Materialists......

[SuperCoolGuy]

Does whether or not U.S. soldiers murder innocent children in revenge for roadside bombs planted by somebody else have any empirical effect?

By "any empirical effect", do you mean: observable effects or effects that can be experienced? If so, then, sure.

Do we use science to decide whether this is the right thing to do?

If science is: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding, then sure.

We make moral and ethical decisions based on empirical knowledge we obtain through living, experiencing, discussing, analyzing, etc.

Now, I cannot point you to the Journal to refer to quantifiable data regarding empirical effects from roadside bombs, because those effects are darn hard to quantify. They enter the realm of subjectivity, where people's personal experiences, views, and knowledge will determine the effects that are induced by U.S. soldiers murdering innocent children.

It doesn't mean they cannot be quantified. But the process to collect the data would involve some instruments to get inside people's way of thinking, which we simply don't have.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

They enter the realm of subjectivity...

I think you might be right, yes.

 

[Tricky]

Are you seriously asking me what I think the opposite of 1 is?

After I have spent five years repeating: "0 = 1 + -1"?

What do you think I think the opposite of 1 is?

I think that for you (like for most people) it depends on context. You might say something like, "I am but one and they are so many". In that context, "many" is construed to be the opposite of one.

Or you might say, "One vote is not significant. We must see all the votes." In that context, the opposite is "all".

And of course, if you were speaking in binary code, the opposite of 1 would be 0.

Hammy came up with another possiblity. The opposite of "one" is "not one".

Thats what I mean by linguistic opposites. Any of those can legitimately be said to be the opposite of one, yet they are not the same. Thats why I say that although objective is the linguistic opposite of subjective, it does not mean that a thing must be (or can be) totally objective or totally subjective.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

According to binary language, the opposite of 1 is 0.

No, that is On/Off or Yes/No.

According to the English language, it is not terribly straightforward to say that "subjective" and "objective" are opposites.

It maybe a little simplistic, but, if you really want to analyse this from a linguistic perspective then Derrida is your man.

Is it so wrong to say that subjective experiences are built upon objective phenomenon (note that a synonym for objective is "material")?

Not neccesarily wrong, but if you claim "material" is what subjective experiences are composed of you are going to have trouble also claiming it is what the mind-independent external world is composed of. What is material? The objects you actually percieve or the ones that exist independently of your perceptions?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

What is material? The objects you actually percieve or the ones that exist independently of your perceptions?

Okay, maybe I'll learn something here.

Hmmm. What is material? I'll go with number 2.

The ones that exist independently of my perceptions. Go ahead and nail me.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Okay, maybe I'll learn something here.

Hmmm. What is material? I'll go with number 2.

The ones that exist independently of my perceptions. Go ahead and nail me.

Well, normally what we call "material" is the actual world we are experiencing - the object of our perception. See that monitor in front of you? I am talking about that monitor. According to you, that isn't physical at all. That's just a representation in your mind - an object of your perception. "Material", according to your answer, is something else entirely which is external to your mind - it is "the world as it really is". In which case, what sort of thing is the monitor you are percieving?. We have a problem, and the problem can be solved in a number of ways. You can either call the one you are perceiving "qualia", but this leads to major problems for materialists. You can, instead, keep on calling the objects you perceive "material", but then you've got to make up a new word for "the world in itself". This is what Kant did. He called it "noumena" and called the world of mind-and-matter "phenomena" - all of it. Alternatively, there are other positions such as idealism and neutral monism which try to get out of the problem some other way.....

 

[UndercoverElephant]

SCG

Better way of explaining it. Starting from that monitor in front of you - and all of those things like that. When science took off, with Galileo and Newton, it was because they decided they would stop asking "What are those things" and start asking "Are there mathematical laws we can find to describe and predict the behaviour of those things?" This turned out to be a great idea, it works. However, when we are now faced with the problem of providing a scientific explanation of consciousness we run into a problem. You have said "physical/material" refers to the mind-indepent stuff. The whole success of science is based upon the fact that it stopped trying to answer the "what is it?" questions, but now we have a bunch of so-called "materialists" claiming that there is no reason why science can't explain what those things ARE. They have forgotten that science stopped trying to answering questions about Being with Galileo and Newton.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Well, normally what we call "material" is the actual world we are experiencing - the object of our perception.

Whoa. How is we? Materialists, or people in general? Sure, what we perceive is material. Botswana is material, though I am not currently preceiving it. But apparently, it has been perceived by me in some fashion, hence it existts. That's what I meant by things that exist external to my perception. Just because I am not perceiving it now does not mean it does not exist. And, just because I have never perceived something doesn't necessarily mean it does not exist.

See that monitor in front of you? I am talking about that monitor. According to you, that isn't physical at all.

No, it is physical. And yes, I am perceiving it. If I walked to a different room and stopped perceiving it, it would still exist. But the mental image of the monitor is physical.

That's just a representation in your mind - an object of your perception.

No, it is a representation in my mind and it is an object sitting in front of me. Both the representation and the actual object are physically based.

"Material", according to your answer, is something else entirely which is external to your mind - it is "the world as it really is". In which case, what sort of thing is the monitor you are percieving?. We have a problem, and the problem can be solved in a number of ways. You can either call the one you are perceiving "qualia", but this leads to major problems for materialists. You can, instead, keep on calling the objects you perceive "material", but then you've got to make up a new word for "the world in itself". This is what Kant did. He called it "noumena" and called the world of mind-and-matter "phenomena" - all of it. Alternatively, there are other positions such as idealism and neutral monism which try to get out of the problem some other way.....

Well, "qualia", as I understand it, does not exist. Specifically, I believe there is nothing that exists that is ineffable. With sufficient information, knowledge, and communication, anything can be described sufficiently without the need for direct experience.

Because I think everything is material, and thereby knowable, I wouldn't call what I perceive as "noumena".

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

When science took off, with Galileo and Newton, it was because they decided they would stop asking "What are those things" and start asking "Are there mathematical laws we can find to describe and predict the behaviour of those things?" This turned out to be a great idea, it works. However, when we are now faced with the problem of providing a scientific explanation of consciousness we run into a problem. You have said "physical/material" refers to the mind-indepent stuff. The whole success of science is based upon the fact that it stopped trying to answer the "what is it?" questions, but now we have a bunch of so-called "materialists" claiming that there is no reason why science can't explain what those things ARE. They have forgotten that science stopped trying to answering questions about Being with Galileo and Newton.

Now, I see it as now understanding how vague and unuseful the concept of "mind" is as a non-physical entity, and how wrong we've been about dealing with the nebulous concept of "consciousness".

Measuring force, mass, acceleration, relatively easy.

Learning about the brain and how we think, damn hard.

The word "red" came long before "electromagnetic radiation", "wavelength", "rods and cones".

The words "mind" and "consciousness" have been around long before "thalamus" and "neuron".

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Well, "qualia", as I understand it, does not exist. Specifically, I believe there is nothing that exists that is ineffable. With sufficient information, knowledge, and communication, anything can be described sufficiently without the need for direct experience.

As it turns out, experience is rapid, complex communication of lots of information between an external material world and a material brain.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

As it turns out, experience is rapid, complex communication of lots of information between an external material world and a material brain.

This is a debate about the nature of Being and where it [the word "is"] can and cannot be applied. What, exactly, do you mean by "is" in your sentence?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The words "mind" and "consciousness" have been around long before "thalamus" and "neuron".

Indeed. In scientific parlance these things are called "folk psychology" and are called "a wrong theory". They aren't a theory at all. They are words for part of reality.

 

[DreadNiK]

Now, I see it as now understanding how vague and unuseful the concept of "mind" is as a non-physical entity, and how wrong we've been about dealing with the nebulous concept of "consciousness".

Measuring force, mass, acceleration, relatively easy.

Learning about the brain and how we think, damn hard.

The word "red" came long before "electromagnetic radiation", "wavelength", "rods and cones".

The words "mind" and "consciousness" have been around long before "thalamus" and "neuron".

That's it. That's the key here. The terms "mind" and "consciousness" and the like were framed well before our current level of understanding, leading to a conflict of concepts or terminology, and these terms and concepts need a bit of revision. Somehow JG thinks this is a vital problem for metaphysics to solve.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

This is a debate about the nature of Being and where it [the word "is"] can and cannot be applied. What, exactly, do you mean by "is" in your sentence?

I'm merely saying you can describe a human's "experience" as the process of information from the external material world communicated to a human's brain.

 

[hammegk]

That would be an assumption made by a materialist, anyway.

I'd say "you can describe a human's "experience" as the process of information from the objective world communicated to what in our perceptions is a human's brain".

See how easy that was?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That's it. That's the key here. The terms "mind" and "consciousness" and the like were framed well before our current level of understanding, leading to a conflict of concepts or terminology, and these terms and concepts need a bit of revision. Somehow JG thinks this is a vital problem for metaphysics to solve.

The concepts need revision alright.

Anyone see the Germany game? Their defence is rubbish. I daren't say it, but England almost have a free ticket to the semi-final......

 

[DreadNiK]

The concepts need revision alright.

Anyone see the Germany game? Their defence is rubbish. I daren't say it, but England almost have a free ticket to the semi-final......

Well at least we can agree on the problem, just not its importance.

I just saw the goals on the news. I think I'm going to have to put about £20 on England to win the tournament.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

That would be an assumption made by a materialist, anyway.

I'd say "you can describe a human's "experience" as the process of information from the objective world communicated to what in our perceptions is a human's brain".

See how easy that was?

What if I want to stop you from having an experience?

We both agree there's a process of steps.

In my material world, if I want to stop you from seeing your computer screen, I can interrupt a number of physical processes:
I can block out all light sources.
I can block your eyes completely.
I can remove your eyeballs.
I can remove your retinas.
I can disconnect your optical nerver.

Ah, but what about that mental image still lingering in you mind?
Okay, I turn off your visual cortex.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2000/faces-1108.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060125082426.htm

Okay, in your ________ world, how do you stop me from having the experience of seeing my computer screen?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

The concepts need revision alright.

Anyone see the Germany game? Their defence is rubbish. I daren't say it, but England almost have a free ticket to the semi-final......

Wait, are we done? Soccer?

What about the monitor in front of me that you brought up? Is there anything wrong in my discussion of the monitor?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

That would be an assumption made by a materialist, anyway.

Okay, what is the assumption of a non-materialist?