Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, but unlike some other assumptions (solipsism, for example), it doesn't prevent you from studying the universe and reaching conclusions, so I don't see how it's a useful assumption, unless you really WANT libertarian free will to exist...

And Geoff, maybe it'd be best if we stopped using all those philosophical sub-category terms like compatibilist, Berkeleyanism, dualist, monist or whatnot. Too many terms get too confusing for the laymen.

On the contrary, if the layman is going to be able to find himself a coherent position to defend he is going to need to know what these terms means. Compatibilist free will and libertarian free will are two completely different things. If you just say "free will" and don't consider which of them you mean, then debate becomes pointless because communication is impossible.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's actually quite simple. I couldn't, for the life of me, be able to tell you what's "interior" and what's "exterior" as far as my mind is concerned. Everything, including emotions, seems "out there" to me.

Now I'm even more confused. Everything in your mind is "out there"??? I'd say that everything in my mind is "in here".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yeah. I know they're not bricks, but the point remains. Also, some garden walls are built with bricks that are made to fit into one another without mortar, again. The point is that Geoff keeps saying that bricks isn't enough to build a wall, or rather, that we are more than the sum of our parts, which is clearly wrong.

No. I am saying that one brick is not a wall.

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary, if the layman is going to be able to find himself a coherent position to defend he is going to need to know what these terms means. Compatibilist free will and libertarian free will are two completely different things. If you just say "free will" and don't consider which of them you mean, then debate becomes pointless because communication is impossible.

Perhaps, but don't you think that the zillion-and-a-half philo terms you've been using since the start of the thread kinda confused people ?

I'm all for defining the terms we use, but I'm not too interested in labeling personnal opinions just for the sake of it.

Now I'm even more confused. Everything in your mind is "out there"??? I'd say that everything in my mind is "in here".

Well that's what I'm saying. Most people keep saying that their mind is the only thing they could ever know, because it's "in here", as you put it. I don't feel that way. When emotion happens to me, I don't WILL it to happen. It just does. I don't get angry because I want to, you know ? All these emotions seem to be imposed on me. The same goes for a great number of thoughts, especially simple ones. Heck, sometimes I even do or say things which, after the fact, I wonder why I did. You'd swear that my "will" sometimes doesn't have anything to do with what I think, say or do.

No. I am saying that one brick is not a wall.

I agree. However you CAN build a wall with nothing but bricks (or stones, in the relevant example). If I remember correctly, we were talking about whether or not consciousness can evolve progressively.

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps, but don't you think that the zillion-and-a-half philo terms you've been using since the start of the thread kinda confused people ?

Are you not here to learn new things and hear new ideas?

...sometimes I even do or say things which, after the fact, I wonder why I did. You'd swear that my "will" sometimes doesn't have anything to do with what I think, say or do.

So what. The "human machine" runs along just fine 99.9999% of the time without requiring what you or I might perceive as an application of 'libertarian free-will". What boggles some of us is the defense by those we deem "materialists -- whether they know it or not being irrelevant -- of a philosophy that cannot even allow the possibility of libertarian free will to exist. Unless of course they are actually, albeit unknowingly, dualists.

... If I remember correctly, we were talking about whether or not consciousness can evolve progressively.

Who says human, and other neural system based, consciousness, did not? Would you agree that one defining characteristic of life itself is "consciousness"? If not, why not?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps, but don't you think that the zillion-and-a-half philo terms you've been using since the start of the thread kinda confused people ?

Possibly. Philosophy isn't easy. Sometimes you have to use new words. Most of the words I have used are words that people who have discussed these matters before have encountered before. The nature of the discussion itself took as towards a point where I had no choice but to use some others.

Well that's what I'm saying. Most people keep saying that their mind is the only thing they could ever know, because it's "in here", as you put it. I don't feel that way. When emotion happens to me, I don't WILL it to happen.

Of course you don't. Emotions are the sorts of things that drive peoples will and make it unfree, not the sort of thing you can will to happen.

I agree. However you CAN build a wall with nothing but bricks (or stones, in the relevant example). If I remember correctly, we were talking about whether or not consciousness can evolve progressively.

We weren't. It can't. Subjectivity/consciousness has no evolutionary explanation from the POV of a materialist. It cannot possibly have, because it cannot possibly have any causal power and something with no causal power can have no effect on the survival chances of an individual. Therefore it cannot have been selected for and cannot have evolved.

 

[nescafe]

We weren't. It can't. Subjectivity/consciousness has no evolutionary explanation from the POV of a materialist. It cannot possibly have, because it cannot possibly have any causal power and something with no causal power can have no effect on the survival chances of an individual. Therefore it cannot have been selected for and cannot have evolved.

/me raises left eyebrow

This is quite possibly the silliest assertion you have made so far in this thread.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

* nescafe;1762946 raises left eyebrow

This is quite possibly the silliest assertion you have made so far in this thread.

No it's not. This subject is a matter of serious debate. It was an argument put forward by eliminative materialists. It comes up both in the philosophical parts of cognitive science and in philosophy of science.

http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/CONSC_INFO_PANPSY.html

The principle of causal grounding states that the causal efficacy of any complex, whether functionally or mereologically described, is entirely dependent upon the causal efficacy of the basic constituents of its physical instantiation. The problem is now worrisomely clear. Does consciousness have any causal power in the world? If the causal powers of conscious systems obey the principle of causal grounding so that the causal powers of any conscious system are entirely dependent upon the powers of its instantiation then, seeing as consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe which cannot be reduced to its instantiations, consciousness has no efficacy in the world — consciousness turns out to be completely epiphenomenal. On the other hand, if this conclusion is resisted and some independent causal power is granted to consciousness, then some assemblages of physical parts have causal powers that don't depend entirely upon the causal powers of those parts. This is what philosophers call radical emergentism.8 Only here we have an ultra radical form for it is not the mere assembling of physical parts into particular molar combinations that yields the emergent properties, but rather it's the assemblage managing to fulfil a certain abstract functional description that produces the miracle (we might call this the doctrine of radical functional emergentism). Neither horn of this dilemma is very attractive.

If consciousness/mind is purely ephiphenomenal, and has no causal power, then it cannot be explained by evolution because evolution cannot select for something with no causal power. Think about it!

 

[Belz...]

So what. The "human machine" runs along just fine 99.9999% of the time without requiring what you or I might perceive as an application of 'libertarian free-will". What boggles some of us is the defense by those we deem "materialists -- whether they know it or not being irrelevant -- of a philosophy that cannot even allow the possibility of libertarian free will to exist.

Well, I'm sorry about that. Would you mind providing evidence that it DOES ?

Unless of course they are actually, albeit unknowingly, dualists.

Well that seems to be the heart of most of your posts, Hammy. Apparently, according to you, real materialists don't exist.

Who says human, and other neural system based, consciousness, did not? Would you agree that one defining characteristic of life itself is "consciousness"? If not, why not?

Not sure you've followed the argument, here.

 

[Belz...]

Possibly. Philosophy isn't easy. Sometimes you have to use new words. Most of the words I have used are words that people who have discussed these matters before have encountered before. The nature of the discussion itself took as towards a point where I had no choice but to use some others.

Well, it's the same problem I have with the zillion-odd terms to describe various styles of music. If you really want to, you can identify the specific style of every musical artist in the world. But that's not very useful. Plus, I get confused because all those terms seem to mean pretty much the same thing.

Of course you don't. Emotions are the sorts of things that drive peoples will and make it unfree, not the sort of thing you can will to happen.

Uh-huh. What CAN you Will to happen ?

We weren't. It can't. Subjectivity/consciousness has no evolutionary explanation from the POV of a materialist. It cannot possibly have, because it cannot possibly have any causal power and something with no causal power can have no effect on the survival chances of an individual. Therefore it cannot have been selected for and cannot have evolved.

I second Nescafé's eyebrow-raising.

It's been said to you before why evolution can easily account for consciousness. You just ignored that, and now we've just circled right back to it.

The belief that we are special and that our decisions affect the world is quite an incentive, don't you think ?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's been said to you before why evolution can easily account for consciousness.

I am yet to hear an explanation of how something with no causal power has enough causal power to drive evolutionary selection.

The belief that we are special and that our decisions affect the world is quite an incentive, don't you think ?

What's that got to do with consciousness?

 

[hammegk]

Well, I'm sorry about that. Would you mind providing evidence that it DOES ?

My position remains "I don't know that it does, but it sure seems like I have libertarian free-will, and I choose to have faith I do."

Yours is (or should be for the logical materialist/dualist/~idealist) "It sure seems like I have libertarian free-will; however, I choose to have faith in a worldview that prohibits it."

Well that seems to be the heart of most of your posts, Hammy. Apparently, according to you, real materialists don't exist.

A few here even understand what I mean when I say it.

 

[nescafe]

No it's not. This subject is a matter of serious debate. It was an argument put forward by eliminative materialists. It comes up both in the philosophical parts of cognitive science and in philosophy of science.


If consciousness/mind is purely ephiphenomenal, and has no causal power, then it cannot be explained by evolution because evolution cannot select for something with no causal power. Think about it!

This is not a philosophical question at all.

I have consciousness. I am a direct result of evolution. Therefore evolution can produce conscious animals. QED.

Causal power, materialism, etc. do not enter in to it.

(ed. for spelling)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This is not a philosophical question at all.

I have consciousness. I am a direct result of evolution. Therefore evolution can produce conscious animals. QED.

Correct up to the "QED". Evolution can indeed produce conscious animals. It does not follow that evolution produced the conciousness, especially if that conciousness turns out to be epiphenomenal and causally impotent.

As usual, the argument supplied depends upon an assumption that materialism is true.

 

[nescafe]

Correct up to the "QED". Evolution can indeed produce conscious animals. It does not follow that evolution produced the conciousness, especially if that conciousness turns out to be epiphenomenal and causally impotent.

so? Then conciousness is just along for the ride, sorta like the female orgasm.

As usual, the argument supplied depends upon an assumption that materialism is true.

My argument does not depend on materialism any more than our understanding of evolution does. Any philosophical stance compatible with methodological naturalism is compatible with my statement -- if you believe otherwise, you should prove it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, it's the same problem I have with the zillion-odd terms to describe various styles of music. If you really want to, you can identify the specific style of every musical artist in the world. But that's not very useful. Plus, I get confused because all those terms seem to mean pretty much the same thing.

Monism: Reality is made of one thing.
Materialism/materialistic monism: Reality is made of material.
Eliminative materialism/Eliminativism: There are no such things as minds.
Reductive materialism: There are minds, but they can be reduced to matter (somehow).
Computationalism: Minds are like software.
Physicalism: Usually means "materialism", but sometimes means "reality is made of whatever physics eventually says it is". *not clear* *especially because of QM*
Idealism/mental monism: Reality is made of mind.
Neutral monism: Reality is made out of neutral stuff that is neither mind nor matter.
Dualism: Reality is made out of two things.
Substance/Cartesian dualism: Reality is made out of mind-stuff and matter-stuff
Property dualism/epihenomenalism : Reality is made of matter, with mind-stuff smeared over the outside like icing sugar.
Panpsychism: Consciousness is sort-of "everywhere".

Transcendental realism : We can know the nature of ultimate reality.
Transcendental idealism : We can't.

(Empirical) Realism: Objects in space which we percieve are real.
Direct realism: We percieve those objects directly.
Indirect realism: We directly perceive sense-data/representations/mental images of real objects, but we only indirectly perceive the real objects.
(Empirical) Anti-realism: Objects in space aren't real (related to idealism).

Determinism: Everything happens according to pre-determined causality.
Indeterminsim: It doesn't.
Compatibilism: Free will is compatible with determinism.
Incompatibilism: It isn't.
Libertarianism: Co-creational free will, a form of incompatibilism.
Hard Determinism: Another form of incompatibilism, which denies there is any such thing as free will.

Foundationalism : Knowledge can be justifiably based in a single foundation.
Anti-foundationalism: It can't.
Coherentism: Knowledge can be justfied by coherence within a single system with multiple non-critical foundations.

Scientism: The belief that science provides the only genuine knowledge about the world and humanity's place in it.

Disjunctivism: All we can say about perception is that EITHER we are perceiving a real object OR we are hallucinating one.
Intentionalism: Consciousness is defined by being "about" things, like objects.

Once you've memorised those, you should be fine.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

so? Then conciousness is just along for the ride, sorta like the female orgasm.

Yeah, but how did it get there?

The female orgasm is not there entirely as an evolutionary mistake. It has causal power......wouldn't you say? [insert miscellaneous smiley here]

My argument does not depend on materialism any more than our understanding of evolution does.

Oh yes it does. You need to assume that "I" refers to something in your brain and not something purely non-physical. If Panpsychism were true, which it could be, then consciousness can exist, and not be the result of evolution even though your body is.

Any philosophical stance compatible with methodological naturalism is compatible with my statement -- if you believe otherwise, you should prove it.

Panpsychism is compatible with methodological naturalism. It is also compatible with the claim that even though human beings are the product of evolution, consciousness isn't.

 

[Robin]

I have repeatedly responded to that question in the only way possible. I cannot use "physical" consistently because the physicalists themselves do not use it consistently. You can ask me the same question fifty more times and you will get the same answer.

Fine - so when you use the word "physical" in this context...

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.

...you don't actually know what you mean by it.

You made this claim rather forcefully and asserted that anybody who disagreed with it must be stupid.

Yet now you claim not to have even the beginnings of an idea of what you meant by one of the key terms.

So please don't tell me that you can tell the difference beteween a physical process and a subjective experience when you don't even know what you mean by a physical process. Because in your own words ...

... that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Fine - so when you use the word "physical" in this context...

Erm....I didn't use the word "physical" in that context.

I used the word "materialism".

...you don't actually know what you mean by it.

I meant materialism and said "materialism".

Materialism/materialistic monism: Reality is made of material.
Physicalism: Usually means "materialism", but sometimes means "reality is made of whatever physics eventually says it is". *not clear* *especially because of QM*

Yet now you claim not to have even the beginnings of an idea of what you meant by one of the key terms.

I both know what they mean and have enough reading ability to distinguish between the words "material" and "physical".

 

[Robin]

Plus, I get confused because all those terms seem to mean pretty much the same thing.

They pretty much do, for example take Geoff's definitions:

Monism: Reality is made of one thing.
Materialism/materialistic monism: Reality is made of material.

So if you decide to apply the word "material" to the "one thing" that reality is made of then materialism and Monism are identical.
Also Geoff keeps asserting that there is some sort of fundamental problem with minds being made of matter:

Reductive materialism: There are minds, but they can be reduced to matter (somehow).

However if monism is true then minds must be reducible to "one thing". Whether you call it "matter", or "stuff" or "neutral stuff" or "thought" is merely a matter of personal preference.

I can't see what difference it makes which term you use. Essentially a neutral monist is a materialist in denial.

Incidentally both of Geoff's definitions for "Physicalism" are wrong - he can be excused because most people these days get it wrong - even people that should know better.

Read AJ Ayer's chapter on Physicalism in "Philosophy in the Twentieth Century" to understand what it really means.