Materialists......

[nescafe]

<snip philosophical arguing about a nonphilosophical topic>

Please tell me where I said "evolution produced consciousness". I specifically did not say that. I you thought I intended to say that, you are mistaken.

Genetic drift happens, and most of it has no short-term impact on reproductive fitness. Selection is only part of the process of evolution.

Also, please stop thinking that I am trying to argue for or against some philosophical stance in this line of questioning. I am not.

 

[I less than three logic]

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

I used the word "materialism".

Um, check a little further down in that sentence he quoted of yours.

 

[Robin]

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

I used the word "materialism".



I meant materialism and said "materialism".

Yes you did use the word "physical", the word is right there in the part of your OP that I quoted:

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 didn't put that word there? What happened? Did some malicious materialist alter your post? Is there another JustGeoff?

I am astounded that you would even attempt to deny that you used the word "physical" in this claim.

Again I repeat, you cannot tell the difference between a physical process and a subjective experience unless you know what you mean by a physical process. QED.

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

Apparently you don't!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Essentially a neutral monist is a materialist in denial.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

 

[Robin]

Thus spake Zarathustra.

He may or may not have spaked it, but it is nonetheless true.

If you can transform one metaphysical position to another simply by transposing the terms then those positions are identical.

I can't see why "neutral stuff" is a better or worse term than "matter".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

He may or may not have spaked it, but it is nonetheless true.

If you can transform one metaphysical position to another simply by transposing the terms then those positions are identical.

I can't see why "neutral stuff" is a better or worse term than "matter".

Neither could Zarathustra.

 

[I less than three logic]

He may or may not have spaked it, but it is nonetheless true.

If you can transform one metaphysical position to another simply by transposing the terms then those positions are identical.

I can't see why "neutral stuff" is a better or worse term than "matter".

It seems to me, that the neutral stuff allows one to play dualist whilst claiming to be a monist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It seems to me, that the neutral stuff allows one to play dualist whilst claiming to be a monist.

It allows one to account for the apparent dualisms of reality whilst still claiming to be a monist.

 

[hammegk]

However if monism is true then minds must be reducible to "one thing".

No one here has been willing to argue differently for years now.

Whether you call it "matter", or "stuff" or "neutral stuff" or "thought" is merely a matter of personal preference.

Stuff? Er, ok. Are the attributes you assign to 'stuff' more like "thought stuff (I sometimes prefer mind -- that is willful -- stuff), or "matter stuff"? Or is it Geoff's "neutral stuff" which he asserts is both and/or neither?

Mu!

I can't see what difference it makes which term you use.

How do you conclude that "matter stuff" can possibly allow the remotest chance of libertarian free will?

Do you state that you have complete belief that libertarian free will cannot, does not, exists? If so,your choice of monism is logically named "matter".

Essentially a neutral monist is a materialist in denial.

Or imnsho, even more likely, an objective idealist 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.

Perhaps other views exist ... It could even lead to a philosophical discussion.

 

[Robin]

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.

No philosophy will allow libertarian free will to exist until the concept of libertarian free will is defined sufficiently.

It seems to me that proponents of libertarian free will are asserting the Anarchist Fallacy - that the alternative to order is freedom.

The alternative to order is not freedom, it is disorder. Disorder allows neither freedom nor will.

So if we allow that will depends upon an underlying order, what difference does it make whether we term that order "material", "physical" or something else?

So your choice of metaphysic, materialist, neutral monist, objective idealist, makes no difference whatsoever to the free will debase.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Robin

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.

Then please correct my definitions.

Geoff

 

[Robin]

No one here has been willing to argue differently for years now.

So we all agree then that minds are reducible to the same thing that my coffee cup is reducible to.

Stuff? Er, ok. Are the attributes you assign to 'stuff' more like "thought stuff (I sometimes prefer mind -- that is willful -- stuff), or "matter stuff"? Or is it Geoff's "neutral stuff" which he asserts is both and/or neither?

Mu!

Not being God I am unable to assign any attributes to stuff. What attributes do I think it has? Obviously I don't know this any more than anybody else. Clearly if I have will then "stuff" has the potential to instantiate will at some level.

The question is, can something exist that neither has the attribute of will nor is the product of will? I don't see why not.

For example I don't see why the discarded kleenex needs a God to think of it to maintain it's existence - seems like a pretty poor duty for a God to maintain the existence of my refuse. I can't see what properties a discarded kleenex has that logically necessitates a will to maintain it's existence.

How do you conclude that "matter stuff" can possibly allow the remotest chance of libertarian free will?

What is the precise property of matter that you think disallows free will? If you mean determinism, then you still have to define that mysterious state that is not determined by anything, and yet not arbitrary.

Do you state that you have complete belief that libertarian free will cannot, does not, exists?

Since I never have stated such a position I don't know why you even ask. I am not in a position to know that. Neither is anybody else.

If so,your choice of monism is logically named "matter".

Which part of the word "matter" suits it for this use? Is it the vowels or the consonants? Does lower case, or upper case make a difference in this respect? If I changed one letter in the word, would it alter your opinion?

If you think that the word "matter" in itself kills off free will, what if I spelled it "maatter"? What if I removed 5 letters and added 3 and called it "mind"?

In short, what is the precise nature of the difference you see between "mind" and "matter"?

 

[Robin]

Robin



Then please correct my definitions.

Geoff

I have already given you the reference. You have said that you can't possibly follow it up until October.

 

[Robin]

Here is all the metaphysics you ever need to know:

Monism: There is stuff
Materialism: There is stuff:
Idealism: There is not stuff, there is only other stuff
Dualism: You are all wrong, there is stuff and other stuff
Cartesian dualism: There is stuff and other stuff
Theological dualism: There is stuff and other stuff
Neutral Monism: There is stuff which is stuff and other stuff
Eliminative materialism: Minds are stuff
Reductive materialism: Minds are stuff
Computationalism: Minds are processes
Physicalism: If it seems like stuff then we should just call it stuff and get on with our lives
Positivism: Metaphysics is BS
(insert random qualifier) Realism: The truck that is about to hit you will still hit you even if you close your eyes and cover your ears.
Libertarianism: The alternative to order is freedom
Compatibilism: The alternative to order is disorder

 

[Filip Sandor]

JG, you are right about the mind being 'subjective' in the sense that; unless someone tells you what is going on in their brain there is no way to logically deduce anything even remotely close to a model of their actual mental experiences. Materialists only accept the existence of the 'mental stuff' because they experience mental phenomena directly and not because they have any kind of physical evidence for it. This is the exact reason why scientists have to ask patients "do you sense something? or what do you see?" when they see certain parts of the brain being stimulated in order to make the correlation between that part of the brain and the mental experience that goes with it. If they had real physical evidence of the 'mental stuff' they wouldn't need to ask the patient anything at all if they are having a mental experience.

We know this, many others know this, many deny it for their own reasons.

 

[articulett]

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 ?

I third the eybrow raise...well, I guess no one really has three eyebrow...but i want to add my vote. Are our dualist friends implying that animal are not conscious or don't make choices? Consciousness is a pretty good method for avoiding get yourself killed, making other life forms, etc. We're not the only species who evolved that trait. Our language makes us special--to us--but the reast of the universe doesn't care what humans think is special. Language is, indeed, a great gift. But I'm sure bees prefer they're method of communicating where the flowers with the best pollen are. One of the best things about language is that we can teach eathother...but we can also lie to ourselves and others. It isn't magic. It's wonderous alright--but it has it's drawbacks...and you need a brain--even a particular portion of the brain and certain genes which are known to malfunction in some cases to develop it to it's fullest potential. Without a brain--there is no "self" to perceive language or express thoughts. Try a hallucinogen or electric shock if you want to really understand how perception is related to the physical elements in the brain and the forces acting on that brain. No EEG--brain dead--no thinking...no feelings. Even insects have electrical activity goin on in their brains. In fact, to start the whole egg dividing process in an in vitro zygote often requires just a little shock--not god--not "ensoulment"--just a charge...and then the replication happens all by itself--whether it's human or insect--developing the exact amount of "consciousness" necessary to make survival and reproduction successful on a whole.

Even if you feel special and that the world was made for you and that your intelligent designer gave you a special purpose--you're still wrong. It might be fun to believe and incomprehensible to doubt--but nature doesn't really care what humans think. You can fuss and fight and deny--or you can use your fabulous brain to learn how you are fooling yourself and begin learning all of the very fascinating things there are to know thanks to human ingenuity and science.

I find it so bizarre that there are people (dualists) who procede to tell me how I think and how illogical it is...especially given their own utter lack of understanding when it comes to some very simple science. Plus, they point out imaginary ignorance in others' viewpoints without seeming to have a clue about their own.

If I had 3 eyebrows, they would all be raised right now.

 

[articulett]

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.

An interesting point in relation to this is phantom limb pain--where an amputated appendage still feels like it's there and in pain. A freudian subconscious missing of said limb? No--it just seems that other brain areas that normally tell you what is going on in a given appendage spread out and insert their nerves in the portion of your brain that used to feel what you used to experience as your (now missing) limb. You need a brain to tell you where your keys are on the key board--and it doesn't need to be conscious at all once it's wired. Everything going on in regards to your perception of the environment is translated by signals to your brain from your other sensory organs. Emotions feel "inside" me--but I also feel empathy when others appear to be suffering--even animals. I know this is mirror neurons and how and why it evolved in mammals --I don't pretend it's magic and incomprehensible and makes me divine.

Like you, Belz, I find my reality based existence plenty wondrous enough for me.

 

[articulett]

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.

If lego blocks can be referred to as bricks (and they are), then I think an argument can be made for calling wall-building-stones "bricks" too. Certainly Belz' analogy is more apropos than justgeoffs...and, bygod, I demand the right to call them bricks! (plus my dictionary points out that a brick can be anything shaped in a block e.g. a "brick of cheese")

 

[Darat]

If lego blocks can be referred to as bricks (and they are), then I think an argument can be made for calling wall-building-stones "bricks" too. Certainly Belz' analogy is more apropos than justgeoffs...and, bygod, I demand the right to call them bricks! (plus my dictionary points out that a brick can be anything shaped in a block e.g. a "brick of cheese")

It is LEGO.

(Sorry old habits die hard.)

 

[articulett]

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

Just because we don't use the same terms or don't say it's either free will or deterministic doesn't mean we prohibit an idea. Even you must know your will is based on your brain and your environment and your experiences. You may choose what to eat and when--you don't really have much of a choice when it comes to being hungry. If you have no access to food, you can choose to eat all you want in your head--but you still have no nourishment. People choose their actions based on feelings or instinct or something they may have no clue about. Humans are very good at misunderstanding why they do the things they do. This is another area where psychology has been very illustrative of this. For example, if you give someone caffeine without their knowing prior to a movie, they will rate the movie as more exciting--but they will say it's because of "x" (some action in the movie) and not because there was extra adrenaline in their body due to caffeine. Humans like to know the reasons for things--and when they don't, they often make things up. There are so many mental illnesses and syndromes that make this evident (type "confabulation" in a search engine and see for yourself) that it's wildly ignorant to pretend that everyone has the same "free will"--you don't choose your sex or your parent or to be born--you don't choose to age--free will exists in a context of material reality. If I hit you on the head with a hammer, I bet I can change your "free will" immensely. Humans have the capacity for reasoned choices. And what you see in materialists is a very well reasoned choice--backed by a lot of evidence. I was raised with the belief in a soul--I would still like to believe in one. But reality doesn't care about what I want to believe--nor does it care about what hammegk and justgeoff believe. I want to understand that reality--I don't care what you think causes your thoughts--I want to know facts--that requires measurement and matter--and not "magical" souls that are immeasurable and poorly defined. If you cannot make new memories with a destroyed hippocampus how can you do or think anything without an entire brain? You can't. On the bright side, you can't suffer in hell forever and the hijackers can't experience orgasms. All the above, requires a BRAIN--one that is hookd up to other sensory organs. It's not stubborness or unwillingness. It's just a realization that the facts don't always lead to the conclusions that make you feel best or that seem the most obvious. Remember, the earth looks very flat and unmoving. It isn't. We know via measurement. That's how we know about consciousness too.