Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, I agree that there is a way of distinguishing the two concepts.

As I said, I have no problem distinguishing between the descriptions of the two things.

Good. So why did you claim that you had no idea how to distinguish between them, Paul?

Since you have now stopped trying to pretend you don't know the difference, you can respond to the last part of the opening post, the important parts are in bold:

The real situation, whether you are a materialist or not a materialist, is that we can indeed tell the difference between a physical process and a subjective experience. [Yes, being able to distinguish between the concepts is more than enough.] We may wish to claim that "in some way" they are one and the same thing. So they appear to be both the same [the two concepts somehow have the same referent] and different [the concepts are still clearly distinguishable], depending on how you look at it. This I can tolerate. But I cannot tolerate any more supposedly intelligent people trying to tell me that they are indistinguishable, identical and that they have no idea what I mean by "inherently subjective". I'll tell you what I mean by "inherently subjective". I mean the experience of seeing red. Even if you think that "in some unknown way" experiences and brain processes "are the same thing" you also know d*mned well that in another very obvious way, they are also different. The brain process is objective and the subjective experience is, well, subjective. So at the very least we have "two different perspectives on the same thing".

You can claim the two perspectives are somehow two perspectives on "the same thing". But do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe there are not even two perspectives. And once you accept that there are two perspectives then there is no need to go on claiming you don't know what "subjective" means, or what minds are, or how experiencing red is "anything over and above a physical processes". It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one. So the thing which is "over and above a physical process" is the subjective experiences associated with the relevant brain activity. Now, what the consequences of this are going to be for the wider worldview of the materialist is no immediate concern of mine - and whether or not you think this disproves materialism is another matter entirely. Maybe the problem can be solved. Just do not try to tell me you do not even know what the problem is, because you might just as well tell me that Jesus fed five thousand people with a single basket of fishes. And that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[DreadNiK]

You may not know crap through introspection.
~~ Paul

Ah, but perhaps through crap you can know introspection. Unless you prefer to read on the toilet.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I would suggest that perhaps your gratification is the end, and for you personally truth itself is the means to that end. Is this better than someone who uses the truth of physics to construct weapons that they will use to rob their neighbors of wealth, the end? Probably. I would certainly rather have YOU as a neighbor lol!!

You seem to be suggesting I am a philosophical cat playing with materialist mice for fun. Hammegk has made the same accusation. Maybe you are right.

Actually, it is more like an ex-smoker giving smokers a hard time (or an ex-christian with christians). I am an ex-materialist.

 

[DreadNiK]

Good. So why did you claim that you had no idea how to distinguish between them, Paul?

Since you have now stopped trying to pretend you don't know the difference, you can respond to the last part of the opening post, the important parts are in bold:

**** It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one.****

I would say "No." but instead I'll ask you to define this property of 'having one perspective.'

 

[DreadNiK]

You seem to be suggesting I am a philosophical cat playing with materialist mice for fun. Hammegk has made the same accusation. Maybe you are right.

Actually, it is more like an ex-smoker giving smokers a hard time (or an ex-christian with christians). I am an ex-materialist.

I don't think he was, but I'm going to suggest you are a smug person with delusions of grandeur.

 

[hammegk]

Well, maybe otherwise people would wonder why he isn't responding to someone who has made completely valid points...

They weren't valid points vis-a-vis this discussion.

Address my point that what you said was completely wrong and irrelevant.

I did.

Without posting something else completely wrong and irrelevant. Please.

I did. This is a Philosophy discussion. Go learn some, or go play in traffic.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

**** It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one.****

I would say "No." but instead I'll ask you to define this property of 'having one perspective.'

Easy. There are loads of physical processes. For example, there are complex physical processes going on in the atmosphere and creating our weather. But nobody believes that along with the objective, 3rd-person perspective that we all have on these processes that there is also a subjective, 1st-person perspective. Nobody believes the atmosphere has experiences. So there is only one perspective - the objective one. Only in the case of the mind/brain are there two. Some people have claimed that computers may prove an exception to this rule, but they have no evidence to back it up. It is a very suspicious assumption, also - because it would imply that something like a thermostat ought to have a mind.

 

[rocketdodger]

You seem to be suggesting I am a philosophical cat playing with materialist mice for fun. Hammegk has made the same accusation. Maybe you are right.

I am partial to the notion that we can only act to fulfill our own gratification -- in other words, we can only do what we want to do. Otherwise, we don't do it.

In that light, I was suggesting that you want to know the truth, and you are gratified by discovering it. Strictly speaking, then, your own pleasure is still the ends.

 

[DreadNiK]

They weren't valid points vis-a-vis this discussion.


I did.


I did. This is a Philosophy discussion. Go learn some, or go play in traffic.

Translation:

I used some fancy words that I suspected you wouldn't know the meaning of, but that [I still suspect-ed] didnt actually address the point, and when you called my bluff instead of explaining you just asserted.

 

[DreadNiK]

I am partial to the notion that we can only act to fulfill our own gratification -- in other words, we can only do what we want to do. Otherwise, we don't do it.

In that light, I was suggesting that you want to know the truth, and you are gratified by discovering it. Strictly speaking, then, your own pleasure is still the ends.

Yeah but then you end up with there being no free will and reducing everything to irrelevancy. Just like most navel-gazing does.

 

[DreadNiK]

Easy. There are loads of physical processes. For example, there are complex physical processes going on in the atmosphere and creating our weather. But nobody believes that along with the objective, 3rd-person perspective that we all have on these processes that there is also a subjective, 1st-person perspective. Nobody believes the atmosphere has experiences. So there is only one perspective - the objective one. Only in the case of the mind/brain are there two. Some people have claimed that computers may prove an exception to this rule, but they have no evidence to back it up. It is a very suspicious assumption, also - because it would imply that something like a thermostat ought to have a mind.

That doesn't make it over and above a physical process. It is still a physical process, with two *conceptual* perspectives on it.

I will however say this, you are certainly making me think, not just of how to actually express myself carefully while remaining relevant.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yeah but then you end up with there being no free will and reducing everything to irrelevancy. Just like most navel-gazing does.

Why does this remove free-will?

Normal free will --> deciding what we will do.

My free will --> deciding what we want to do, which is what we will do.

Its only a move of one thought, free will is still there in the same form as always...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That doesn't make it over and above a physical process. It is still a physical process, with two *conceptual* perspectives on it.

Even this is enough. There are two conceptual perspectives on it. These two can be distinguished, very easily.

This whole argument came about because somebody in another thread tried to claim that he "really had no idea what I meant by 'inherently subjective'". Well, I hope he's reading this, and I hope he now has some idea. The subjective perspective is inherently subjective. QED. That is all I wanted to establish. Nevertheless, it was still like extracting teeth to get (some of) the materialists to admit even this. The real problem, of course, is that this is the top of a very slippery slope.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am partial to the notion that we can only act to fulfill our own gratification -- in other words, we can only do what we want to do. Otherwise, we don't do it.

In that light, I was suggesting that you want to know the truth, and you are gratified by discovering it. Strictly speaking, then, your own pleasure is still the ends.

Yes, I want to know the truth. In this respect, it's an easy religious commitment as religious commitments go. But it does mean I do not fear the truth and I do not believe the same is true of some of the other people who post in these threads.

 

[hammegk]

Translation:

I used some fancy words that I suspected you wouldn't know the meaning of, but that [I still suspect-ed] didnt actually address the point, and when you called my bluff instead of explaining you just asserted.

Actual translation. If you are still at kindergarten level, why are you posting in this thread? At least go googling a bit. Conversely, for specific on-topic questions to me regarding the meaning of my posts I try to answer.


rocketdodger: Compatabilist free-will is enjoyed by the pc you are using. Is that all you have, too? Interesting question.

 

[rocketdodger]

rocketdodger: Compatabilist free-will is enjoyed by the pc you are using. Is that all you have, too? Interesting question.

As you know, it would be pretty hard for us to figure out exactly what we have, given our current mental ability. I hope I have more, if that is what you are asking...

 

[Crispy Duck]

I've read this whole thread, and I'm not even sure that everyone here is having the same argument. Geoff's main claim seems to be that there are two philosophically interesting concepts - "brain processes" and "subjective experiences". He then claims that some people (bad materialists) will try to assert that these two concepts are actually a single concept, although he's quite happy for other people (good materialists) to acknowledge that there are two concepts whilst also believing them to be two perspectives on the same underlying phenomenon.

Obviously, there are two concepts. The fact that there are two concepts is so overwhelmingly obvious that, I think, some people here believe that the argument is about something else. However, no post on this thread claims that there aren't two concepts. There must be more to it though - after all, God, the Devil, pixies, healing crystals etc all exist as concepts without necessarily having any "truth".

The real argument is about whether the two concepts are in some way *subjectively* distinguishable. This is an extremely woolly idea, and I must raise my hand and claim total idiocy, because I don't think it's possible to *subjectively* distinguish the two.

Geoff - let's say that, by some freak of nature, I woke up this morning without any brain processes. Would I know that I had ceased to have brain processes? Is this question relevant to your point, or am I still misunderstanding the point you're trying to make?

By the way, I can still see red (I've been seeing it a lot over the last half-hour or so, in fact).

 

[hammegk]

As you know, it would be pretty hard for us to figure out exactly what we have, given our current mental ability. I hope I have more, if that is what you are asking...

Me too, but I find objective idealism at least provides a chance, slim as it might be.

It seems to me as though thought actually can and does change future courses of action in ways beyond simplistic computing of either/or utility functions consciously and sub-consciously. Unknown in the final analysis, ymmv in your specific case.

 

[rocketdodger]

Me too, but I find objective idealism at least provides a chance, slim as it might be.

It seems to me as though thought actually can and does change future courses of action in ways beyond simplistic computing of either/or utility functions consciously and sub-consciously. Unknown in the final analysis, ymmv in your specific case.

Why would you say the chance is slim? I am sure you know how far we are from explaining things completely... I think there is plenty of room for other stuff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I've read this whole thread, and I'm not even sure that everyone here is having the same argument. Geoff's main claim seems to be that there are two philosophically interesting concepts - "brain processes" and "subjective experiences". He then claims that some people (bad materialists) will try to assert that these two concepts are actually a single concept, although he's quite happy for other people (good materialists) to acknowledge that there are two concepts whilst also believing them to be two perspectives on the same underlying phenomenon.

Correct. This is the difference between a claim that doesn't even deserve to be called philosophical and a claim that many philosophers have tried to defend (even though I think they are wrong).

Obviously, there are two concepts. The fact that there are two concepts is so overwhelmingly obvious that, I think, some people here believe that the argument is about something else.

Also correct. But regardless of how overwhelmingly obvious it is, more than one person has tried to deny it. Unbelievably.

However, no post on this thread claims that there aren't two concepts.

Oh yes there is. Look at the first of Paul's posts. It is about post number 6 or 7. Sorry, but the following statement is worthy only of derision:

If you think you can tell the difference between subjective experience and brain processes, then tell me what brain processes are like. Maybe this will jog my memory and I'll be able to remember the difference between subjective experience and brain processes.

That is quite clear. Paul was actually trying to say that he "needed his memory jogged" in order to be able to tell the difference between a subjective experience and a brain process. Utterly stupid, but sadly typical, not only of Paul but of many other people on this site who regularly make equally ludicrous claims of the same sort. It is an attempt to make out that they have "no idea what the problem is" and it is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.

The real argument is about whether the two concepts are in some way *subjectively* distinguishable. This is an extremely woolly idea, and I must raise my hand and claim total idiocy, because I don't think it's possible to *subjectively* distinguish the two.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How can one subjectively distinguish between subjective and objective?

Geoff - let's say that, by some freak of nature, I woke up this morning without any brain processes. Would I know that I had ceased to have brain processes?

No. You wouldn't know anything anymore. All would be "dark inside".

Is this question relevant to your point, or am I still misunderstanding the point you're trying to make?

Not really relevant, no. My sole point is that some people will go to such lengths to defend their cherished belief in materialism that they have ceased to monitor their own utterings. Their "b*llshit dectector" is not being applied to their own arguments.