Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Defined with a new pair of opposites? Relevant and irrelevant. I forget. Was that Skinner or Marx?

Marx. All five of them.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Um...Geoff...sorry, but your interpretation of my argument, and my actual argument, are enough different that I think I can safely say your "nothing to do with" claim is false. You have never demonstrated an understanding of my position; why start now?

You really do not know when to stop, do you?

There is nothing wrong with my "interpretation" of your argument. I asked you a very specific question in order to expose its weakness, and that is exactly what happened. You have spent this entire thread claiming that the linguistic dualism I depend on to start my argument is a bias all of my own and that if only I took your advice I could transcend that dualism and enter the 21st century. But you refused to explain what your solution was, apart from going on about "behaviour" instead of any of the dualisms. After being asked, three times, to explain what, exactly, your position was, it turned out there was a glaring contradiction right in the middle of it. For a start, your term "behaviour" is split into "observable by one" and "observable by many" in exactly the same way as all the other dualisms. So I asked you to clearly specifiy what made these two things different to the other dualisms. You kept on saying I didn't understand. Eventually, you very clearly specified the following: "Subjective/Objective and mind/matter both make claims about ontology. Private/public does not." At that point, Mercutio, chops, your argument fell to pieces. If your answer is correct, then your two new terms have nothing to do with the zombie argument, by definition. If your answer is incorrect then your reason for claiming that your two new terms are different to the old dualisms turns out to be false, and you have effectively admitted that you can't avoid the dualisms either.

My claim, if you wish to call it that, is simply that yours is...what's the word? less than wrong...less than silly...ah...irrelevant.

So why have you gone to such great lengths to try to debunk it? Articulett is irrelevant. That is why I don't answer her posts.

if indeed it makes a huge difference, then I will gladly capitulate. Please tell me what difference it makes.

Your argument collapses, as described above, in bold type.

Please tell me even one thing that your theory allows us to do that we cannot do without it. Even one.

Answered at length, in previous posts.

Please, if you are going to use quotes...point out where I say "the underpinnings of ontology". Otherwise someone might get the idea that you are putting words in my mouth to compensate for your misunderstanding of what I actually do say. You have not listened carefully yet; forgive me if I doubt that you will start now.

Oh, I have been listening very carefully, mercutio.

Hmm...my own claims, or my response to yours? Which branches? Metaphysics and epistemology, I suppose.

Right. So you have now claimed the following

a) "Subjective/Objective and mind/matter both make claims about ontology. Private/public does not."

AND

b) "My claims have relevance to metaphysics....."

You are directly contradicting yourself. First you claim that the critical difference between your two new terms and the others (which you claim "presuppose dualism", a metaphysical position) is that they make no claims about ontology (a branch of metaphysics). You then directly contradict your self and claim that what you are saying is relevant to metaphysics.

Mercutio, at what point are you going to realise you have lost the argument?

What I find amusing is that when I google "branches of philosophy", I get major sites proclaiming 5, 13, 22, 10, 30 ...distinct branches of philosophy. Enough, easily, so that no matter what answer I give it will be inadequate.

Your answer was just fine. You are both making claims about ontology and not making claims about ontology. My position is both relevant and irrelevant. Your logical trousers are around your ankles.

My point is ... you have made fairly grandiose claims based on "natural language" that (surprise!) support your "neutral monism" philosophy, and you have attacked other views.

That will be your (new) point, will it? The old one went flump.

Your own view, though, is buttressed by assumptions inherent in the language you choose (conspicuous by its absence in the language you reject).

That claim was just debunked. You have just demonstrated to the board that your choice of language either suffers from exactly the same dualism, or is quite irrelevant to this argument. QED.

Your view is a house of cards.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You support it by assumption of language, by dismissal of views that do not support it (whether logical or not), and by redefinition of terms used by those who disagree with you.

I let you define your terms all on your own. I did not pull your logical trousers down. They fell down on their own because they were not held up by anything. Don't blame me for the failure your own illogical position.

If your view had merit, you would not need to do this. You are dishonest in your interpretations of others' views, or ignorant to such a degree that understanding is impossible. Your choice.

The audience will judge that for themselves.

Now that you have seen a way out of arguing with me, you may well go on to claim that none have toppled your worldview. Fine...if you can do so without a little voice haunting you with "but this is dishonest"...then go ahead. Please, though, do not be so dishonest as to claim victory. You really don't want me showing up in all your threads, do you?

I am never dishonest, Mercutio.

Geoff.

 

[Darat]

UCE - Is an apple different when there is only one apple compared to when there are a dozen apples?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

UCE - Is an apple different when there is only one apple compared to when there are a dozen apples?

No, but that is a different case. One apple does not relate to many apples in the same way that subjective relates to objective. But "observable only by me" does equate to subjective and "observable by all" does equate to objective. Furthermore, if mercutio denies that this is the case, then his terms, by definition, have nothing to to with ontology, making them irrelevant to this debate. And if he accepts that this is the case, then we are back to the linguistic dualism he claims he can avoid and that I am "assuming". At this point, Mercutio's position collapses.

 

[Darat]

No, but that is a different case. One apple does not relate to many apples in the same way that subjective relates to objective.

...snip...

Don't you see that you are making an assumption here? (And lets not be concerned about whether your assumption is "correct" or not that's not the issue.)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Don't you see that you are making an assumption here? (And lets not be concerned about whether your assumption is "correct" or not that's not the issue.)

I'm not making an assumption, and the fact that it is "correct" is what makes it not an assumption. And as I previously stated, even if this so-called "assumption" is wrong, Mercutio's position still collapses. His means of distinguishing his terms from mine (which "assume dualism") is, he says, that his terms make no ontological claims. If this is the case, then he's talking about pyschology and what he says is irrelevant to this debate, by his definition. If this is not the case, then his terms are as dualistic as everybody-elses, falsifying his claim that the dualism is avoidable and assumed by me. On the contrary, it is unavoidable (because even he cannot avoid it) and therefore not an assumption.

 

[Darat]

I'm not making an assumption, and the fact that it is "correct" is what makes it not an assumption. ...snip...

This makes it very difficult to discuss anything with you that you don't agree with - you seemingly will not put aside your conclusions and beliefs to even discuss a different way of looking at something.

Your assumption is that "objective" (as you define it) and "subjective" (as you define it) are two distinctly different "things", this is just an assertion from you since you cannot prove it. (Again it does not matter if your assertion is true or not that is not the point of this discussion.)

Until you are willing to enter the discussion and put your assumptions to one side you will not actually be addressing Merc's arguments/claims/opinions/philosophy (whatever you want to call it) you will be merely restating your assumptions and assertions.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but only by one person! The dualism has gone nowhere. It's still there, just like it always will be.

So, what are you saying ? That the dualism present in language means there IS dualism, or does it fit into your "neutral monism" somehow ?

To transcend the dualism, you need ONE TERM which captures the essence of both. Not two.

Why would you use ONE TERM to describe two physical things that are distinct ? Remember my flashlight example ? The beam of light is NOT the flashlight, but it's wholly dependent upon it. Why would you drop the term "beam of light" ?

 

[Belz...]

The role of the observer. Whether there is an observer. The relationship between before and after the collapse of the wave function.

You ARE aware that the wave function is simply a representation of our lack of knowledge about the particle's whereabouts, aren't you ?

How can science objectify things which are observable only by me?

It can't. However, there's precious little, now, that you could claim science cannot spot in your brain when you think it. Although it's not the same thing as having your POV, it would be a simple matter, conceptually, and unless you're right about how the brain stores data, to interpret this neural information in a way that a computer could create a visual, etc. representation of it for all to experience, either on a computer screen or via some form of brain-to-brain interface.

 

[Belz...]

The words were in use before dualism was defined.

But the concept existed, still. As far as I can tell dualism has been lurking for thousands and thousands of years.

Plus I just like to write because it pisses geoff off because he wants this thread to be about his isms and why materialism just doesn't make any sense and his ism does.

I prefer A-Ism myself.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I know I'm going to hate myself for venturing into this again, but......

1) The claim is correct.

If the claim is correct, then the behaviourism you are describing is a pyschological theory. It is a claim about what the legitimate study area is for psychology. It is a claim that is disputed by some people, including by Hyparxis. But it is not disputed by me on the grounds that arguments within the field of psychology are not my concern, certainly not in a thread about metaphysics. But if this is the case then I am deeply mystified why you keep posting about it in a thread about metaphysics. It has nothing to do with metaphysics, as you say. So why is it relevant to this thread?

2) The claim is incorrect.

If the claim is incorrect then the behaviourism you are describing is a metaphysical theory that has been debunked many times from Berkeley, via Kant to Heidegger and Wittgenstein.

You are defending (1), yes? If so, then why do you think it is relevant to this discussion?

Heidegger would contend that this is intimately relevant to the discussion. One cannot understand Being without understanding the nature of the being that asks the question "what is Being?". He never emerged from that original project of trying to understand Dasein.

It is one of the oldest of philosophical issues -- Know Thyself.

But even there I think you reach too far because Merc isn't even trying to provide a complete view of who or what we are, but only an approach to asking questions in the first place.

 

[hammegk]

That is entirely the opposite of Merc's point! He does not construct "a new pair of opposites".

Of course not; he just re-named the usual suepects, that being mind/body.

Is an apple different when there is only one apple compared to when there are a dozen apples?

You and articulett should start a thread to discuss whatever you wish.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course not; he just re-named the usual suepects, that being mind/body.

No, he didn't.

If you want to posit a dualism in this approach it can be found in the distinction between whatever the thing we call matter actually *is* and the actions that matter performs. We don't seem to have a problem in seeing a thing and an action as part of a dualistic pair, however. Action is not generally considered a separate substance.

The distinction Merc makes is between the way that actions are viewed. One type of action (behavior) is viewable by only one individual -- thinking, calculation, etc. Other types of action (behavior) are viewable by more than one individual -- and we may communicate what we experience individually through language to create a social reality. There is no dualism in this distinction because these actions (behaviors) are all one thing -- they are simply just actions, verbs (in language).

So this distinction does not simply rename mind and body.

 

[hammegk]

We can agree to disagree. This being a thread discussing ontology, not human behavior, would you care to explain your actual position?

 

[chriswl]

The role of the observer [in QM]. Whether there is an observer. The relationship between before and after the collapse of the wave function. The relationship between QM and consciousness. All of the different interpretations spin around these questions.

The role of the observer in QM is no differnet to his role in Newtonian science. He pushes buttons, pulls levers and makes measurements. The wave function isn't a real thing that "collapses", it is an equation that allows us to calculate the results of experiments. Consciousness is what we assume the observer/experimenter has but this is no different in Newtonian or QM physics.

The only difference is that QM introduces an element of fundamental uncertainty that cannot be removed by simply making more accurate measurements. This doesn't change what science is and has no metaphysical implications. It is merely a minor tweak to the content of our observations.

Does that include Sir Roger Penrose?

Penrose starts out from the belief that mechanistic theories of mind cannot explain our ability to do mathematics (an interpretation of Godel's Theorem that was rejected by Turing and has not been taken seriously since). He then starts speculating about whether quantum events in the mind could explain how we are in fact able to do mathematics. He started looking for the quantum effects to justify his theory about mind, not vice-versa.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hammy, I thank you for asking.

I have no idea what actually *is*. I could guess spirit. I could guess matter. But all I could do is guess. I have absolutely no idea what this stuff we call "matter" *is*. It seems more relational than anything else, but that means that its basis may be something entirely different from what many people seem to think it *is*.

My interest in this and the other threads in which I have participated is not with ontology, but with the question of human consciousness. While this question ultimately devolves into a question of ontology, I do not think that human thought can only be explained at an ontological level as it seems some wish to do. Human thought and human consciousness seem very different to me than whatever *thing* we might call Universal Spirit. Our thinking seems based on representation while the other, if it exists (and I do not discount this possibility in the least) "creates" what we represent with our brains. I think that human thought and human consciousness can be explained by natural processes that do not require us to postulate some extra mode of cognition or whatever we wish to call it.

That does not solve any question of Being. Monism is the only position that makes any sense to me. I have no idea what the nature of the ur-substance is. My guess would be that everything we see around us is a "result" of relations of whatever this "stuff" is, be it thought, spirit, matter, whatever. I really cannot take it any further than that as far as knowledge goes. In general, however, I tend to think of the original stuff as divine. If anything qualifies as "other" I think it is the nature of reality/Being.

*edit to clarify whom I address above*

 

[hammegk]

That position sounds much like what I, naming myself an objective idealist, choose to assume and defend.

 

[Darat]

That position sounds much like what I, naming myself an objective idealist, choose to assume and defend.

Apart from the fact you assert the nature of the "ur-substance"...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This makes it very difficult to discuss anything with you that you don't agree with - you seemingly will not put aside your conclusions and beliefs to even discuss a different way of looking at something.

Your assumption is that "objective" (as you define it) and "subjective" (as you define it) are two distinctly different "things", this is just an assertion from you since you cannot prove it. (Again it does not matter if your assertion is true or not that is not the point of this discussion.)

No. Subjective and objective are widely, normally, generally accepted to be two different things. I am not "assuming" this. If you want to assume the opposite, then the burdern of proof is on you, not me.

Until you are willing to enter the discussion and put your assumptions to one side you will not actually be addressing Merc's arguments/claims/opinions/philosophy (whatever you want to call it) you will be merely restating your assumptions and assertions.

Actually, as I have already explained to you (twice), it doesn't make any difference. Mercutio's position fails, regardless of whether or not his accusation I have "assumed dualism" holds water.

And I'm not going to explain this to you a fourth time.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, what are you saying ? That the dualism present in language means there IS dualism, or does it fit into your "neutral monism" somehow ?

I mean that from our point of view there IS dualism. And yes, that is accounted for by neutral monism.

Why would you use ONE TERM to describe two physical things that are distinct?

You wouldn't. We do not have two physical things which are distinct.

Remember my flashlight example ? The beam of light is NOT the flashlight, but it's wholly dependent upon it. Why would you drop the term "beam of light" ?

It's not a valid comparison. There is no point in pursuing this line of questioning. It's irrelevant.