• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The relationship between science and materialism

Never mind, Geoff. I don't have the patience to do it all again. And you apparently don't have the desire to clarify rather than restart.

Okay, I give. Merc and Mary are right. I shall stop using the word mind in any philosophy discussions. The word has been hopelessly hijacked by the Pirates of Dualism. It pisses me off, but sometimes you just gotta give in.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
JustGeoff said:
Yep. That's the real problem. There is no "you"*. You've eliminated yourself from your theories**. That's why people who have no need of eliminative materialism find this so highly amusing***.

Geoff
Click to expand...
* For particular definitions of "you". That is why it is in quotes. If you, as Iacchus did, need a homunculus to be "you" and inhabiting "your" body, then yes, there is no "you".

** This seeming paradox is perfectly logical when you put the scare quotes around "yourself" and define it as the homunculus. There is no need for one, if body=you. (BTW, this statement is true independently of monism.)

*** Amusement is a silly reason for rejecting an explanation. It is interesting that those who "have no need of eliminative materialism" are, in this thread anyway those who have a need to infer a noumenal monism to patch the holes in their dualism.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Okay, I give. Merc and Mary are right.
~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Except that Mary, I would wager, thinks that she is writing satire. The position she finds so extreme as to be ludicrous is exactly the position that is easy to defend under the assumptions of materialism.*


*again, noting that I am not a materialist--I was merely assuming it in the context of addressing Mary's statement.
 
We *DO* have the language for what brains do. They process/compute.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Neurons process and compute. There is much more to the brain than just its individual neurons.

OK, let's go back to the beginning and start again. What does a myocyte do?
 
Mercutio said:
Except that Mary, I would wager, thinks that she is writing satire. The position she finds so extreme as to be ludicrous is exactly the position that is easy to defend under the assumptions of materialism.
Click to expand...

Yes, you put it right.
 
Mercutio said:
Please, Mary; read what I have actually written. Not at all "only a brain", but a body that includes that brain, and a lifetime of experience.
Click to expand...

Please define "experience".

This makes all the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

Yep...but you needed to slip in the word "experience" to make the difference, Merc.

Geoff
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Never mind, Geoff. I don't have the patience to do it all again. And you apparently don't have the desire to clarify rather than restart.

Okay, I give. Merc and Mary are right. I shall stop using the word mind in any philosophy discussions. The word has been hopelessly hijacked by the Pirates of Dualism. It pisses me off, but sometimes you just gotta give in.
Click to expand...

You just need to accept there is a problem with physicalism. It does not mean that you have to accept the alternative: idealism.

I´ve been waiting 18 pages to know what exactly Geoff has to offer as another alternative. I still don´t get it. Let´s say that I am not in Paul´s position, I fully agree that physicalims is false, so what?.
 
JustGeoff said:
Please define "experience".
Click to expand...
Interaction with environment. Again, this is independent of monism.
Yep...but you needed to slip in the word "experience" to make the difference, Merc.

Geoff
Click to expand...
No, Geoff, you had to remove a very natural part of the equation in order to pretend there was a problem. I am, frankly, dissappointed.
 
Mary Dennett said:
You just need to accept there is a problem with physicalism. It does not mean that you have to accept the alternative: idealism.

I´ve been waiting 18 pages to know what exactly Geoff has to offer as another alternative. I still don´t get it. Let´s say that I am not in Paul´s position, I fully agree that physicalims is false, so what?.
Click to expand...
A very good question.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Never mind, Geoff. I don't have the patience to do it all again. And you apparently don't have the desire to clarify rather than restart.
Click to expand...

....and here I am with a new six-pack of Orangeboom.

Okay, I give. Merc and Mary are right. I shall stop using the word mind in any philosophy discussions. The word has been hopelessly hijacked by the Pirates of Dualism. It pisses me off, but sometimes you just gotta give in.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Don't blame the dualists, Paul. This problem is all of the materialists own making.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Wrong. Neurons process and compute. There is much more to the brain than just its individual neurons.

OK, let's go back to the beginning and start again. What does a myocyte do?
Click to expand...

No idea. But it doesn't matter. Whatever it does, it is still just a physical thing doing something physical. You can scale this up and scale it up and all you will end up with is a physical brain doing something physical. But you need to bridge the gap between objective and subjective if this is going to make any difference and the moment you attempt to do this - no matter how ingeniously you try to hide the assignment of objective=subjective - I will notice it straight away and call foul.
 
Mercutio said:
First, I am not a materialist. But let us assume it true. This would not at all mean that "subjective" processes must now be objective.
Click to expand...

Why not?. It is a physical process occuring in grey matter, subject to the laws of nature.

My private experience (my thinking, feeling, remembering) is observable, but only to one person. Me. That does not magically make it non-physical. Would you argue that what someone does when no one else is watching is not objective? Thinking is what you do that no one else can watch, but that is not sufficient to say that it differs from public behavior in any manner other than the number of observers.
Click to expand...

In principle, it should be possible for ANY observer to have access to your brain processes. Let´s say we connect your brain to a monitor, then you carry it all the time. Why wouldn´t we be able to observe your brain waves and electrical impulses every second of the day?????. Unless you admit that there is some non detectable stuff going on in your brain.

There is nothing special about you, mercutio. No subjective experience at all.
 
Mercutio said:
Interaction with environment. Again, this is independent of monism.
Click to expand...

But then it's no use to you how you just tried to use it. "Interaction with your environment" is what nervous systems do. There's no "lifetime of experience". There's no experience, remember?
 
Do you honestly think I am trying to do something with a muscle cell that will breach some theoretical objective-subjective issue?

We can play my game or we can go back to your game. If you don't care for the answer that I would give, then fine, I'll simply let that earlier rant wash over.

So.... if we go back to your game, we were on the issue of the subject and what the subject is. I think we had gotten as far as something about the subject being the viewpoint which made no sense to me. I rephrased it to mean that the subject was awareness from a viewpoint -- the viewpoint I was using in an individual being the totality of "phenomenal experiences" that are processed by the noumenal brain and presented to awareness. Does this roughly meet your idea of what a subject is or have I mucked it up?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Do you honestly think I am trying to do something with a muscle cell that will breach some theoretical objective-subjective issue?
Click to expand...

I don't know yet. But I'm guessing that's where you line of argument was going to lead, because that is always where that line of argument leads. Every single time - no matter whether it's a layman on this board or a professor of cognitive science. They all do it. Apart from the elminativists, that is. They would rather eliminate half the dictionary than do it because they know that if they do then somebody like me is going to come along and trip them up.....

"There's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows, and trips you up and laughs when you fall." (Morrisey)

So.... if we go back to your game, we were on the issue of the subject and what the subject is. I think we had gotten as far as something about the subject being the viewpoint which made no sense to me. I rephrased it to mean that the subject was awareness from a viewpoint -- the viewpoint I was using in an individual being the totality of "phenomenal experiences" that are processed by the noumenal brain and presented to awareness. Does this roughly meet your idea of what a subject is or have I mucked it up?
Click to expand...

It mucks is up. If the subject is anything at all it is the viewpoint itself. The totality of phenomenal experiences isn't the viewpoint. That totality is what the word "mind" refers to, not the word "subject". From a phenomenological point of view I am drawing a distinction between the content of mind, the totality of mind and that which is observing the mind. The materialists need to say "I am my brain". You are wrongly interpreting my position as "I am my mind". I'm not saying that. When I used the word "I", it is a place holder for the subject, not the mind. I am not my mind. I am merely aware of my mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom