligently discussing that conclusion of yours, here, except with a small handful of individuals.

Whatever... just wanted to pop in and say hi.

Hi, pal!

So... your previous post was...

You're seeing the last of lifegazer. But not necessarily the last of me. If you see me again, you will know that lifegazer was right.

Since that wasn't the 'last of lifegazer', what does this mean?

How did that retreat go? Did you save the God within yourself? Or did they find you better meds this time?

Anyway, it should be interesting to see what approach you try this time.

ETA: Please tell me you weren't thinking that 6/6/06 was supposed to be the end of the world, or something...