The relationship between science and materialism

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I'm done with this until you drop the disingenuous crap about my metaphysical fears. You're spewing this continuously in an effort to obfuscate the issue.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're not a materialist. If that is the case, please explain what is wrong with the distinction between P1 and P2. You're not a materialist, right? So you aren't going to put the cart before the horse and reject a set of definitions purely because it leads to a falsification of materialism, right?
 
Geoff, I do not know what your proof is going to be, so I cannot rig the definitions. I don't know your proof. Your proof is not something I know. I don't know what you are going to write. Your proof is not known to me. Do you get it now?

Why don't you list all the terms you're going to need with their definitions. I'll pick the first one I disagree with and tell you why.

~~ Paul
 
Paul,

If ever you needed the epoche, it's right now. Just for a moment I want you to forget about physicalism and simply answer the following question:

Do you understand the difference between

P1) Your experiences of a chair
P2) The external thing which causes you to have experiences of a chair

?

I cannot see why any reasonable person would deny this distinction, unless they were more interested in defending physicalism than actually making any sense. But since you claim you aren't defending physicalism, this shouldn't be a problem for you, yes?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Geoff, I do not know what your proof is going to be, so I cannot rig the definitions. I don't know your proof. Your proof is not something I know. I don't know what you are going to write. Your proof is not known to me. Do you get it now?

Why don't you list all the terms you're going to need with their definitions. I'll pick the first one I disagree with and tell you why.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I need you to acknowledge the difference between P1 and P2. Then everything will go swimmingly. :)
 
Some assistance....

Think of the brain in the vat. Let's say it's being fed signals that make it hallucinate a chair. Now the difference between P1 and P2 is laid bare.

P1) The experiences of a chair (exactly the same for the BIV and for you)
P2) The EXTERNAL cause of those experiences. P2 is now different in the two cases. In your case, there really is something corresponding to a chair which is causing your experiences. In the case of the BIV, no such thing exists. Instead, there is a computer and a nerve probe causing the experiences.

Conclusion: P1 and P2 are not the same.

Can you accept this?
 
Geoff said:
If ever you needed the epoche, it's right now. Just for a moment I want you to forget about physicalism and simply answer the following question:
Click to expand...
You can't stop yourself, can you?

Do you understand the difference between

P1) Your experiences of a chair
P2) The external thing which causes you to have experiences of a chair

?
Click to expand...
Yes, those two things would be different.

I cannot see why any reasonable person would deny this distinction, unless they were more interested in defending physicalism than actually making any sense. But since you claim you aren't defending physicalism, this shouldn't be a problem for you, yes?
Click to expand...
No problem. I wasn't denying it anyway.

~~ Paul
 
Geoff said:
Some assistance....

Think of the brain in the vat. Let's say it's being fed signals that make it hallucinate a chair. Now the difference between P1 and P2 is laid bare.

P1) The experiences of a chair (exactly the same for the BIV and for you)
P2) The EXTERNAL cause of those experiences. P2 is now different in the two cases. In your case, there really is something corresponding to a chair which is causing your experiences. In the case of the BIV, no such thing exists. Instead, there is a computer and a nerve probe causing the experiences.

Conclusion: P1 and P2 are not the same.

Can you accept this?
Click to expand...
No problem, but be careful if you suddenly give P1 and P2 short labels.

~~ Paul
 
Excuse me for not reading post by post, but what are you trying to prove with P1 and P2? That they are not reconcilable? That one is experiencial and the other an idea? that one is subjective and the other objective?

My take: They are the same, it is the ideas we have about one or the other that makes them "different". Obviously it all depends on your particular ontology.
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Excuse me for not reading post by post, but what are you trying to prove with P1 and P2? That they are not reconcilable? That one is experiencial and the other an idea? that one is subjective and the other objective?
Click to expand...

None of the above. I am merely trying to establish that they aren't the same thing and must not be confused.

My take: They are the same, it is the ideas we have about one or the other that makes them "different" it all depends on your particular ontology.
Click to expand...

See the example about the brain in the vat. Does your take still work?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
No problem, but be careful if you suddenly give P1 and P2 short labels.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Excellent! How could I give them any shorter labels than P1 and P2? :D

What shall we call them?

Can I call P1 "physical" and P2 "mind-independent" or "external"?

Alternatively, I could call P2 "physical" and P1 "mental".

I don't care which, but since we are now agreed that these things are not the same, we certainly can't call both of them "physical".

Agreed?
 
JustGeoff said:
Think of the brain in the vat. Let's say it's being fed signals that make it hallucinate a chair. Now the difference between P1 and P2 is laid bare.

P1) The experiences of a chair (exactly the same for the BIV and for you)
P2) The EXTERNAL cause of those experiences. P2 is now different in the two cases. In your case, there really is something corresponding to a chair which is causing your experiences. In the case of the BIV, no such thing exists. Instead, there is a computer and a nerve probe causing the experiences.

Conclusion: P1 and P2 are not the same.

Can you accept this?
Click to expand...

Nope, this is wrong. Both the BIV and you are experiencing the same "thing" and both are externally and objectively produced. Both are, in the end, similar firing patterns in the respective bran.

Where is the problem? :)
 
JustGeoff said:
Excellent! How could I give them any shorter labels than P1 and P2? :D

What shall we call them?

Can I call P1 "physical" and P2 "mind-independent" or "external"?

Alternatively, I could call P2 "physical" and P1 "mental".

I don't care which, but since we are now agreed that these things are not the same, we certainly can't call both of them "physical".

Agreed?
Click to expand...


I think you are jumping ahead.

What you are saying, to use an analogy of H2O, is that since ice is a cold hard substance and water is a warm cold liquid substance they can't both be H2O.

To move an argument forward based on the conclusion "they are different things" you need to be able to show that P1 & P2 can not be different "aspects" of the same thing, only once you have done that should you use that conclusion in any argument you wish to put forward.
 
Geoff said:
Excellent! How could I give them any shorter labels than P1 and P2?

What shall we call them?

Can I call P1 "physical" and P2 "mind-independent" or "external"?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Alternatively, I could call P2 "physical" and P1 "mental".
Click to expand...
Let's say not.

I don't care which, but since we are now agreed that these things are not the same, we certainly can't call both of them "physical".
Click to expand...
Of course not, because then we would be confused about which one we were talking about.

How about "internal experience" and "external stimulus"? That avoid all kinds of ontological baggage.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: And it addresses Darat's objection, too, by clearly allowing the internal experience to be caused by the external stimulus.
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Nope, this is wrong. Both the BIV and you are experiencing the same "thing" ....
Click to expand...

The BIV and me are both having the same set of experiences. In both cases I am aware of a chair. To be more technical, there is a sort of intentional consciousness occuring - my consciousness is directed towards an object that looks like a chair. These are the same and I am calling them P1.

Agreed?

and both are externally and objectively produced.
Click to expand...

This statement is vague and confusing.

One of them is produced by something external which is in someway chair-like and the other is produced by a bunch of electronics. In both cases the cause is external, but even thought P1 is the same in both cases, P2 is different. Therefore P1 isn't P2.

Agreed?

Both are, in the end, similar firing patterns in the respective bran.
Click to expand...

That's just a meaningless statement dependent on materialism, and therefore not relevant at this point.

Where is the problem? :)
Click to expand...

The problem is you can't tell the difference between P1 and P2. I suspect you want to call both of them "physical", even though they are clearly not the same thing. Please choose which one you are going to call "physical".
 
It would Paul because then we are not assuming a conclusion i.e. "these things are made of different stuff", all we are doing is describing what we can.
 
JustGeoff said:
The BIV and me are both having the same set of experiences.
Click to expand...

That is not "provable" all we can say is that both of you communicate to us the same thing.

JustGeoff said:
In both cases I am aware of a chair. To be more technical, there is a sort of intentional consciousness occuring - my consciousness is directed towards an object that looks like a chair. These are the same and I am calling them P1.

Agreed?
Click to expand...

What is directing your "consciousness toward an object like a chair"?

JustGeoff said:
This statement is vague and confusing.

One of them is produced by something external which is in someway chair-like and the other is produced by a bunch of electronics. In both cases the cause is external, but even thought P1 is the same in both cases, P2 is different. Therefore P1 isn't P2.

Agreed?

...snip...
Click to expand...

Again how do you know P1 is the same in both cases?

JustGeoff said:
...snip...

The problem is you can't tell the difference between P1 and P2. I suspect you want to call both of them "physical", even though they are clearly not the same thing. Please choose which one you are going to call "physical".
Click to expand...

Please provide the proof and evidence that they are not the same thing - you have again assumed a conclusion.
 
Darat said:
Please provide the proof and evidence that they are not the same thing - you have again assumed a conclusion.
Click to expand...
It's fair to say that a chair and the experience of a chair are not the same thing. After all, clearly the chair is not in my head. What we want to avoid is claiming that they are/are not the same type of thing.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
It's fair to say that a chair and the experience of a chair are not the same thing. After all, clearly the chair is not in my head. What we want to avoid is claiming that they are/are not the same type of thing.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

My wording was a tad confusing that is what I meant - see my H2O analogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom