Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's hard to tell what you take seriously.

Postmodernism ain't one of them.

you really should try to keep up with events; that was left by my wayside long ago (based the one cogent thought I've ever seen from Upchurch, of all people). Are you too busy posting the same meaningless drivel 'materialism true ...see, I just proved it' to keep up?

Oh, I didn't know. And who'd have thought that an idiot like Upchurch, with only one cogent thought to his name, could change your worldview? Astonishing!

I don't think I'm trying to prove materialism true:

Any monism is exactly as continuous or discontinuous as any other, as long as it accounts for the world as we see it.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Postmodernism ain't one of them.

Good.

Oh, I didn't know. And who'd have thought that an idiot like Upchurch, with only one cogent thought to his name, could change your worldview?

Uppie ... Uppie .... Paul just called you an idiot. And both of you Management, tsk.tsk.

Astonishing!

I found it so then, and do to this day. When will you make a contribution?

I don't think I'm trying to prove materialism true:

Yeah, some of us have noticed you don't think that's what you're doing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I found it so then, and do to this day. When will you make a contribution?

Mercutio and I will be applauded as futurists when people finally realize this entire metaphysical argument is a pantload. But meanwhile I made a contribution above. Where does your epiphenomena end and mine begin? And what's the difference between nonconscious subjectively-generated external reality and good old objective external reality?

So, what did Uppie say to get you to drop that mantra?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

A couple of observations. If your physical stuff is epiphenomena, than I am your epiphenomenon.

Nope. "My" epiphenomena is the body&brain I associate as 'mine'. I suspect you also have similar epiphenomena you consider yours. I have no idea how other epiphenomena I perceive are generated.

... you've agreed that I also think, which makes my fist my epiphenomenon, not yours.

So, you got that right, anyway.

The argument that the external world is run by your nonconscious throws a wrench in the works. If you have no knowledge of or control over the vast majority of the "external world," then it is really reaching to call the external world a product of your mind.

Since I made no such argument, I suspect we agree, again!

It is no more subjective than it is in a materialist worldview, nor is there any way to verify that it really is a product of your mind.

Nor did I, or do I suggest it is.

For all intents and purposes, it is an objective, external world.

Finishing with agreement! Yeeeaaah!

Mercutio and I will be applauded as futurists when people finally realize this entire metaphysical argument is a pantload.

Indeed. Do you see a worldwide trend yet? You are preaching to the choir here.

So, what did Uppie say to get you to drop that mantra?

Nothing that I specifically recall. Just over several posts convinced me my *I* think was not logically defensible.

 

[Tricky]

From your post:

"all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously."

Who is it here who has emphasised the importance of the excluded middle?

Definitely not you. You continue to harp on opposites and you cannot seem to conceive that while objective and subjective are linguistic opposites, you can still be partially objective. I suspect this is because you are determined that you must be right and others must be wrong (another example of excluding the middle). You seem to demand a zero-sum game. In fact, you show it here;

Your quote is correct, but you've missed the point of it. By opting for materialism, it is YOU who have excluded the middle. I haven't excluded it. I keep ramming it down your throat:

1 + -1 = 0.

The "exclude middle" is not the sum of the two extremes. (In fact, I find it amusing that you use mathematics, the tool of physics, to try to defend the metaphysical.) What you are attempting to "ram down our throats" has no nutritional value and I decline to swallow it. Perhaps if you could enrich it with a little evidence, it would be more palatable.

Materialism isn't the excluded middle. Materialism excludes the middle by claiming one half of the binary opposition stands alone. You have to recognise both halves of the opposition, and recognise them as opposed, before it is possible to avoid excluding the middle.

Okay, I'll bite. Which half of the binary opposition does materialism say "stands alone"? Frankly, I've never heard such an odd claim.

And what is this bit about positive and negative numbers that you seem to take as evidence against materialism anyway? Have you thought about other mathematical concepts such as irrational numbers and imaginary numbers? How do they fit into your philosophy? Do you understand limits?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Definitely not you. You continue to harp on opposites and you cannot seem to conceive that while objective and subjective are linguistic opposites, you can still be partially objective.

No, I did not say this. Epistemologically you can be partially objective - you have to be. Subjective and objective are still opposites. Black and White are opposites, regardless of any of the nonsense that's been posted in this thread, and regardless of the fact that there is such a thing as Grey.

Okay, I'll bite. Which half of the binary opposition does materialism say "stands alone"?

The objective half. For the very good reason that the methodology of science deliberately sets out eliminate subjectivity. Rather obviously.

In order to carry out objective empirical research, science neccesarily eliminates (or tries to) one half of this binary opposition (or one direction of the spectrum, I don't care how you state it). But the questions we are dealing with here are not empirical. They are not about "how" the world of objects behaves. They are about the relationship between objective and subjective, and you cannot explain this relationship using a methodology explicitly designed to eliminate one half of the opposition. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

And what is this bit about positive and negative numbers that you seem to take as evidence against materialism anyway?

I merely stated that the opposite of 1 was -1. That does not directly falsify materialism.

Have you thought about other mathematical concepts such as irrational numbers and imaginary numbers? How do they fit into your philosophy?

They aren't particularly relevant to it. There are all sorts of mathematical devices that aren't particularly relevant.

Do you understand limits?

Yes.

Geoff



--------------------
*ENGLAND EXPECTS*
--------------------

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope. "My" epiphenomena is the body&brain I associate as 'mine'. I suspect you also have similar epiphenomena you consider yours. I have no idea how other epiphenomena I perceive are generated.

So your body and brain are epiphenomena of your mind, but everything else is epiphenomena of something else? That's quite bizarre. When conjoined twins share an arm, whose epiphenomenon is that?

Since I made no such argument, I suspect we agree, again!

Then what on earth did you mean by this? I won't be surprised to learn that I misunderstood "my environmentals."

... and 'my thought' is the causal agent that controls events. Much of the machinery appears to run on auto-pilot and my conscious intervention may never over-ride 'my environmentals' that keep some the perceived physical stuff operating.

Nothing that I specifically recall. Just over several posts convinced me my *I* think was not logically defensible.

But "thought exists" is? Is it free-floating thought?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In order to carry out objective empirical research, science neccesarily eliminates (or tries to) one half of this binary opposition (or one direction of the spectrum, I don't care how you state it). But the questions we are dealing with here are not empirical. They are not about "how" the world of objects behaves. They are about the relationship between objective and subjective, and you cannot explain this relationship using a methodology explicitly designed to eliminate one half of the opposition. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Because, as usual, you are being too black and white about it. Here is what science tries to eliminate:

False conclusions caused by subjective differences between scientists.

It does not try to eliminate:

The study of subjective experience.

See the difference? Shockingly, the word subjective has multiple meanings.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

So your body and brain are epiphenomena of your mind, but everything else is epiphenomena of something else?

Sorry, no. What I consider 'me' does not provide the epiphenomena I perceive as my body. I don't pretend to know what does.

That's quite bizarre. When conjoined twins share an arm, whose epiphenomenon is that?

The question of which brain and other needed structures controlled what would be a question of specific wiring of the neural structure and most likely a multitude of other physiological systems as well.

Then what on earth did you mean by this? I won't be surprised to learn that I misunderstood "my environmentals."

"My environmentals" are the epiphenomena that respond to my thoughts, and keep my body as perceived operating.

But "thought exists" is? Is it free-floating thought?

Unknown. I have no reason to suspect thought as we understand it exists except in association with the needed structure that is perceived as physical body.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So Hammy, you have a lot of unknowns. Fair enough. And I agree that science doesn't yet know how the brain gives rise to the mind.

So that puts materialism and your metaphysic on equal footing in terms of unknowns, does it not? Why is one preferred?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

To my mind, individual choice. Pick a monism, examine it in light your understanding of things and interesting questions.

For example, repeating myself for the umpteenth time:

Where is the line where non-life becomes life?
How do I come to grips with HPC, free-will, etc?
Could god be said to exist in a meaningful way?
Or whatever else suits your fancy ...

(We'll assume you've already done the best you can with solipsism, brains-in-vats, etcetc.)


Observe the logical contradictions and loose ends resulting from that choice.

Do the same assuming the alternate monism True.

Compare answers, and pick the one you find most logically defensible.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where is the line where non-life becomes life?

Nowhere. Does it need to be somewhere?

How do I come to grips with HPC, free-will, etc?

Why bother? But anyway, you'll have to wait for the HPC. Libertarian free will is an incoherent concept.

Could god be said to exist in a meaningful way?

Choosing a metaphysic is not going to answer this question.

Observe the logical contradictions and loose ends resulting from that choice.

Do the same assuming the alternate monism True.

Compare answers, and pick the one you find most logically defensible.

If your choices all cover the world as we see it, then they are equivalent. There is no smoking gun bit of illogic in one of them that tips the balance to the other, although if a metaphysic has unanswered questions that we cannot even conceive an approach to answering, that seems like a negative.

~~ Paul

 

[Belz...]

Nope.

Well, then. Why would you assume that there is a scientific answer to unscientific questions ?

 

[Belz...]

However, when we are now faced with the problem of providing a scientific explanation of consciousness we run into a problem.

I don't see a problem. We can reasonably assume, as I've said before, that a machine could read into your mind and recontruct what you're seeing based on analysing your brain functions. The experience would no longer be personnal in the sense that anyone could see it, and it could be recorded and broadcast. I see no reason to assume that the human mind and its experiences are any different from other physical phenomena, or indeed that it ISN'T a natural phenomenon.

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.

It all depends on how you interpret the "what". Explaining everything that something does and all its properties is very well within the limits of science, and I would say that it does a fine job of telling us what that something "is".

 

[Belz...]

That would be called a dualist. It's not a logically defensible position.

I don't see how someone who claims thought exists and is a materialist would be called a dualist, especially if he believes that "thought" is just another physical, material process.

1 + -1 = 0.

What's 0 ? What's -1 ? What are you trying to show, here ?

Materialism isn't the excluded middle. Materialism excludes the middle by claiming one half of the binary opposition stands alone.

What would the other half be ?

Subjective and objective are still opposites.

No, because "subjective" is based on an objective reality. There an be no "subjective" without it. In fact, subjectivity might be called a subset of objectivity. Badly worded, but still.

Black and White are opposites, regardless of any of the nonsense that's been posted in this thread, and regardless of the fact that there is such a thing as Grey.

Black and white are opposites only under certain definitions. To a web designer, for example, they're BOTH colours, and they don't necessarily hold special status. How is black opposite to white in an objective way ?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, then. Why would you assume that there is a scientific answer to unscientific questions ?

Belz,

I have lots of catching up to do tomorrow, but I only have a moment now (my last exam is tomorrow morning).

I haven't assumed there is a scientific answer to unscientific questions. I am merely demonstrating that there are important questions which defy scientific formulation in the first place. My original point was that science can't even ask these questions, let alone answer them.

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Because, as usual, you are being too black and white about it. Here is what science tries to eliminate:

False conclusions caused by subjective differences between scientists.

It does not try to eliminate:

The study of subjective experience.

Of course it doesn't "try to eliminate" the study of subjective experiences. You are STILL missing the point. The fact that science doesn't know what to do with subjectivity isn't because it has deliberately tried to eliminate the the study of subjective experiences but because in order to study the objective, empirical world it *HAS TO* eliminate subjectivity. You cannot suddenly claim that science embraces the subjective realm in order to answer my accusations when it is blatantly obviously true that in ALL OTHER CASES, subjectivity is precisely what is being avoided. EDIT: You are trying to claim that even though science eliminates subjectivity in order to reach objective conclusions in every other field of science, it has no problem when what is being studied is subjectivity itself, but you haven't explained how this could possibly be so. You seem to be expecting me to demonstrate that it isn't. But it is you who is making the extraordinary claim and me who is stating the obvious. There is no such thing as subjective science. Neither will there ever be.

See the difference?

No, Paul. I see blatant special pleading, a complete lack of consistency and more statements that simply don't make sense.

I will be back after my Kant exam, in between the world cup games...it's looking like a good one.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course it doesn't "try to eliminate" the study of subjective experiences. You are STILL missing the point. The fact that science doesn't know what to do with subjectivity isn't because it has deliberately tried to eliminate the the study of subjective experiences but because in order to study the objective, empirical world it *HAS TO* eliminate subjectivity. You cannot suddenly claim that science embraces the subjective realm in order to answer my accusations when it is blatantly obviously true that in ALL OTHER CASES, subjectivity is precisely what is being avoided. EDIT: You are trying to claim that even though science eliminates subjectivity in order to reach objective conclusions in every other field of science, it has no problem when what is being studied is subjectivity itself, but you haven't explained how this could possibly be so. You seem to be expecting me to demonstrate that it isn't. But it is you who is making the extraordinary claim and me who is stating the obvious. There is no such thing as subjective science. Neither will there ever be.

I didn't say science has no trouble studying subjective experience. It's extremely difficult. But you are drawing a line at the inner experiences that you call subjective and saying "science can't study this because science doesn't do subjectivity." That statement mixes multiple definitions of subjectivity, one pertaining to inner experience and the other pertaining to subjective bias that science tries to eliminate.

Even though inner experience is subjective, there are clearly objective aspects to it. We don't all think, feel, and act arbitrarily. If you want to convince me that scientists can't investigate any of this, then you need to present a logical proof that science can't make a dent in understanding the nature of subjective experience. This needs to be an argument that doesn't just assert that subjective experience is outside the scope of science.

You are only "stating the obvious" because you are mixing definitions of subjectivity.

~~ Paul

 

[Z]

Who am I?
What am I?
Does life have a meaning?
Why does the Universe exist?
How does something come from nothing?
Is there anything like a God?
Why is the world the way it is? Does it have to be this way?
Do I have free will?

OMG, you think these are important questions???

The first two are easily enough solved, even using bare-bones scientism. The remaining questions ARE irrelevant. Does knowing the purpose of the Universe help, in any way? If there even is one? Is God in any way relevant, considering its apparent non-involvement in our lives? Is absolute free will in any way significant versus apparent free will?

Geoff, these are questions that are specifically religious/philosophical, I agree (for the most part) - but they are also some of the LEAST important questions we can ask.

 

[Z]

Just as a matter of interest....

Is anything the opposite of anything?

Can I have some examples, please? I seem to remember learning at school when I was six that up was actually the opposite of down. I must have remembered wrong, though, because there are so many intelligent people here that they couldn't possibly all be saying something really, really silly, could they?

See, this is part of the problem: you're looking for absolutes, for polar extremes; and in the REAL world, there are no absolutes, no polar extremes (ok, very few).

Up and down are relative terms; their general meaning is opposite, but due to their relative nature, they are not, absolutely, opposites. Etc. etc.