The relationship between science and materialism

[UndercoverElephant]

Ad admirable summary, Zaayrdragon.

Geoff starts from the position that if minds exist they are immaterial, and that the idea that minds do not exist at all is crazy. In other words, he covertly assumes all sorts of dumb things.

More false accusation not based on anything I said.

Thus reductive materialism, which says minds are material, squicks Geoff because it is saying something he assumes is false. Geoff complains that it is dualism in a dress, but only because he assumed from the start that if minds exist then dualism is true. Who knows why he assumed that? I can't account for this level of mendacity. The only dualist in the picture is Geoff, and the only person assuming that "mind" implies dualism is Geoff.

Except I'm not a dualist...

1. You have repeatedly claimed that minds must have an immaterial component.

Except I haven't claimed minds have an immaterial component....

Why should we believe this?

No idea. It's not my position.

Isn't this just dualism, which has been completely discredited?

What you described may have been. But it isn't my position.

1a. You have repeatedly claimed that if we replace the word "mind" with a term which refers to exactly the same thing, but implies no immaterial component, that we will have denied that we have minds.

We would deny that the word mind had any other referent.

Why should we believe this? Or alternatively, if you insist on defining minds as necessarily immaterial minds, why should we care if we don't have an
immaterial mind?

I haven't insisted this.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Dark Jaguar

Subjective: Existing only in the mind; illusory (Essentially, the opinions of our minds. These are basically just data we are aware of that only refer to that data itself. For example, the ability to "prefer" does not have anything to do with anything other than mental processes.)
Objective: Having actual existence or reality (Note, one can objectively state that subjectiveness exists)
Mental: Executed or performed by the mind; existing in the mind
Physical: Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics
1st-person: A state or point of the person to which an experience is occuring
3rd-person: a point of view outside the one who is experiencing a mental state

Thanks for the definitions. These are all fine, but there is one difficulty. Your definitions of subjective and mental both just refer to "mind" and your definition of 1st-person refers to "experience". These definitions themselves are not a problem, but there is a problem with the fact that "mind" and "experience" are themselves undefined in your list and therefore not defined with respect to objective and physical. Because of this, these definitions do not allow you to derive minds/experiences from physical things, nor can you explain minds/experiences in terms of physical things. This problem may go away if you can provide definitions of "mind" and "experience". At the moment your definitions have got two classes of description - one of them is mind/experience and it's undefined in terms of physical things. Since it is this relationship we are interested in, this needs clarification.

As they stand these definitions lead to something which isn't physicalism.

(Note, one can objectively state that subjectiveness exists)

Why/How? Can you objectively state that minds exist? Is this the same thing?

Geoff

 

[Z]

OK, JG... if you deny claiming there is an immaterial component to 'mind', then you should have no problem with either the reductive OR the eliminative materialist positions.

The reductive says minds are purely physical. The eliminative says immaterial minds do not exist.

So where's the problem?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, JG... if you deny claiming there is an immaterial component to 'mind', then you should have no problem with either the reductive OR the eliminative materialist positions.

No, that doesn't follow. I don't have any problem with supervenience at all. I don't have any logical problem with eliminativism, but I believe most people think it is insane - and leave it at that. Reductive theories are either incoherent or badly-defined versions of eliminativism.

The reductive says minds are purely physical. The eliminative says immaterial minds do not exist.

Yeah, so what is the reductive doing that the eliminativist isn't? He's defining a word which refers to something other than brain processes and then saying it's identical to brain processes. So the eliminativist has all his cards on the table but denies "mind" means anything and the reductionist is specifying a pointless reduction for the sole purpose of introducing the word "mind" although even though he introduces this word, he strips it of the definition we need it to have if we are going to avoid eliminativism.

 

[Z]

Geoff, they're both saying the same thing, essentially. Which is why they're essentially the same opinion. We don't need mind to have an immaterial component at all, Geoff... and that's the whole point.

As for 'most people think it's insane'... they only think that IF the position is misrepresented to claim that they think there are no minds AT ALL - as in, absolutely no first-person experience or illusion of first-person experience.

So you're essentially using an appeal to emotion and mass-ignorance to show how eliminative materialism is 'insane'.

Well, the ghost has been revealed, and it's just you in a dress.

 

[Z]

Oh, btw - that link to the Stanford article does NOT say experiences don't exist at all. It says they don't exist as defined by current folk psychology.

Still waiting on a link, then...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, btw - that link to the Stanford article does NOT say experiences don't exist at all. It says they don't exist as defined by current folk psychology.

This is no different to saying they don't exist. How do you think it is different?

I have no intention of proving my point twice.

You asked me to provide a site that says experience don't exist. I provided one. The first line is:

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist.

I cannot compensate for your inability to read.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

As for 'most people think it's insane'... they only think that IF the position is misrepresented to claim that they think there are no minds AT ALL - as in, absolutely no first-person experience or illusion of first-person experience.

I have no idea what the claim "mind is an illusion" is supposed to mean. I know what "sunrise is an illusion" is supposed to mean. But if you tell me that my mind is only an illusion and really just brain processes I am going to tell you this is completely insane. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one: there's no way to resolve it. You think it makes sense. Most other people thinks its lunatic.

So you're essentially using an appeal to emotion and mass-ignorance to show how eliminative materialism is 'insane'.

Emotion? Certainly, because emotions are part of the subjective experience that eliminativism denies. But not mass-ignorance. Mass ignorance are the hordes of materialists who think they are well-educated but don't actually understand the consequences of their own position. The man-on-the-street who thinks it's absurd to deny the existence of mind is not ignorant. He is merely sane and not being driven to making absurd claims in defence of the faith-based metaphysical belief which is physicalism.

 

[Mercutio]

I have no idea what the claim "mind is an illusion" is supposed to mean. I know what "sunrise is an illusion" is supposed to mean. But if you tell me that my mind is only an illusion and really just brain processes I am going to tell you this is completely insane. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one: there's no way to resolve it. You think it makes sense. Most other people thinks its lunatic.

And the fool on the hill sees the sun going down, and the eyes in his head see the world spinning round.

If we go by a majority vote, there's an awful lot of science that is completely insane.

 

[Mercutio]

Emotion? Certainly, because emotions are part of the subjective experience that eliminativism denies.

Just noticed this. Any chance you can back this up? I would appreciate it if you could find a self-confessed eliminativist who says it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wrong. Show me where any form of materialism say experiences don't exist at all.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...m-eliminative/

Modern versions of eliminative materialism claim that our common-sense understanding of psychological states and processes is deeply mistaken and that some or all of our ordinary notions of mental states will have no home, at any level of analysis, in a sophisticated and accurate account of the mind. In other words, it is the view that certain common-sense mental states, such as beliefs and desires, do not exist.

"Certain common-sense mental states do next exist" is not equal to "experiences don't exist at all."

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"Certain common-sense mental states do next exist" is not equal to "experiences don't exist at all."

~~ Paul

What does it equal then?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And the fool on the hill sees the sun going down, and the eyes in his head see the world spinning round.

If we go by a majority vote, there's an awful lot of science that is completely insane.

That's part of the problem. There is an inductive line of reasoning going on:

Science has solved lots of difficult problems in the past.
Conciousness is a difficult problem.
Therefore science is almost certainly going to solve the problem of consciousness.

Inductive, and wrong. Just because lots and lots of scientific people believe it is true, doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I notice everyone busily ignoring the post to Chris which explained why minds supervene on brains. Funny, that.

 

[Tricky]

I have no idea what the claim "mind is an illusion" is supposed to mean. I know what "sunrise is an illusion" is supposed to mean. But if you tell me that my mind is only an illusion and really just brain processes I am going to tell you this is completely insane. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one: there's no way to resolve it. You think it makes sense. Most other people thinks its lunatic.

There might be a number of people who think calling the mind an illusion is wrong, though probably not insane, but most of those people are not those who have actually studied the mind. I would venture to guess that most of those who think the mind is not an illusion also cannot give any good working definition of "mind" which includes all their usages of the concept.

And though I believe "mind" and "love" and "good" are all illusory concepts, that does not mean that they are useless. It just means that they are not specific things, but rather a single word description of many many specific things operating together.

I've seen Mercutio give rather thorough definitions of "mind", and as I recall, he actually teaches college on this and related subjects. That is not what I'd call an "insane" opinion. Indeed, you may simply have to disagree, because you are unlikely to provide any backing for this claim.

Emotion? Certainly, because emotions are part of the subjective experience that eliminativism denies.

I don't think eliminativism denies the subjective experience. I know you say this a lot, but I think it is a false definition. Like Merc, I'd like to see you provide an example of and eliminativist who makes this statement.

But not mass-ignorance. Mass ignorance are the hordes of materialists who think they are well-educated but don't actually understand the consequences of their own position.

Or perhaps they just disagree with you about what the consequences of their own position are. I disagree with you too, but I do not think it is ignorance, but just a different way of looking at things. I don't think you are ignorant for disagreeing with me, but I do believe you are wrong.

The man-on-the-street who thinks it's absurd to deny the existence of mind is not ignorant. He is merely sane and not being driven to making absurd claims in defence of the faith-based metaphysical belief which is physicalism.

Again, the man-on-the-street has most likely never given a lot of thought as to what a mind is. If you questioned him, you would almost certainly find that he would lead himself into a series of contradictory statements. Indeed, all of those on these boards who have tried to define the mind in a non-materialistic way have led themselves into a series of contradictory statements. If there is any "mass ignorance", I would say it is simply that few people are trained in examining the concept of mind. But this ignorance is understandable because it is not an easy field of study. You might as well speak of the "mass ignorance" of neurosurgery.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

More false accusation not based on anything I said.

Nope. You can't expect to get away with the same tricks forever without people catching on.

Except I'm not a dualist...

You're a dishonest dualist.

Any time someone says that a purely physical mind could exist, you claim that the idea is incoherent. When challenged to defend that claim, you pretend that the claim follows from definitions other people have posted, which is nonsense, because nobody has posted any such definitions, and even if they had the rest of us would not have accepted them.

That strategy is dodgy because it relies on misrepresenting other people's positions, but more importantly it is the Creation Scientist's tactic of attempting to "prove" one position by poking alternative positions. Even if someone had posted some bad definitions that implicitly ruled out purely physical minds, that would just mean they had a faulty position. It would do nothing to cement your claim that physical minds are an impossibility.

Except I haven't claimed minds have an immaterial component....

You've claimed repeatedly that any other position is incoherent, so I'd love to see how you are going to wiggle out of this. Go on, entertain us. Explain how you can bang on about how purely material minds are incoherent without endorsing minds that have an immaterial component.

No idea. It's not my position.

That claim is inconsistent with what you have been posting.

We would deny that the word mind had any other referent.

Correct. Now explain why anyone should care.

I haven't insisted this.

You've insisted that every alternative view is incoherent, Geoff. It's going to take some Olympic-level weaselling to explain your way out of that particular corner.

 

[chriswl]

I notice everyone busily ignoring the post to Chris which explained why minds supervene on brains. Funny, that.

Well, I'm still trying to understand it. I'll get back to you later today, when I've got some time.

 

[Mercutio]

Inductive, and wrong. Just because lots and lots of scientific people believe it is true, doesn't make it any less wrong.

And the companion piece, "just because lots and lots of naive people believe it can't be true, doesn't make it any more wrong."

Dang. I was gonna say more, but Trixie beat me to it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Indeed, all of those on these boards who have tried to define the mind in a non-materialistic way have led themselves into a series of contradictory statements.

I haven't. My position has been stable and consistent for 35 pages.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin

Once more, you do not understand my position. Do you understand why the claim that minds supervene on brains is compatible with my position? No. At least Chris is open and honest enough to say he doesn't understand something rather than claiming he does when he doesn't.

Geoff