The relationship between science and materialism

[hammegk]

... you can't escape the dualism by being a materialist (or an idealist) no matter how hard you try.

We obviously agree with former comment, and disagree with the latter position.

You conclude stuff over and above mind/body solves the problem. I say you just pushed Stimpy's Denial up a notch.

I still find choosing objective idealism is best one can do to escape dualism, and physicalism.


Mercutio: SFAIK, I've always stated that my choice is just that, a choice.

The physicalist 1.Thinks, 2.Thinks matter exists, 3.Thinks matter explains Thought.; I stop at 1.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can think of little that is more dualistic than the term "Physical mind". What is it supposed to mean?

The non-dualistic version is simply "physical brain".

It's supposed to mean what the speaker wants it to mean, as opposed to what His Terminological Overlordness forces it to mean.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The physicalist 1.Thinks, 2.Thinks matter exists, 3.Thinks matter explains Thought.; I stop at 1.

Which should not be construed as an argument for the fundamental nature of thought.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's supposed to mean what the speaker wants it to mean.....

Ok, this is a good time to explain the problem.

When Kevin said "physical mind", he might have thought he meant something, but in actual fact the term cannot mean anything at all. He's already said his position is de facto eliminativism in so much as he believes the basic claim of eliminativism is true: all mental words are theoretically eliminable. Since he has declared this to be his position he CANNOT then come along and start talking about "physical minds". He CANNOT mean anything coherent. So it's no use you telling me "It's supposed to mean what he want's it to mean" because it is impossible to determine "what he want it to mean". This is not my fault. This is a consequence of his own previous claims. That is why I said to you that it doesn't matter what terms people use provided they define them clearly and use them consistently. Kevin is not doing this. So I have every right to reject the term and demand that he be much clearer and more consistent about what exactly he is claiming.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with a person who has got a self-contradictory set of definitions. If you believe that all mental terms can be reduced to physical terms then it logically follows that the term "physical minds" means nothing at all. Or rather, what it means is "physical brain processes".

I have absolutely no choice but to challenge this. It's nothing to do with imposing MY definitions on other people. It's got everything to do with demanding that people eliminate contradictions and inconsistencies in their own usage of terms.

It can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean provided he only means one thing and what he means isn't contradicting other claims/definitions HE has made.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... all mental words are theoretically eliminable.

This does not mean I am obliged to eliminate them.

Sorry Geoff, but eliminative materialism does not sustain your desire to be a terminology Nazi.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps I am biased from arguments here, but my experience here has been that the materialists and idealists are both well aware of their assumptions.

That's true of only a minority of people here and only a tiny minority of people you meet.

Stimpy, for instance, has had some wonderful posts on the matter. I am certain there are people who do not realize they are assumptions, just as there are christians who have never read the bible. Does the existence of the latter invalidate the defining characteristics of christianity? No.

Kevin Lowe is no Stimpson J Cat.

The question remains...why?
see above.
I don't understand why you wrote this. Is this a benefit of your belief system? I asked for a practical benefit. Of what practical use is this? Does it allow us to research something? Cure cancer? Brighten teeth? Get floors cleaner? Of what practical use is your philosophy?

What "practical use" is ANY philosophy?

Answer: On an everyday level, none at all (apart from maybe ethics) But if you think that philosophy hasn't influenced the course of human history you would be seriously mistaken. On the contrary, it is philosophy which has governed much of the course of history. It is architectonics on the level of the history of civilisation.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Eliminative materialism is the position there is no such thing as a mind. Anyone who thinks it isn't, doesn't understand what Eliminative materialism is.

Which is your position as well! (Given the definition eliminative materialists use when they make such a statement about "mind".)

All they deny is the dualistic definition of mind that we normally use, something that I thought you also denied? If you don't then you are saying the the mind (as used in the sense the eliminative materialists use it when they make such statements) exists so you are saying that the mind is dualistic and therefore you are arguing for a form of dualism.

You can't have it both ways either you agree that the common dualistic definition of a mind doesn't exist (i.e. the same as eliminative materialists) or you believe the dualistic mind does exist so therefore are arguing for a form of dualism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This does not mean I am obliged to eliminate them.

It doesn't if you are explaining to your wife that you are depressed.
It does if you are having a discussion about metaphysics.

You can accuse me of being a terminological nazi if you like. I'm a philosopher. I'll take it as a compliment. All self-contradictory definitions are to be exterminated. God is the sewer into which all contradictions flow.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am now going to take the advice of tricky and retire from this thread.

There's little of interest being asked - it's just a flame war. I'll check by just in case somebody posts something interesting, but if they do not then I think I'd rather just leave it to die.

Geoff

 

[hammegk]

Which should not be construed as an argument for the fundamental nature of thought.

~~ Paul

I agree some demonstrate that thought is not a part of their fundamental nature.

 

[Tricky]

I am now going to take the advice of tricky and retire from this thread.

There's little of interest being asked - it's just a flame war. I'll check by just in case somebody posts something interesting, but if they do not then I think I'd rather just leave it to die.

Geoff

I'm honored that you would listen to me. If I may make a suggestion for the next version of this thread, start with definitions. That will either eliminate the semantic arguments, or it will dig right into them and avoid all the pussyfooting around.

 

[69dodge]

Minds supervene on brains because at the noumenal level, they are the same thing.

Why is your use here of the word "are" any more meaningful than materialists' use of it in the phrase "minds are physical processes in a physical brain"?

Like I already said, whenever materialists say "physical", pretend they said "noumenal". Now what's the difference between your position and theirs?

I'm with Paul on metaphysics. If you can't do an experiment to check whether you're right, how do you decide whether you're right? What does it even mean to be right? Nothing. It's all just meaningless words.

Zero equals infinity? Everything equals nothing? That's about as contradictory as one can get. Compared to that, "minds are physical" is positively tautological.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm honored that you would listen to me. If I may make a suggestion for the next version of this thread, start with definitions. That will either eliminate the semantic arguments, or it will dig right into them and avoid all the pussyfooting around.

Tricky,

There's a very important reason why that is impossible. If I were to start with my definitions of what things means, I couldn't prove anything to anybody. They very fact that you are saying this tells me that even if you read this thread, you missed the point completely. I can only prove to a person that their own belief system is incoherent. The one and only way I can do this is to get them to define their terms. Then I can start from their definitions and if I can reach a contradiction I will have demonstrated that their belief system is contradictory. That is exactly what I have been doing for the entirety of this thread. That is why I got annoyed with people repeatedly telling me that it was me who was rigging the definitions. I did nothing of the sort. Instead, I asked anyone they liked to provide any sort of definitions they liked. The only definitions I rejected were definitions which contained contradictions within them. The cherry on the cake was Darat, after 38 pages, telling me that I should be open-minded enough to believe people have different meanings for certain words!

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why is your use here of the word "are" any more meaningful than materialists' use of it in the phrase "minds are physical processes in a physical brain"?

I've explained what it means. I am not depending on that "are" to cover up a hole in my position.

Like I already said, whenever materialists say "physical", pretend they said "noumenal". Now what's the difference between your position and theirs?

The materialists also believe the objects they directly percieve to be physical. If "physical" now refers to noumenal then the objects they percieve cannot also be physical - at least not in anything like the same way - you'd have to invent "two kinds" of physical (physical-I-can-see and physical-I-can't-see). It is for exactly this reason why people are then forced to invent the word "qualia" to refer to the experiences of perceiving objects. The fundamental mistake of physicalism is to confuse the objects of direct experiences of a spatio-temporal world with the noumenal entities that are causing those experiences. This mistake has led to a vast array of other confusions from cognitive science to quantum mechanics. Proper philosophy doesn't even start till this mistake has been recognised.

I'm with Paul on metaphysics. If you can't do an experiment to check whether you're right, how do you decide whether you're right?

All you can do is examine your concepts and attempt to eliminate contradictions. Unfortunately most people simply attempt to defend whatever it is they want to believe.

What does it even mean to be right? Nothing. It's all just meaningless words.

You wouldn't say that about somebody who is wrong about evolution.

Zero equals infinity? Everything equals nothing? That's about as contradictory as one can get.

It seem like it is ABSOLUTELY as contradictory as you can get. But if you suspend your disbelief for a moment, go with the re-definition and then start thinking about some of the unanswerable questions of philosophy, they either stop being questions or stop being unanswerable. It looks like the mother of all contradictions but the truth is that the failure to realise it is in fact not a contradiction which leads to all the other contradictions.

The reason we think it is contradictory is because we have a mistake in our way of thinking about certain things. We have got this concept "nothing" which we use to refer to the abscence of anything. I have tried to illustrate this to people by explaining that the whole of mathematics could be seen as being contained in a zero, or that 1 and -1 already exist within 0. This is what is wrong with out normal ideas about being and nothing. We think of 0 as nothing, because we use it to represent "no instances of a thing". But it isn't just the abscence of anything - it's also a sort of pivotal point and sort of a totality of everything. It doesn't actually take an enormous leap of the imagination to grasp what I am aiming at here. When I post these sorts of ideas, the usual response is somebody coming along and claiming this has some ort of negative effect on mathematics, or stops them using 0 to do their job, or moans that I'm making unprovable assertions. Which somewhat misses the point of why I used the example in the first place. It's not being offered as a proof - it's being offered as an "intuition pump".

Geoff

 

[Tricky]

Tricky,

There's a very important reason why that is impossible. If I were to start with my definitions of what things means, I couldn't prove anything to anybody. They very fact that you are saying this tells me that even if you read this thread, you missed the point completely. I can only prove to a person that their own belief system is incoherent.

But you see, that doesn't work unless you honor their definitions. When you say things like, "Eliminative materialism is the position there is no such thing as a mind," and they say, "That's not how I define it", then you must let them run with their definition and show that it is not coherant, even if you disagree with it. Otherwise, you are just going back to saying "I don't accept your definition" And in my observation of this thread, neither you nor others are accepting each others' definitions.

Then I can start from their definitions and if I can reach a contradiction I will have demonstrated that their belief system is contradictory. That is exactly what I have been doing for the entirety of this thread. That is why I got annoyed with people repeatedly telling me that it was me who was rigging the definitions.

I think there is some justification in that, as per the example I gave you above. But it doesn't matter who did it first once the fur starts flying.

Instead, I asked anyone they liked to provide any sort of definitions they liked. The only definitions I rejected were definitions which contained contradictions within them. The cherry on the cake was Darat, after 38 pages, telling me that I should be open-minded enough to believe people have different meanings for certain words!

Well, you and Darat have had some heated discussions throughout this thread, so it is not surprising that anything either of you say will be perceived as an insult. For example, will you accept Darat's definition of "open minded"? Do you think he would accept yours?

 

[scribble]

I am now going to take the advice of tricky and retire from this thread.

Another obvious truth from Geoff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But you see, that doesn't work unless you honor their definitions. When you say things like, "Eliminative materialism is the position there is no such thing as a mind," and they say, "That's not how I define it", then you must let them run with their definition and show that it is not coherant, even if you disagree with it.

Tricky,

This case really is a straightforward failure to understand what is ALWAYS meant by a specific term. The name "eliminative materialism" was given to a specific school of though for the very precise reason - a very precise claim. This had and has not been understood by a whole host of people posting in this thread. "Eliminative materialism" MUST imply that literally (and I use the word "literally" literally) minds don't exist. Eliminative materialism IS a claim about a word. It is not an ontological claim any different to normal physicalism. The sole difference between EM and RM is the rejection of a (class of) words. That word is "mind"! There are some definitions which are NOT up for grabs. For example : what if I want to define "monism" and "a belief there are three different ontological types". There is no point whatsoever in letting me do so. In fact you would be derelict in your duty as an intelligent human being to allow me to do so. Eliminative materialism is a term like this. The name itself dictates what it means. There is no difference between reductive and eliminative materialism unless eliminative materialism eliminates minds because that is the one and only difference between them. So I hope you can see that it was not possible for let them define eliminative materialism as "you can still say minds exist in eliminative materialism" because it is every bit as mistaken as believing that monism means "3 types of stuff" or "square" refers to an object with 6 sides. Sometimes people are mistaken. Anyone who thinks eliminative materialism means minds still exist is mistaken. I cannot run with square circles, physical minds, 6 sided-squares or eliminative materialists telling me that eliminative materialism doesn't eliminate minds. It makes meaningfull communiation impossible. The whole point in inventing eliminative materialism was to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the term "mind" needed to be eliminated. By allowing people definitions of eliminative materialism which fail to eliminate minds, it renders eliminative materialism no longer eliminative materialism.

Otherwise, you are just going back to saying "I don't accept your definition"

Sorry, trickster, but "I don't accept your definition" is permissible when somebody is trying to define a square circle. Only an idiot would accept such a definition.

And in my observation of this thread, neither you nor others are accepting each others' definitions.

That isn't the problem. The problem is that some people (not me) keep changing their definitions in mid-argument then changing them back again and that other people are trying to define square circles and physical minds. I have no choice but to reject definitions like these.

Well, you and Darat have had some heated discussions throughout this thread, so it is not surprising that anything either of you say will be perceived as an insult. For example, will you accept Darat's definition of "open minded"? Do you think he would accept yours?

I find communication with Darat about any topic other than cats quite difficult.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Another obvious truth from Geoff.

You took your time to turn up. Been busy?

 

[chriswl]

I'm with Paul on metaphysics. If you can't do an experiment to check whether you're right, how do you decide whether you're right? What does it even mean to be right? Nothing. It's all just meaningless words.

I think Geoff has admitted that there is some benefit to him from his metaphysical position - it (allegedly) avoids ruling out the supernatural. But this seems like an argument against his position to me. If neutral monism allows for supernatural events but we live in a universe that seems not to have supernatural events (and the harder we look the more this seems to be the case)... well maybe neutral monism describes a merely possible universe and not the one we actually live in.

 

[scribble]

You took your time to turn up. Been busy?

Why do you and your friends keep asking me that?

YES. YES, I'VE BEEN BUSY.

In fact, busy doesn't even begin to describe it. In the last year and a half, I've been practically flooded with projects.

So... YES. *VERY* busy.

Thanks for asking.

Now your turn: Did you ever work out those copyright issues with God?