Materialists......

[Z]

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?

So you think the opposite of having an apple is LOSING an apple? What about not having an apple? Or having many apples?

For five years, you've wasted your time.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now to be fair, -1 is the opposite of 1 according to the mathematical definition of opposite. What this has to do with metaphysics I cannot imagine.

~~ Paul

 

[Belz...]

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.

I think the first question we should ask is whether those questions have any sense at all.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think the first question we should ask is whether those questions have any sense at all.

Only if you are a scientist......

I think those questions I asked matter even more than the scientific ones.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Now to be fair, -1 is the opposite of 1 according to the mathematical definition of opposite. What this has to do with metaphysics I cannot imagine.

~~ Paul

Given the conversations I've had with you over these past few years, that leaves you with a somewhat deficient imagination.

 

[Z]

I think those questions I asked matter even more than the scientific ones.

So do most men of faith, Geoff. And a lot of other people wonder about them - at least, until it's time to take care of our actual necessities.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I didn't say science has no trouble studying subjective experience. It's extremely difficult.

NO. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Opposites, remember?

"It is extremely difficult to be left at the same time as right." WRONG
"It is impossible to be left at the same time as right." CORRECT

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.

They aren't that different. Both are about mind-dependence/mind-independence, but one is metaphysical and the other is metaphysical. The meaning of "subjective" remains consistent.

Even though inner experience is subjective, there are clearly objective aspects to it.

You mean "it involves OBJECTS"? Cos if you mean anything else, you're wrong.

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.

WHY? I repeat: You are the one making the extraordinary claim. I am merely claiming that objective science is not well-equipped to study subjectivity, which remains a statement of the obvious.

This needs to be an argument that doesn't just assert that subjective experience is outside the scope of science.

No, you've got it backwards. YOU are the one claiming objective science can study subjectivity. YOU have to explain how this is possible. There is no burden of proof on me to prove that it is not.

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

~~ Paul

Nope. Same definition of subjectivity: mind-dependent. Different application, metaphysical and epistemological.

BTW, I just finished my last exam (Kant) and sat at the student bar drinking guiness on an empty stomach in the blazing heat. So I am not sober and I am going to get less sober as the day degenerates.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

At this point he is just called "incoherent". He has two names for supposedly one thing, even though the two things have completely different properites. Why not just say there are two things?

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

what's "0"? Good question.

http://everythingforever.com/undivide.htm

Not nothing.

What would the other half be ?

I am trying to say that the basic principle underlying everything which exists is one of dynamic polarity and balance. This is true of everything - maths, physics, human lives, the course of history.....everything. It is even true of existence and non-existence, which form another binary pair.

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 ?

Because white is the totality of all the colours and black is the abscence of them all. Yeah, I know some people say black and white are colours, but if they are then they have very different properties to the other colours, with repsect to those other colours.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Wait, I'm a materialist.

I believe thought is underlined by physical processes.

Hence, thought exists.

Am I a materialist and a non-materialist?

No, you're just an incoherent materialist, like all the rest of them apart from the eliminativists who have actually figured out that the only logical way to defend materialism is to deny that minds exists.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

As soon as we start to really think about these sorts of questions we realise that we don't understand the question at all. So the mystery of their unsolvability is not actually a mystery - they have no answer, not because they address something profound but because they fail to address anything real.

I don't agree. I think they are very real questions, some of which have very real answers.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Surely you don't think I was taking such Postermodern drivel seriously?

No. It's based on actual logic, so no.

If there is a claimed opposition, then the middle is excluded by definition.

Erm....

1 + -1 = 0

Opposition, no excluded middle. See? 0 is the middle. 1 and -1 are the opposition. Easy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

1 : Ignored half the opposition, middle excluded (materialism) (and Germany in their world cup opener...well not the exluced middle - but you can't let Paulo Wanchope score two goals against you.).
1 + -1 : Descartes, good try - but excluded the middle (dualism).
-1: Rejected half the opposition, but went too far the opposite way (idealism)

1 + -1 = 0: Neutral monism. Opposition recognised, no exluded middle.

 

[I less than three logic]

Ok, I think I understand this 1 + -1 = 0 thing. So dualism equals the excluded middle, is that what you’ve been trying to say?

 

[Tricky]

I don't agree. I think they are very real questions, some of which have very real answers.

Perhaps you could give us one of those answers then.

 

[Belz...]

Only if you are a scientist......

I think those questions I asked matter even more than the scientific ones.

They only matter if you assume that they have meaning at all. If you ask me "who am I ?" and I answer that you are a biological entity with such and such processes and are the sum of your experiences, is that answer any less true than a more satisfactory, philosophical answer ? I don't think so, because it describes exactly what you are, even if it is unflattering.

NO. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Opposites, remember?

You're the one who's making them opposites, Geoff. I've said that subjectivity is a subset of objectivity. Do you have any comment on that ?

No, you've got it backwards. YOU are the one claiming objective science can study subjectivity. YOU have to explain how this is possible. There is no burden of proof on me to prove that it is not.

Another comment of mine you've ignored: if a machine can read your neural functions and tell someone else that you're seeing red, or that you're happy, and if we could, somehow, display what you see or imagine on a tv screen or even transmit it into someone ELSE's brain, wouldn't that completely destroy the idea that the subjective is beyond the realm of science ??

At this point he is just called "incoherent". He has two names for supposedly one thing, even though the two things have completely different properites. Why not just say there are two things?

"Thought" is a material process. No one is positing two things, here.

I am trying to say that the basic principle underlying everything which exists is one of dynamic polarity and balance. This is true of everything - maths, physics, human lives, the course of history.....everything. It is even true of existence and non-existence, which form another binary pair.

Is that a philosophical statement ?

Because white is the totality of all the colours and black is the abscence of them all. Yeah, I know some people say black and white are colours, but if they are then they have very different properties to the other colours, with repsect to those other colours.

As I've said. Depends on the context, which proves Tricky's point.

No, you're just an incoherent materialist, like all the rest of them apart from the eliminativists who have actually figured out that the only logical way to defend materialism is to deny that minds exists.

Strawman.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Given the conversations I've had with you over these past few years, that leaves you with a somewhat deficient imagination.

I think my imagination is fine. The problem is the people schlanging around the pseudomath can't explain their points.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

I think my imagination is fine. The problem is the people schlanging around the pseudomath can't explain their points.

~~ Paul

Well duh. Since positive one plus negative one equals zero, there is no place for subjective observation in science, you unimaginative slug.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ok, I think I understand this 1 + -1 = 0 thing. So dualism equals the excluded middle, is that what you’ve been trying to say?

No, dualism is both sides of the opposite with the middle excluded, which doesn't work either. I'm not a dualist. I'm a neutral monist.

.....a drunken neutral monist who has finished his exams and wants to take a break from thinking about philosophy for a few days and watch all the football. Sorry to disappoint those of you who were really looking forward to my next set of posts.

 

[Tricky]

I'm not a dualist. I'm a neutral monist.

We are not so far apart as you might think. Since the operation, I am a neutered bonist.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Er, yes. And mediation of all those processes requires at some point photon exchange, mmkay?

Mmm-no. Explain to me how smelling involves "photon exchange". Actually, what is "photon exchange"? Photon is light. The energy of a photon can be "exchanged" by various processes like scattering or absorption. But the photon itself ceases to exist when absorbed, and if a photon is reradiated by some medium (scattering), the photon has a new k vector (direction) and is a new photon. So I could understand light scattering as "photon exchange", but our perception of the external world is not mediated by photon exchange.
Seeing, yes.
Listening, hearing, feeling, no.

Whether "we" are brains-in-vats or what we 'think' we are ... thinking beings in an objective external reality ... thought exists.

Unfortunately, every thought is based on information from some world external to the brain. For a thought to exist, you have to think about something. And that thought requires some mysterious process to exist, or simply some electrochemical activity.

For discussion, we can agree I Think, and You Think.

Technically, if I take a physicalist approach, I can agree with you.

But if I take the objective idealistic approach, do I have any reason to believe that you think? I have no evidence that anybody thinks. If I believe you think, I'm making an assumption that you operate the same way I do. Only my own thoughts can be verified by myself, I cannot verify the nature nor the content of your thoughts.

Yeah, whatever external reality is it's objective so far as my 'thoughts' have ever effected or affected things. Yet my 'thought' does seem to direct, what I perceive as 'my' body/brain, and that effects and affects external reality.

Sure, but your brain perceives an external reality AND an internal reality. You have an inner voice, an internal moviescreen. You can actively manipulate these things with your thoughts. Why not the external stuff?

Therefore I choose "objective idealism" as my logically defensible position. Now "my physical stuff" is my epiphenomena, 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.

The major problem I have with this approach is that at some point, you should be able to affect the external world through your thoughts alone. Why the need for your body? You don't even know for sure if your body exists, only your thoughts. Why can't your thoughts do all the work that your body seems capable of doing?

Much of the machinery appears to run on auto-pilot, but what is the implication of that appearance? Why isn't there more work at figuring out how to use your thoughts (the only thing you know exists) to manipulate that machinery that seems to run on auto-pilot? Okay, sure, cause everybody assumes physicalism, whether they know it or not.

But what is the fantastic implication that objective idealism holds for humanity? Especially since a physicalist approach to learning "appears" to hold new knowledge about the very processes in which we think and have thoughts.