Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

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

Heidegger would contend that this is intimately relevant to the discussion.

Sure, but not in the way the Mercutio needs it to be.

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.

Agreed. Although the term "Know Thyself" is associated with theosophy and mysticism rather than anything else.

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.

What he was doing was defending his claims that (a) I assumed dualism by my archaic choice of language and (b) that he didn't. It turned out he could not defend both these claims because doing so involved a blatant logical contradiction. His only way of defending (a) contradicts (b), and vice versa.

 

[Darat]

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.

As I said you just will not put aside your assumptions.

Actually, as I have already explained to you (twice), it doesn't make any difference.

And again you will not drop your assumptions - your "explanations" so far are nothing more then you trying to restate your assumptions/faith/claims in the words Merc uses. You have so far not argued against what Merc meant.

Mercutio's position fails, regardless of whether or not his accusation I have "assumed dualism" holds water.

And what position is that?

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

Why not try for the first time?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

So are you defending old-school ontological behavourism? Are you claiming that minds are ontologically identical to behaviour?

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).

The fact that you have split it into observable-by-one and observable-by-many restores the dualism.

So this distinction does not simply rename mind and body.

It renames subjective and objective.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

OK, if you are going to accuse Penrose of this, then there is no point in me arguing this with you further. We will just have to agree to disagree. I think you have underestimated Penrose.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why not try for the first time?

Post #3162.

 

[Darat]

....snip...
The fact that you have split it into observable-by-one and observable-by-many restores the dualism.

...snip...

Does what an apple is change when there is more then one apple?

 

[Darat]

Post #3162.

Must be the wrong post number as far as I can determine that post does not explain why Merc's "position fails".

Perhaps if you explain to me what Merc's "position" is you may be able to convince me?

 

[hammegk]

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

Assume is better word than assert. And of course I do, as does everyone else who actually considers the question.

You are back to illogical dualism, tacit apparently for most here, or a choice. I'd guess every language -- certainly most -- recognizes the mind(subjective) / body(objective) nature of reality from a human perspective.

Can thought (that word that cannot disappear from our perspective) -- or we could say 'intent' at levels below self-awareness -- ever disappear yet coherence and meaning remain?

A materialist assumes and defends 'yes'; and idealist admits he doesn't know, but assumes and defends the answer "no".

Modern physics leans more and more towards "physical reality" not existing in any form a materialist would recognize as "physical", unless he redines "physical" to meanlessness, and refuses to discuss its' attributes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Must be the wrong post number as far as I can determine that post does not explain why Merc's "position fails".

Perhaps if you explain to me what Merc's "position" is you may be able to convince me?

OK, if you don't understand this then maybe other people do not understand it either.

Mercutio has spent this entire thread claiming that my position is dependent on adopting "prescientific" language which presupposed dualism. My claim has been that the dualism is unavoidable and therefore not the result of an assumption. However, Mercutio never really specified exactly what his own position was or how it escapes the dualism. Eventually, he offered us "behaviour", which was split into "observable only by me" and "observable by everyone". I could not see how this was any different to "subjective" and "objective", so I asked him to spell out very clearly what it was about his terms which avoided the dualism, and his answer caused his position to fall into a logical heap on the floor. He justified the claim that his terms avoided dualism on the grounds that his distinction "does not make any claims about ontology". First of all, this doesn't help him to defend the claim that there is no linguistic dualism - the dualism still appears to be there. But it DOES disconnect his terms from any direct implication of an ontological (or metaphysical) dualism. However, whilst this backs up his claim of not assuming any metaphysical dualism, it destroys the relevance of his argument to this debate - because he has explicitly specified that he is NOT making any claims about ontology. Instead, he is making claims about pyschology. If this is true, then everything Mercutio has posted, based upon his defence of this position (i.e. nearly everything he has said in this whole thread) is based upon a misunderstanding. He claimed to be saying something metaphysical when he wasn't. When I then confronted him with this problem he attempted a U-turn. He then started claiming that he was saying something about metaphysics after all! But this just makes his position even more illogical, because he is now contradicting his previous defence of what makes his terms non-dualistic. He is now claiming his terms are makiing metaphysical claims. This destroys his ability to claim that his dualistic terms are any different to the other dualistic terms, and therefore we are back to the zombie argument which claims there is a linguistic dualism and heads towards metaphysics.

The result that all of his basic claims are now contradicted by other claims he needs to make in order to support them.

 

[President Bush]

Does what an apple is change when there is more then one apple?

You mean to the guy eating the apple ?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It renames subjective and objective.

The whole point of it was to rename subjective and objective so as to jettison the extra baggage that those words connote in our language.

Are you claiming that minds are ontologically identical to behaviour?

Probably not in the way you are using the word "behavior". That is why I have previously used the word "action" and have mentioned that "mind" should be a verb rather than a noun. All of these terms carry baggage with them. Mercutio was only trying to jettison some of the heavily laden terms and replace them with less heavily laden terms so that we can see the problem afresh.

The fact that you have split it into observable-by-one and observable-by-many restores the dualism.

No. It is all one "thing" -- action. The only difference is in the number of observers. This does not change the nature of the subtstance, which isn't really a substance in the first place, since it is an action.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

NB:

Mercutio's real problem is his failure to take on board what Wittgenstein says in the tractatus. On the one hand he wants to "avoid saying anything metaphysical". This is what leads him to claim I have "assumed dualism" and to attempt to define things in such a way as to avoid making the same assumption. And his initial defence actually does this. If all he is doing is making a claim about behaviour, then he has avoided metaphysics. But it also makes his argument utterly irrelevant in the face of the zombie argument, by definition. And when faced with this, his true colours came out. Suddenly a U-turn was performed and he started saying that he wanted to say something about metaphysics after all. Why? Because he wants to defend materialism. So there is a deep contradiction in his whole approach which has finally been exposed. He wants to claim he has "gone beyond metaphysics", as Wittgenstein demands of us. But at the same time he also wants to defend metaphysical materialism. That is a straightforward contradiction. He can't have it both ways.

I am glad this has come to light because it is an error I have seen many times on this board and it doesn't usually get exposed like this. If you want to claim that all metaphysics is meaningless, you cannot also defend metaphysical materialism. Yet this is exactly what several people try to do, from Stimpson J Cat onwards. You must make your mind up. Either you want to avoid saying anything metaphysical or you must choose a metaphysical position and defend it. You can't claim "all metaphysics is nonsense" and then try to defend materialism. It doesn't work.

 

[Mercutio]

This destroys his ability to claim that his dualistic terms are any different to the other dualistic terms,

..."his dualistic terms"? Private and public are not dualistic, as has been explained to you.

This was a very nice deconstruction of the strawman you attribute to me. I think it also serves as good evidence that you do not, despite protestation, understand my position. Fortunately, others here do. Unfortunately, your unwillingness to reconsider your own assumptions stands between you and understanding.

Marge: I'll just have a cup of coffee.
Bartender: Beer it is.
Marge: No, I said coffee.
Bartender: Beer.
Marge: Cof-fee.
Bartender: Be-er.
Marge: (spells) C-O...
Bartender: (spells) B-E...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

..."his dualistic terms"? Private and public are not dualistic, as has been explained to you.

Are you making claims about ontology or are you not, Mercutio?

You have some balls to post some more in this thread.

This was a very nice deconstruction of the strawman you attribute to me.

That will be why you haven't explained what is wrong with the deconstruction, then.

It is an accurate deconstruction of your position, because your position is logically indefensible.

I think it also serves as good evidence that you do not, despite protestation, understand my position.

Then explain what was wrong with my assessment. You can't just claim "You don't understand! You don't understand!" and not actually explain what it is I am supposed to have misunderstood. You really do not know when to stop digging, do you?

Fortunately, others here do. Unfortunately, your unwillingness to reconsider your own assumptions stands between you and understanding.

Thanks for the contentless post, Mercutio. I have given a detailed description of precisely what is wrong with your position. You apparently have no answer to this, so you are waving your arms at the cheerleaders instead.

Geoff's prediction: Mercutio's next post will not contain any more substance than this one did. Instead, there will be loud protestations that I "don't understand him". There will be no explanation of what exactly I don't understand.

I am not going to let you off the hook, Mercutio. Not at this point of this thread.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Marx. All five of them.

I don't know, man, are you sure you want to include Zeppo in this? He always struck me as more of an Aristotelian pantheist. Especially in Monkey Business, the way he ran about that ship........

 

[Apathia]

I still see it that if Merc remains in the Public Behavior/Private Behavior way of speaking, he's clear of any association with Dualism or the Monisms.

Merc,

My two questions are:

1. Is your contribution to this metaphsical discussion that because UE uses what we might be called "folk language," he is doomed to posit a Dualism whether he calls it by that name of not, and by using your language or frame he could avoid that altogether and have any Metaphsical Monism he likes? Is your contention just that his argument is flawed that way?

2. Is your contribution to this metaphysical discussion that apart from whatever argument UE may be using, it's all silly and irrelevant, because your Public Behavior/Private Behavior superceeds and replaces folk and all other modes of speaking, making metaphisical discussion obsolete and a waste of time?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I still see it that if Merc remains in the Public Behavior/Private Behavior way of speaking, he's clear of any association with Dualism or the Monisms.

I accept that. However, this has the consequence of making it useless as a defence against the zombie-style arguments against materialism. Technically, to be consistent, he needs to argue that metaphysics itself is meaningless, and that includes materialism. But he cannot quite bring himself to do this consistently. He wants to detach himself from metaphysics on the one hand and defend metaphysical materialism on the other. This simply cannot be done.

Merc,

My two questions are:

1. Is your contribution to this metaphsical discussion that because UR uses what we might be called "folk language," he is doomed to posit a Dualism whether he calls it by that name of not, and by using your language or frame he could avoid that altogether and have any Metaphsical Monism he likes? Is your contention just that his argument is flawed that way?

2. Is your contribution to this metaphysical discussion that apart from whatever argument UR may be using, it's all silly and irrelevant, because your Public Behavior/Private Behavior superceeds and replaces folk and all other modes of speaking, making metaphisical discussion obsolete and a waste of time?

Who is UR?

 

[nosho]

The only definitions you will accept are those which will, a priori, support your view.

Where have I seen someone do that before?

 

[Apathia]

Who is UR?

Sorry, bad typo. I've corrected it.

It's true that Merc has gone on to say some things indicative of a Materialistic
metaphysic, though his stated position is that he's not a Materialist. For the time being I'll go with his stated position. The materialist seeming content may be related to my first question above, if he sees it that asserting the difference between mental and physical content as we normally tend to do can't help but be an assertion of Ontological Dualism, his wording to avoid that and Hammy's
Objective Idealism, may have him unintetionally stepping into the Materialistic stuff.

Of course if his answer to my second question is yes, then he's stepping into stuff for no good reason.

 

[Belz...]

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*.

Isn't asking what it "is" assuming that it's "made" of something else ? To the best of my knowledge, and to the extent that I understand current physics, everything's made of chaos.

What's chaos made of ? Does that question even make sense ?