The relationship between science and materialism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Why do we need a subject?" is no different from "Why do we need anything subjective?". That's all well and good provided you recognise the existence of p-zombies because p-zombies have no subject and nothing subjective. You've declared it incomprehensible for there to be a humanlike thing with no subject and no subjectivity, but you still want to be able to ask me "What do we need the subject for?" The answer is "We need the subject or we are going to have to acknowledge the possible existence of P-zombies?"

It certainly is different. I'm not asking why we need a subjective viewpoint; it's clear we have one. I'm asking why we need a special (no)thing to act as the subject, rather than subjective experience arising directly from the Neutral.

It does in this example, yes. It is a meaningless "circumscribe".

You're saying I cannot take a subset of brain functions and call it mind? What stops me from doing so?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry to insist, but this would be irrelevant. That is why, even when I have reached more or less the same conclusions than you, I still see that physicalism is the best theory we have to deal with what you would call "the noumena".

What is gained if in general people stop assuming that the world is physical?

Reposted reply:

Why is Husserl's mathematisation of nature important?

Because Husserl is trying to get people to understand the ontological error which is made when you get the noumenal world mixed up with the physical world. In terms of the lifeworld, physical objects are things which appear before us. But because of the mathematisation project of the Greeks, Galileo and Newton we ended up with two conceptions of "physical". Instead of just being what "Physical" is supposed to be - objects in the lifeworld - it also came to refer to "things as they really are". But as I hope some people can now see, it doesn't actually make logical (or linguistic) sense to think of "things as they really are" as being physical.

What is the effect of this mistake?

If you define "physical" to be "things as they really are" then these physical things are neccesarily NOT part of the lifeworld. You are effectively claiming that the noumenal world exists but there is no lifeworld. The lifeworld has got lost somewhere. And then somebody comes along with some sort of logical argument claiming that physicalism must be wrong and it turns out the only way to defend physicalism is to deny that "minds" exist. By now, the eliminativists has eliminated BOTH sides of the lifeworld - the physical things as well as the mental things. The result is he is left with nothing. Which is why it is absurd. In response to this absurdity, well-meaning people come along and claim we need a new word - "qualia" - to describe the "what-it-is-like-to-be" parts of reality. All they are doing is trying to account for the lifeworld that the eliminative materialist has eliminated! Unfortunately this just builds a new layer onto a system that's already got an error further down in it's foundations - so it's useless.

It is the act of defining "physical" to mean "things-in-themselves" as well as physical-proper which eventually leads to dualism-by-mistake. It HAS to do this because it has unwittingly eliminated both mind and matter by claiming that "physical" refers to things-in-themselves and then tries to define mind in terms of the now-non-existent matter!

That is why it is important.

Once this error is cleared up then you no longer have to agonise about whether "red" is a property of apples or of minds. Red is simply a property of physical apples. You don't have to keep bending the dictionary, deny your mind exists or try to find new, ingenious and totally futile ways of assigning subjective=objective, because "Being" has been put in its rightful place. You can't be accused of turning science into a ersatz religion, because you haven't built physicalism and naturalism into the foundation of your belief system. And you might even be able to understand QM in a new way.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why? I didn't say it had no properties. I didn't defined it's properties but did say that a naturalist could conclude it had no active properties. But even the naturalist has to admit it some passive properties. As the very least, it's some sort of observer. Some people, like supernaturalist theists, would like to bestow all manner of other properties upon it, but they wouldn't be able to provide any empirical or logical evidence to support this.

Sorry, but I'm calling dualism unless this Being and Neutral can be more similar. They serve absolutely, entirely different purposes in the model. Equating Being = nothing doesn't change that.

And I still don't understand why the noumenal can't produce awareness without this Being thing.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, I am my brain. Say it loud and say it proud!

The funny noises are Husserl turning in his grave.

This is what worried him: A world full of intelligent and educated people who nevertheless have mistaken themselves for their brains and humans for complicated meat machines.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You appear still to be suffering under the impression that I ever thought anything else.
~~ Paul

That might be because you keep saying something else.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is correct. There is no referent for any subjective/mental/1st-person/"folk-pyschological" term. There is no such thing as mind. It's a myth. Mind's don't exist. Period.

But that does not mean that the functions folk psychology attributes to mind aren't actual functions. It simply means that the folksy description of what they are and how they work are incorrect.

Then you're not defending eliminative materialism and your position will be incoherent if you want to claim that fundamental reality is physical.

Then philosophy is a word game devoid of connection to the real world. I guess I have to make up a new term like alternative materialism or something. I should write a paper. I'm sure people would debate it for millennia.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Dang, Mercutio beat me to it.

With one little proviso. There is no "me".

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

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is what worried him: A world full of intellident and educated people who nevertheless have mistaken themselves for their brains and humans for complicated meat machines.

You haven't ameliorated this lament in the slightest. I am not Being, so I must be my noumenal body/brain. Now, you may take pains to tell me that the noumenal isn't like physical meat machines, but you haven't given me any other way to think of it. So I remain a meat machine.

If you are extracting any spiritual/divine/religious meaning out of all this, you are just making a mood of it.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you exaggerate. They may sound like that when using sloppy speech, but I very much doubt too many people have trouble with the difference between a chair and my experience of it.

If you understood this problem properly then you would not have allowed me to play logical games with you. You would have already known that you were on to a loser and instead of defining the terms I gave you you should have simply declared it was impossible to do so without exposing your position to being illogical. You couldn't win, Paul. As soon as you gave any definition at all to "subjective", "1st-person", "mind", "mental" or "qualia" I was going to be able to provide a proof that your position was not a coherent defence of physicalism. But instead of realising that this was what was going to happen you spend the best part of two days trying to find a set of definitions that was going to work.

Want to try again?

Please define:

Mental, Physical, 1st-person, 3rd-person, subjective, objective, qualia......

The word object does not imply material. There are objects in the noumenal, or it would all be one amorphous glop.

NO. There are no noumenal "objects". That is a linguistic mistake.

Feel free to present a proof that subjective experience cannot be a result of brain process.

You do want to try again?

Please define:

Mental, Physical, 1st-person, 3rd-person, subjective, objective, qualia......

"Pulling the wings off flies is not nearly so much fun as making materialists who don't understand their own philosophy wiggle and dance." (hammegk)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You're saying I cannot take a subset of brain functions and call it mind? What stops me from doing so?

~~ Paul

LOGIC!!!!

Try it! How long do you think it will take me to concoct the proof it is illogical?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you understood this problem properly then you would not have allowed me to play logical games with you. You would have already known that you were on to a loser and instead of defining the terms I gave you you should have simply declared it was impossible to do so without exposing your position to being illogical. You couldn't win, Paul. As soon as you gave any definition at all to "subjective", "1st-person", "mind", "mental" or "qualia" I was going to be able to provide a proof that your position was not a coherent defence of physicalism. But instead of realising that this was what was going to happen you spend the best part of two days trying to find a set of definitions that was going to work.

Want to try again?

Please define:

Mental, Physical, 1st-person, 3rd-person, subjective, objective, qualia.....

Why don't you first clarify the part of your proof that addresses both P1 and P2 being physical?

NO. There are no noumenal "objects". That is a linguistic mistake.

What is the word for the individual things in the noumenon?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

LOGIC!!!!

Try it! How long do you think it will take me to concoct the proof it is illogical?

I must be having trouble remembering the content of 731 posts.

mind: a name that circumscribes a subset of brain functions

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, but I'm calling dualism unless this Being and Neutral can be more similar. They serve absolutely, entirely different purposes in the model. Equating Being = nothing doesn't change that.

And I still don't understand why the noumenal can't produce awareness without this Being thing.

~~ Paul

I thought you had understood the nature of the logical problem caused by (non-eliminative) physicalism. It is clear from recent posts that you still don't. In that case, it may be neccesary to repeat the process of proving to you how and why the position you want to defend is illogical. Once you understand THAT logical problem, I can explain why Being is required. Until then, I cannot explain it to you.

 

[cyborg]

This is what worried him: A world full of intellident and educated people who nevertheless have mistaken themselves for their brains and humans for complicated meat machines.

Well hot damn. He may have been worried that people may only view themselves as complicated meat machines but wanting it not to be true doesn't make a damn bit of difference. All indicators are that we are just complicated meat machines.

Deal.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I thought you had understood the nature of the logical problem caused by (non-eliminative) physicalism. It is clear from recent posts that you still don't. In that case, it may be neccesary to repeat the process of proving to you how and why the position you want to defend is illogical. Once you understand THAT logical problem, I can explain why Being is required. Until then, I cannot explain it to you.

Look Geoff, you have considered this model of yours for years. I have considered it for a few days. I don't grok it like you grok it. Going around in large circles doesn't help, because I still won't have had enough time to absorb it.

Just explain the problem in a few sentences in one post. It's the only way I can participate.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then philosophy is a word game devoid of connection to the real world. I guess I have to make up a new term like alternative materialism or something. I should write a paper. I'm sure people would debate it for millennia.

~~ Paul

Someone's already tried that. It's called "Anomolous monism."

http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/am.htm

Not many people think it's correct. It's a sort of mutant version of epiphenomenalism. It's making the problems worse, not better. You can't fix the logical problem by slapping more makeup ontop of the mess that's already there.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You haven't ameliorated this lament in the slightest. I am not Being, so I must be my noumenal body/brain. Now, you may take pains to tell me that the noumenal isn't like physical meat machines, but you haven't given me any other way to think of it. So I remain a meat machine.

I can't make up for your lack of imagination.

That isn't supposed to be an insult, it's just happens to the case. I can't.

These ideas are not easy to swallow in one easy mouthful

If you are extracting any spiritual/divine/religious meaning out of all this, you are just making a mood of it.

~~ Paul

I've avoided those issues.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I must be having trouble remembering the content of 731 posts.

mind: a name that circumscribes a subset of brain functions

~~ Paul

I need definitions for all six words. Looks like I'd better go and get some beers. Could be a long night....

 

[cyborg]

Looks like I'd better go and get some beers. Could be a long night....

I'm well ahead of you. You need to do some catching up.

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, yes. You are mindless, there is no YOU. Only a brain.

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. This makes all the difference in the world.

Well, let´s say that you are physically and biologically unique. Just like an Ostrich in the ocean is also unique.

Well, "just like" is a stretch. Both things are unique. Beyond that, an ostrich in the ocean is also in a strange environment for it, quite unlike the environments of other ostriches. There are serious implications for this.

What I mean is that assuming that materialism is true, what you thought were subjective and unique experiences are really objective decipherable processes, therefore anyone can have direct access to them. Even what it feels to be Mercutio can be objectively explained. Do you agree?

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. 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.

So, no, I do not agree, because your version of materialism is not at all what materialism actually would say. What is it about materialism that leads you to believe that all processes must be observable by any and all? What is it about materialism that makes you think it precludes private behavior?

If you are a p or m-zombie then there is nothing else to say. There is no problem.

You are right. There is no problem. (oh, by the way, you are a p-zombie, too. and there still is no problem.)