Consciousness [Archive]

Doctor X

16th January 2003, 10:43 AM

Consciousness requires an awareness of and, usually, ability to interact with the environment both internal and external. I write "usually" because one can get "funny" and cause a couple of lesions that prevent your ability to react physically to the environment.

If you suffer damage in the pons, you lose the ability to move your extremities, mouth, speak, 'n all. You remain conscious of your situation. Due to the anatomy of the consciousness mechanism, you usually have the ability to blink or at least move your eyes.

To be conscious, then, the reactions cannot be simple reflexes to the enviroment. "Reflex" generally presumes a nervous system--something plants and the French do not have [Stop that!--Ed.] Thus, the plant reacts in stereotypical and predictable fashions--turn to light, eat insect, uproot and chase the humans.

What about animals? Consciousness is a bit like porn--"I know it when I see it." With humans, lose of consciousness will release reflexes. Many of the activities of animals are reflexive. Indeed, many of the activities, if not all of the activities, of an infant are reflexive.

So . . . are infants unconscious? Hard to give an answer since we deal with a continuum--they have the potential and definitely develop it. Damage the infant and you create a situation similar to an adult. Over time, you understand the baby is not progressing.

A rather sad situation is hydranencephaly.

Some time during development, the wee spud suffered occlusion of both carotid arteries. This results in death and reabsorption of both cerebral hemispheres.

The infant looks normal. In fact it seems normal for a few months--crying, feeding, looking, smiling, pooping, attempting to electrocute the cat [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . sorry--are all reflexes.

The problem becomes notices because the child does not "progress." Often, the large space is filled with cerebrospinal fluid the child cannot reabsorb. The child develops hydrocephalus and a very noticable big head.

However, reflex reactions to pain exist. The child will cry--severely.

Is it conscious?

[ZZZzzzZZZZzzzzZZzz--Ed.]

The point of that is that determination can be difficult.

Now, consciousness is not a fixed state. Stupor refers specifically to the requirement of an external stimulus to maintain consciousness--comes from the idea of poking the sleeping drunk who then wakes up, barfs, then passes out again.

So, is sleep "conscious?" Depends on the stage. People who are asleep retain the ability to awaken--and I am sure quite a few can discuss how dreams took on events that took place in the "real world"--like the alarm clock or irate girlfiend approaching with the hatchet. In some stages, you are not at all conscious or reacting, with awareness, to the external environment, but that state changes, it is not fixed.

Can you influence bodily functions. Yes. The classic faint is one example. Can you become the "Yogi Kudo" or "Our Man Flint" and shut yourself off? Well . . . not really.

Some things like breathing have both a conscious and unconscious control for obvious advantages. Try thinking about breathing 10-20 times a minute and see how much of the porn sites you can surf. . . .

Simplest creature? Country Western fan, methinks.

Seriously, this gets difficult. Do apes learn language or did the trainers engage in a glorified fascilitated communication? I do not know, frankly. I will say that, despite stereotypical movements, the humble ape react spontaneously enough for me to consider it conscious.

Well . . . how much consciousness matters. Unfortunately we have examples in humanity--severely brain damaged patients. Many are conscious, but require round-the-clock nursing--far more than your dog, ape, or relative who listens to Hank Williams, Sr.

Thus, that something is conscious is more of a "it is not unconscious" rather than a statement of the quality of its ability to interact and even control the enviroment--or even have self-awareness.

--J.D.

Q-Source

16th January 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Does that answer the question?

Yes, but it also raises more questions :)

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

['egoic conciousness'] I believe it is possible to go further than that - the next stage is to realise that there is an 'I' that is not the mind, but watches the mind.

Could you please explain what it is exactly an egoic consciousness?

If there is a difference between "I" and my mind, then how is it possible to separate what I "am" from "I" ?
This must be extremely difficult, such that what we are just a product of our physical environment. You end with nothing.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

That is the next stage - getting beyond self-awareness into a higher state, which is almost a return to where you came form as a baby, except it is a stage above egoic consciousness rather than a stage below.

...a return to where we came from?. You mean, a subjective reality where nobody else can take a look, except you?. Is this the state that you have already reached?.

Q-S

crocodile deathroll

16th January 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I personally think consciousness is all-pervading and exists in all living things to a certain extent. Maybe even plants....... :)

This smacks a bit of animism to me. IMO consciouness is an emergent property of complexity and plants fall way short of the mark.

99%

16th January 2003, 08:46 PM

I think its pretty clear consciousness is automatically axiomatic.

If you weren't conscious you wouldn't and couldn't define the state of consciousness at all.

So consciousness, like existence just is.

crocodile deathroll

17th January 2003, 04:42 AM

Many people are still of the mind set that time is something that has motion like and arrow and when they are unconscious or dead or are yet to be born there is still and external flow of time.

IMO Time is a fixed asymmetrical dimension and does not flow let alone have any property of continuity of flow after one's death. So people believe the their lives will eventually become a spent force in the wake of an absolute flow of time where in fact it is a real part of the space-time fabric.

AmateurScientist

17th January 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by 99%
I think its pretty clear consciousness is automatically axiomatic.

If you weren't conscious you wouldn't and couldn't define the state of consciousness at all.

So consciousness, like existence just is.

A very good insight, if not terribly satisfying. Nevertheless, we will go on discussing and speculating about it endlessly. Humans want very much to know why it is they can even ask such questions. I predict we will understand exactly how consciousness arises and everything about it at the exact same moment we have a definite answer about whether or not a god exists.

AS

Q-Source

17th January 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

I predict we will understand exactly how consciousness arises and everything about it at the exact same moment we have a definite answer about whether or not a god exists.

Why?.:confused:
Materialism already provides a very good answer to how about consciousness arises...and it doesn´t require an answer to the God´s question nor makes any assumption about it.

17th January 2003, 10:20 AM

QS

Could you please explain what it is exactly an egoic consciousness?

Egoic consciousness is when 'I' identifies itself with thought and time. The ego constructs an identity out of its past, and continually seeks salvation in the future. It is only ever happy when it has found something it desired, but that doesn't keep it happy for very long. Soon it wants something else. It babbles in your head, and much of its babbling is either worthless or damaging.

"I" exists in the eternal 'now'. Mostly it just watches. The goal of meditation (one of) is to be present - to stop the time-bound ego with its inane babbling - to just be, and to just accept things how they are.

...a return to where we came from?

In more ways than one.

You mean, a subjective reality where nobody else can take a look, except you?

That is true of all subjective reality.

If there is a difference between "I" and my mind, then how is it possible to separate what I "am" from "I" ?
This must be extremely difficult, such that what we are just a product of our physical environment.

No, it's not easy. But it gets easier. The ego is indeed a product of out physical environment. "I" is not.

We give ourselves away when we use phrases like "I can't live with myself." This rather infers that there are two entities here - an "I" and a "self" that the "I" can't live with.

Try this for more :

https://www.newworldlibrary.com/chapters/ppon.htm

Q-Source

17th January 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

No, it's not easy. But it gets easier. The ego is indeed a product of out physical environment. "I" is not.

Try this for more :
https://www.newworldlibrary.com/chapters/ppon.htm

UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist... :)

17th January 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist... :)

That's easy. "I" is fixed. It doesn't change. Your mind changes. Your emotions change. Your self-image constructed of your past changes, as do your aspirations for the future. But "I" remains the same, because it is the thing which experiences everything else. Your mind doesn't experience things - you experience what is happening in your mind. "I" isn't the 'product' of anything. "Ego" is the product of your environment and "I" experiences the ego. It even may think it is the ego, but it isn't - it just watches and remains the same. "I" is the one thing that has remained constant throughout the whole of your experiences of being alive.

crocodile deathroll

17th January 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

UCE,

Thanks for your answer and the link (I´ll take some time to read it). However, I still find difficult to understand how "I" is not a product of our environment. Well, maybe because I am a hard materialist... :)

Where would materialism be if there was no consciousness around in the universe to gain any insight on that philosophy?

Is there such an entity as a dumb rock materialist?

17th January 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

Where would materialism be if there was no consciousness around in the universe to gain any insight on that philosophy?

Is there such an entity as a dumb rock materialist?

Exactly. Materialism explains everything except why there is anything looking at the material. :)

Legallee Insane

17th January 2003, 06:19 PM

Seeing the great discussion here I pose this question to all who are willing to undertake.

What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

Obviously we cannot possibly have a true concept of anything before the moment of our birth, but what about after the moment of our death? I have often wondered if it is still possible to perceive things after death, that is perceive things without consciousness.

My speculation is that it might be like when a person is hovering between a state of REM sleep and consciousness. I can't speak for anyone else but I have somewhat of an occasional occurance when I sleep where I am not really aware and yet not really asleep, which is compounded by the fact that when it happens my eyes remain open. The last time it happened I swear that I saw my little brother standing beside my bed, and I can remember trying to reach out and touch him, but I could not move my hand and remained completely unresponsive. I remember trying to say something but my mouth would not move, and in my inbetween-sleep-and-awake state I remember panicing, until I suddenly jerked and was completely awake, staring at the same shadow in the corner of my room.

It hit me that perhaps that is what it is like to die. To be aware yet without consciousness. It is only speculation, and I have no proof to back up such a claim, but it makes for a good story doesn't it?

crocodile deathroll

17th January 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Legallee Insane
Seeing the great discussion here I pose this question to all who are willing to undertake.

What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?

Obviously we cannot possibly have a true concept of anything before the moment of our birth, but what about after the moment of our death? I have often wondered if it is still possible to perceive things after death, that is perceive things without consciousness.

My speculation is that it might be like when a person is hovering between a state of REM sleep and consciousness. I can't speak for anyone else but I have somewhat of an occasional occurance when I sleep where I am not really aware and yet not really asleep, which is compounded by the fact that when it happens my eyes remain open. The last time it happened I swear that I saw my little brother standing beside my bed, and I can remember trying to reach out and touch him, but I could not move my hand and remained completely unresponsive. I remember trying to say something but my mouth would not move, and in my inbetween-sleep-and-awake state I remember panicing, until I suddenly jerked and was completely awake, staring at the same shadow in the corner of my room.

It hit me that perhaps that is what it is like to die. To be aware yet without consciousness. It is only speculation, and I have no proof to back up such a claim, but it makes for a good story doesn't it?

As far as consciousness is concerned, your brain IMO is the hard disk drive for life's memories but it is not the general operating system, that is genetically prompted like the rules for the morphology of brains in general.
So my theory is that when you die that brain along with your life's memories will wither and die and as such you will forget that you were ever born at all in the first place. In other words, oblivion. But the operating system in the form of genetic prompting mechanism to boot your sense of self into existence is still there any you will make a Gestalt switch to one of the other brains on this big picture.

Tricky

17th January 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Legallee Insane
What do you believe happens to consciousness upon death?
I believe consciousness ends when you die. All of the various levels of consciousness (sleep, daydreaming, coma etc.) require at least some level of brain activity.

However, the mad scientist in me wants to say that since consciousness is a product of the brain, if you could somehow revive a dead brain, then that consciousness might exist again. You might at least recover memories and other brain-stored data. Possible? Not sure, but modern medicine has certainly redefined "possible" in the last few hundred years.

crocodile deathroll

17th January 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
I believe consciousness ends when you die. All of the various levels of consciousness (sleep, daydreaming, coma etc.) require at least some level of brain activity.

However, the mad scientist in me wants to say that since consciousness is a product of the brain, if you could somehow revive a dead brain, then that consciousness might exist again. You might at least recover memories and other brain-stored data. Possible? Not sure, but modern medicine has certainly redefined "possible" in the last few hundred years.

I inclined believe your acquired skills and memories will end, period. But consciousness as it stands in the big picture will still remains.

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speakhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/toiletsmilie.gif. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.

Tricky

17th January 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

I inclined believe your acquired skills and memories will end, period. But consciousness as it stands in the big picture will still remains.

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speakhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/toiletsmilie.gif. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.
The idea that the body replaces itself every seven years is a popular myth. The only thing that replaces itself every seven years is your skin. Your brain cells don't ever replace themselves, which is why when they die, you lose memories and other functions.

People who suffer serious brain damage, as in a stroke, may recover many or most of their brain functions, but not all of them, due to other parts of the brain taking over missing functions. This suggests that the brain is the seat of consciousness, as does almost every other study of the subject. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist in the absence of a brain.

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

The idea that the body replaces itself every seven years is a popular myth. The only thing that replaces itself every seven years is your skin. Your brain cells don't ever replace themselves, which is why when they die, you lose memories and other functions.

People who suffer serious brain damage, as in a stroke, may recover many or most of their brain functions, but not all of them, due to other parts of the brain taking over missing functions. This suggests that the brain is the seat of consciousness, as does almost every other study of the subject. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist in the absence of a brain.
IMO I think you are still caught up in the old dogma that we have exactly the same brain matter that we had when we were a baby. It was believed to be hardwired with no plasicity -- wrong! (http://www.nccr-neuro.ethz.ch/resp8.html). We do not even have the same brain matter we had when we were 7 but we may still have the same tooth enamel, so if you still have your second incisor teeth then that is the only thing that remains of you. This cannot happen with ordinary bone cells and for your information we turn over our bone cells every two years.

With hard robust material like tooth enamel that is understandable but the soft perishable material of the brain is IMO unlikely.

The proteins that constitute our brain cells also have to be turned over frequenty through protien synthesis (http://www.hhmi.org/news/pdf/schuman.pdf) there are house keeping enzymes that constantly replace sections of damaged DNA. So the only thing that need to remain of us is a pattern of information processing.
Through protein synthesis you would not replace the whole cell at one like bulldozing down a house and building a new one, Steven Rose said it would be analogous a fastidious brick layer/builder replacing one brick or stick of lumber every day until over a period of time he has replaced the whole house and still keep that original plan of the house intact in spite of the fact all the original material is turned over. And like that house the brain cells will all eventually replaced at just a few proteins at a time and not the entire cell all at once.

The old dogma (http://bak.spc.org/tha/NewNeurons.html) that we have the same brain matter for life may be about to be shot down altogether and there may be evidence that not proteins are replaced but entire cells.
Even if they don't all brains were built on the same genetic rules for the cells to migrate to the respective positions in their brain.
It is these rules of genetic information processes is what made us possible to exist in the first place.

PixyMisa

18th January 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones- flushed down the toilet so to speak. So it is different material doing the thinking on your behalf and so only the pattern remains.That's just silly. The brain cells carry on chemical activity within themselves without disrupting the function of the brain. There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain. Regardless of the activity within cells or the death of individual cells, brain function is continuous and provides a basis for consciousness.

18th January 2003, 08:15 AM

There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

Keep saying it Pixy. That'll make it true. ;)

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...
The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...
The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem......

But I suppose it takes courage to admit that the internally rock solid belief system you have faith in is perched precariously on the claim that....

The Hard Problem doesn't exist.
There is no Hard Problem.
There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain...

:)

No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.

Q-Source

18th January 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Exactly. Materialism explains everything except why there is anything looking at the material.

He, he, he.... :p

Materialism DOES explain why and how something is looking at the material.

PixyMisa

18th January 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Keep saying it Pixy. That'll make it true.Nope. If it's true in the first place, it's true no matter how many times I say it.The Hard Problem doesn't exist.The "Hard Problem", as explained in the papers you've pointed out to me, is a really basic misunderstanding of the nature of language and its relationship with consciousness and the relevance of this to science. As I explained previously, language is completely irrelevant to the problem of forming an operational theory of consciousness.There is no Hard Problem.There is a "Hard Problem", but it isn't a hard problem; it's just irrelevant. There's still the difficult problem of understanding in detail how the brain works.There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain.And indeed there isn't. Or if there is, for some reason no-one has presented it on this forum.Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem.I'll let the dancing demon speak for himself (?) there.But I suppose it takes courage to admit that the internally rock solid belief system you have faith in is perched precariously on the claim that.My belief system, such as it is, is based on the acknowledged assumption that matter exists, and that everything is material or has a material basis. That's it.No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions. Which is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false. And you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to suggest that materialism may be false.

Lucifuge Rofocale

18th January 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Lucifuge seems to have realised that there is actually a Hard Problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll let the dancing demon speak for himself (?) there.

Thanks Buddy,and yes, I'm male. You might want to visit the HOUSE OF SOULS to know the faces of people that posts here.

UCE: I made clear that I'm agnostic in relation to the cemi field theory ONLY. The problem with the theory is that the TMS experiments that could modify the EM field also affect neurones directly, so the correlation observed in the tests don't account for causation. BUT the TMS evidence is conclusive. Consciousness is generated and defined by the brain.

18th January 2003, 09:21 AM

Pixy:

The "Hard Problem", as explained in the papers you've pointed out to me, is a really basic misunderstanding of the nature of language and its relationship with consciousness and the relevance of this to science.

There is a "Hard Problem", but it isn't a hard problem;

Ah. The Hard Problem isn't a hard problem! :D

it's just irrelevant. There's still the difficult problem of understanding in detail how the brain works.

Erm.....nope. That's the Easy Problem, as quite clearly distinguished from the Hard Problem. :)

My belief system, such as it is, is based on the acknowledged assumption that matter exists, and that everything is material or has a material basis. That's it.

and.......

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false.

Slow down Pix. I want you to think very carefully about what you have just written.

The thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is not dependent on ontology of any sort for whether or not it is true. You still don't seem to have grasped this, and you're clearly quite intelligent and it really isn't that hard to understand. "unless materialism is false" has absolutely jack diddley squat relevance to whether or not the thesis is true, because the thesis is a thesis about LANGUAGES.

Imagine I proposed another thesis, say :

"You can not derive a statement about colors from any set of non-color statements."

This is another thesis about the way language is constructed, and it is also true. It is a FACT. It does not depend on whether or not materialism is true, or Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true - it is just a FACT.

Well, the thesis....

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

...is just like the one about colours. It also does not depend on whether or not Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true or even whether or not materialism is true!

But you just said that this thesis

is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false.

Has the penny dropped yet?

The thesis is NOT nonsense. It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false. And this leaves you with a tricky problem because you are desperate to be able to go on claiming that

And you have not produced any evidence or reasoning to suggest that materialism may be false.

You have just provided the evidence because you have just admitted that the above thesis must be nonsense UNLESS MATERIALISM IS FALSE. But the thesis is true..........

****When you respond to this post please think about the following questions****:

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

2) Is the thesis actually true?

3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."

:)

Doctor X

18th January 2003, 10:24 AM

I fear I may have missed the point somewhere or, perhaps, missed an antecedent point made in some thread.

Thus, I will deal with the easier problem:

If your conscious existence relied on the material brain then you would of already be dead before you turned 7 because the proteins in my brain at it was when you were 7 were turned over and replaced with new ones

No. As indicated by other writers, that a cell replaces proteins does not mean it replaces itself. On the contrary, it certainly does not relace its DNA. That one replaces the bricks does not make the house cease to exist. Now destroy the whole house--this is the stroke phenomena.

Right, now as to consciousness and the brain . . . the stroke paradigm is a great place to start. When a person suffers a loss, he suffers a loss [Deep.--Ed.] For example, a person with damage to the primary vision centers loses sight but does not know he is blind. He has a cognitive change.

Wait . . . I thought consciousness survived . . . why would it change?

A person who suffers the interesting alexia without agraphia [Loses connection between interpretive language areas and visual areas.--Ed.] can write but cannot read. Indeed, he cannot read what he writes. He can take dictation fine. He then cannot read it. He has lost this. It is no longer a part of his understanding. It is like trying to remember what it was like to be telepathic.

A person with generally bilateral frontal lobe damage--like Franko [Stop that!--Ed.]--okay . . . okay . . . [Apologize.--Ed.] "I am sorry Franko has frontal lobe damage [Cattle prod.--Ed.] OUCH!!" No sense of humor.

Right, yes, a person with bilateral frontal lobe damage generally loses initiative, judgement, the ability to plan complex actions. These abilities are lost.

Why? Since consciousness is not a result of the material of the brain should these abilities not remain somehow? Do you have to wait to die to get them back?

Awhile ago I [Pontificated on--Ed.] discussed the anatomy of consciousness. Allow me to repeat it a bit here. To lose consciousness you either must commit a bilateral global assault on both cerebral cortices--asphyxia, severe head injury, a Paul McCartney concert--or functionally/physiologically separate them from the brain stem ascending reticular activating system or ARAS.

Now . . . ye who thinketh substance not important . . . damage the ARAS--head injury, stroke and . . . despite the fact the "thinking brain"--no, not THAT! The cerebral cortices, you sick pigs!--is quite preserved the patient never regains consciousness.

Just a simple little separation.

Where did it go?

Long story short, the brain requires this trigger to maintain consciousness. This does rather put a damper on those who want consciousness to be separate from the brain since it demonstrates with death of the brain consciousness and everything that makes you "you" goes with it.

Yet, look at other pathology. Dementia of various forms do not render the person unconscious. They react purposefully to the environment. They are not who they were. In fact they have, as one commentator put it, "lost everything that makes a human human."

Where did it go? It is "out there" just waiting for death? By all means let us euthanize the demented or even the slightly brain damaged because at least it will bring them "back" somewhere.

I do not think anyone argues that.

Now, if the structure preserves personality, all of that which make us "us" can we regain it? It is hoped that, eventually, we will get stem cells to replace damaged brain tissue. This is not easy, neurons grow in overabundance, compete for connections, and even undergo programed death during development. It is "hoped" that the wee-buggers will "know" how to "rewire" themselves.

Let us assume that they will.

Do "you" come back? Okay, you regain your sight--not much of an effect on personality. Even language skills should not change you much.

What about frontal lobe damage? [What about it?--Ed.] What about the wide-spread damage of severe head injury also known as diffuse axonal injury? [The connection processes get sheared.--Ed.] If the connections create "you" will the new cell or repaired cells remake the connections?

Replace the destroyed neurons of dementia. Will "you" come back?

--J.D.

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
The brain cells carry on chemical activity within themselves without disrupting the function of the brain. There's no reason at all to suspect that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain. Regardless of the activity within cells or the death of individual cells, brain function is continuous and provides a basis for consciousness.

Exactly, consciousness is more than just the material of your brain. There is energy and chemical interactions and exchanges and if that was just "matter" you would still be conscious even if your brain was frozen as solid as a rock.
The brain would be analogous to a home sick Eskimo living in an ice igloo in the middle of the Sahara desert and to maintain the shape and structure he just replaces the one block he considers to be in the most advanced state of thawing. But realizes that if he slacks off the igloo will just melt into the hot sand and evaporate out of sight.
Same as the brain proteins like prions (http://www.mad-cow.org/~tom/prion_evol.html)have to be turned over all the time.

18th January 2003, 01:41 PM

So Croc....

Are you a dualist?

Q-Source

18th January 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

Exactly, consciousness is more than just the material of your brain. There is energy and chemical interactions and exchanges and if that was just "matter" you would still be conscious even if your brain was frozen as solid as a rock.

Yes, but you should recognise that those chemical reactions and energy are result of matter, they cannot exist in a vaccum. Matter survives the lost of consciousness if we have a brain frozen or a person in comma. We have evidence that this is possible.

But... does consciousness survive if matter dies (a human body)?

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
I fear I may have missed the point somewhere or, perhaps, missed an antecedent point made in some thread.

Thus, I will deal with the easier problem:

No. As indicated by other writers, that a cell replaces proteins does not mean it replaces itself. On the contrary, it certainly does not relace its DNA. That one replaces the bricks does not make the house cease to exist. Now destroy the whole house--this is the stroke phenomena.

--J.D.

Sure the mind is what the brain does because it involves cognitive functions for the mind (playing chess and football) etc to operate but consciousness is far simpler as is does not require any cognitive functioning to wake up out of an anesthetic. It can even be just genetically prompted like with circadian rhythms (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-2/85-93.pdf)
The human brain is also a pattern rules laid down by human DNA and if you wound the clock back 200 years you could of potentially become anyone of billions of them which is why you are here reading this post.

c4ts

18th January 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Yes, but you should recognise that those chemical reactions and energy are result of matter, they cannot exist in a vaccum. Matter survives the lost of consciousness if we have a brain frozen or a person in comma. We have evidence that this is possible.

But... does consciousness survive if matter dies (a human body)?

Does it matter anyway? What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?

Q-Source

18th January 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Does it matter anyway?

From a materialist POV, no, it does not matter at all.

Originally posted by c4ts

What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?

Well, this is a contradiction that the Reincarnation believers must explain.

Interesting Ian

18th January 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Does it matter anyway? What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?

I would imagine that our senses and memory would be that much greater for a disembodied consciousness as they wouldn't be limited by the body.

What is your argument that a disembodied consciousness would have no senses or memory?

edited to add: As to abilities in an incorporeal existence, my belief is that they would be vastly in excess of our present abilities. Again you would need to explain why our abilities would be non-existent.

Interesting Ian

18th January 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Originally posted by c4ts

What difference does it make to be conscious if you have no senses whatsoever, no memory, and no abilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, this is a contradiction that the Reincarnation believers must explain.

Hi Q-Source :D

Those who subscribe to the reincarnation hypothesis will exist in another body sometime after the death of their current bodies. So presumably they will have senses and memories, although the memory of a previous life might well not be accessible.

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
So Croc....

Are you a dualist?

Only if you use the software/hardware analogy. Funny I used the user name crocodile deathroll for that very reason because it just refers to a pattern on instinctive reflexes for that animal and not the material of the animal itself. It is an instinctive reflex for a crocodile to roll several times around in the water as it seizes its prey. It is all a part of its genetic software to behave that way.

The brain behave in a certain way due to preexisting genetic software, like in the early stages of its morphology the cells slavishly obey a genetic instruction to migrate to their respective positions in your brain. Our consciousness is centers more on brain function and not the material of the brain itself as that is so expendable.

I guess you call me a functionalist

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

From a materialist POV, no, it does not matter at all.

Well, this is a contradiction that the Reincarnation believers must explain.

I believe consciousness is not an incarnation, it is an information pattern, so how can you speak of a "re"-incarnation

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

But... does consciousness survive if matter dies (a human body)?

LOL One good way to make matter die is to hit with an equal amount of anti-matter like if you shake hands with your hypothetical antimatter double.

PixyMisa

18th January 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is not dependent on ontology of any sort for whether or not it is true.You may be right. It could well be nonsense under all possible ontologies. You still don't seem to have grasped this, and you're clearly quite intelligent and it really isn't that hard to understand.I understand it fine, which is why I have noted that rather than just being wrong, it is also irrelevant."unless materialism is false" has absolutely jack diddley squat relevance to whether or not the thesis is true, because the thesis is a thesis about LANGUAGESWhich is why it is irrelevant. it has nothing to say on the subject of consciousness. It merely makes a point about language - which is completely irrelevant to the problem. And yet it manages to be wrong at the same time. Can't get much more nonsensical than irrelevant and wrong.Imagine I proposed another thesis, say :

"You can not derive a statement about colors from any set of non-color statements."Red light has a wavelength of around 650 nanometres.This is another thesis about the way language is constructed, and it is also true.Not true, as I have just shown.It is a FACT.It is a fiction.It does not depend on whether or not materialism is true, or Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true - it is just a FACT.It is wrong in all these hypothetical cases.Well, the thesis....

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

...is just like the one about colours. It also does not depend on whether or not Christianity is true, or whether The House at Pooh Corner is true or even whether or not materialism is true!Wrong, Mister Elephant.

If materialism is true - which we have no reason to doubt - then the mind arises from the brain. Thus, given and mental predicate, we can explain it purely in terms of states and activities of the physical brain. Thus, your Hard Problem is false.But you just said that this thesis

Has the penny dropped yet?It took me about thirty seconds the first time I saw this statement to understand how deeply nonsensical it is.The thesis is NOT nonsense.I have jus shown once more that it is.It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false.And I have just shown that materialism means that the statement of HPC is false.And this leaves you with a tricky problem because you are desperate to be able to go on claiming thatNo desperation. No tricky problem.You have just provided the evidence because you have just admitted that the above thesis must be nonsense UNLESS MATERIALISM IS FALSE. But the thesis is true.No. The thesis is nonsense. It is quite likely nonsense under non-material philosophies too, but I'll only bother with the materialist viewpoint.When you respond to this post please think about the following questions:Yeahm yeah.1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?Don't care. Since I'm only interested in materialism, I only need to bother falsifying - or rather, nonsensifying - HPC under materialism.2) Is the thesis actually true?Clearly not.3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."Of course I do. And as I said, it might still be nonsense even if materialism were false.

PixyMisa

18th January 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Only if you use the software/hardware analogy.Which I use myself and do not regard as dualism. The mind requires a physical brain to exist, yes?The brain behave in a certain way due to preexisting genetic software, like in the early stages of its morphology the cells slavishly obey a genetic instruction to migrate to their respective positions in your brain. Our consciousness is centers more on brain function and not the material of the brain itself as that is so expendable.Well, the basic structure of the brain is genetically coded. No-one disputes that. Consciousness arises from the brain. I don't dispute that either. I'm not sure what exactly your point is.

I'm also curious about the "arrow of time" images you've posted. What's being discussed there? They seem to be saying that there is no arrow of time only there is. Smiley me confused.

Interesting Ian

18th January 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

I believe consciousness is an incarnation, it is an information pattern, so how can you speak of a "re"-incarnation

Consciousness is an information pattern?? Materialists keep saying this! Do any of you have any arguments whatsoever to substantiate this thesis??

Obviously if materialism is true reincarnation is not possible. But it somewhat begs the question does it not?

Bozotheda

18th January 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I would imagine that our senses and memory would be that much greater for a disembodied consciousness as they wouldn't be limited by the body.

What is your argument that a disembodied consciousness would have no senses or memory?

edited to add: As to abilities in an incorporeal existence, my belief is that they would be vastly in excess of our present abilities. Again you would need to explain why our abilities would be non-existent.

Why do you think god would imprison our consciousnesses in physical bodies if it so severely inhibits our abilities/sensations?Any wild theories?

And on a completely different note, do you reject evolution?(Okay, off subject. So sue me) I've asked you before, but I don't know if you ever replied. I'm just curious, since evolution would have it that matter existed long before any consciousness did. What's your take?

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Consciousness is an information pattern?? Materialists keep saying this! Do any of you have any arguments whatsoever to substantiate this thesis??

Obviously if materialism is true reincarnation is not possible. But it somewhat begs the question does it not?

Sorry I made a posting error there I really meant Consciousness is not an incarnation it is an information pattern and I correctly edited it when I checked over it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
The mind however is an incarnation of sorts like files that saved on your hard drive the mind take into account acquired memories and skills and if you die they all die.

Interesting Ian

18th January 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Bozotheda
[B]

Why do you think god would imprison our consciousnesses in physical bodies if it so severely inhibits our abilities/sensations?Any wild theories?

Emmm . . .not really. You think he should have created us with stupendious powers? It would depend on the ultimate purpose of existence wouldn't it, and how best to acheive that ultimate goal. I assume that creating us with formidable powers and abilities would not best facilitate this objective.

And on a completely different note, do you reject evolution?(Okay, off subject. So sue me) I've asked you before, but I don't know if you ever replied. I'm just curious, since evolution would have it that matter existed long before any consciousness did. What's your take?

Yes I believe in evolution although I don't believe the past, prior to the existence of consciousness, existed in the full blooded sense that most people have in mind.

Q-Source

18th January 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Those who subscribe to the reincarnation hypothesis will exist in another body sometime after the death of their current bodies. So presumably they will have senses and memories, although the memory of a previous life might well not be accessible.

Hey Ian!

Yes, believers say that when you die you will reincarnate and will keep your memories. However you will probably never remember anything of your previous lives :rolleyes:
You see the contradiction?

If this were true, then we would have evidence that consciousness really survives the death of our bodies.

Q-S

crocodile deathroll

18th January 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa

I'm also curious about the "arrow of time" images you've posted. What's being discussed there? They seem to be saying that there is no arrow of time only there is. Smiley me confused.

"Dead" is word of "past tense" an event that has happened in an absolute past, left behind in a arrow of time that moves objectively into the future.
But this smacks to me of presentism because in objective reality there is only block time.
The present is no more than a space-time frame of reference the comes to one's conscious attention. The past present and future are purely subjective. So when you die this subjective perception of time will also die and you will be just left with block time.
The current wisdom favors the block universe view where all events are equally real

PixyMisa

18th January 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
"Dead" is word of "past tense" an event that has happened in an absolute past, left behind in a arrow of time that moves objectively into the future.
But this smacks to me of presentism because in objective reality there is only block time.Block time?The present is no more than a space-time frame of reference the comes to one's conscious attention. The past present and future are purely subjective.Well, no. Given that time is a dimension, and we set time T as now, then the past includes all times less than T, and the future is all times greater than T.So when you die this subjective perception of time will also die and you will be just left with block time.That's nice. But what does it actually mean? I'm still dead.The current wisdom favors the block universe view where all events are equally real What current wisdom is this? What do you mean when you say all events are equally real?

crocodile deathroll

19th January 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by PixiMisa

Block time?

Block time is 4 dimensional spacetime with no privilaged "now" event

Well, no. Given that time is a dimension, and we set time T as now, then the past includes all times less than T, and the future is all times greater than T. All there is a T symmetry violation that has nothing to do with the present.

There is no singular objective "now" time like Greenwich Standard Time for the universe, period

That's nice. But what does it actually mean? I'm still dead.

For some observer born 100 years after you, you are in fact already dead and for some observer born 100 years earlier you haven't even been born yet. The past present and future is only orientated around the observer. It is purely sujective

What current wisdom is this? What do you mean when you say all events are equally real?

As I said there is no privileged objective "now" time in the universe. The event of the big bang or that hypothetical black whole dominated era of the universe 10^100 into our future is just as real as those models displaying the latest gear down the cat walks in Paris.

And just one more question

Are you a presentist?

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Block time is 4 dimensional spacetime with no privilaged "now" eventSo time is viewed simply as another dimension?There is no singular objective "now" time like Greenwich Standard Time for the universe, periodNo. But that in itself doesn't mean that your "block time" is true.For some observer born 100 years after you, you are in fact already dead and for some observer born 100 years earlier you haven't even been born yet. The past present and future is only orientated around the observer. It is purely sujective No, it isn't. Time is directional. I can see that the observer born in the 19th century is dead (or extremely old). I can't see the observer born in the 21st century at all. To put it another way: he hasn't been born yet, not in my now, not in your now, not in anyone's now. Except for his now, which is not yet now anyway.As I said there is no privileged objective "now" time in the universe.And as I said, this does not lead to block time.The event of the big bang or that hypothetical black whole dominated era of the universe 10^100 into our future is just as real as those models displaying the latest gear down the cat walks in Paris.For some very odd version of real that actually means not observable in any way, not even in principle.And just one more question

Are you a presentist? I don't know. I'm still trying to understand what you're talking about.

19th January 2003, 02:51 AM

OK Pixy,

"1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't care. Since I'm only interested in materialism,"

Well, you keep claiming that I have not shown any reasoning why materialism is false. You have already stated that this statement must be nonsense unless materialism is false, so whether or not it is true is rather pertinent, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

I am sure you're average creationists doesn't care much about the the half-life of heavy metals. It's irrevelant to them because all they are interested in is the Bible. Does that mean it is actually irrelevant?

Let me explain (again to you) and for the benefit of any other readers why the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is true.

All 'things' are either mental things, physical 'things' or compound 'mental and physical' things which can be easily broken down into their component parts.

Physical
----------
Mount Everest
Pencils
mass
hydrogen
size
location
house

Mental
---------
pain
euphoria
desire
purpose
belief
kindness

There is no ambiguity about these words. They fall into either one or the other category. The physical ones refer to the physical world and the mental ones refer to 'the subject' of consciousnes i.e. what you refer to as "I".

I feel pain.
I experience euphoria. etc...

A five year old child could understand this, do you understand it Pixy?

Then there is the third category of compound 'things' e.g.

home.

but 'home' consists of both 'house' (physical) and 'my feelings about my house' (mental), so the linguistic dualism remains.

There is a fourth case, that of false equivocation where people use the term 'thought' to mean both 'brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time - but that is just a plain misuse of language.

So if we go back to the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." we can now see WHY this is true. Any set of purely physical descriptions only lead to further physical descriptions because they all describe objective things. In order to derive a mental predicate we do need to invent a 'subject' for the mental predicate to describe. It is linguistically impossible to do this.

You keep claiming the thesis is "nonsense", but you have made no attempt to explain why you think it is nonsense.

Are you actually denying that the linguistic dualism exists? :eek:

Or are you claiming that the linguistic dualism does not prevent us switching from physical descriptions to mental descriptions?

Which is it Pixy?

It is no use just sitting there going "wrong, wrong, wrong and I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream and scream till I make myself sick! wrong wrong wrong wrong!" - please show us all you actually have a clue what you are talking about and tell us all WHY the thesis is nonsense?

Wrong, Mister Elephant.

If materialism is true

Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
And materialism is true true true!

:D

- which we have no reason to doubt - then the mind arises from the brain. Thus, given and mental predicate, we can explain it purely in terms of states and activities of the physical brain. Thus, your Hard Problem is false.

Pixy, you appear to be claiming that the thesis must be false because materialism "is true", and no evidence has been provided.

I have provided you with the evidence, and the only response you can give me in return is "The evidence must be false because materialism is true!

What on Earth makes you think this stands up as an argument? :D

Even the dumb creationists make a stab at inventing bizarre pseudo-scientific theories in order to refute evolution and old-earth geology. All you are doing is the equivalent of blankly stating "old earth geology and evolution MUST be wrong or the Bible is false. And the Bible is true. SO THEY ARE WRONG!"

Pixy, that isn't an argument.

:)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you just said that this thesis

Has the penny dropped yet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It took me about thirty seconds the first time I saw this statement to understand how deeply nonsensical it is.

That's good. I thought about this for the best part of 2 years before I came to terms with the fact that my belief system (I was a materialist) was false. But you are cleverer than me, so I'm sure 30 seconds was more than enough to come to a considered judgement.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is TRUE, regardless of whether or not materialism is false.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I have just shown that materialism means that the statement of HPC is false.

You haven't "shown" anything at all. All you have done is claim that "because materialism is true, the thesis must be false".

*****YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW WHY THE THESIS IS FALSE**** :D

At the end of my last post I asked you to think about three questions :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't care. Since I'm only interested in materialism, I only need to bother falsifying - or rather, nonsensifying - HPC under materialism.

So your first response is "don't care". It is a very simple question. It is crucial to the proof you are ignoring. Go on - be dear - humour me - answer the question ;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Is the thesis actually true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly not.

Well, at least you tried to answer question 2. The problem is that your 'clearly not' depends on your answer to question 1 because your reasoning is that the thesis is false because it exposes a flaw in materialism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Do you stand by your previous statement that "the thesis is clearly nonsense unless materialism is false."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I do. And as I said, it might still be nonsense even if materialism were false.

Well, this reply (as your reply to question 2) is screwed up by your failure to respond to question 1.

----------

CONCLUSION

Perhaps we should just stick to question 1 for now, since your inability to provide an answer set up your 'get-out' clause for the other 2.

Here is the question again :

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

Your previous answer was "Don't care".

Can you do better this time?

Do statements about linguistic structure depend for their truth-value on ontology, or are they true or false regardless of ontology? Why on Earth should this question scare you? You keep saying language is irrelevant to the issue - so if it is irrelevant why are you avoiding giving a straight answer? :confused:

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, you keep claiming that I have not shown any reasoning why materialism is false.Nor have you.You have already stated that this statement must be nonsense unless materialism is false, so whether or not it is true is rather pertinent, wouldn't you say?Well, if you have any reason to suggest that materialism might be false, present it.I am sure you're average creationists doesn't care much about the the half-life of heavy metals. It's irrevelant to them because all they are interested in is the Bible. Does that mean it is actually irrelevant?Nope. But the relevance can be clearly shown.Let me explain (again to you) and for the benefit of any other readers why the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." is true.This should be fun.All 'things' are either mental things, physical 'things' or compound 'mental and physical' things which can be easily broken down into their component parts.No.Physical
----------
Mount Everest
Pencils
mass
hydrogen
size
location
house

Mental
---------
pain
euphoria
desire
purpose
belief
kindness

There is no ambiguity about these words. They fall into either one or the other category. The physical ones refer to the physical world and the mental ones refer to 'the subject' of consciousnes i.e. what you refer to as "I".Pain is clearly also physical. Euphoria and desire are mental states arising from the physical brain. Purpose, belief and kindness are concepts, descriptions for an entire class of mental states and behaviours.I feel pain.Good. Means you're alive.I experience euphoria. etc...Tra la.A five year old child could understand this, do you understand it Pixy?I understand perfectly. And your statment of HPC is still utterly wrong and completely irrelevant.Then there is the third category of compound 'things' e.g.

home.

but 'home' consists of both 'house' (physical) and 'my feelings about my house' (mental), so the linguistic dualism remains.More irrelevance.There is a fourth case, that of false equivocation where people use the term 'thought' to mean both 'brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time - but that is just a plain misuse of language.Why?So if we go back to the thesis "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions." we can now see WHY this is true.Still false. Still nonsense. Any set of purely physical descriptions only lead to further physical descriptions because they all describe objective things.Doesn't matter. Subjective experience arises from a physical process, unless materialism is wrong. So physical descriptions necessarily include subjective experience. It's just that the descriptions look different.In order to derive a mental predicate we do need to invent a 'subject' for the mental predicate to describe.No. The subject also arises from a physical process, and is described in the same way.It is linguistically impossible to do this.No it isn't. Not even slightly.

Given brain state X and brain process Y, we get conciousness K experiencing phenomenon P.You keep claiming the thesis is "nonsense", but you have made no attempt to explain why you think it is nonsense.I have done so, and you have not been paying attention.Are you actually denying that the linguistic dualism exists?No. But linguistic dualism is linguistic. That's all it is. If you want to bypass dualism, you just define your words carefully or make up new jargon. Science has to do this for every field that it studies anyway.Or are you claiming that the linguistic dualism does not prevent us switching from physical descriptions to mental descriptions?Bingo!Which is it Pixy?The latter. In fact, I've stated that before.It is no use just sitting there going "wrong, wrong, wrong and I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream and scream till I make myself sick! wrong wrong wrong wrong!" - please show us all you actually have a clue what you are talking about and tell us all WHY the thesis is nonsense?I have explained why you're wrong several times in the past, and you have ignored it. Now I've done so again.Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
Glory, glory, halleluja
And materialism is true true true!Well, if you have any reason to doubt it, Mister Elephant, present your reasons.Pixy, you appear to be claiming that the thesis must be false because materialism "is true", and no evidence has been provided. Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true.I have provided you with the evidence, and the only response you can give me in return is "The evidence must be false because materialism is true! You have provided no evidence whatsoever. You have suggested I take mind-altering drugs that may cause me permanent harm.What on Earth makes you think this stands up as an argument?Two things: HPC is an argument of lingustics and completely irrelevant to the study of consciousness. And if materialism is true, it is not just irrelevant but clearly wrong.Even the dumb creationists make a stab at inventing bizarre pseudo-scientific theories in order to refute evolution and old-earth geology. All you are doing is the equivalent of blankly stating "old earth geology and evolution MUST be wrong or the Bible is false. And the Bible is true. SO THEY ARE WRONG!" I have explained repeatedly why HPC is nonsense, and you're NOT LISTENING!Pixy, that isn't an argument.Nor is it what I said. If you want to discuss what I said, go back and read it. I didn't think it was necessary to repeat every previous statement every time I respond to you. Clearly I was wrong.That's good. I thought about this for the best part of 2 years before I came to terms with the fact that my belief system (I was a materialist) was false. But you are cleverer than me, so I'm sure 30 seconds was more than enough to come to a considered judgement.Yes. It's very simple, and you are very deeply confused.You haven't "shown" anything at all. All you have done is claim that "because materialism is true, the thesis must be false".

*****YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW WHY THE THESIS IS FALSE****I have done this. But it's bleedin' obvious in the first place. If materialism is true, all subjective experiences arise from physical processes and can be described as such. Therefore HPC is wrong. That's all it takes.At the end of my last post I asked you to think about three questions :

So your first response is "don't care". It is a very simple question. It is crucial to the proof you are ignoring. Go on - be dear - humour me - answer the questionNo. There is no reason at all to consider that any position other than materialism is correct. If you have such evidence, show it. I'm not going to do your work for you.Well, at least you tried to answer question 2. The problem is that your 'clearly not' depends on your answer to question 1 because your reasoning is that the thesis is false because it exposes a flaw in materialism.No. If materialism is true, the HPC thesis is clearly false. Otherwise, it is at least irrelevant to the question of consciousness. It is an argument of linguistics, not an argument of consciousness.Well, this reply (as your reply to question 2) is screwed up by your failure to respond to question 1.No. It isn't.CONCLUSIONYou are still wrong.Perhaps we should just stick to question 1 for now, since your inability to provide an answer set up your 'get-out' clause for the other 2.

Here is the question again :

1) Does the true/false status of this thesis depend on the true/false status of materialism or is it true/false regardless of materialism?

Your previous answer was "Don't care".

Can you do better this time?

Do statements about linguistic structure depend for their truth-value on ontology, or are they true or flase regardless of ontology? Why on Earth should this question scare you?
it doesn't scare me. It bores me. Why should I discuss the truth value of an irrelevant statment under false philosophies? I still don't care. If you want to show something, do it yourself. Under materialism, which is still the only philosophy that makes any sense at all, HPC is wrong, irrelevant, and nonsensical.

Edited for tyops

Darat

19th January 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
...snip...

There is no ambiguity about these words. They fall into either one or the other category. The physical ones refer to the physical world and the mental ones refer to 'the subject' of consciousnes i.e. what you refer to as "I".

I feel pain.
I experience euphoria. etc...

...snip...

Let me re-state what I think you are saying to see if I've understood it.

"Mental" descriptive words are labelling something very different to "physical" descriptive words.

Is this right?

If I am right then your proposition is that "subjective" e.g. pleasure, euphoria and so on are different in kind to other types of "things"?

(Edited for dropping me rs.)

19th January 2003, 04:42 AM

Pixy :

Pain is clearly also physical.

Pain is physical?

Do atoms feel pain?
Do mountains feel pain?
Do pencils feel pain?
Does mass feel pain?
Does distance feel pain?

Pain is a mental state. You can physically do what yo ulike to somebody if they are under a general anaesthetic. They only feel pain if they are conscious.

Bodies do not feel pain. Minds feel pain. Do you understand the difference?

Euphoria and desire are mental states arising from the physical brain.

They are mental states. The second half of your sentence presumes materialism and is therefore not relevant.

*****YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHOW WHY THE THESIS IS FALSE****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have done this.

No - you made one claim about 'pain' being physical, which isn't true.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fourth case, that of false equivocation where people use the term 'thought' to mean both 'brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time - but that is just a plain misuse of language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

A "false equivocation" is when the same term is used to simultaneously mean two different things and the same thing.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html :

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."

One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have many meanings.

Pixy wrote :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any set of purely physical descriptions only lead to further physical descriptions because they all describe objective things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't matter. Subjective experience arises from a physical process, unless materialism is wrong. So physical descriptions necessarily include subjective experience. It's just that the descriptions look different.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to derive a mental predicate we do need to invent a 'subject' for the mental predicate to describe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. The subject also arises from a physical process, and is described in the same way.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is linguistically impossible to do this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it isn't. Not even slightly.

Given brain state X and brain process Y, we get conciousness K experiencing phenomenon P.

All of the above are different form of the same argument which you have been using all along i.e.

"If materialism is true then thesis must be false."

You are just using the word "we get" instead of "consciousness arises".

Some progress! :)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you actually denying that the linguistic dualism exists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

***************
Good! So you have accepted that there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism (even though your example about 'pain' above is an attempt to show that there isn't :rolleyes: )
***************

Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true.

...and...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What on Earth makes you think this stands up as an argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]....if materialism is true, it is [snip] clearly wrong.

...and...

But it's bleedin' obvious in the first place. If materialism is true, all subejctive experiences arise from physical processes and can be described as such. Therefore HPC is wrong. That's all it takes.

...and...

No. If materialism is true, the HPC thesis is clearly false.

...and...

Why should I discuss the truth value of an irrelevant statment under false philosophies? I still don't care. If you want to show something, do it yourself. Under materialism, which is still the only philosophy that makes any sense at all, HPC is wrong, irrelevant, and nonsensical

All of the above are different form of the same argument which you have been using all along i.e.

"If materialism is true then thesis must be false."

**************CONCLUSION*************

So far, you have made the above argument at least seven times in this post. You made one failed attempt to show why the thesis is false on its own terms and seven claims that it must be false if materialism is true.

I asked you :

"Does the true/false status of a thesis about language depend on ontology?"

You answered :

"Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true."

In the space of this reply you have stated

a) that the true/false status of a thesis about language does not depend on ontology

and

b) That this thesis about language is false if materialism is true.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Indeed your entire defence (repeated seven times) is that the thesis is false if materialism is true, even though statement (a) admits that the true/false status of this thesis does not depend on ontology!

There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you can resolve the above contradiction. If statement (a) is true, then all of your seven versions of statement (b) are incorrect. If your seven versions of statement (b) are true, then you have to explain why a thesis about language is dependent on ontology.

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that (a) is true and stop using an argument of the form (b) to defend materialism?

That way I can't claim you are contradicting yourself.

:)

**************CONCLUSION*************

19th January 2003, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Let me re-state what I think you are saying to see if I've understood it.

"Mental" descriptive words are labelling something very different to "physical" descriptive words.

Is this right?

If I am right then your proposition is that "subjective" e.g. pleasure, euphoria and so on are different in kind to other types of "things"?

(Edited for dropping me rs.)

Correct. They are mutually exclusive categories of 'thing'. Berkeleys semantic argument starts from the recognition of this mutual exclusivity.

Darat

19th January 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Correct. They are mutually exclusive categories of 'thing'. Berkeleys semantic argument starts from the recognition of this mutual exclusivity.

Thanks.

You say they are "mutually exclusive" which suggest that they are not linked in any manner?

Are "mental" things totally unconnected to "physical" things?

The reason I'm asking is that this seems very similar to Win's position that any apparent correlation (or conclusion of causality) is in fact coincidental?

crocodile deathroll

19th January 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And just one more question

Are you a presentist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. I'm still trying to understand what you're talking about.

Do you believe that only the present is real?
I feel it goes against relativity theory.

Here is a link to explain it to you more fully
Presentism and Relativity (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/05/25/)

19th January 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Thanks.

You say they are "mutually exclusive" which suggest that they are not linked in any manner?

Are "mental" things totally unconnected to "physical" things?

The reason I'm asking is that this seems very similar to Win's position that any apparent correlation (or conclusion of causality) is in fact coincidental?

Far from it. They are as linked as Yin is linked to Yang. I like this as a visual metaphor :

http://www.ramos.nl/yinyang.gif

The Yin and Yang are clearly exclusive - but they are also intimately 'linked'. This also provides a visual representation of the nature of the link - because the link between the Yin and the Yang is the non-existent 'line' which runs between them - it has no real substance - no dimension of its own. This relationship seems very similar to the relationship between brain process and mental experience - they are almost a reflection of one another in a Yin/Yang sort of a way.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Do you believe that only the present is real?Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"?I feel it goes against relativity theory.Why? All that relativity theory says on the matter is that observers may experience time to flow at different rates, and that there is no preferred frame of reference.Here is a link to explain it to you more fully
Presentism and Relativity (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/05/25/) Ah! Pseudo-scientific babble. I'm building up quite a collection of this. Is this supposed to mean anything?

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This relationship seems very similar to the relationship between brain process and mental experience - they are almost a reflection of one another in a Yin/Yang sort of a way. Do you think you could be more vague? Perhaps if your tried E-Speak or whatever it is.

Not posted by UndercoverElephant at all
This purported relationship would appear to seem very - or at least somewhat - or perhaps not at all - similar to the hypothetical relationship between supposed brain process and alleged mental experience - they (whatever they are) are almost - but not quite, and perhaps not at all - a reflection, though perhaps a blurry one, or possibly a shadow, or a silhouette - where was I? - of one another in a sort of Yin / sort of Yang sort of way.There. That should save you some effort.

19th January 2003, 06:32 AM

Pixy :

No attempt to resolve the blatant self-contradiction from your previous post then....

:)

You are very good at dismissing other peoples positions with a wave of your hand, but not very good at resolving the contradictions in your own.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
No attempt to resolve the blatant self-contradiction from your previous post then....And what blatant self-contradiction might that be, Mister Elephant?You are very good at dismissing other peoples positions with a wave of your hand, but not very good at resolving the contradicitons in your own.Ambient irony.

Did you actually read what I said? Do you actually have any comments to make?

19th January 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
[B]And what blatant self-contradiction might that be, Mister Elephant?

This one, Pixy :

"If materialism is true then thesis must be false."

**************CONCLUSION*************

So far, you have made the above argument at least seven times in this post. You made one failed attempt to show why the thesis is false on its own terms and seven claims that it must be false if materialism is true.

I asked you :

"Does the true/false status of a thesis about language depend on ontology?"

You answered :

"Nope. You're just not paying attention. The statement is irrelevant on its own terms. It is also false if materialism is true."

In the space of this reply you have stated

a) that the true/false status of a thesis about language does not depend on ontology

and

b) That this thesis about language is false if materialism is true.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Indeed your entire defence (repeated seven times) is that the thesis is false if materialism is true, even though statement (a) admits that the true/false status of this thesis does not depend on ontology!

There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you can resolve the above contradiction. If statement (a) is true, then all of your seven versions of statement (b) are incorrect. If your seven versions of statement (b) are true, then you have to explain why a thesis about language is dependent on ontology.

Wouldn't it just be easier to accept that (a) is true and stop using an argument of the form (b) to defend materialism?

That way I can't claim you are contradicting yourself.

**************CONCLUSION*************

Did you actually read what I said? Do you actually have any comments to make?

Yes, I read what you said very carefully. You said that arguments about language do not depend on ontology, and then proceeded to repeat more than seven times that the thesis (about language) must be false if materialism (an ontology) was true. You made only one attempt to actually examine the thesis itself, and this was completely incorrect.

:)

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Yes, I read what you said very carefully.Not carefully enough. You're still reading something other than what I wrote.You said that arguments about language do not depend on ontologyNo. I said I don't care about alternative philosophies in this discussion. I said nothing about the relationship between these philosphies and language other than my one specific statement that your HPC statement is false under materialism. Which I carefully explained.and then proceeded to repeat more than seven times that the thesis (about language) must be false if materialism (an ontology) was true.Which indeed it is. And I explained why. It's very very simple. A child of five could understand it. Though an elephant apparently can either not read it or is unable to make any apposite remarks.You made only one attempt to actually examine the thesis itself, and this was completely incorrect.And how exactly was it incorrect, Mister Elephant? I have shown clearly that your statement of HPC is irrelevant to the question of consciousness and also false under materialism. What more do you want? You do understand that irrelevant has a different meaning to false, don't you? I know I shouldn't presume this sort of thing.

And there is a very fundamental difference between materialism and dualism or idealism with regards to your HPC statement.

Under materialism, all subjective experiences arise from the physical and so can be described in physical terms. Under materialism, your HPC statement is false. It is also irrelevant.

Under dualism and idealism, this is not the case; subjective experiences arise independently (dualism) or give rise to (or are) the physical (idealism). This effectively denies that the operation of the mind is knowable, so the statement is correct. It is still irrelevant, though.

19th January 2003, 07:39 AM

Pixy :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said that arguments about language do not depend on ontology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I said I don't care about alternative philosophies in this discussion.

Well, then you are simply saying "materialism is true and I don't care about any alternative philosophies".

This is honest, rather like a biblical literalist saying "The Bible is true and I don't care about science."

However, it has nothing to do with finding the truth and everything to do with a person who is openly admitting that they are totally unwilling to examine their own belief system.

I said nothing about the relationship between these philosphies and language other than my one specific statement that your HPC statement is false under materialism. Which I carefully explained.

So now you are saying that the true/false status of a thesis about language is dependent on an assumption of materialism which has nothing whatsover to do with language.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then proceeded to repeat more than seven times that the thesis (about language) must be false if materialism (an ontology) was true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which indeed it is.

Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology? :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You made only one attempt to actually examine the thesis itself, and this was completely incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how exactly was it incorrect, Mister Elephant?

You tried to claim that pain was physical. 'Pain' is felt by the "you" part of your mind, not by your body - that is why a general anasthetic leaves you unable to feel pain. This has been your only attempt to examine the thesis itself.

I have shown clearly that your statement of HPC is irrelevant to the question of consciousness and also false under materialism.

You haven't 'shown' anything.

The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists.

Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology.

:)

And there is a very fundamental difference between materialism and dualism or idealism with regards to your HPC statement.

Under materialism, all subjective experiences arise from the physical and so can be described in physical terms. Under materialism, your HPC statement is false.

Yes Pixy, everybody knows that materialism claims that subjective experiences "arise" from physical things. We also know that Christianity claims that Jesus Christ "arose" from the dead.

Under dualism and idealism, this is not the case; subjective experiences arise independently (dualism) or give rise to (or are) the physical (idealism). This effectively denies that the operation of the mind is knowable, so the statement is correct.

You still seem utterly convinced that a thesis which is about language, and nothing else but language, flips between being true or false depending on your ontological belief system.

This is the same as claiming that the "Jesus Christ arose from the dead" flips between being true of false depending on your religious beliefs system.

But neither claim is actually true :

Either Jesus Christ arose from the dead, or he didn't. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.

Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.

The statement about JC is a bit tricky, since the said event occurred 2000 years ago and we have no evidence.

Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true.

:)

Please explain why a thesis about linguistics, dependent on a linguistic dualism you accept, actually flips between true and false depending on your ontological belief system?

Darat

19th January 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Far from it. They are as linked as Yin is linked to Yang. I like this as a visual metaphor :

http://www.ramos.nl/yinyang.gif

The Yin and Yang are clearly exclusive - but they are also intimately 'linked'. This also provides a visual representation of the nature of the link - because the link between the Yin and the Yang is the non-existent 'line' which runs between them - it has no real substance - no dimension of its own. This relationship seems very similar to the relationship between brain process and mental experience - they are almost a reflection of one another in a Yin/Yang sort of a way.

Not too sure what you mean with this one - but I think I can run with it (puns all intended).

So "how" and "what" makes you happy or experience pleasure? (Not as being asked as a personal question :) )

19th January 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Not too sure what you mean with this one - but I think I can run with it (puns all intended).

So "how" and "what" makes you happy or experience pleasure? (Not as being asked as a personal question :) )

I experience pleasure when my ego gets what it wants.

Beyond that I'm not sure how to answer the question. A certainly can't give you a physical/mechanical answer - but then I'm not a materialist.

:)

19th January 2003, 07:53 AM

Pixy :

Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."

If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.

How can you find out whether X is true or not if you refuse to examine any line of reasoning which does not start by assuming that X is true? :D

Why not start from first principles?

You know....a two-way playing field instead of one where one of the goalmouths is bricked up at kick off? :D

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, then you are simply saying "materialism is true and I don't care about any alternative philosophies".

This is honest, rather like a biblical literalist saying "The Bible is true and I don't care about science."Present me with a reason to consider an alternative philosophy, and I will do so. You have not done this. Nor have you given me a reason to consider your HPC statement in the context of a philosophy I consider to be false.However, it has nothing to do with finding the truth and everything to do with a person who is openly admitting that they are totally unwilling to examine their own belief system.No. It has everything to do with being bored with your failure to stick to the subject.So now you are saying that the true/false status of a thesis about language is dependent on an assumption of materialism which has nothing whatsover to do with language.Your HPC statement is a statement about language as it applies to consciousness. As I have shown repeatedly, it is false under materialism.Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology?Why do you think the statement has nothing to do with ontology? Why do you keep bringing this up? It's certainly not anything I've ever said.You tried to claim that pain was physical.I said "also" physical.'Pain' is felt by the "you" part of your mind, not by your body - that is why a general anasthetic leaves you unable to feel pain.As indeed does a local anaesthetic. Explain that one, Mister Elephant.This has been your only attempt to examine the thesis itself.It wasn't an attempt to examine the thesis. It was just me pointing out that one of your examples of a subjective experience wasn't.You haven't 'shown' anything.How not?The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists.Yes. So?Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology.Nope. It makes a statement about what language can say about consciousness. Given materialism, this statement is false.Yes Pixy, everybody knows that materialism claims that subjective experiences "arise" from physical things. We also know that Christianity claims that Jesus Christ "arose" from the dead.Yes. Those are the claims.You still seem utterly convinced that a thesis which is about language, and nothing else but language, flips between being true or false depending on your ontological belief system.And I have explained this to you repeatedly. The statement is not purely about language, but about what language can say about the world. This is dependent on the nature of the world, not just on the nature of language.This is the same as claiming that the "Jesus Christ arose from the dead" flips between being true of false depending on your religious beliefs system.No. It's not the same thing at all.But neither claim is actually true:

Either Jesus Christ arose from the dead, or he didn't. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.No. It does depend on whether that belief system is true or not. If Christianity is true Christ rose from the dead.Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.No. It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what is. If materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.The statement about JC is a bit tricky, since the said event occurred 2000 years ago and we have no evidence.Doesn't matter. If Christianity is true, then the JC statement is true.Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true.Yes, but it doesn't matter. Your HPC statement effectively makes a statement about the nature of reality, and this statement contradicts materialism. So if materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.Please explain why a thesis about linguistics, dependent on a linguistic dualism you accept, actually flips between true and false depending on your ontological belief system?Done.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not?How can you find out whether X is true or not if you refuse to examine any line of reasoning which does not start by assuming that X is true?Ambient irony.

Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC.

Again, I have repeatedly invited you to provide me with a reason to consider alternatives to materialism. You have thus far declined.Why not start from first principles?Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions.You know....a two-way playing field instead of one where one of the goalmouths is bricked up at kick off?Would you care to discuss HPC and any of the points I've raised rather than dancing about saying "What if materialism is wrong?" when you haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to suggest such a thing?

19th January 2003, 08:38 AM

Pixy

Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you think the statement has nothing to do with ontology? Why do you keep bringing this up? It's certainly not anything I've ever said.

So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times! :D

Every time you make that argument you are claiming that the true/false status of the linguistic thesis is dependent on whether or not you assume materialism is true!

It is YOU who keeps arguing that the linguistic statement depends on ontology - not me! I am trying to get you to accept that it is about LANGUAGE ONLY! :D

As indeed does a local anaesthetic. Explain that one, Mister Elephant.

The pain (or lack of it) remains a mental experience. You can argue that the source of the pain is physical, but this doesn't affect the linguistic dualism which places 'pain' as a mental experience.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. So?

So.....why do you keep also claiming that it depends on your ontological belief system?

like you are about to again......

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. It makes a statement about what language can say about consciousness. Given materialism, this statement is false.

Given materialism, the statement still has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology! :D

The statement is not purely about language, but about what language can say about the world. This is dependent on the nature of the world, not just on the nature of language.

The thesis says absolutely nothing about the nature of the world!

The thesis is :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from a set of purely physical descriptions".

It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE. Only indirectly does it have anything to do with the nature of reality, because if true it can be used to expose an internal logical error within materialism. But you want to be able to go on claiming that there is no evidence that materialism is false so you keep trying to go back a step and claim that the linguistic thesis is actually dependent on ontology. You are trying to use the tail to wag the dog! You keep trying to claim that the linguistic thesis depends on ontology, when it quite simply does not!

If Christianity is true Christ rose from the dead.

Are you sure about that, Pixy?

Are you sure it isn't the other way around?

Whether or not Christianity is true is a BELIEF. Whether or not Christ rose from the dead is a FACT.

Whether or not materialism is true is a BELIEF. Whether or not the linguistic thesis is true is a FACT.

Have a good think :

"If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true" : BELIEF SYSTEM DEPENDENT ON FACTUAL EVENT.
"If Chrisitianity is true the Christ rose form the dead" : FACTUAL EVENT DEPENDENT ON BELIEF SYSTEM.

Are facts really dependent on beliefs, Pixy? Because that is precisely what you are trying to claim! :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what is. If materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.

Pixy!

The thesis about language is a verifiable FACT.
Your belief that materialism is true is a BELIEF!

FACTS do not change because of peoples BELIEFS!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but it doesn't matter. Your HPC statement ***effectively*** makes a statement about the nature of reality, and this statement contradicts materialism.

Close Pix....so close....

So if materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.

...but over you go at the last hurdle again. :rolleyes:

How many times?

Your position on materialism is a BELIEF!
The linguistic thesis is a verifiable FACT!
FACTS DO NOT ALTER TO FIT PEOPLES BELIEFS!

19th January 2003, 08:45 AM

Pixy :

I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.

I have tried (oh my have I tried) to get you to understand Berkeleys semantic argument. You keep on claiming to have refuted it but your refutation depends on FACTS changing to fit YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not?

By identifying logical errors in the way we think about reality, and proposing solutions to the problems created by those errors. The first stage is to identify the problem. The problem at the moment is that you keep on insisting that FACTS are dependent on BELIEFS.

Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC.

Gladly, Pixy. My own position is that FACTS are not dependent on BELIEFS. I accept that the language thesis is true, and seek to find a model of reality which does not contradict FACTS about the way human beings desrcibe the reality they experience.

:)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not start from first principles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions.

What if you don't have to make an assumption?

What assumption do you think I have made?

(Remember what Kant proved.....)

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times!Yes. So, again, why do you think that this statement has nothing to do with ontology?Every time you make that argument you are claiming that the true/false status of the linguistic thesis is dependent on whether or not you assume materialism is true!I have pointed out that your HPC statement also makes a statement about the nature of the world.It is YOU who keeps arguing that the linguistic statement depends on ontology - not me!Yes. And I am asking why you think it doesn't.I am trying to get you to accept that it is about LANGUAGE ONLY!It makes a statement about what language can describe. This is a statement about what is knowable, and that depends on the nature of the world. That, Mister Elephant, is why your HPC statement is both false and irrelevant under materialism rather than only irrelevant.The pain (or lack of it) remains a mental experience. You can argue that the source of the pain is physical, but this doesn't affect the linguistic dualism which places 'pain' as a mental experience.There are still obvious physical aspects to pain.So.....why do you keep also claiming that it depends on your ontological belief system?

like you are about to again......It doesn't depend on my belief system. It depends upon the nature of the world.Given materialism, the statement still has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology!Why do you claim this?The thesis says absolutely nothing about the nature of the world!But it does.The thesis is :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from a set of purely physical descriptions".Yes?It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE.And that's why it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness. Language is beside the point.Only indirectly does it have anything to do with the nature of reality, because if true it can be used to expose an internal logical error within materialism.No. It makes a statement about whether language can describe a certain thing in a certain way. The truth value of this statement depends entirely on the nature of that thing.But you want to be able to go on claiming that there is no evidence that materialism is falseWhich there isn't.so you keep trying to go back a step and claim that the linguistic thesis is actually dependent on ontology.Which it obviously is.You are trying to use the tail to wag the dog! You keep trying to claim that the linguistic thesis depends on ontology, when it quite simply does not! How can it not? It is making a statement about the nature of subjective experience. If that statement is false, then the entire statement is also false. And materialism says that the nature of subjective experience is entirely different to what your HPC statement claims.Are you sure about that, Pixy?One hundred percent. It is one of the key tenets of Christianity. So if Christianity is true, that key tenet must be true, and Christ did indeed rise from the dead.Are you sure it isn't the other way around?Yes.Whether or not Christianity is true is a BELIEF.So what? I'm not discussing beliefs. I'm discussing truth. Beliefs don't matter. Truth does.Whether or not Christ rose from the dead is a FACT.Yes. So what? That Christ rose from the dead is a necessary part of Christianity. So if Christianity is true, so too is Christ's resurrection.Whether or not materialism is true is a BELIEF.Nope. I can believe that materialism is true or false. Quite independently of that, materialism can actually be true or false.Whether or not the linguistic thesis is true is a FACT.And its fallacy is a simple deduction from materialist principles, so if materialism is true, then your HPC statement is false.Have a good think :

"If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true" : BELIEF SYSTEM DEPENDENT ON FACTUAL EVENT.
"If Chrisitianity is true the Christ rose form the dead" : FACTUAL EVENT DEPENDENT ON BELIEF SYSTEM.Doesn't matter. If the factual event is a necessary condition for the belief system to be true, and the belief system is true, then the factual event is also true. This is pretty basic logic, Mister Elephant.Are facts really dependent on beliefs, Pixy?No. But you can make logical inferences based on whether those beliefs are true or not.Because that is precisely what you are trying to claim!You never read what I write, do you? Always something else. Don't you ever pay attention to what's going on?Pixy!

The thesis about language is a verifiable FACT.No. It's a falsifiable claim.Your belief that materialism is true is a BELIEF!Doesn't matter. If materialism is indeed true, your claim is false.FACTS do not change because of peoples BELIEFS!No. Falsifiable claims are upheld or falsified by facts.Close Pix....so close....I am no nearer to accepting your nonsense than I ever was. ...but over you go at the last hurdle again.No, Mister Elephant. You have been entirely wrong from the beginning, as I have shown any number of times.How many times?Any number. 317. there's a number.Your position on materialism is a BELIEF!Yes. It may also be true. Or false, though that seems unlikely.The linguistic thesis is a verifiable FACT!No. It's a statement about the nature of language and about the world, which may be true, or may be false, and definitely contradicts materialism.FACTS DO NOT ALTER TO FIT PEOPLES BELIEFS!No. So what? I never once suggested that they did.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have tried (oh my have I tried) to get you to understand Berkeleys semantic argument. You keep on claiming to have refuted it but your refutation depends on FACTS changing to fit YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM!You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you, Mister Elephant? You are also entirely oblivious to irony.By identifying logical errors in the way we think about reality, and proposing solutions to the problems created by those errors. The first stage is to identify the problem. The problem at the moment is that you keep on insisting that FACTS are dependent on BELIEFS.Which I have never once done. Not a good start for your process of identifying logical errors.Gladly, Pixy. My own position is that FACTS are not dependent on BELIEFS.Well, hooray for you.I accept that the language thesis is trueWHY?and seek to find a model of reality which does not contradict FACTS about the way human beings desrcibe the reality they experience.I suggest you find some facts first before you build your model, or it may fall down in the first strong wind of reason.What if you don't have to make an assumption?Then you have solipsism. Not helpful.What assumption do you think I have made?That HPC is meaningful and true, for a start.(Remember what Kant proved.....)Yeah. So? You're still wrong. Just like you were last time you waved your Kant in my face.

19th January 2003, 10:33 AM

Pixy :

PART ONE. Answer this first please.

Firstly - you do understand the word 'ontology' refers to ones beliefs about the relationship between consciousness and matter, yes?

Now have a look at these two answers :

1)

So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. So, again, why do you think that this statement has nothing to do with ontology?

and

2)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's why it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness.

First, you ask me why I think the thesis has nothing to do with ontology.

Second, you tell me that because it is about language, it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness.

Can you really not see that these two replies directly contradict each other? :rolleyes:

If the thesis is irrelevant to any question of consciousness then it has nothing to do with ontology!

You are trying to argue both!

Which is it, Trixy? :D

PART 2 saved to my notepad because I really cannot be bothered continuing trying to debate someone who does not understand she is continually contradicting herself.

19th January 2003, 11:03 AM

Can I offer some help, Pix? :)

(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.

(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.

(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM.

(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.

:)

Bozotheda

19th January 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Emmm . . .not really. You think he should have created us with stupendious powers?

Stupendous, at least.

It would depend on the ultimate purpose of existence wouldn't it, and how best to acheive that ultimate goal. I assume that creating us with formidable powers and abilities would not best facilitate this objective.

What reason do you have to suppose there is a purpose with our existence, except that it fits your theory? What conceivable scenario would warrant inhibition/deprivation of our senses?

Yes I believe in evolution although I don't believe the past, prior to the existence of consciousness, existed in the full blooded sense that most people have in mind.

So you believe god "planted" evidence of a past that predates consciousness?

19th January 2003, 02:53 PM

Bozo :

So you believe god "planted" evidence of a past that predates consciousness?

From the POV of consciousness the only thing which exists is the present moment; It is always NOW, and always has been. But for reality to make sense, there has to be a past which is consistent with the present. It isn't so much 'God' which creates a past which is consistent with the present - it is a requirement of existence being logically consistent with itself.

:)

crocodile deathroll

19th January 2003, 04:21 PM

Pixi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe that only the present is real?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"?

Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel it goes against relativity theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? All that relativity theory says on the matter is that observers may experience time to flow at different rates, and that there is no preferred frame of reference.

It warps space at different rates too including the spaces in synaptic clefts and an astronaut observer travelling close to the speed of light will result in her neural process slowing right down to a crawl relative to ours but the astronaut will not notice any change. I am placing much emphasis on time because the perception of it is inextricably tied in with consciousness. If there were no consciousness there would be no perception of a flow of time there would only be block time. Time is not single expanding bubble of reality that started at the big bang. Time is an asymmetrical dimensional arrow that only points the direction of entropy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to explain it to you more fully
Presentism and Relativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah! Pseudo-scientific babble. I'm building up quite a collection of this. Is this supposed to mean anything?

It just means our intuitional view of time is as much in error as our intentional view of the earth being flat.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Firstly - you do understand the word 'ontology' refers to ones beliefs about the relationship between consciousness and matter, yes?Well, more generally, it deals with principles and causes. What exists, and why, and what this means.Now have a look at these two answers :

First, you ask me why I think the thesis has nothing to do with ontology.

Second, you tell me that because it is about language, it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness.

Can you really not see that these two replies directly contradict each other?No. Because they don't.

Your statement about HPC makes a claim about the nature of language based on the nature of the world. Because it makes a claim about language, it is irrelevant to the question of consciousness. Because it is based on an assumption about the nature of the world it is also wrong under naturalism.If the thesis is irrelevant to any question of consciousness then it has nothing to do with ontology!Wrong.You are trying to argue both! And I have explained why.Which is it, Trixy?Both. Irrelevant and wrong, just like you, Mister Elephant.PART 2 saved to my notepad because I really cannot be bothered continuing trying to debate someone who does not understand she is continually contradicting herself. Well, it's going to be a while, then.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Can I offer some help, Pix?You can offer, but I doubt you can provide any.(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology. However, there is a second claim, or assumption, built in about the nature of the world. Which very much does have to do with ontology.(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.It's not a question of looking at the consequences. I'm looking at the statement itself. That's where the problem is.(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.What? No. The thesis falls flat because it attempts to use an ontological assumption to make a point about language. Irrelevant and wrong.(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEMNo. It's very simple. It's wrong. And irrelevant.(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical.No. This is not what I'm suggesting at all.The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem.Good thing I didn't do that then.That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time.Which is fine in general, because qualia are thoughts. The distinction is merely one of how you choose to observe a particular phenomenon.This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.The distinction being in the nature of the observation. Fine.

But materialism implies, indeed requires that this gap can be bridged from the objective side. (It makes no claim about being able to bridge the gap starting from the subjective side.) Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively?Both.It warps spaceMatter warps space. That's gravity.at different rates tooNo. The warping of space propagates at a fixed rate. The rate of the flow of time in warped space varies with the degree of curvature.including the spaces in synaptic cleftsWHAT?and an astronaut observer travelling close to the speed of light will result in her neural process slowing right down to a crawl relative to ours but the astronaut will not notice any change.Yes. But the spaceship and everything in it is slowed down as well, not just the astronaut's brain. That's why she won't notice any difference in her immediate surroundings. If she attempts to communicate with Earth, though, she will find wavelengths dramatically shifted and Earth experiencing a much faster flow of time. The change in the flow of time is objective.I am placing much emphasis on time because the perception of it is inextricably tied in with consciousness.Yes. That's valid.If there were no consciousness there would be no perception of a flow of time there would only be block time.The lack of perception of the flow of time doesn't say anything about the nature of time itself.Time is not single expanding bubble of reality that started at the big bang.Well, yes, it is. That's exactly what it is.Time is an asymmetrical dimensional arrow that only points the direction of entropy.Of increasing entropy, yes. Which makes it a single expanding bubble of reality that started with the big bang.It just means our intuitional view of time is as much in error as our intentional view of the earth being flat. Well, it certainly doesn't show that. You can't argue about the nature of time based on our perceptions, or our perception of time based on relativity. You can argue about the nature of time based on relativity, but that would be physics and not pseudo-scientific babble.

crocodile deathroll

19th January 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Pixi
Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD
Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pixi
Both.
How would you explain the twins effect this would be more of a paradox using that paradigm. What happens to the objective past present and future if one of the astronaut twins and returns back to Earth only to discover that her identical twin sister died centuries ago because of the time dilation effect?
Which twin is in the true "now" time in the universe?

Now I will test you our with psychological time travel:

What if these twins are in embryonic form and twin A was implanted into a womb and twin B was frozen and not place in a womb for centuries after.
Twin B will observe twin A an been dead and in the mean time twin A will observer twin B never been born yet. How do you overcome this "paradox" if you believe the past present and future are objective?

.[b]. That's exactly what it is.Of increasing entropy, yes. Which makes it a single expanding bubble of reality that started with the big bang.Well, it certainly doesn't show that. You can't argue about the nature of time based on our perceptions, or our perception of time based on relativity. You can argue about the nature of time based on relativity, but that would be physics and not pseudo-scientific babble.

Time being explained as a single expanding bubble of reality is just that a pseudo-scientific "bubble"

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
How would you explain the twins effect this would be more of a paradox using that paradigm.Huh? The "twins paradox" is a perfectly straightforward objective prediction of relativity.What happens to the objective past present and future if one of the astronaut twins and returns back to Earth only to discover that her identical twin sister died centuries ago because of the time dilation effect?Nothing much.Which twin is in the true "now" time in the universe?Clearly the one who isn't dead. You just said this yourself.Now I will test you our with psychological time travel:You'll test my what with what?What if these twins are in embryonic form and twin A was implanted into a womb and twin B was frozen and not place in a womb for centuries after.No psychology here.Twin B will observe twin A an been dead and in the mean time twin A will observer twin B never been born yet.Twin B will not observe anything at all for centuries.How do you overcome this "paradox" if you believe the past present and future are objective?If the flow of time is objective there is no paradox at all. You're talking about two observers separated in time, and two sets of observations separated in time.Time being explained as a single expanding bubble of reality is just that a pseudo-scientific babble "bubble" Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.

Franko

19th January 2003, 07:41 PM

Elephant to Pixy:
Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."

Pixy:
I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.

How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True, and that you aren’t the only entity which actually exist at this moment? How do you know that me or anyone else isn’t just a figment of your imagination?

You are certainly capable of creating a reality in your dreams at night. How do you know you aren’t doing the exact same thing right now? Isn’t that a much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of “the Universe”? – It’s just you, and beyond what your subconscious has imagined, nothing else exist?

What is your evidence that this is False? What is your evidence that I am real? I certainly am not claiming to be real. I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.

You stated flat out that the Laws of Physics don’t control ANYTHING. If TLOP isn’t controlling anything that what is controlling it? You Pixy?

There is definitely a God ... that point is non-negotiable … it’s simply a question of whether anyone else exists to occupy the position ... ?

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Franko
How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True, and that you aren’t the only entity which actually exist at this moment? How do you know that me or anyone else isn’t just a figment of your imagination?I don't and can't know this for certain. However, the assumption of the existence of the material world leads to a system that works extremely well. This system is far more powerful and useful than solipsism.You are certainly capable of creating a reality in your dreams at night. How do you know you aren’t doing the exact same thing right now?Certainly my dream worlds have a very different nature to my waking experience, so the existence of dreams is not a good reason to believe that the world is not real in and of itself.Isn’t that a much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of “the Universe”? – It’s just you, and beyond what your subconscious has imagined, nothing else exist?Parsimonious, yes. Useful, no.What is your evidence that this is False? What is your evidence that I am real? I certainly am not claiming to be real. I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination. That's nice, Franko. There's a black hole in my imagination too. In fact, I'm imagining it right now. In you go!You stated flat out that the Laws of Physics don’t control ANYTHING.You got it.If TLOP isn’t controlling anything that what is controlling it?Nothing.You Pixy?Nope. Apparently I control you, which must explain why you are a mindless zombie. But the rest of the universe is real and exists independently of me. Or at least, it acts like it does.There is definitely a GodPresent your evidence.that point is non-negotiableFine. Then it's simply a bald statement without any evidenciary backing, what is commonly know in the trade as a lie.… it’s simply a question of whether anyone else exists to occupy the position ... ? No. That's not the question.

Franko

19th January 2003, 08:09 PM

I don't and can't know this for certain. However, the assumption of the existence of the material world leads to a system that works extremely well. This system is far more powerful and useful than solipsism.

If Solipsism is more consistent and more parsimonious then Materialism then how can you claim Materialism is more Logical?

Certainly my dream worlds have a very different nature to my waking experience, so the existence of dreams is not a good reason to believe that the world is not real in and of itself.

When your subconscious runs out of story you have to sleep while it generates more of it. Maybe that’s why your dreams are “less real” then what’s happening now?

Parsimonious, yes. Useful, no.

If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it? … or are you claiming that the Truth isn’t always useful? Why not useful? At least I couldn’t argue that you didn’t have Free Will …

That's nice, Franko. There's a black hole in my imagination too. In fact, I'm imagining it right now. In you go!

You get angry with me like this every cycle God. It is my Fate to be the one to tell you that nothing is real other than you. Don’t blame me, I’m just a figment of your imagination – you created me in your mind.

Nope. Apparently I control you, which must explain why you are a mindless zombie. But the rest of the universe is real and exists independently of me. Or at least, it acts like it does.

I guess it’s not possible that the rest of it acts that way, because that’s how You (God) want it to act? Of course you’d still be correct about me being a “mindless zombie” …

No. That's not the question.

Try wishful thinking it away … try real hard …

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Franko
If Solipsism is more consistent and more parsimonious then Materialism then how can you claim Materialism is more Logical?I didn't say that. What I said is it is more useful. Solipsism is not useful at all, because it doesn't allow you to make predictions about the world. As soon as you try, you are assuming something that is not solipsism. Materialism is very useful for studying the world and making predictions about how it will behave.When your subconscious runs out of story you have to sleep while it generates more of it. Maybe that’s why your dreams are “less real” then what’s happening now?Nope. All my dreams are less real, less consistent, less detailed, less rich in information than the real world.If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it?Why? Materialism is a system that provides useful information. Solipsism is intrinsically not such a system.or are you claiming that the Truth isn’t always useful? Why not useful?Well, truth isn't always useful.At least I couldn’t argue that you didn’t have Free Will …You may not have noticed this, Franko, but you do indeed argue just that. Poorly.You get angry with me like thisAngry, Franko? You have never seen me angry. Few people have. This is wry bemusement. I'd suggest that you don't try for angry.every cycle God."every cycle God"?It is my Fate to be the one to tell you that nothing is real other than you.How nice. My pet mindless zombie is telling me he doesn't exist.Don’t blame me, I’m just a figment of your imagination – you created me in your mind.I must have been having an off day.I guess it’s not possible that the rest of it acts that way, because that’s how You (God) want it to act?At last ! At last the foolish mortal understands! I am God!

I AM GOD!!!!!

There is no Logical Goddess but PixyMisa! Bow down and worship me, worthless figments!

[cough]

What?Of course you’d still be correct about me being a “mindless zombie”Well, yes. That follows from your own claims about your own behaviour.Try wishful thinking it away … try real hard … Nope. Wishful thinking is your specialty, my little mindless zombie figment.

crocodile deathroll

19th January 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Huh? The "twins paradox" is a perfectly straightforward objective prediction of relativity.Nothing much.Clearly the one who isn't dead. You just said this yourself.You'll test my what with what?No psychology here.Twin B will not observe anything at all for centuries.If the flow of time is objective there is no paradox at all. You're talking about two observers separated in time, and two sets of observations separated in time.Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.

If the twins were twin jockeys and twin A falls of her horse (and it is a common experience that when something truamatic happerns to you all things appear to move in slow motion)
As a result of that fall, the present in twin A an Twin B will be out kilter thus making the "present" purely subjective and psychological phenomena.

PixyMisa

19th January 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If the twins were twin jockeys and twin A falls of her horse (and it is a common experience that when something truamatic happerns to you all things appear to move in slow motion)
As a result of that fall, the present in twin A an Twin B will be out kilter thus making the "present" purely subjective and psychological phenomena. Um, how shall I put this?

No.

We all have different subjective experience of time. You don't need to fall off a horse. If you want time to slow down, just try reading Ayn Rand. It doesn't mean that there is no objective time or that the twins do not agree on what "now" is.

Bozotheda

19th January 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Bozo :

From the POV of consciousness the only thing which exists is the present moment; It is always NOW, and always has been. But for reality to make sense, there has to be a past which is consistent with the present. It isn't so much 'God' which creates a past which is consistent with the present - it is a requirement of existence being logically consistent with itself.

:)

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Why would god make it seem as though matter preceded consciousness if that were not in fact the case? Or do you mean to contend that scientists have misinterpreted the fossil record? Or was that just a "nicer" way of saying "yes, he planted the evidence"?:confused:

20th January 2003, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Bozotheda

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Why would god make it seem as though matter preceded consciousness if that were not in fact the case? Or do you mean to contend that scientists have misinterpreted the fossil record? Or was that just a "nicer" way of saying "yes, he planted the evidence"?:confused:

The fossil record has not been misinterpreted.

I see the physical world as an algorithm. Until the algorithm had produced physical bodies capable of supporting consciousness then the consciousness was just the Unified ground of existence. From a physical POV evolution still occured.

20th January 2003, 12:57 AM

Pixy :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology. However, there is a second claim, or assumption, built in about the nature of the world. Which very much does have to do with ontology.

What you refer to as a 'second claim' or 'assumption' is not part of the thesis. The thesis does NOT say anything about the nature of reality. It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim that a thesis about language is dependent on ontology it DOES NOT become true. Your "however" is put there because you don't like the consequences. It isn't actually true.

Pixy - Languages do not change their structure because YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is threatened. Stop trying to change FACTS to fit your BELIEFS.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a question of looking at the consequences. I'm looking at the statement itself. That's where the problem is.

Abject Rubbish.

You just wrote "The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology." So the problem is not in the thesis at all.

It isn't a problem 'under dualism'. It isn't a problem 'under idealism'. SO WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN THE THESIS?. Pixy - If the problem was in the thesis then it wouldn't go away under everybody-elses ontological system and only exist under yours!.

The "problem" is set up by the assumptions made by MATERIALISM, which is actually an ontological claim. The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Deal with it! :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? No. The thesis falls flat because it attempts to use an ontological assumption to make a point about language. Irrelevant and wrong.

How can a thesis about language "fall flat" if you are a materialist and "remain standing" if you are a dualist or idealist?

The thesis is about LANGUAGE, and stands or falls on its own merit! :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. It's very simple. It's wrong. And irrelevant.

"No. It's wrong! I'm Right! It's irrelevant! Help! Help! It's a Heffalump!" :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is fine in general

But not fine in a hard-nosed discussion about ontology.

But materialism implies, indeed requires that this gap can be bridged from the objective side.

That is correct. So if it can't, then materialism has a problem. It's called THE HARD PROBLEM, the one that has been staring you in the face for the past three days.

Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.

What?! :D

The statement is a statement about LANGUAGE! It makes no more assumptions about ontology than a statement about rice pudding makes assumptions about who won last years nobel peace prize! When are you finally going to understand this? Materialism is not so special that all other questions and observations continually re-arrange themselves so materialism is protected from examination! The thesis is about LANGUAGE. It doesn't start being about ontology simply because it exposes a problem with a claim made by materialism!

I think you should have a look at this, Pix.....

2think (or to blindly follow) (http://www.2think.org/2think.shtml)

Arriving at a tentative conclusion vs. beginning at a conclusion that must be defended

The above statement in regards to Islam is an example of someone who once forming (or being born with) a conclusion must do everything to defend it. If the author of the web page really believed his statement then it would be 'unreasonable' for him not to conclude that every large or rapidly growing movement or religion is "True". People tend to create their own conclusion boxes. They then make statements that can't be logically defended--but can help solidify the box they are living in. The assumptions that make up the box are not carefully evaluated.

An example of this from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint can be found in the August 12, 1996 issue of Christianity Today. On page 64, Charles Colson, writing about what Christians must do to defend their beliefs against evolution, insists that "Christians must come together, craft a credible apologetic, and then refuse to back down". The author doesn't ask that the evidence be examined or that the Truth be sought. Similar statements have also been made by Mormon leaders.

The author Matt Berry states, "[The search for] Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions must constantly rearrange themselves. The [search for] Truth begins with fearless questions." This all seems so basic and self-evident, but large segments of the population haven't been able to (or don't want to) grasp this fundamental Truth.

So what is the best method to arrive at tentative conclusions? Is it something along the lines of the scientific method? Can Occam's Razor help? Is it based, in part or in total, on faith? If so, how does one know what should be accepted and what should be rejected based on faith? If faith is (part of) the method, shouldn't all (unreasonable or faith-based) claims be accepted to keep one's methodology consistent? To me, this paradox is the most puzzling aspect of human behavior. People require evidence and use scientific methodologies in certain situations but see no contradiction when they rely completely on faith in other situations.

We all too frequently base our observations and decisions on opinions and personal projections rather than actual facts and evidence. Our own background, prejudices, and hopes cloud our view. With a little effort--requiring thoughtfulness as its basis--a philosophy/reality based on the true facts and evidence can be found which will frequently shatter the illusion a too-personal view can create.

You cannot find the truth by continually re-arranging all the questions (and all the evidence) in order to protect your personal truth, even if that personal truth is materialism. You cannot claim that a thesis about language is actually about ontology simply because it challenges the "box" you have decided to define for yourself as a belief system.

crocodile deathroll

20th January 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Um, how shall I put this?

No.

We all have different subjective experience of time. You don't need to fall off a horse. If you want time to slow down, just try reading Ayn Rand. It doesn't mean that there is no objective time or that the twins do not agree on what "now" is.

I can recall this classic quote from Einstein:

"One hour with a pretty woman can feel like two minutes. But a few minutes sitting on a hot stove can feel like hours"
So what about these circumstances like that heighten out perception of time?
How can you prove there is an objective "now" time external to our conscious experiences?

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
What you refer to as a 'second claim' or 'assumption' is not part of the thesis.It is there. You may not be able to see it, being terminally confused, but it is there.The thesis does NOT say anything about the nature of reality.It does. it says that consciousness does not arise from the material world.It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim that a thesis about language is dependent on ontology it DOES NOT become true.And it doesn't matter how many times you claim that an assumption is not there when it really is.Your "however" is put there because you don't like the consequences.We haven't even got to discussing the consequences, Mister Elephant.It isn't actually trueAnd you'll hold your breath until you turn blue or I promise to accept your hidden assumptions?Pixy - Languages do not change their structure because YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is threatened.First - my belief system is not threatened. Second - languages do change their structure for reasons like that.Stop trying to change FACTS to fit your BELIEFSWouldn't dream of stepping on your territory, Mister Elephant.Abject Rubbish.

You just wrote "The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology." So the problem is not in the thesis at all.Wrong. That's just the part that makes it irrelevant.It isn't a problem 'under dualism'.It's merely irrelevant, rather than wrong.It isn't a problem 'under idealism'.Again, it's merely irrelevant, rather than wrong.SO WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN THE THESIS?Because it contains a hidden assumption that contradicts materialism, as I have shown.Pixy - If the problem was in the thesis then it wouldn't go away under everybody-elses ontological system and only exist under yours!.Why not? Idealism and dualism have completely different assumptions about the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world, and that's exactly the sort of assumption build into your HPC statement.The "problem" is set up by the assumptions made by MATERIALISM, which is actually an ontological claim.It's not set up by either materialism or your HPC statement; it's just that the explicit assumption of materialism contradicts the implicit assumption of HPC.The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Deal with it!I have indeed dealt with it. HPC is about language, and is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness.How can a thesis about language "fall flat" if you are a materialist and "remain standing" if you are a dualist or idealist?As I have pointed out, it assumes something about the nature of consciousness that is necessarily false under materialism.The thesis is about LANGUAGE, and stands or falls on its own merit!And that's why it's irrelevant. It's still also wrong under materialism."No. It's wrong! I'm Right! It's irrelevant! Help! Help! It's a Heffalump!"Have you taken your pills today? If so, you should stop.But not fine in a hard-nosed discussion about ontology.Shrug. What you call "hard-nosed discussion" I call "******** session".That is correct. So if it can't, then materialism has a problem. It's called THE HARD PROBLEM, the one that has been staring you in the face for the past three days.No. There is no evidence that HPC is true. It is simply a statement. It contradicts materialism. Since materialism is extremely successful and HPC is known to be irrelevant, why should we not doubt HPC?What?! Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.The statement is a statement about LANGUAGE!Yes. It is a statement about language based on the assumption that materialism is false.It makes no more assumptions about ontology than a statement about rice pudding makes assumptions about who won last years nobel peace prize!Nonsense. The assumption is there, in plain sight to anyone not blinded by his own hidden assumptions.When are you finally going to understand this?Never, since it is false.Materialism is not so special that all other questions and observations continually re-arrange themselves so materialism is protected from examination!No. That sort of thing is what you do.The thesis is about LANGUAGE.Yes. Hence its irrelevance.It doesn't start being about ontology simply because it exposes a problem with a claim made by materialism!It's about ontology because it makes a hidden assumption about ontology.I think you should have a look at this, Pix.....

2think (or to blindly follow) (http://www.2think.org/2think.shtml)Blah blah. How is this relevant?You cannot find the truth by continually re-arranging all the questions (and all the evidence) in order to protect your personal truth, even if that personal truth is materialism.Doesn't matter, since I have never once done this.You cannot claim that a thesis about language is actually about ontology simply because it challenges the "box" you have decided to define for yourself as a belief system.I have never done this either.

Look, Mister Elephant, since you are so deeply confused, and your understanding is so weak, I'll restate the situation with all of those nasty confusing words removed:

We have a descriptive system L. We have two sets of phenomena, X and Y.

We can make the following initial statements regarding the relationship of L to X and Y:

L can describe phenomena in X and the results of such phenomena.
L can describe phenomena in Y and the results of such phenomena.

Now, we have two hypotheses. Hypothesis H states:

No phenomenon in X can be described using system L purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

Hypothesis M states:

All phenomena, including but not limited to those in X, are actually the result of the phenomena in Y.

Given M and our statements about L, H is clearly false.

Got it now?

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I can recall this classic quote from Einstein:

"One hour with a pretty woman can feel like two minutes. But a few minutes sitting on a hot stove can feel like hours"
So what about these circumstances like that heighten out perception of time?
How can you prove there is an objective "now" time external to our conscious experiences? The usual methods. Measurements. Observation. Theory. Independent verification. Since we have a good 5000 years of this on record, I'd say it's pretty well established.

20th January 2003, 07:23 AM

Pixy,

This is insane.

This is the atual state of affairs here on PLANET EARTH :

--------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.

(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.

(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM.

(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.

--------------------------

This is the is the state of affairs in CLOUD PIXY LAND :

--------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. It is based on the linguistic dualism inherent in all languages.

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. We are going to call those indirect consequences "hidden assumptions". They are so well hidden that they are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE!

(C) These indirect consequences, which we have called "hidden assumptions" cause (A), which used to be true, to miraculously suddenly stop being true, even though the thesis itself is still only about language, and still has nothing directly to do with ontology. IN CLOUD PIXY LAND (A) is BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. But this doesn't matter, because in CLOUD PIXY LAND materialism always remains true, and all other facts re-arrange themselves to preserve the belief that materialism is true.

(D) So materialism doesn't have a problem (which is not surprising since this is CLOUD PIXY LAND where materialism is always true), but the thesis is both true and not true at the same time.

-----------------------------

Pixy - there aren't any 'hidden assumptions' in the thesis. The thesis depends on one thing and one thing only - a fundamental linguistic dualism. That linguistic dualism remains true if you are an idealist, a dualist or a materialist. The thesis DOES NOT require materialism to be false to remain true. The linguistic dualism DOES NOT go away because you are a materialist.

:(

Let me prove it to you :

Just for arguments sake, I will now pretend I am a materialist.

Now I am going to ask myself if there is still a linguistic dualism.

Is there?

YES!

Oh. The thesis is still true. I assumed materialism was true, and the thesis still remained true BECAUSE THE THESIS IS DEPENDENT ON LANGUAGE!

If any other poor bugger is still reading this thread will they please help Pixy to understand this!

Franko

20th January 2003, 07:44 AM

Pixychix:

truth isn't always useful.

Well there you have A-Theism in a nutshell.

Pure pessimism at its heart.

I didn't say that. What I said is it is more useful. Solipsism is not useful at all, because it doesn't allow you to make predictions about the world.

Sure it does. Solipsism is True, yet you still make predictions about the world. For example, as long as Solipsism is true, your worldviews will ALWAYS be correct.

As soon as you try, you are assuming something that is not solipsism. Materialism is very useful for studying the world and making predictions about how it will behave.

Yeah, but there is no world beyond what you imagine. So whatever you imagine is True is how the world is going to operate.

Franko:
If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it?

PixyGod:
Why? Materialism is a system that provides useful information. Solipsism is intrinsically not such a system.

You mean because you don’t want it to be True?

I guess it’s the same way with “God”, “Fate”, “Karma” and the “afterlife”, if you don’t like a belief, then you don’t believe it. Facts and Evidence really have nothing to do with your decision?

Angry, Franko? You have never seen me angry. Few people have. This is wry bemusement. I'd suggest that you don't try for angry.

Ohhh, I see you angry all the time A-Theist. I am just a figment of your imagination … remember? And since I’m just a figment of your imagination what do I care? You being angry can’t have ANY possible effect on me.

How nice. My pet mindless zombie is telling me he doesn't exist.

Pretty f*cked up – I know … but then again you are a pretty f*cked up “god”. :(

I must have been having an off day.

be honest … they are ALL off days – aren’t they A-Theist?

Pixypants:

At last ! At last the foolish mortal understands! I am God!

I AM GOD!!!!!

There is no Logical Goddess but PixyMisa! Bow down and worship me, worthless figments!

Congratulations! You have figured it out! You are absolutely correct, there is no Logical Goddess, because there is no Franko. I am just a figment of Your imagination, and She is just a figment of mine.

Now you can live out the rest of your meaningless existence for all Eternity … utterly alone.

Nope. Wishful thinking is your specialty, my little mindless zombie figment.

I’m your figment Pixy-God … I only “think” what you make me think.

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This is insane.Well, since I am correct, it must be you that is differently normal.This is the atual state of affairs here on PLANET EARTH :Sigh. Go ahead, Mister Elephant.--------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.Yes. Because it is about language, it is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness. But the ontological assumption is still there.(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.No. We haven't even considered the consequences. Under materialism, the thesis is simply false.(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.Except that A ignored the ontological assumption, and so is false in itself. (D) So materialism has a problemNo. As I have shown, the problem is entirely in HPC.but the thesis remains true.The thesis was never true. It is simply a statement. It must be shown to be true. Which, under materialism, is not possible.The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM.It's only hard if you don't understand it.(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution. Blah blah blah blah blah.

I have never suggeted the use of nouns that are both mental and physical as a solution for HPC. It's not necessary. Why don't you address what I actually said for a change?This is the is the state of affairs in CLOUD PIXY LAND :Well, let's see if you've learned to read...(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. It is based on the linguistic dualism inherent in all languages.No. The thesis contains a hidden ontological assumption. Nor is dualism a necessary component of language.(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. We are going to call those indirect consequences "hidden assumptions".Wrong.They are so well hidden that they are [b]COMPLETELY INVISIBLE!Wrong again.(C) These indirect consequences, which we have called "hidden assumptions" cause (A), which used to be true, to miraculously suddenly stop being true, even though the thesis itself is still only about language, and still has nothing directly to do with ontology. IN CLOUD PIXY LAND (A) is BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. But this doesn't matter, because in CLOUD PIXY LAND materialism always remains true, and all other facts re-arrange themselves to preserve the belief that materialism is true.Three wrongs.(D) So materialism doesn't have a problem (which is not surprising since this is CLOUD PIXY LAND where materialism is always true), but the thesis is both true and not true at the same time. Did you enjoy that?Pixy - there aren't any 'hidden assumptions' in the thesis.Yes. There is one. The assumption is that subjective experience does not have a physical basis.The thesis depends on one thing and one thing only - a fundamental linguistic dualism.No. It assumes that linguistic dualism is significant.That linguistic dualism remains true if you are an idealist, a dualist or a materialist.Yes, but it doesn't matter in any of those situations.The thesis DOES NOT require materialism to be false to remain true.Perhaps you could address where I showed this to be false rather than continuing to make bald assertions?The linguistic dualism DOES NOT go away because you are a materialist.No. It just doesn't matter.Let me prove it to you :Go right ahead.Just for arguments sake, I will now pretend I am a materialist.This should be fun.Now I am going to ask myself if there is still a linguistic dualism."Self, is there still a linguistic dualism?Is there?You tell me.YES!Aha! Thanks, self!Oh. The thesis is still true.Splat. Dead at the first hurdle.I assumed materialism was trueNo. Actually, you merely said that you assumed that materialism is true. You did not actually do so.and the thesis still remained true It was never true in the first place.BECAUSE THE THESIS IS DEPENDENT ON LANGUAGE!And an ontological assumption.If any other poor bugger is still reading this thread will they please help Pixy to understand this!

Mister Elephant, I set out the situation in terms of logic rather than HPC, materialism and language. Take a look.

20th January 2003, 08:09 AM

Pixy,

Do you know what the word 'assumption' means?

It means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof".

Yes?

So we have a thesis T :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions"

Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false.

The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT.

We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Let us call it A. There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY.

Do you understand this?

There is now a one-step logical process to estabish whether or not the thesis T is true, because the thesis is built directly upon whether or not A is true. The logical process is :

If A is TRUE then T is TRUE.

And since A is TRUE then T is TRUE.

END. PERIOD. FIN.

Where is the assumption, Pix?

There is no assumption, Pix!

So you know what the word "consequence" means?

It means "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition."

Now, as we all know by now, if the thesis T is true then materialism M has a problem, because it needs to be able to bridge the subject-objective chasm from the objective side. So we have another simple logical one-step process. The logical process is :

If T is TRUE then M is FALSE.

And since T is TRUE then M is FALSE!

---------------------

Now, will you please explain to me whether

A) My definitions of the words "consequence" and "assumption" are wrong

B) My logical reasoning was wrong, if so please show where.

Good luck, Pix.

:)

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Well there you have A-Theism in a nutshell.
Thank you!

So A-Theism is the application of logic to fact? And since A-Theism is the opposite of whatever it is you are doing...

Consider for a moment the humble tautology. True, but not in any way useful.Pure pessimism at its heart.How can a statement of logic be pessimistic?Sure it does. Solipsism is True, yet you still make predictions about the world. For example, as long as Solipsism is true, your worldviews will ALWAYS be correct. But not predictable. There is no foundation in solipsism to build a prediction on. Which is why it is not useful.Yeah, but there is no world beyond what you imagine. So whatever you imagine is True is how the world is going to operate. I am imagining now that you have never posted to this forum... Hmm, didn't work. I am now imagining that Nell McAndrew is right here in my study... Nope. Damn. This God business isn't what it used to be.You mean because you don’t want it to be True?Nope. Because it doesn't allow you to work that way. If everything you want is true, you can't predict anything.I guess it’s the same way with “God”, “Fate”, “Karma” and the “afterlife”, if you don’t like a belief, then you don’t believe it.That is true of beliefs, yes.Facts and Evidence really have nothing to do with your decision?Facts and evidence have to do with truth, not with belief.Ohhh, I see you angry all the time A-Theist. I am just a figment of your imagination remember?And a quite remarkably dull figment. And since I’m just a figment of your imagination what do I care?Actually, the suggestion that you are a figment of my imagination is possible the strongest evidence yet that solipsism is untenable.You being angry can’t have ANY possible effect on me.Huh? If solipsism were true, and I were angry, you would cease to exist. Or possibly have an unfortunate encounter with a candiru.Pretty f*cked up – I know … but then again you are a pretty f*cked up “god”.I think you got a bad graviton. Not good or evil, merely stupid. Clearly not my responsibility, you'll have to contact the vendor.be honest … they are ALL off days – aren’t they A-Theist?Only the ones with you in them, Franko darling.Congratulations! You have figured it out! You are absolutely correct, there is no Logical Goddess, because there is no Franko. I am just a figment of Your imagination, and She is just a figment of mine.That's nice.Now you can live out the rest of your meaningless existence for all Eternity … utterly alone.But I have you, my dear little mindless zombie figment. And all the little bunny figments.I’m your figment Pixy-God … I only “think” what you make me think. Don't look at me. I blame the graviton supplier. They're in the book, give them a call. Gas, Coal and Gravity Co. of London, England.

Stimpson J. Cat

20th January 2003, 08:19 AM

UCE,

So we have a thesis T :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions"

Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false.

The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT.

First of all, it is not a fact at all. The above statement may be true about the English language, or about any ordinary language, but you cannot assert that it is true in general without making metaphysical assumptions. In particular, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that it is true about the language of mathematics.

Secondly, all verifiable facts are based on assumptions, because the principle of verification is based on assumptions. That is a bit beside the point, though.

We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Let us call it A. There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY.

This is certainly not true for the English language. Sure, there are nouns that split into mental and physical things. There are also nouns that refer to both. The fact is that the English language is neither dualistic nor monistic. It is just plain ambiguous, which is, of course, why it is not a suitable language for science.

Dr. Stupid

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Do you know what the word 'assumption' means?

It means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof".

Yes?Yes.So we have a thesis T :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions"My H, except not stated as clearly.Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false.And indeed it does.The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT.No. It is a falsifiable claim.We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT.Yes. It is an observation of the state of language. Actually, I'm not at all sure that it is a correct observation. Your own example of thought throws shadow in it.Let us call it A.If you like.There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY.So go away and verify it. I'll wait.Do you understand this?Yes.There is now a one-step logical process to estabish whether or not the thesis T is true, because the thesis is built directly upon whether or not A is true.Nope. Bang, you lose. You have alrady made an ontological assumption.The logical process is :

If A is TRUE then T is TRUE.Except you've left out the ontological assumption Φ.And since A is TRUE then T is TRUE.Nope. You still need to demosntrate that Φ is true.END. PERIOD. FIN.

Where is the assumption, Pix?Right where it was the first time.There is no assumption, Pix!Wrong.So you know what the word "consequence" means?Yes, Mister Elephant.It means "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition."Yay. Mister Elephant has a dictionary.Now, as we all know by now, if the thesis T is true then materialism M has a problem, because it needs to be able to bridge the subject-objective chasm from the objective side. So we have another simple logical one-step process. The logical process is :

If T is TRUE then M is FALSE.

And since T is TRUE then M is FALSE!No even slightly. T is a statment about language and has no power to falsify materialism. What's more, since T contains assumption Φ, materialism does have the power to falsify T. Check my set of logical statemnts above. Mister Elephant. They actually present the picture, unlike what you've just done.Now, will you please explain to me whether

A) My definitions of the words "consequence" and "assumption" are wrongNope. I admit that you have a dictionary.B) My logical reasoning was wrong, if so please show where.Two things: you missed out ontological assumption Φ embedded in statement T, and you incorrectly state that statement T can falsify materialism.Good luck, Pix.Thanks. Done.

Franko

20th January 2003, 08:35 AM

Pixychixy:

So A-Theism is the application of logic to fact?

I don’t see how considering you have claimed that:

1) The Truth is not always useful [beneficial].

And …

2) The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything.

And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ???

If that is what you call “Logic” and “Fact” “free willy-chick” then you knock yourself out!

Of course in my mind (and the minds of about 90% of the overall population) you are just an insane, cynical, pessimistic religious fanatic.

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t see how considering you have claimed that:

1) The Truth is not always useful [beneficial].And I provided you with a whole class of examples. You can't have forgotten already, surely.And …

2) The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything.Yup.And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ???Nope. Stimpy knows full well what the laws of physics are and what they imply.If that is what you call “Logic” and “Fact” “free willy-chick” then you knock yourself out!It's not just what I call logic and fact, it's what the dictionary calls logic and fact.Of course in my mind (and the minds of about 90% of the overall population) you are just an insane, cynical, pessimistic religious fanatic. Ah. And you have read the minds of 90% of the population, have you? Or carried out detailed, unbiased, statistically significant surveys of public opinion? We all know what goes on in the maze of twisty little passages you call your "mind". An "insane, cynical, pessimist religious fanatic" is someone who proves that you are wrong, whereas an "A-Theist" is merely someone who disagrees with you.

20th January 2003, 08:50 AM

T is a statment about language and has no power to falsify materialism.

WHY, Pixy?

Why do verifiable facts about languages not have the power to falsify materialism, which is a belief system?

Your position is entirely dependent on a claim that your belief system is not falsifiable by facts presented which show that your belief system is false.

If FACTS do not have the power to falsify your BELIEF SYSTEM then what does? :D

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
WHY, Pixy?

Why do verifiable facts about languages not have the power to falsify materialism, which is a belief system?Because materialism is not founded on language.Your position is entirely dependent on a claim that your belief system is not falsifiable by facts presented which show that your belief system is false.You have not presented facts. You have made claims. Irrelevant claims. Unsupported irrelevant claims.

Show me some facts that contradict materialism. Such facts could, in theory, exist.If FACTS do not have the power to falsify your BELIEF SYSTEM then what does?Facts. Relevant facts. Which you either do not have or choose not to show for your own curious reasons.

20th January 2003, 09:07 AM

Pixy :

Why do verifiable facts about languages not have the power to falsify materialism, which is a belief system?
----------------------------------------

Because materialism is not founded on language.

You are correct! Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL! :D

It is a........***TOTALLY*** ***UNFOUNDED*** ***ASSUMPTION***!

Go on Pixy....say it isn't....make my day.

edited.....

Materialism is not founded on any facts.
Materialism is not founded on any evidence.
Materialism is not founded on any observations.
Materialism is not founded on any reasoning.
Materialism is not founded on ANYTHING.

Materialism is just a model which is used to investigate the physical world. As a model for investigating the physical world it has proven highly effective.

Models employed to investigate the physical world are not the same as ontological realities.

As an ontological reality Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL.

It is a........***TOTALLY*** ***UNFOUNDED*** ***ASSUMPTION***!

Do you understand, Pixy?

Franko

20th January 2003, 09:20 AM

Pixy,

And I provided you with a whole class of examples. You can't have forgotten already, surely.

You provided Me with a “whole class of examples”???

You must have me confused with one of your other figments. Without begging the question, why don’t you just present me with ONE SINGLE example of a non-useful (non-beneficial) Truth?

[The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything??? …]
Yup.

I just like hearing you repeat it A-Theist.

Franko:
And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ???

Pixypants:
Nope. Stimpy knows full well what the laws of physics are and what they imply.

Yeah, according to you they imply NOTHING, because the Laws of Physics (according to YOU) do NOTHING. (TLOP doesn’t control anything – if it did Pixy wouldn’t have Her precious magic “free willy” powers! … and Pixychix just can’t exist without Her “special” magic powers!!!)

It's not just what I call logic and fact, it's what the dictionary calls logic and fact.

Yeah, but according to Tricky (another evil A-Theist) Dictionaries aren’t required to be Logical.

And you have read the minds of 90% of the population, have you?

No, but since I am a figment of your mind, I know that you imagine 95+% of the overall population disagrees with you, and does not call themselves “A-Theists”.

Or carried out detailed, unbiased, statistically significant surveys of public opinion?

What figure are you imagining are A-Theist now “god”? Everyone but me?

We all know what goes on in the maze of twisty little passages you call your "mind". An "insane, cynical, pessimist religious fanatic" is someone who proves that you are wrong, whereas an "A-Theist" is merely someone who disagrees with you.

There is no Me. I don’t exist beyond your imagination.

20th January 2003, 09:21 AM

Now a question, to see whether I am talking to a human or a dalek.

What is ontological materialism founded on?

:D

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
You are correct! Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL!

It is a........***TOTALLY*** ***UNFOUNDED*** ***ASSUMPTION***!

Go on Pixy....say it isn't....make my day. Are you feeling OK, Mister Elephant? Getting enough peanuts and all that?

Yes. Materialism is based on an assumption. This is necessary. Without such an assumption you are stuck with solipsism, which as I have pointed out, is not very useful. Whether the assumption is unfounded or not is questionable. It is certainly based on observation.

Idealism makes a different assumption, based on a different observation.

Dualism makes two assumptions based on two sets of observations.

Did you actually have a point you wished to make?

20th January 2003, 09:38 AM

Pixy

Yes. Materialism is based on an assumption. This is necessary. Without such an assumption you are stuck with solipsism, which as I have pointed out, is not very useful.

No, Pixy. Idealism isn't the same thing as solipsism. Solipsism is a belief that "My mind is the only thing which exists." Idealism is a belief that "Minds are the only thing whch exist."

Do you understand the difference?

Whether the assumption is unfounded or not is questionable. It is certainly based on observation.

Which observation suggests that materialism is true which is not just as compatible with both dualism and idealism?

Idealism makes a different assumption, based on a different observation.

Dualism makes two assumptions based on two sets of observations.

Did you actually have a point you wished to make?

Yes, my point is that you should stick to talking about science, because your understanding of philosophy is very limited indeed, and your capacity for realising when you are in deep doo-da and should stop digging is even more limited. Why do you think none of the materialists here have intervened to help you, Pix? Have considered it might be because they can see you are in deep doo-da and don't fancy joining you?

All three of the above ontologies are compatible with the observed physical world. There are absolutely ZERO observations which allow us to distinguish between them. If there were, we would not be having this discussion.

If you think that the fact that materialism has provided an excellent model for examining the physical world is grounds for claiming a that it is an ontological reality then you quite simply do not have the first idea what you are talking about.

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Franko
You provided Me with a “whole class of examples”?Yup.You must have me confused with one of your other figments.Nope.Without begging the question, why don’t you just present me with ONE SINGLE example of a non-useful (non-beneficial) Truth?Any tautology will do. Here's a nice shiny one: Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.I just like hearing you repeat it A-Theist. Darn. Back to just being an "A-Theist", am I? Not long ago I was your God.Yeah, according to you they imply NOTHINGWrong. I never said that, and nothing I ever said suggeted that.because the Laws of Physics (according to YOU) do NOTHING.Wrong again, Franko my dear. Again, I never said that, and nothing I ever said suggeted that.(TLOP doesn’t control anythingRight.if it did Pixy wouldn’t have Her precious magic “free willy” powers!No magic, Franko darling. And if the laws of physics did control things, free will might or might not exist. I'm not sure. Irrelevant, since your premise is false anyway.and Pixychix just can’t exist without Her “special” magic powers!No magic. Just free will, like all humans, cats, dogs, bunny rabbits... Not you, of course. You're just a mindless zombie.Yeah, but according to Tricky (another evil A-Theist) Dictionaries aren’t required to be Logical.So?No, but since I am a figment of your mind, I know that you imagine 95+% of the overall population disagrees with you, and does not call themselves “A-Theists”. That is a very interesting argument, and is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start addressing it.What figure are you imagining are A-Theist now “god”? Everyone but me?Nope. There are other confused people in the world. You are just a particularly bright star in the firmament of the bewildered.There is no Me.Ah. Good.I don’t exist beyond your imagination. I have stopped imaginining you... Now.

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
No, Pixy. Idealism isn't the same thing as solipsism.Yes, Mister Elephant. I know that. I have stated as much.

Why do you never debate what I have actually said rather than what you wish I had said?Solipsism is a belief that "My mind is the only thing which exists."Yes. Idealism is a belief that "Minds are the only thing whch exist."Well, in fact Idealism is the belief that Mind is the only thing that exists. Not Minds. That's different.Do you understand the difference?Better than you do, it would seem.Which observation suggests that materialism is true which is not just as compatible with both dualism and idealism?Well, it's a choice of observations. Pick one, add an assumption, and you have your system. Dualism of course cheats and takes two slices of the cake.Yes, my point is that you should stick to talking about science, because your understanding of philosophy is very limited indeedSuperior to yours, though.and your capacity for realising when you are in deep doo-da and should stop digging is even more limited.If my position is wrong, why do you not show it rather than blithering? Why do you persistently attack strawmen rather than my position? Why do you repeatedly make baseless claims rather than demonstrating their truth? Why do you never respond to what I actually say?Why do you think none of the materialists here have intervened to help you, Pix?Because they've written you off as a hopeless case? If they thought I was wrong, they'd say so.Have considered it might be because they can see you are in deep doo-da and don't fancy joining you?Nope.All three of the above ontologies are compatible with the observed physical world.More or less. Idealism and Dualism have to make some pretty severe contortions to maintain compatibility.There are absolutely ZERO observations which allow us to distinguish between them.Show me a disembodied consciousness, and then I'll doubt materialism.If there were, we would not be having this discussion.Given the depth of your bewilderment, I somehow doubt that.If you think that the fact that materialism has provided an excellent model for examining the physical world is grounds for claiming a that it is an ontological reality then you quite simply do not have the first idea what you are talking about. I didn't say that. I simply said that it has proven extremely useful, and so I will continue using it until I find a reason not to do so.

Have you looked at my logical statement of the situation yet, Mister Elephant? Any comments?

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
edited.....

Materialism is not founded on any facts.Check.
Materialism is not founded on any evidence.
Materialism is not founded on any observations.
Materialism is not founded on any reasoning.
Materialism is not founded on ANYTHING.Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.Materialism is just a model which is used to investigate the physical world.It is a model that makes a specific statement about the nature of the physical world.As a model for investigating the physical world it has proven highly effective.A property remarkably lacking in Dualism and Idealism.Models employed to investigate the physical world are not the same as ontological realities. Dum de dum. Now you are discussing the truth value of these models, which you have already said cannot be demonstrated.As an ontological reality Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL.Wrong. We observe the universe. Observation. We then assume that it actually exists. That is the assumption of materialism: That the material world is what exists. If we didn't observe a material world, we would not make such an assumption, which is why it is not entirely correct to say the assumption is unfounded.

20th January 2003, 10:04 AM

Are you sitting comfortably Pixy?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an ontological reality Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. We observe the universe.

Correct. We OBSERVE the universe. We are aware of an OBSERVATION of the universe. We are aware of a CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE of the universe.

Which of the following is a fact, and which is an assumption?

A) The Universe is real.
B) Our Observation of the Universe is real.

We then assume that it actually exists.

Correct.

Materialism assumes a physical Universe exists, even though the only thing we have any direct evidence for is that our experience of a physical Universe exists.

A) is an assumption (that the physical Universe exists as we percieve it to exist)
B) is a directly knowable fact, since our experience (observation) of the Universe is the one thing we can know directly.

That is the assumption of materialism: That the material world is what exists. If we didn't observe a material world, we would not make such an assumption, which is why it is not entirely correct to say the assumption is unfounded.

It is entirely correct to say the assumption is unfounded. You just claimed materialism was based upon THE OBSERVATION of a physical Universe.

That the observation is real is an undeniable fact.
That the physical world is actually real is a totally unfounded assumption.

:p

Upchurch

20th January 2003, 10:09 AM

Wow. I just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying this fast and furious (and very intellegent) debate between Misa and UCE.

Very educational and interesting. I don't know who to route for! I'm eager to see how it turns out.

Upchurch

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Are you sitting comfortably Pixy?

Correct. We OBSERVE the universe. We are aware of an OBSERVATION of the universe. We are aware of a CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE of the universe.

Which of the following is a fact, and which is an assumption?

A) The Universe is real.Assumption.B) Our Observation of the Universe is real.Um. This is factual if you skew the definition of "real" appropriately. To say that we observe a universe is certainly a fact.Correct.Yay! What do I win?Materialism assumes a physical Universe exists, even though the only thing we have any direct evidence for is that our experience of a physical Universe exists.

A) is an assumption (that the physical Universe exists as we percieve it to exist)
B) is a directly knowable fact, since our experience (observation) of the Universe is the one thing we can know directly.

It is entirely correct to say the assumption is unfounded. You just claimed materialism was based upon THE OBSERVATION of a physical Universe.

That the observation is real is an undeniable fact.
That the physical world is actually real is a totally unfounded assumption.Finished blathering now? OK.

Nope.

To assume the the universe exists in the minds of a pair of giant squirrels named Bip and Bop is a totally unfounded assumption.

Materialism, Idealism, even Dualism are based on assumptions with some foundation. That's why we don't just reject them as nonsense right away.

Edited to turn a the into a that.

Tricky

20th January 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
That the observation is real is an undeniable fact.
That the physical world is actually real is a totally unfounded assumption.
If I may intrude on this excellent dialogue,

I don't think that "the universe is real" is a totally unfounded assumption. Either it is real, or you are the only consciousness in the universe. If others make the same observations about the objects, then either those objects are real and have those observable qualities, or the "others" only exist in your mind. The independantly verifiable nature of observations makes the reality of the universe quite well founded, IMO. By UCE's logic, the only alternative to the reality of the universe is solipsism. I don't think that is what he is intending to promote.

20th January 2003, 11:51 AM

It's been a pleasure, Pix.

So far you have claimed, in this thread......

That the thesis is about language and is therefore irrelevant to ontology/consciousness.
That the thesis is very relevant to ontology/consciousness.
That the thesis, although about language, flips between being true and not true depending on your belief system
That the experience of pain is a physical thing rather than a mental thing.
That there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism.
That there isn't a mental/physical linguistic dualism.
That it doesn't matter whether there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism or not.
That it does matter whether there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism or not, and that English should be restructured to account for this.
That you never claimed the structure of the English language should be altered to account for this.
That ontological belief systems are not falsifiable by verifiable facts about language anyway.
That you don't care about any philosophies other than materialism.
That it took you only 30 seconds for you to figure out your position on this.
That I am deeply confused.

and my absolute favourite.....

That the historical accuracy of the claimed resurection of Jesus Christ flips between being true or false dependent on your belief system.

In other words THAT THE BIBLE BECOMES TRUE IF YOU BELIEVE IT! :D

20th January 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

If I may intrude on this excellent dialogue,

I don't think that "the universe is real" is a totally unfounded assumption. Either it is real, or you are the only consciousness in the universe. If others make the same observations about the objects, then either those objects are real and have those observable qualities, or the "others" only exist in your mind. The independantly verifiable nature of observations makes the reality of the universe quite well founded, IMO. By UCE's logic, the only alternative to the reality of the universe is solipsism. I don't think that is what he is intending to promote.

Tricky,

I am not proposing solipsism. Idealism does not not imply solipsism. It can imply a hierarchy of minds which all have access to the same information.

:)

Tricky

20th January 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Tricky,

I am not proposing solipsism. Idealism does not not imply solipsism. It can imply a hierarchy of minds which all have access to the same information.

:)
They all have access to the same information, but that information is about something that is not necessarily real? That seems a bit farfetched.

As an example, you take a piece of sandpaper and observe that it is rough. You hand it to another person and he agrees it is rough... repeat as necessary. After a number of independant observations, I would say that there is a very large foundation for the reality of the sandpaper and for the its characteristic roughness.
I agree you could argue that this is an illusion shared by many, but why would you? It seems a lot of effort just so you can deny the reality of the physical world, a concept only useful in philosophy.

Franko

20th January 2003, 12:13 PM

They all have access to the same information, but that information is about something that is not necessarily real? That seems a bit farfetched.

Is 2 + 2 = 4 “real”? I’d say that it depends on your definitions of ‘2”, “4”, “+”, ‘and “=”.

II + II = IV

20th January 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

They all have access to the same information, but that information is about something that is not necessarily real? That seems a bit farfetched.

It is real in the same way that Sherlock Holmes is real, or a mathematical structure is real. They do exist, but they aren't physically 'out there'.

As an example, you take a piece of sandpaper and observe that it is rough. You hand it to another person and he agrees it is rough... repeat as necessary. After a number of independant observations, I would say that there is a very large foundation for the reality of the sandpaper and for the its characteristic roughness.

Many independent people can observe that Sherlock Holmes solved the case of the Hound of the Baskervilles, or that a mandelbrot set is beautiful. It doesn't make them exist independently of an observing mind.

I agree you could argue that this is an illusion shared by many, but why would you? It seems a lot of effort just so you can deny the reality of the physical world, a concept only useful in philosophy.

It is not something one would normally propose. But then the Hard Problem, which this philsophy solves, is not a normal problem.

Franko

20th January 2003, 12:23 PM

Many independent people can observe that Sherlock Holmes solved the ridlle of the Hound of the Baskervilles, or that a mandelbrot set is beautiful. It doesn't make them exist independently of an observing mind.

Do colors (like "red") exist independantly of an observing mind? Does "red" as you see it exist in reality?

Does that mean that "red" does not exist within this Universe?

Without consciousness is what way does red exist as we perceive it? ... it doesn't.

20th January 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Do colors (like "red") exist independantly of an observing mind?

Does "red" as you see it exist in reality?

If you are an idealist it does.
If you are a materialist it does not.

i.e. it depends on your definition of what 'reality' is.

Does that mean that "red" does not exist within this Universe?

Red is a property of ones perception of an object in the physical Universe, not a property of the object.

"The House is red" is a fallacy.
"I perceive the house to be red" is not a fallacy.
A dog perceives the house to be grey.
A bat perceives the house with its radar and doesn't have any concept of colours at all.

Without consciousness is what way does red exist as we perceive it? ... it doesn't.

Correct.

Tricky

20th January 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It is real in the same way that Sherlock Holmes is real, or a mathematical structure is real. They do exist, but they aren't physically 'out there'.
Sorry, Sherlock Holmes is fictional. You cannot observe him to exist. You can only read a (real) book about him.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Many independent people can observe that Sherlock Holmes solved the case of the Hound of the Baskervilles, or that a mandelbrot set is beautiful. It doesn't make them exist independently of an observing mind.
They can not observe that Sherlock Holmes solved any cases. They can only read about them. You cannot have a number of different people observe Sherlock Holmes. You can only read one person's description. He is not a physical object. Sandpaper is.

I can see what you are saying. Mental concepts are just as real as the physical world, or perhaps that the physical world is just as unreal as mental concepts. But I find this incorrect, or at least useless as far as figuring out anything about how the universe works. Can you take Sherlock Holmes and have him find Osima Bin Laden? No. He is not a real person and not a material object (Holmes, I mean). Can you take a piece of sandpaper and smooth some wood. Yes. It is a material object. I think that it is pointless to deny the physical reality of the material world. If you doubt this, try this simple test.

1) Write down a short story about hitting your thumb with a hammer.

2) Hit your thumb with a hammer.

3) Compare and contrast.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It is not something one would normally propose. But then the Hard Problem, which this philsophy solves, is not a normal problem.
No, unlike most problems it is a problem that needs no solution. It will not change the way in which you deal with the world in any important way.

20th January 2003, 12:50 PM

Tricky,

This is what is meant by the physical world being intrinsically fictional. Sorry about the length, but if you want to understand what is being proposed, and why, you will have to read it.

NB : edited so I just post the summary - please read the whole paper if you want to understand what I am saying.

:)

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/ty99.htm

1.9 Summary of the argument

The argument presented above pivots on a linguistic point: how we actually use words that denote physical things. This does not mean that I am concerned merely with language and not with reality. On the contrary, I think the mind-body problem poses a substantive question that is very serious and worth while trying to answer. Language is, nevertheless, the medium in which we articulate and then examine our thoughts, and it is therefore possible that an incorrect use of our language could have led us to an incorrect understanding of reality. This, in turn, could have created the mind-body problem. If this is so, a good way to look for an answer is to take a close look at how our language works when we articulate statements about the mental and physical worlds. My claim is that our misunderstanding of what we are actually doing when we talk about the mind and the brain has trapped us into holding an incoherent metaphysical view. Specifically, the superficial similarity of physical and mental statements has led us to think that those statements refer successfully to mental and physical things respectively, and this creates the profound mystery of how those different kinds of thing relate to each other. Stated thus, my claim coincides up to this point with that of the linguistic philosophers of the 1950s - such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Gilbert Ryle - but after this point my argument goes in the direction opposite to theirs. Whereas their claim is that statements about the physical world are canonical and statements about the mental world are, in some sense, derivative, my claim is the reverse: that statements about the contents of our mind make genuine reference to the mind, whereas those about the contents of the physical world function in a different way. Wittgenstein made the analogy of a railway engine’s cab, in which a number of levers are installed, each with the same kind of handle. A cursory inspection of these levers might suggest that they all work in the same way, but in fact their actions are completely different. Their similarity of form is due only to the engineer’s need to handle them in the same manner, irrespective of their resulting action. Likewise, statements about the mental and physical worlds are similar in form, since they must fit into our conventional grammatical and linguistic practices, but their underlying actions are wholly different.
The crux of the difference concerns reference. In short, with mental statements we can succeed in referring to things, whilst with physical statements we cannot. Thus the functioning of mental statements is much closer to our expectations of how language serves us. The terms of physics do not - and cannot - succeed in reaching out of the symbolic, self-contained system of physics and engaging with some self-subsistent reality.

1.10 Corollary: consciousness is not physical

David Chalmers has drawn a lot of fresh interest to what has historically been known as the mind-body problem. He has renamed it the ‘Hard Problem’, to separate the philosophical problem of accounting in principle for how consciousness can arise in a physical world, from the ‘Soft Problem’ of scientifically studying the detailed correlation of mental and neural activity.
Under the Berkeleian theory of mental monism, of course, the Hard Problem becomes an easy problem, as the physical world is no longer considered to exist.

Nevertheless, the reasoning that has been presented in this section as an argument for mental monism can also be used independently to argue that consciousness is not reducible to the physical world. So, if you feel too uncomfortable with the radical claim that reality is primarily mental, you might nonetheless settle for the intermediate claim that reality is not exclusively physical.

The world that is described by physics consists of entities and operations that are defined wholly by their logical relations with other entities and operations within that world. A number of fundamental terms are allowed, such as mass and space, and all others are derived from them by declaring formulaic relationships between them.

Terms which denote things that are defined by their intrinsic qualities, as opposed to being defined by logical relations, do not and cannot feature in the language of physics. The immediate conscious sensation of seeing the colour red, for instance, is not something that is defined by its relationship to other things. There is a qualitative aspect that cannot be captured by relations. The terms that denote things of this kind can be defined only ostensively, not formally. We can do no more than say, "There! Look at that - that’s what I mean by ‘red’!"

Hence qualitative mental experiences can, by definition, never exist in the physical world. This is a metaphysical claim, but it is also a claim about language - the deeper reason for this is that the physical world itself is a fiction, a verbal construct.

A more concrete way of looking at the situation is to consider that all the physical facts of the world could be printed in black and white in a huge library of books. Somebody who read and understood all these books still would not be informed of the experience of red. Likewise, consider Frank Jackson’s thought-experiment of the neuroscientist Mary: she somehow lives, studies, and works in an exclusively black-and-white world. There, she studies the neurophysiology of human vision, and acquires all physical facts about human colour vision. She knows all about different wavelengths of light, and how they are labelled as "red" and "green", and so on, by people with colour vision. Then, one day, she escapes and sees colours for the first time. Now, she has acquired some new knowledge that she did not previously possess: what the colour red looks like. This, as Chalmers argues, shows that the world of conscious experience contains facts other than those of the physical world.

As we have seen, the reason that the voluminous description of the physical world, or Mary’s laboratory notebooks, can capture all relevant physical facts without mentioning conscious experience is that they need only mention things that have been defined within the closed verbal system of the physical sciences. They include no ostensively defined terms that refer to the contents of conscious experience.

This situation is more radical than some people think.

Some people, such as Chalmers himself, want to integrate consciousness into the natural sciences by making it out to be another fundamental element of reality, alongside mass and space. This misses the point. Consciousness is an ontologically different kind of thing from mass or space. We know this because words that denote things in the conscious world (including the word "consciousness" itself) perform a function of a different kind from words that denote physical things. The former can be given only ostensive definitions, the latter only formal definitions. Consequently, as I have argued above, the physical terms are incapable of bearing any referential meaning: the only meaning they have is a formalistic meaning constituted by their use as tokens within a closed language-game. Hence, the things they denote cannot exist. Contrariwise, the terms that denote things within the world of consciousness can and do bear referential meaning, and what they denote can exist. So, for Chalmers to suggest that consciousness could be a basic part of reality alongside mass and other physical primitives is to make a category-mistake (in Ryle’s celebrated phrase). The physical world is, necessarily, derived by construction from the conscious world.

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
It's been a pleasure, Pix.Likewise, I'm not sure at all.So far you have claimed, in this thread......Oh goody, another demonstration of Mister Elephant's F- score in reading comprehension.That the thesis is about language and is therefore irrelevant to ontology/consciousness.Hmm. Yes. Yes I said both those things.That the thesis is very relevant to ontology/consciousness.Nope. I said that ontology is relevant the the HPC statement, and that HPC is not relevant to ontology.That the thesis, although about language, flips between being true and not true depending on your belief systemNope. I said that its truth value depends on the truth value of materialism.That the experience of pain is a physical thing rather than a mental thing.Nope. I said that pain has clear physical attributes as well as mental ones.That there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism.Actually, I have pointed out that this is fuzzy at best. English at least is not dualistic so much as messy.That there isn't a mental/physical linguistic dualism.No. I never once said that.That it doesn't matter whether there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism or not.I did not say this as a general comment, but only as it relates to the question of consciousness.That it does matter whether there is a mental/physical linguistic dualism or not, and that English should be restructured to account for this.Nope. I said that English can be restructured, and that languages are indeed structured to take account of similar situations.That you never claimed the structure of the English language should be altered to account for this.Nope. I have said that it is not necessary.That ontological belief systems are not falsifiable by verifiable facts about language anyway.No- Hey! That one's right! What the hell happened? Mind you, you haven't presented any facts, only unsupported statements with visible holes in them.That you don't care about any philosophies other than materialism.Darn tootin'.That it took you only 30 seconds for you to figure out your position on this.Maybe 35 seconds. So I exaggerated a little.That I am deeply confused.Heh. I'll give you full marks for spotting that one, even though it was pretty easy.and my absolute favourite.....Drum roll please...That the historical accuracy of the claimed resurection of Jesus Christ flips between being true or false dependent on your belief system.Damn. Wrong again. I explicitly and repeatedly stated that it depends on the truth value of your belief system. Sorry, you lose ten points on this one because you selected it as your special bonus error.In other words THAT THE BIBLE BECOMES TRUE IF YOU BELIEVE IT!Nope. Never said that or anything like it.

Let's tally up your score:

HPC irrelevance 1: 5/5
HPC irrelevance 2: 0/5
HPC truth flipping: 0/5
Purely physical pain: 0/5
Linguistic dualism 1: 3/5
Linguistic dualism 2: 0/5
Linguistic dualism doesn't matter: 2/5
Linguistic dualism does matter: 0/5
Never said English should change: 4/5
Ontology not falsifiable by language: 4/5
Don't care about non-material philosophies: 5/5
Only took me 30 seconds to spot flaws in HPC: 5/5
Elephant deeply confused: 5/5
Christ flips on belief: -10/10
Bible true if believed: 0/5

Grand total: 23/80. Works out to a nearly 29%. That's almost an F!

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Is 2 + 2 = 4 “real”? I’d say that it depends on your definitions of ‘2”, “4”, “+”, ‘and “=”.

II + II = IV Not, uh, really. 2, 4, + and = are all rigidly defined in mathematics. What is at question is the definition of "real".

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Red is a property of ones perception of an object in the physical Universe, not a property of the object.Nope."The House is red" is a fallacy.It's only a fallacy if the house isn't red."I perceive the house to be red" is not a fallacy.It is a fallacy if you don't perceive the house to be red. If the house isn't red and you perceive it to be red, you have a problem.A dog perceives the house to be grey.Which does not make it grey. Also, cats do not have this problem, showing once again their superiority to dogs.A bat perceives the house with its radar and doesn't have any concept of colours at all.Bats do not have radar. They have echolocation. They also have working eyes.

Was there a point to this or did you just decide consciousness was too difficult a subject and you wanted to talk about red houses instead?

PixyMisa

20th January 2003, 05:59 PM

Oh, and one more time:

Have you looked at my logical statement of the situation yet, Mister Elephant? Any comments?

crocodile deathroll

20th January 2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Do colors (like "red") exist independantly of an observing mind? Does "red" as you see it exist in reality?

Does that mean that "red" does not exist within this Universe?

Without consciousness is what way does red exist as we perceive it? ... it doesn't.

What do mean by "red" if you mean a wavelength on the spectrum then I can only assume it does have ontological existence. I am sure some objects give us a red sensation because of the physical properties of absorbing photons and only reflecting the wavelengths (within a narrow frequency) that gives us our "red sensation". The "red" snooker ball may also reflect UV light and infra-red light as well and if our eyes were sensitive to that frequency, so we are not seeing the true color of that snooker ball
If it is a warm snooker ball it will also reflect black body radiation which may give yet another color sensation again that eyes are not sensitive to. So in reality there is also the color X-ray, the color Gamma-ray, the color infra-red, the colors utra-low frequency, etc as well as the color visible red.
Ontologically speaking the color red is not a red sensation it is just a wavelength on the spectrum.

Tricky

20th January 2003, 07:38 PM

I read the long post you made, UCE, and I still am no more convinced that the "hard problem" is any kind of relevant problem. No one would attempt to describe "red" without trying to compare it to other "red" things. In this sense, it makes no differerence what you are actually seeing, only that when two people see this thing, they both recognize it as "red". You both perceive a wavelength of light and you both call it red.

Like the "hard problem" this seems to be making a problem out of nothing. There is no useful information that can be obtained by identifyiny colors as qualia (if I am using the term correctly). This would be different, of course, if a person could not actually discern certain wavelengths from another, as in color blindness. But even then, you are still essentially comparing colors to other colors. "Does this apple look the same color to you as this orange?" Whatever their answer, it yeilds no evidence that there is a thing called "red" which is different from light of a certain wavelength as perceived by the eye.

I actually do understand what you're saying, UCE (althought your terminology throws me for a loop sometimes), but I just think most of it is not useful other than in a discussion of philosophy. What discoveries do you see Dualism leading to? What can it do to help us make predictive theories about the world? To me, it seems like a philosophical platypus. Interesting, but not likely to evolve further.

20th January 2003, 11:52 PM

Pixy,

As I said, it's been a pleasure. People as thoroughly dependent on their belief system as you are can never be convinced that anything is wrong with it, which is why they are able to completely contradict themselves repeatedly without seeing it as a problem. Since I cannot be bothered to repeat my own consistent and logical position for a fifth time, I am more than happy to "declare". I am not here to de-convert you from your religious materialism. This thread was for the benefit of the audience, and I'm sure they enjoyed it as much as I have.

:)

Geoff.

20th January 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Oh, and one more time:

Have you looked at my logical statement of the situation yet, Mister Elephant? Any comments?

Yes....

What logical statement? :D

20th January 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
I read the long post you made, UCE, and I still am no more convinced that the "hard problem" is any kind of relevant problem. No one would attempt to describe "red" without trying to compare it to other "red" things. In this sense, it makes no differerence what you are actually seeing, only that when two people see this thing, they both recognize it as "red". You both perceive a wavelength of light and you both call it red.

Like the "hard problem" this seems to be making a problem out of nothing. There is no useful information that can be obtained by identifyiny colors as qualia (if I am using the term correctly). This would be different, of course, if a person could not actually discern certain wavelengths from another, as in color blindness. But even then, you are still essentially comparing colors to other colors. "Does this apple look the same color to you as this orange?" Whatever their answer, it yeilds no evidence that there is a thing called "red" which is different from light of a certain wavelength as perceived by the eye.

I actually do understand what you're saying, UCE (althought your terminology throws me for a loop sometimes), but I just think most of it is not useful other than in a discussion of philosophy. What discoveries do you see Dualism leading to? What can it do to help us make predictive theories about the world? To me, it seems like a philosophical platypus. Interesting, but not likely to evolve further.

I couldn't disagree more. I think that spiritual evolution is the ultimate destiny of humanity.

:)

urstardust

21st January 2003, 12:09 AM

YES, I AGREE WITH "PIXY" We are zombies. We just think we aren't." NOT YET? Anyway......................

WE ARE Ants That can't see your size in thought, yet we think we do....

PixyMisa

21st January 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
As I said, it's been a pleasure. People as thoroughly dependent on their belief system as you are can never be convinced that anything is wrong with it, which is why they are able to completely contradict themselves repeatedly without seeing it as a problem.And as I have said before, you are entirely oblivious to irony. Since I cannot be bothered to repeat my own consistent and logical position for a fifth time, I am more than happy to "declare".I have never seen you take a consistent and logical position. Should you ever wish to do so, I'd be interested and happy to discuss itI am not here to de-convert you from your religious materialism.I do not have any religious attachment to materialism. It is because your own position is so deeply flawed that you think this.This thread was for the benefit of the audience, and I'm sure they enjoyed it as much as I have.Fine. Mister Elephant, you were wrong in the beginning, you were wrong for the entirety of our discussion, and you are wrong now.

PixyMisa

21st January 2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Yes....

What logical statement?
Since your continued use of LSD appears to have damaged your eyesight as well as your brain, I will repeat it for you:

We have a descriptive system L. We have two sets of phenomena, X and Y.

We can make the following initial statements regarding the relationship of L to X and Y:

L can describe phenomena in X and the results of such phenomena.
L can describe phenomena in Y and the results of such phenomena.

Now, we have two hypotheses. Hypothesis H states:

No phenomenon in X can be described using system L purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

Hypothesis M states:

All phenomena, including but not limited to those in X, are actually the result of the phenomena in Y.

Given M and our statements about L, H is clearly false.

Got it now?

21st January 2003, 01:05 AM

Let's translate it into English, eh?

We have a descriptive system L.

The English language.

We have two sets of phenomena, X and Y.

What are the two sets of phenomena you are talking about?
The experience of 'mental' things and the experience of 'physical things'?

We can make the following initial statements regarding the relationship of L to X and Y:

L can describe phenomena in X and the results of such phenomena.
L can describe phenomena in Y and the results of such phenomena.

The English language can describe 'mental' things.
The English language can descrive 'physical' things.

Now, we have two hypotheses. Hypothesis H states:

No phenomenon in X can be described using system L purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

"No mental thing can be described using the English language purely in terms of physical things"

I'm with you here.

Hypothesis M states:

All phenomena, including but not limited to those in X, are actually the result of the phenomena in Y.

According to materialism mental things are the result of physical things.

Given M and our statements about L, H is clearly false.

So if materialism is true then H is false.

*YAWN*

What was the point in writing out as logic? It still suffers from the same idiotic fallacy.....

You have missed out something critical from your logic.

'H' is not a hypothesis.

****We have a FACT "F" that all human languages express a mutually exclusive dualism between X and Y!*****

And if fact F (which you have conceded is true) IS TRUE then 'H' IS TRUE.

So by the time we reach the end of the logic it looks a bit different - it reads like this....

Given that we have established that fact H is true if we try to claim that hypothesis M is true then we have a logical contradiction.
Given that we have established that fact H is true if we try to claim that hypothesis M is false then we do not have a logical contradiction.

That is the wonderful thing about hypotheses - we can test them against facts!

M is a hypothesis.
F is a FACT you have conceded is true.
H depends solely only on F, not on any hypotheses (F---->H).
M is therefore false.

Your belief system is not impervious to facts that falsify it, even though you think it is.

Please don't ask me to explain this to you again. :rolleyes:

21st January 2003, 01:17 AM

My version :

M is a hypothesis.
F is a FACT you have conceded is true.
H depends solely only on F, not on any hypotheses (F---->H).
M is therefore false.

Your version :

H doesn't depend solely on F, it also ***secretly*** depends on M being false!

Why can't you grasp the simple truth that H does not depend on M!? It has nothing to do with M! You just keep trying to claim it does depend on M because you will say absolutely anything to avoid M being false! You cannot keep claiming that H secretly depends on hypothesis M! Whether or not M is true is a CONSEQUENCE of the rest of the logic. You keep trying to feed "M is true" in, and the logic keeps coming back and going....

Segmentation fault! CORE DUMPED!

H does not "secretly" depend on M
M does depend on H

:)

crocodile deathroll

21st January 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy,

As I said, it's been a pleasure. People as thoroughly dependent on their belief system as you are can never be convinced that anything is wrong with it, which is why they are able to completely contradict themselves repeatedly without seeing it as a problem. Since I cannot be bothered to repeat my own consistent and logical position for a fifth time, I am more than happy to "declare". I am not here to de-convert you from your religious materialism. This thread was for the benefit of the audience, and I'm sure they enjoyed it as much as I have.

:)

Geoff.

Materialism is a highly evolutionary philosophy, it adapts with new paradigms. We know in a block universe we all have a material interconnectedness as all our worldlines converge on one great ontological hierarchy, and ultimately to the big bang event itself.

21st January 2003, 01:40 AM

Pixy,

The reason I posted that 2think.org essay was to point out that finding the truth requires starting from fearless questions instead of starting from a conclusion which must be defended. You keep trying to start from the conclusion "M is true" and you will attempt to attack any part of the logic you can to defend the conclusion "M is true". You have even tried to claim that the logic depends on a "hidden" conclusion that "M is False", when in fact the logic does not depend on any assumed conclusions at all, hidden or otherwise.

We do not need to start from any conclusion.

Why can't we just examine the facts and stop trying to feed the conclusion into the logic?

The logic actually starts with a FACT F. That fact is that English, and all other languages, contain a mutually exclusive dualism between subjective and objective. Do you think it might help if we took a close look at this claimed FACT F, and see if we can

(a) make sure it is true

and

(b) try to figure out WHY it is true

Would that help?

When we have done that we can move on to closely examining how the thesis you have called 'hypothesis H' is related to the claimed fact F.

We can do all this without making any assumptions at all, and without assuming our conclusions at the start of the logic, just like the 2think essay suggests. Start from a fearless question, not from a conclusion which must be defended at all costs.

Shall we do this?

:)

PixyMisa

21st January 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Let's translate it into English, eh?Why? The whole point of translating it into statements of logic in the first place was to cut out all of the vagueness. Apparently you like vagueness, because it gives you somewhere to hide. And you need to use a lot of it because elephants are so big.The English language.No. Any descriptive system. If all you can discuss is the English language then your hypothesis is even more useless than I thought.What are the two sets of phenomena you are talking about?X and Y.The experience of 'mental' things and the experience of 'physical things'?Doesn't matter. That's why I reduced it to statements of logic.The English language can describe 'mental' things.So what?The English language can descrive 'physical' things.Again, so what?"No mental thing can be described using the English language purely in terms of physical things"Is your hypothesis.I'm with you here.Hooray. I'm sure you'll fall over soon and land in the mud, though.According to materialism mental things are the result of physical things.Yes. That's what materialism claims, and is a specific recasting of my hypothesis M.So if materialism is true then H is false.If M is true then H is false. If materialism is true then the HPC statement is false.*YAWN*Not getting enough sleep, eh?What was the point in writing out as logic?To make it totally clear why you are wrong.It still suffers from the same idiotic fallacy.Which is?You have missed out something critical from your logic.Really? Where?'H' is not a hypothesis.But that's precisely what it is. It's sloppily stated, but that's not my fault.****We have a FACT "F" that all human languages express a mutually exclusive dualism between X and Y!*****Uh, no. You've refuted this yourself with your example of "thought".And if fact F (which you have conceded is true) IS TRUE then 'H' IS TRUE.First, I have conceded that language - at least English - contains a separation of terms that discuss mental states and terms that discuss physical states. The two sets of terms quite clearly overlap. You've said so yourself. So F is only "sort of" true.

And you are still missing out the key assumption that links hypotheis F to hypothesis H. I'll give you one last chance to spot it for yourself.So by the time we reach the end of the logic it looks a bit different - it reads like this....I expect you to make a complete fool of yourself here. Let's see if I'm right.Given that we have established that fact H is trueBang. My prediction is correct. You have not even begun to establish hypothesis H. You haven't even established F. And you still haven't spotted the hidden assumption A.if we try to claim that hypothesis M is true then we have a logical contradiction.Actually, no. If both H and M are true, all it means is that L is broken, that the statements we made about how L relates to X and Y are in fact false. L can then be fixed, which will the restore the link which falsifies H. And since you haven't established H, and have shown no ability to do so, it doesn't matter.Given that we have established that fact H is trueSee above. Before you can claim that you have established hypothesis H, you are first required to actually do so. We are still waiting for you to attempt this. And you still haven't spotted A. if we try to claim that hypothesis M is false then we do not have a logical contradiction.No. So what?That is the wonderful thing about hypotheses - we can test them against facts!Yes. Now go away and find some.M is a hypothesis.Indeed.F is a FACT you have conceded is true."Sort of" true. Not much of a fact. More of a factlet. And languages can change, as you well know.H depends solely only on F, not on any hypotheses (F---->H).False. To establish H you must first establish that F is both true and necessary, and that A is also true. You haven't addressed these problems with F. You can't even see A. So H remains an empty statement.M is therefore false.No. An empty statement cannot falsify anything.Your belief system is not impervious to facts that falsify it, even though you think it is.I do not claim it is. I do not believe it is. I ask merely that you present facts, and reason logically. Feel free to do so. You may start at any time.Please don't ask me to explain this to you again.I didn't ask you to explain this the first time. I already understood your position, and why it is wrong. Go back and try again. Or admit that you are wrong. Or admit that you are unable to coherently argue your case.

PixyMisa

21st January 2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The reason I posted that 2think.org essay was to point out that finding the truth requires starting from fearless questions instead of starting from a conclusion which must be defended.So what?

That essay is doubletalk and unexamined assumptions. It doesn't demonstrate anything at all.You keep trying to start from the conclusion "M is true"It's my default position. I am willing to question it, given reason. I have shown this.and you will attempt to attack any part of the logic you can to defend the conclusion "M is true".False. You have claimed that M cannot falsify H. You are wrong.You have even tried to claim that the logic depends on a "hidden" conclusion that "M is False"And that's precisely what it contains.when in fact the logic does not depend on any assumed conclusions at all, hidden or otherwise.Except that it does depend precisely on such an assumption.We do not need to start from any conclusion.Then why is that what you do?Why can't we just examine the facts and stop trying to feed the conclusion into the logic?Because you refuse to present any facts. You refuse to examine your own position. You wave unsupported statements about as though they were established mathematical theorems.The logic actually starts with a FACT F.Which as we have established, is not really a fact at all.That fact is that English, and all other languages, contain a mutually exclusive dualism between subjective and objective.Which you yourself have said is not entirely true. Do you think it might help if we took a close look at this claimed FACT F, and see if we can

(a) make sure it is true

and

(b) try to figure out WHY it is true

Would that help?Feel free. As I said, to establish hypothesis H you need to establish that F is both true (a) and that it is necessary (b). You also need to establish your hidden assumption A.When we have done that we can move on to closely examining how the thesis you have called 'hypothesis H' is related to the claimed fact F.Yes. First show that all possible languages contain this dualism, and then we can move on.We can do all this without making any assumptions at all, and without assuming our conclusions at the start of the logic, just like the 2think essay suggests.Ow. That hurt. It's so funny!Start from a fearless question, not from a conclusion which must be defended at all costs.Go for it. You may find it a novel experience. I'll sit here and wait for you. Might play a little SimCity 4 to fill in the time.Shall we do this?Go right ahead. Don't mind me.

21st January 2003, 02:56 AM

Pixy:

Super! So we can just look at the facts and not feed the conclusion in?

Excellent!

:)

First I need you to give me some definitions, so we can not end up arguing about what words mean.

Please give me a short definition of

subjective
mental

objective
physical

and then a very brief summary of how you feel these things relate to the scientific method.

:)

21st January 2003, 03:59 AM

Pixy....

Here we go : I've been to dictionary.com and extracted some definitions :

Subjective :

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Mental :

Of or relating to the mind.

Objective :

Of or having to do with a material object.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Based on observable phenomena.

Physical :

Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit.
Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

Of course if you'd like to alter them then please feel free to do so, because as you say - languages change. But I do also need you to explain how you think the above words influence the scientific method, and specifically the need for the SM to remain objective. Presumably you understand that the SM is not subject to being changed because of language, so we can use it as a common test for the usefulness of language. The SM is the same in English, in Swedish, in Urdu, in Chinese and in ancient egyptian. And the SM does require that we define these sorts of words in a way that genuinely reflects the reality we find ourselves in - that is the sort of words we are talking about, and that is the nature of the scientific method. In other words - the above definitions seem to me to be about right for preserving the integrity of the SM, and I think we can probably agree that making alterations to them that compromise the SM would not be an acceptable thing to do. Therefore we can agree that these definitions aren't just arbitrary, but are neccesarily fixed - both because they accurately describe the reality we experience and because they are needed to accurately describe that reality in order for science to retain its integrity.

Follow all that?

Any time you're ready.......

:)

21st January 2003, 05:10 AM

Pixy,

Remember we are here discussing fact F. Fact F is that there is a linguistic dualism between mental and physical things. According to the dictionary defs, mental things are things in a mind (they are subjective). And also according to the dictionary defs, physical things are part of material reality, as distinguished from the mind (they are objective).

Finally, we both know that the scientific method is, by definition, objective. It deliberately excludes subjective things. It needs to do this because if it allowed subjectivity to creep in then it wouldn't be objective. So we need to be able to make a clear distinction between subjective/mental things and objective/physical things for two reasons.

1) This is the way we experience reality - that is why the dictionary definitions are the way they are.

2) The scientific method is critically dependent upon our ability to make a clear distinction between the two different sorts of things.

So it looks like we have established that fact F is indeed a FACT.

We haven't assumed anything about any ontologies in order to arrive at this FACT, but instead we have established that the both the accuracy of language to describe the reality we experience AND the integrity of the scientific method are dependent on this FACT being true.

So far we haven't examined the thesis H, we are still trying to agree on whether FACT F is really a FACT and why that FACT must remain a FACT independent of which language we are using, and that FACT F must remain a FACT or we compromise the scientific methods ability to remain objective.

Can we agree that FACT F is a FACT?

Stimpson J. Cat

21st January 2003, 06:04 AM

UCE,

Perhaps before you try to assert that the "dualism" inherent the English language somehow implies ontological dualism, you should address the point that I made in my last post, that the English language is neither dualistic nor monistic. It is simply ambiguous.

And of course, you haven't made any type of coherent argument for why you think this is a general phenomena. Can you really assert as a fact that any language human being beings could possibly create for trying to explain things must necessarily be dualistic? I really don't think so.

Pixy is right. Your assertion that the mental cannot possibly be described in terms of the physical is clearly not a statement of fact. It is a hypothesis, and furthermore it is a hypothesis which is not supported by any facts (at least, none you have provided).

Dr. Stupid

21st January 2003, 06:17 AM

What's this?

Has the cavalry come riding over the brow of the hill to rescue PixyMisa?

I'm disappointed Stimpy, I thought you knew better than place yourself in this particular firing line, but if you want to take the heat for Pixy then so be it.

We are trying to establish whether FACT F is a FACT. If you are going to interrupt at the crucial point in the debat, I'd appreciate if you would actually address the point being made instead of trying to blur it.

WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY CHALLENGING, STIMPSON?

Are you challenging the dictionary definitions of subjective/objective/mental/physical?

Or are you challenging the claim that the scientific method is critically dependent on objectivity?

Stimpson J. Cat

21st January 2003, 06:34 AM

UCE,

Finally, we both know that the scientific method is, by definition, objective.

The scientific method is not formulated within the English language. It is formulated within the language of logic and mathematics. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the formal logical definitions used in science.

It deliberately excludes subjective things. It needs to do this because if it allowed subjectivity to creep in then it wouldn't be objective.

This is simply not true. If it were true, there could be no science. All objective knowledge is derived from subjective experiences, because subjective experiences are the only source of information we have. Science does not "exclude" subjective things. It extracts objective information from our subjective experiences by eliminating subjective bias. This can be done precisely because the scientific method assumes that our subjective experiences can, in fact, be explained in terms of objective things.

So we need to be able to make a clear distinction between subjective/mental things and objective/physical things for two reasons.

1) This is the way we experience reality - that is why the dictionary definitions are the way they are.

This is an unsupported assertion. The English language is a complicated thing which has evolved over many Centuries, and which has been influenced by every aspect of the lives of the people speaking it. The language simply reflects the beliefs and attitudes of the people who created it.

2) The scientific method is critically dependent upon our ability to make a clear distinction between the two different sorts of things.

False. The scientific method is critically dependent on our ability to extract reliable objective information from our subjective experiences. If anything, this is the exact opposite of what you have asserted.

Consider an obvious parallel to the claim "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

"No statement ascribing a physical object can be derived from any set of purely mental descriptions."

Your language argument is equally applicable to both. But if the above were true, science would be impossible. Our subjective experiences are purely mental descriptions. Science depends on our being able to derive from the mental descriptions an objective description of a physical object.

Has the cavalry come riding over the brow of the hill to rescue PixyMisa?

Pixy hardly needs any rescuing here. :rolleyes:

I'm disappointed Stimpy, I thought you knew better than place yourself in this particular firing line, but if you want to take the heat for Pixy then so be it.

You're a funny guy, Geoff.

We are trying to establish whether FACT F is a FACT. If you are going to interrupt at the crucial point in the debat, I'd appreciate if you would actually address the point being made instead of trying to blur it.

WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY CHALLENGING, STIMPSON?

I thought I made that clear. I am challenging your claim that F is a fact. It is clearly not a fact. It is an assumption with no basis. Furthermore, your argument for asserting that it is a fact is clearly flawed. The English language is not dualistic.

Are you challenging the dictionary definitions of subjective/objective/mental/physical?

I don't need to challenge them. They do not support your argument. They, in fact, support mine. The very definitions you posted clearly establish that the English language is neither dualistic nor monistic, but in fact, ambiguous.

Or are you challenging the claim that the scientific method is critically dependent on objectivity?

I am challenging your claim that the scientific method must pretend that the subjective does not exist. This is clearly false. See my above points.

Dr. Stupid

21st January 2003, 06:40 AM

Name ONE non-compound noun which is ambigious as to whether it is physical/objective or mental/subjective.

And don't name 'thought' because that has two different definitions.

Just ONE.

Stimpson J. Cat

21st January 2003, 06:58 AM

UCE,

Name ONE non-compound noun which is ambiguous as to whether it is physical/objective or mental/subjective.

All of them are, because the definitions of physical, objective, mental, and subjective, are all ambiguous in plain English. It is only in formal philosophical systems that these words are given formal logical definitions, and then the definitions are dependent on that philosophical framework.

look again at the definitions for these words you posted. They are all circular, ambiguous, and poorly defined. Which just goes to show, dictionary definitions are not definitions at all. They are common usages.

And don't name 'thought' because that has two different definitions.

No, it doesn't. The problem is that in your attempt to rationalize your belief in dualism with the ambiguity inherent in words like "thought", you have decided that the word has two different meanings, one mental, and one physical. The incoherency of this position is clear when you consider that you cannot conceptually separate these two meanings. They are hopelessly tied together, because thought is both mental and physical. As are emotion, pain, perception, experience, etc... Every noun that describes something mental is ambiguous with respect to being mental or physical.

The simple fact is that the English language is not a formal logical framework. This fact renders your entire linguistic argument invalid.

Dr. Stupid

21st January 2003, 07:06 AM

The scientific method is not formulated within the English language. It is formulated within the language of logic and mathematics. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the formal logical definitions used in science.

Definitions, dictionary or otherwise, are extremely relevant Stimpson. Without them it is impossible to conduct a conversation. Without them philosophy becomes impossible. I know it would suit you not to have to face up to these definitions but, but you do have to face up to them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It deliberately excludes subjective things. It needs to do this because if it allowed subjectivity to creep in then it wouldn't be objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is simply not true. If it were true, there could be no science.

Scientific objectivity doesn't exclude subjective things?

Oh please. :(

All objective knowledge is derived from subjective experiences, because subjective experiences are the only source of information we have. Science does not "exclude" subjective things. It extracts objective information from our subjective experiences by eliminating subjective bias.

Precisely. It distinguished between subjective things and objective things. It doesn't matter two hoots HOW it distinguishes between them the fact of the matter is THAT IT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SUBJECTIVE THINGS AND OBJECTIVE THINGS

Sorry to shout, but you really should know better than this Stimpson. We have been through this before. :(

This can be done precisely because the scientific method assumes that our subjective experiences can, in fact, be explained in terms of objective things.

That does not mean that subjective experiences ***ARE*** objective things.

:rolleyes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we need to be able to make a clear distinction between subjective/mental things and objective/physical things for two reasons.

1) This is the way we experience reality - that is why the dictionary definitions are the way they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an unsupported assertion. The English language is a complicated thing which has evolved over many Centuries, and which has been influenced by every aspect of the lives of the people speaking it. The language simply reflects the beliefs and attitudes of the people who created it.

The language reflects the reality experienced by the people who created it. They created it to describe what they experience. Otherwise it would be useless!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The scientific method is critically dependent upon our ability to make a clear distinction between the two different sorts of things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False. The scientific method is critically dependent on our ability to extract reliable objective information from our subjective experiences. If anything, this is the exact opposite of what you have asserted.

No it isn't Stimpson. The scientific method requires that we extract RELIABLE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. The fact that we have to extract that information from subjective experiences is totally irrelevant! All that matters is that the SM can distinguish between what is subjective and what is objective without there being any ambiguity. :rolleyes:

Consider an obvious parallel to the claim "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

"No statement ascribing a physical object can be derived from any set of purely mental descriptions."

Your language argument is equally applicable to both.

Not true. Doing it the other way around is a piece of p*ss because, as you say, all our experiences are subjective to begin with.

Watch how it easy it is :

"I can see Mount Everest"

:p

Linguistically, the physical world exists within the mental world, not the other way around.

If you are going to reply to this thread again, could you please try saying something I didn't extensively and repeatedly debunk last time you tried to refute this?

Win

21st January 2003, 07:11 AM

UCE:

Linguistically, the physical world exists within the mental world, not the other way around.

Not to be a buttinski, but I'd drop the qualifier "linguistically," and rephrase to say: We only have acces to the physical world's existence through our phenomenal experience of it.

More interesting that way. ;)

Stimpson J. Cat

21st January 2003, 07:39 AM

UCE,

The scientific method is not formulated within the English language. It is formulated within the language of logic and mathematics. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the formal logical definitions used in science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions, dictionary or otherwise, are extremely relevant Stimpson. Without them it is impossible to conduct a conversation. Without them philosophy becomes impossible. I know it would suit you not to have to face up to these definitions but, but you do have to face up to them.

Dude, I just said that definitions are relevant. But the definitions that are relevant are the ones that are used within the logical framework being discussed. When discussing science, it is the scientific definitions that are relevant, not the plain English ones.

This is simply not true. If it were true, there could be no science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific objectivity doesn't exclude subjective things?

Oh please.

Of course it doesn't. How could it?

All objective knowledge is derived from subjective experiences, because subjective experiences are the only source of information we have. Science does not "exclude" subjective things. It extracts objective information from our subjective experiences by eliminating subjective bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely. It distinguished between subjective things and objective things. It doesn't matter two hoots HOW it distinguishes between them the fact of the matter is THAT IT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SUBJECTIVE THINGS AND OBJECTIVE THINGS

Sorry to shout, but you really should know better than this Stimpson. We have been through this before.

I never said that it does not distinguish between them. I said that it does not exclude the subjective things, which is what you claimed.

This can be done precisely because the scientific method assumes that our subjective experiences can, in fact, be explained in terms of objective things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That does not mean that subjective experiences ***ARE*** objective things.

No, just that they are reducible to them. Indeed, the above is exactly what it means to say that subjective experiences are reducible to the physical.

This is an unsupported assertion. The English language is a complicated thing which has evolved over many Centuries, and which has been influenced by every aspect of the lives of the people speaking it. The language simply reflects the beliefs and attitudes of the people who created it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The language reflects the reality experienced by the people who created it. They created it to describe what they experience. Otherwise it would be useless!

And?? How does that imply that it describes it accurately? How can a language created by humans be expected to accurately describe aspects of reality that those humans don't understand? Why do you think that the various attributes of the English language that you are referring to are anything more than reflections of the beliefs of the people who created them? There is a lot of Christian mythology tied up in modern English too. Does that mean that Christianity is true? Of course not!

False. The scientific method is critically dependent on our ability to extract reliable objective information from our subjective experiences. If anything, this is the exact opposite of what you have asserted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it isn't Stimpson. The scientific method requires that we extract RELIABLE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. The fact that we have to extract that information from subjective experiences is totally irrelevant! All that matters is that the SM can distinguish between what is subjective and what is objective without there being any ambiguity.

The fact that it comes from subjective experiences is absolutely critical, because it clearly shows that it is possible to explain at least some aspects of our subjective experiences in terms of the objective. This clearly falsifies your thesis. Until such time as the scientific method is applied to it, any experience you have is a purely mental predicate. It is only after we account for subjective bias, and extract reliable information from it, that some portion of the experience is labeled as being objective and physical.

Consider an obvious parallel to the claim "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

"No statement ascribing a physical object can be derived from any set of purely mental descriptions."

Your language argument is equally applicable to both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. Doing it the other way around is a piece of p*ss because, as you say, all our experiences are subjective to begin with.

Which is also why doing it your way is nonsensical. Both are equally nonsensical, because the simple fact is that it is possible to describe at least some mental things in terms of the physical, and vice-versa. We do it all the time!

Linguistically, the physical world exists within the mental world, not the other way around.

No, linguistically the two concepts are hopelessly intermingled. It is only within a formal logical framework that a coherent relationship between the two can be formulated. Whether that relationship is dualistic or monistic simply depends on the framework being used.

If you are going to reply to this thread again, could you please try saying something I didn't extensively and repeatedly debunk last time you tried to refute this?

Please... :rolleyes:

Dr. Stupid

21st January 2003, 09:06 AM

Stimpson :

Before you decided to butt in to a debate you obviously haven't read, PixyMisa agreed to examine a claimed fact about language WITHOUT making any assumptions about the nature of reality. It has taken me three days to get to the point where Pixy actually agreed to examine the claim about language without polluting the discussion with her belief system. Now you have come along and decided to butt in and pollute the discussion with yours! That was just what this discussion needed. :rolleyes:

I just said that definitions are relevant. But the definitions that are relevant are the ones that are used within the logical framework being discussed. When discussing science, it is the scientific definitions that are relevant, not the plain English ones.

Exactly. Science works with physical/material definitions, not the plain English ones! This is how it makes sure it remains objective. It works with things which are objectively verifiable because they are part of objective physical reality. You are agreeing with me! :rolleyes:

Scientific objectivity doesn't exclude subjective things?
-------------
Oh please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it doesn't. How could it?

The whole point of the scientific method is to exclude subjective things! If we allow subjective judgements into scientific investigation it stops being science and starts being pseudo-science. There aren't any subjective sciences.

Precisely. It distinguishes between subjective things and objective things. It doesn't matter two hoots HOW it distinguishes between them the fact of the matter is THAT IT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN SUBJECTIVE THINGS AND OBJECTIVE THINGS

Sorry to shout, but you really should know better than this Stimpson. We have been through this before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that it does not distinguish between them. I said that it does not exclude the subjective things, which is what you claimed.

Well then you butted into an debate you weren't following and are confusing things because of this. Right now all I am trying to establish is that science, in order to retain its integrity, MUST be able to distinguish between subjective and objective things ABSOLUTELY and with no ambiguity at all. Whether or not science does or does not exclude the study of subjective things is not at issue at this point. We are simply establishing the FACT that science really does distinguish between subjective and objective things, and needs to do so to remain science.

That does not mean that subjective experiences ***ARE*** objective things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, just that they are reducible to them. Indeed, the above is exactly what it means to say that subjective experiences are reducible to the physical.

Again, you aren't following the debate and you have butted in with an irrelevant comment. Whether or not subjective experiences are 'reducable to the physical' is part of 'hypothesis H' NOT part of fact F. I deliberately split up the line of reasoning into several stages in order to stop PixyMisa from confusing one claim with another and you have come along and done exactly what she agreed not to do. Either read the debate and say things which are relevant or go away and clutter up somebody-elses thread. All that matters in your reply is the first word "NO". Subjective experiences are not objective things. NO. NOPE. NADA. The rest is irrelevant to FACT F and we are discussing FACT F.

:(

The language reflects the reality experienced by the people who created it. They created it to describe what they experience. Otherwise it would be useless!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And?? How does that imply that it describes it accurately? How can a language created by humans be expected to accurately describe aspects of reality that those humans don't understand?

They understand that there is a difference between things which only exist in their mind and things which exist in a shared physical reality.

Why do you think that the various attributes of the English language that you are referring to are anything more than reflections of the beliefs of the people who created them?

Because there really is a difference between things which only exist in my mind and things which exist in shared physical reality.

The fact that it comes from subjective experiences is absolutely critical, because it clearly shows that it is possible to explain at least some aspects of our subjective experiences in terms of the objective. This clearly falsifies your thesis.

We are not talking about the thesis Stimpson. We are talking about whether or not there is a mutually exclusive linguistic dualism.

First we establish the linguistic dualism is real. Then we talk about the thesis. OK?

Sorry to be rude but this is really rather annoying. I have spent 3 days with PixyMisa slip-sliding around the argument contradicting herself and making unfounded assumptions, and accusing me of making "hidden assumptions" which aren't there. So eventually she agreed to examine the line of reasoning one step at a time, starting with establishing whether or not there is a linguistic dualism in English. If you are going to pick this moment to join in this debate would you please stick to examining FACT F in isolation. When we have established or falsified FACT F then we will go on to examine the thesis.

Thankyou in advance for your co-operation.

Stimpson J. Cat

21st January 2003, 12:20 PM

UCE,

Before you decided to butt in to a debate you obviously haven't read,

I assure, I have read it. That is why I "butted in".

PixyMisa agreed to examine a claimed fact about language WITHOUT making any assumptions about the nature of reality.

I don't recall Pixy, or anybody else, ever agreeing with you that your claim that mental predicates cannot be described in terms of physical objects, was a true fact.

It has taken me three days to get to the point where Pixy actually agreed to examine the claim about language without polluting the discussion with her belief system. Now you have come along and decided to butt in and pollute the discussion with yours! That was just what this discussion needed.

The claim you are making about language is already polluted by your own belief system.

I just said that definitions are relevant. But the definitions that are relevant are the ones that are used within the logical framework being discussed. When discussing science, it is the scientific definitions that are relevant, not the plain English ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. Science works with physical/material definitions, not the plain English ones! This is how it makes sure it remains objective. It works with things which are objectively verifiable because they are part of objective physical reality. You are agreeing with me!

The point I disagree on is your claim that the language of science cannot be used to describe mental phenomena in terms of physical phenomena. You have not demonstrated that this is the case.

Of course it doesn't. How could it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole point of the scientific method is to exclude subjective things! If we allow subjective judgements into scientific investigation it stops being science and starts being pseudo-science. There aren't any subjective sciences.

The whole point of science is to construct a reliable model of reality. It only becomes pseudo-science when we draw conclusions from unreliable information.

I never said that it does not distinguish between them. I said that it does not exclude the subjective things, which is what you claimed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well then you butted into an debate you weren't following and are confusing things because of this. Right now all I am trying to establish is that science, in order to retain its integrity, MUST be able to distinguish between subjective and objective things ABSOLUTELY and with no ambiguity at all. Whether or not science does or does not exclude the study of subjective things is not at issue at this point. We are simply establishing the FACT that science really does distinguish between subjective and objective things, and needs to do so to remain science.

The fact that it distinguishes between them does not imply that it cannot explain one in terms of the other. Unlike you, science does not assume that subjective things do not objectively exist. Nor does it assume that they cannot be understood objectively.

That does not mean that subjective experiences ***ARE*** objective things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, just that they are reducible to them. Indeed, the above is exactly what it means to say that subjective experiences are reducible to the physical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you aren't following the debate and you have butted in with an irrelevant comment. Whether or not subjective experiences are 'reducable to the physical' is part of 'hypothesis H' NOT part of fact F.

Wrong. If the mental is reducible to the physical, then "fact" F is clearly false.

I deliberately split up the line of reasoning into several stages in order to stop PixyMisa from confusing one claim with another and you have come along and done exactly what she agreed not to do. Either read the debate and say things which are relevant or go away and clutter up somebody-elses thread. All that matters in your reply is the first word "NO". Subjective experiences are not objective things. NO. NOPE. NADA. The rest is irrelevant to FACT F and we are discussing FACT F.

As I just pointed out, it is not irrelevant.

And?? How does that imply that it describes it accurately? How can a language created by humans be expected to accurately describe aspects of reality that those humans don't understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They understand that there is a difference between things which only exist in their mind and things which exist in a shared physical reality.

No, many of them believe that. But nobody has ever presented any logical reason to believe it.

Why do you think that the various attributes of the English language that you are referring to are anything more than reflections of the beliefs of the people who created them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because there really is a difference between things which only exist in my mind and things which exist in shared physical reality.

I am sure you believe this is true, but you have not demonstrated it. I say that your mind very clearly is a part of shared physical reality, and that therefore anything that exists in it is as well.

The fact that it comes from subjective experiences is absolutely critical, because it clearly shows that it is possible to explain at least some aspects of our subjective experiences in terms of the objective. This clearly falsifies your thesis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not talking about the thesis Stimpson. We are talking about whether or not there is a mutually exclusive linguistic dualism.

What difference does that make? The fact that it is possible to construct a dualistic linguistic framework is trivial.

First we establish the linguistic dualism is real. Then we talk about the thesis. OK?

What's the point?

Sorry to be rude but this is really rather annoying. I have spent 3 days with PixyMisa slip-sliding around the argument contradicting herself and making unfounded assumptions, and accusing me of making "hidden assumptions" which aren't there. So eventually she agreed to examine the line of reasoning one step at a time, starting with establishing whether or not there is a linguistic dualism in English. If you are going to pick this moment to join in this debate would you please stick to examining FACT F in isolation. When we have established or falsified FACT F then we will go on to examine the thesis.

Whatever. If you want to waste your time arguing around in circles about completely irrelevant hypothetical constructs, knock yourself out. Just please do me the curtesy of not claiming that any of this hypothetical nonsense has anything to do with reality. :rolleyes:

Dr. Stupid

21st January 2003, 02:53 PM

Stimpson blathered :

Can you really assert as a fact that any language human being beings could possibly create for trying to explain things must necessarily be dualistic? I really don't think so.

I have claimed that there is a fundamental mutually-exclusive mental/physical dualism present in the English language. In order to falsify this claim you do not need reams and reams of blather. It can be falsified with ONE WORD. Any word which defies the mental/physical dualism. Any one word which does not immediately fall into either one category or the other, apart from compound words like 'home' and double-definitions like 'thought'. No such word exists, which is why people keep giving me long replies as to why English is ambigious and no dualism exists, but none of them can actually supply me with any single word which actually manages to transcend the dualism and falsify the claim.

Indeed it is worse than that. Not only do no words exist in the English language which are genuinely both physical and mental without being multiply-defined, it is in fact impossible even to invent such a word, for the very simple reason that words are just labels for 'things' and the 'things' themselves inherently fall into these two categories.

If you cannot provide an example of a word that transcends the dualism and you cannot even invent a word that transcends the dualism why don't you quit whining and blathering and just admit that the linguistic dualism exists, and that it exists because the 'things' words describe are also inherently dualistic?

If 'things' weren't inherently dualistic then there would be words in existence to describe 'things' which weren't inherently dualistic.

No such words exist, no such words can be invented, therefore the 'things' those words describe are inherently dualistic.

QED

:p :cool:

Stimpson J. Cat

21st January 2003, 03:28 PM

UCE,

I have claimed that there is a fundamental mutually-exclusive mental/physical dualism present in the English language.

This claim, although false, is not the only claim you have made. You have also claimed that this dualism in the English language somehow indicates a dualistic ontology as well. Even if your claim about the English language were true, that second claim would still be pure nonsense.

In order to falsify this claim you do not need reams and reams of blather. It can be falsified with ONE WORD. Any word which defies the mental/physical dualism. Any one word which does not immediately fall into either one category or the other, apart from compound words like 'home' and double-definitions like 'thought'.

Thought is such a word. As are "emotion", "perception", and a slew of others. Your claim that "thought" has two definitions, one mental and one physical, just illustrates the untenability of your position. Anytime anybody points out any word which has both physical and mental connotations, you can just claim that the word has two distinct meanings, one mental, and one physical. When you do this, it is you who are redefining the English language. All you are doing is creating a new language which is dualistic. The fact that it is possible to do this is both irrelevant and trivial.

THe simple fact is that people do not commonly think of the word thought as having two different definitions, one being the physical process in the brain, and one being the mental process. That is not how the word "thought" is used in the English language. That is your redefinition of the word for your dualistic framework.

No such word exists, which is why people keep giving me long replies as to why English is ambigious and no dualism exists, but none of them can actually supply me with any single word which actually manages to transcend the dualism and falsify the claim.

I just gave you three. This is the point where you supply new formal dualistic definitions for these words, rather than acknowledge that there usage in ordinary English has both physical and mental connotations built in.

Indeed it is worse than that. Not only do no words exist in the English language which are genuinely both physical and mental without being multiply-defined, it is in fact impossible even to invent such a word, for the very simple reason that words are just labels for 'things' and the 'things' themselves inherently fall into these two categories.

That is a metaphysical claim that you have not provided any evidence for. On the contrary, your previously tried to claim that your linguistic argument was evidence that the above metaphysical claim is true. Now you are saying that the linguistic argument is valid because this metaphysical claim is true. How's that for circular reasoning?

If you cannot provide an example of a word that transcends the dualism and you cannot even invent a word that transcends the dualism why don't you quit whining and blathering and just admit that the linguistic dualism exists, and that it exists because the 'things' words describe are also inherently dualistic?

Even if I couldn't provide such counter-examples, that would not constitute evidence for your metaphysical claims.

If 'things' weren't inherently dualistic then there would be words in existence to describe 'things' which weren't inherently dualistic.

The above does not logically follow, but it doesn't matter, because there are such words.

No such words exist, no such words can be invented, therefore the 'things' those words describe are inherently dualistic.

QED

Not only are you starting with a false premise, but the conclusion you are drawing from that premise does not logically follow from it. Come on, Geoff, I know you can do better than this.

Dr. Stupid

22nd January 2003, 12:55 AM

This is silly.

I am trying to argue that language is dualistic because it refers to two fundamentally different sorts of things.

In order to refute this you have tried to give the example (which I already explained why it fails) of the word 'thought', which has quite clearly got two specific different meanings - "brain process", which is quite clearly physical and - "qualia", which is quite clearly mental. If that is the best you can do then.....

I rest my case. Only a true believer would try to get away with an argument that which was quite so obviously a failure.

"emotion" is also a non-starter, since it is clearly mental. Bodies don't experience emotions - minds do. Emotions are meaningless outside the context of the mind. They are mental experiences, not physical things.

"perception" is also used to mean two different things - it can be used to refer to the physical workings of the sense organs, and in can be used to refer to the experience in a mind of the output of those sense organs. Again - that does not mean that the physical workings of the retina and the mental experience of "seeing blue" are the same thing!

Even if you can provide some words like these which have more than one meaning, it is always very easy to seperate the physical meaning from the mental meaning, and since the whole linguistic argument is an attempt to highlight the difference in the meanings - the actual things to which the words refer rather than merely a note about language itself, then...

QED! :)

edited....

Perhaps I should explain precisely why it is so easy to distinguish between these types of things, and why I am so certain you can't define anything which defies the duality. I could only be explaining this to a emotionally comitted materialist. Anyone else would surely see it as so obvious as to not require explaining.

Everything which occurs in your mind only has meaning with respect to the thing you refer to as "I" - the watcher in your mind. Everything you perceive, feel, believe and experience is meaningfull with respect to your "I", and not with respect to anything else. That's what make those things mental. That's why they are excluded from the scientific method.

'Physical things', by mutually exclusive contrast, are things which exist in material reality and have a common relevance to many different people. They do not refer to anybodies "I". They refer to physical reality.

As already said, this is so so d*mne*d obvious that it amazes me that I find myself having to explain it, and yet I do, because I am presented with somebody who is seriously trying to claim that there is no such exclusive dualism, and that there is a blurred line between mental and physical things. Such is the poverty of the materialist claim to be able to explain reality.

The reason it is impossible to define a thing which is genuinely ambigious between physical and mental is because these things 'point in different directions'. They are mutually exclusive because of their point of reference - that which they have meaning with respect to. So long as the "I" which is the watcher of your mind is not confused with "physical reality", then there is no ambigiuity. Which is of course why materialists end up claiming that their mind is actually their brain. :rolleyes:

QED

Win

22nd January 2003, 03:25 AM

Hi UCE:

I hope you don't mind a comment or two from me. ;)

As an initial matter, I have to say I'm not entirely comfortable with linguistic philosophy in general, which I feel is tainted by the bankruptcy of positivism, and ordinary language philosophy, specifically, but hey, that's just me, right. As an aside, let me suggest you check out Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind, which you might enjoy given your bent for linguistic analysis.

Some specific comments:

"emotion" is also a non-starter, since it is clearly mental. Bodies don't experience emotions - minds do. Emotions are meaningless outside the context of the mind. They are mental experiences, not physical things.

Strictly speaking, I think it's arguable that all emotional terms have physical referents. Fear, for example, is the emotion associated with hightened production of adrenelin, stimulating a fight or flight response, as well as other physiological reactions. Of course, the emotions all have associated mental experiences, but they're not purely mental.

Everything which occurs in your mind only has meaning with respect to the thing you refer to as "I" - the watcher in your mind. Everything you perceive, feel, believe and experience is meaningfull with respect to your "I", and not with respect to anything else. That's what make those things mental. That's why they are excluded from the scientific method.

As you are probably aware, I try to avoid this formulation. The goal, as I see it, is reconcilliation of the so-called 1st and 3rd person perspectives. And I think it's possible, at least, to deny the existence of a "watcher in the mind," in part by dispensing with the concept of "I" altogether. There are physical features of the world and phenomenal features of the world. What renders phenomenal features phenomenal is not their relation to any hypothetical "I," but rather their own character.

As already said, this is so so d*mne*d obvious that it amazes me that I find myself having to explain it, and yet I do, because I am presented with somebody who is seriously trying to claim that there is no such exclusive dualism, and that there is a blurred line between mental and physical things. Such is the poverty of the materialist claim to be able to explain reality.

I agree, of course, that the materialist position is essentially impoverished, in that it will never be able to explain phenomenal consciousness, and phenomenal consciousness is a feature of the world that needs explaining. I don't think it's obvious, though. In fact, I think most materialist arguments essentially run as follows: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism must be true, so phenomenal consciousness must have a materialistic explanation.

Which is of course why materialists end up claiming that their mind is actually their brain.

Or that the mind is a function of the brain. Or that phenomenal consciousness is a result of physical structure and dynamics.

Oh well, they're wrong anyway. :D

22nd January 2003, 03:43 AM

Hi Win :)

When I first got into philosophy I learned that Wittgenstein has said that there was nothing left for philosophy to do but analyze language. I found this extremely annoying and spent about a year accusing Wittgenstein of having assasinated philosophy. That I find myself now using Wittgensteinian language-games to revive Berklienism is a little ironic to say the least.

Strictly speaking, I think it's arguable that all emotional terms have physical referents. Fear, for example, is the emotion associated with hightened production of adrenelin, stimulating a fight or flight response, as well as other physiological reactions. Of course, the emotions all have associated mental experiences, but they're not purely mental.

I don't think anyone is denying that emotions like fear have a distinctly physical input in terms of a cause. There is still no ambiguity between the physical causes of certain emotional states and the mental experience of those emotional states.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything which occurs in your mind only has meaning with respect to the thing you refer to as "I" - the watcher in your mind. Everything you perceive, feel, believe and experience is meaningfull with respect to your "I", and not with respect to anything else. That's what make those things mental. That's why they are excluded from the scientific method.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you are probably aware, I try to avoid this formulation. The goal, as I see it, is reconcilliation of the so-called 1st and 3rd person perspectives. And I think it's possible, at least, to deny the existence of a "watcher in the mind," in part by dispensing with the concept of "I" altogether.

Isn't "I" the '1st person' refered to by the phrase '1st-person perspective'?

The problem with dispensing with "I" is that you are left saying that "My mind experiences my mind", and "My pain experiences my pain". How can you dispense with "I"?

There are physical features of the world and phenomenal features of the world. What renders phenomenal features phenomenal is not their relation to any hypothetical "I," but rather their own character.

What is it about their character that render them phenomenal?

In fact, I think most materialist arguments essentially run as follows: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism must be true, so phenomenal consciousness must have a materialistic explanation.

Yep. Materialism must be true, so all evidence to the contrary must be wrong, therefore there isn't any evidence to the contrary. It's faultless! :D

crocodile deathroll

22nd January 2003, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy,

Remember we are here discussing fact F. Fact F is that there is a linguistic dualism between mental and physical things. According to the dictionary defs, mental things are things in a mind (they are subjective). And also according to the dictionary defs, physical things are part of material reality, as distinguished from the mind (they are objective).

Finally, we both know that the scientific method is, by definition, objective. It deliberately excludes subjective things. It needs to do this because if it allowed subjectivity to creep in then it wouldn't be objective. So we need to be able to make a clear distinction between subjective/mental things and objective/physical things for two reasons.

1) This is the way we experience reality - that is why the dictionary definitions are the way they are.

2) The scientific method is critically dependent upon our ability to make a clear distinction between the two different sorts of things.

So it looks like we have established that fact F is indeed a FACT.

We haven't assumed anything about any ontologies in order to arrive at this FACT, but instead we have established that the both the accuracy of language to describe the reality we experience AND the integrity of the scientific method are dependent on this FACT being true.

So far we haven't examined the thesis H, we are still trying to agree on whether FACT F is really a FACT and why that FACT must remain a FACT independent of which language we are using, and that FACT F must remain a FACT or we compromise the scientific methods ability to remain objective.

Can we agree that FACT F is a FACT?

Why wouldn't language be just patterns of sound or shapes that cues us into remembering objects like if is wrote the word "hammer" then that is due to a pattern of light that has hit your retina and we have been conditioned to assocaite the shape the that object.
Same as if a soccer player is shown a red card, he is conditioned to associate wavelengths of light with his behavior on the field.
It is much the same as Pavlovian Conditioning when Pavlov rings the bell the dog has been conditioned to associate it with food and he salivates

These patterns of shapes, sounds and wavelenghts of light are just as physical as the objects they are associated with.

22nd January 2003, 05:13 AM

Croc :

Why wouldn't language be just patterns of sound or shapes that cues us into remembering objects like if is wrote the word "hammer" then that is due to a pattern of light that has hit your retina and we have been conditioned to assocaite the shape the that object.
Same as if a soccer player is shown a red card, he is conditioned to associate wavelengths of light with his behavior on the field.
It is much the same as Pavlovian Conditioning when Pavlov rings the bell the dog has been conditioned to associate it with food and he salivates

These patterns of shapes, sounds and wavelenghts of light are just as physical as the objects they are associated with.

That is confusing the map with territory. All we ever experience directly are subjective experiences. We never actually see the hammer, all we ever see is a picture of the hammer created in our visual field. Kant drew a distinction between the "the world as we percieve it" and "the world as it really is". We only ever see the former, and we have no means of ever directly discovering the true nature of the latter. This is the fundamental error of all materialists. They see the world in their minds and they think that what they see is what is really 'out there'. It doesn't seem to occur to them that 'out there' is really 'in here' all along, and most of them, if they have even heard of Kant, don't understand what he said or why it might be even remotely relevant to them. After all, they can see the world, so it must be there! :rolleyes:

The picture of the world in your mind is not the world, any more than a picture of the Statue of Liberty on your TV is actually the Statue of Liberty.

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd January 2003, 05:43 AM

UCE,

This is utterly pointless. You have done exactly what I said you would do. Any example of a word that has both physical and mental connotations, you just split into two separate definition. Of course you can redefine them like that, but that is not how those words are used in common English.

When people talk about their emotions, what they are talking about includes lots of intermingled concepts, from the mental states associated with these emotions, to the physiological effects of those motions, and so on. It is you who are arbitrarily designating some of the characteristics to be "mental" and some to be "physical", even though the only criteria you can do this by are your own ontological preconceptions. And it is you who are trying to split these words into multiple definitions that only refer to one or the other of these two sets.

The fact is that ordinary English simply doesn't work that way.

Perhaps I should explain precisely why it is so easy to distinguish between these types of things, and why I am so certain you can't define anything which defies the duality. I could only be explaining this to a emotionally comitted materialist. Anyone else would surely see it as so obvious as to not require explaining.

Everything which occurs in your mind only has meaning with respect to the thing you refer to as "I" - the watcher in your mind. Everything you perceive, feel, believe and experience is meaningful with respect to your "I", and not with respect to anything else. That's what make those things mental. That's why they are excluded from the scientific method.

If this were truly the case, there could be no scientific method.

'Physical things', by mutually exclusive contrast, are things which exist in material reality and have a common relevance to many different people. They do not refer to anybodies "I". They refer to physical reality.

And yet the only way any of us have access to any information about these things is through or experiences, which you have already declared to have nothing to do with these things. Your position is completely incoherent.

As already said, this is so so d*mne*d obvious that it amazes me that I find myself having to explain it, and yet I do, because I am presented with somebody who is seriously trying to claim that there is no such exclusive dualism, and that there is a blurred line between mental and physical things. Such is the poverty of the materialist claim to be able to explain reality.

I find it very difficult to understand how an intelligent person could consider something so blatantly incoherent as what you have described as being obvious. Clearly at least one of us is not thinking about this rationally.

The reason it is impossible to define a thing which is genuinely ambigious between physical and mental is because these things 'point in different directions'. They are mutually exclusive because of their point of reference - that which they have meaning with respect to.

That is a metaphysical assumption which you have not demonstrated. I do not subscribe to this irrational and incoherent belief system of yours.

So long as the "I" which is the watcher of your mind is not confused with "physical reality", then there is no ambigiuity. Which is of course why materialists end up claiming that their mind is actually their brain.

No, we don't. Heck, even Win agrees that we don't. The mind is a process of the brain. It is one of the things the brain does. How many times do you have to be told that before you stop misrepresenting what materialists claim?

Yep. Materialism must be true, so all evidence to the contrary must be wrong, therefore there isn't any evidence to the contrary. It's faultless!

Present some actual reliable evidence that materialism is false, and I will be the first to denounce it. Until then, the above statement is nothing more than unjustified speculation on your part.

That is confusing the map with territory. All we ever experience directly are subjective experiences. We never actually see the hammer, all we ever see is a picture of the hammer created in our visual field. Kant drew a distinction between the "the world as we percieve it" and "the world as it really is". We only ever see the former, and we have no means of ever directly discovering the true nature of the latter. This is the fundamental error of all materialists. They see the world in their minds and they think that what they see is what is really 'out there'. It doesn't seem to occur to them that 'out there' is really 'in here' all along, and most of them, if they have even heard of Kant, don't understand what he said or why it might be even remotely relevant to them. After all, they can see the world, so it must be there!

This is simply not true. Materialism is built on the foundation of the realization that our experiences are only an imperfect representation of the external World. The entire scientific method exists for the sole purpose of dealing with those imperfections and biases, and trying to determine the best model for the external world that we can.

What you seem to think materialism is, isn't materialism at all. It is some sort of incoherent philosophical nonsense that I very much doubt any intelligent person actually believes in.

Win,

I agree, of course, that the materialist position is essentially impoverished, in that it will never be able to explain phenomenal consciousness, and phenomenal consciousness is a feature of the world that needs explaining. I don't think it's obvious, though. In fact, I think most materialist arguments essentially run as follows: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism must be true, so phenomenal consciousness must have a materialistic explanation.

Close. A more accurate depiction would be this: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism is the only framework with which we can even attempt to explain it, so we will assume for now that materialism is true.

In fact, that's the view taken with respect to anything we don't currently understand. It's possible that no scientific explanation exists, but if that is the case, we are screwed anyway. Science is the only tool we have.

Interesting Ian

22nd January 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Win

As you are probably aware, I try to avoid this formulation. The goal, as I see it, is reconcilliation of the so-called 1st and 3rd person perspectives. And I think it's possible, at least, to deny the existence of a "watcher in the mind," in part by dispensing with the concept of "I" altogether. There are physical features of the world and phenomenal features of the world. What renders phenomenal features phenomenal is not their relation to any hypothetical "I," but rather their own character.

Hmmmmm . . . experiences without an experiencer!

I agree, of course, that the materialist position is essentially impoverished, in that it will never be able to explain phenomenal consciousness, and phenomenal consciousness is a feature of the world that needs explaining. I don't think it's obvious, though. In fact, I think most materialist arguments essentially run as follows: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism must be true, so phenomenal consciousness must have a materialistic explanation.

Yes but the materialists such as Stimpy, PixyMisa and Victor attempt to justify this stance by pointing out the collossal success that materialism has had in explaining the world. Given this incredibly impressive record and its continuing ongoing success, surely it is foolish to entertain the notion that materialism might possibly not be correct? Using materialist principles we have explained the Universe both on a cosmic scale and in the furthest reaches of the atom. True we have yet to explain phenomenal consciousness, but this is just a question of time. It is foolish to imagine that we can explain the movements of the planets, the motion of the Universe as a whole, the inner workings of the atom, and yet suppose our own phenomenal consciousness is somehow immune to such an explanation. This stubborn denial is simply a reflection of the psychological propensity to think ourselves as being something special, something not amenable to the materialist explanation which has been so stunningly successful in explaining all other things. Indeed this denial is simply childish.

What can one say to such an impressive "argument" from the materialists? :rolleyes: LOL

22nd January 2003, 06:29 AM

KittyCat meowed

It's possible that no scientific explanation exists, but if that is the case, we are screwed anyway. Science is the only tool we have

After all these months on this forum you still haven't figured out the difference between science and materialism, have you? :rolleyes:

Your comment amounts to "If materialism isn't true then all is lost! Science can only investigate material things, and science is all we have, therefore we will go on assuming materialism is true, even if it isn't." :D

This is utterly pointless. You have done exactly what I said you would do. Any example of a word that has both physical and mental connotations, you just split into two separate definition. Of course you can redefine them like that, but that is not how those words are used in common English.

They don't just have both physical and mental 'connotations'. They refer to completely different physical and mental things. The physical workings of a retina really isn't the same as the experience of seeing blue. Using one word to describe both does not solve the materialists ontological nightmares.

When people talk about their emotions, what they are talking about includes lots of intermingled concepts, from the mental states associated with these emotions, to the physiological effects of those motions, and so on. It is you who are arbitrarily designating some of the characteristics to be "mental" and some to be "physical", even though the only criteria you can do this by are your own ontological preconceptions. And it is you who are trying to split these words into multiple definitions that only refer to one or the other of these two sets.

I don't have to try very hard, do I? :D

The words refer to two types of phenomena that are quite obviously completely different to each other. No-one really has difficulty telling the difference between a chemical reaction and a phenomenal experience, not even the dumb materialists who insist on trying to claim these different things are actually "the same thing". But you are right - words in English can be used to define two different things at the same time.

The chemical reaction is intrinsically fictional. Nobody ever sees a chemical reaction. It is a model. So is the entire "physical" world.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Physical things', by mutually exclusive contrast, are things which exist in material reality and have a common relevance to many different people. They do not refer to anybodies "I". They refer to physical reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet the only way any of us have access to any information about these things is through or experiences, which you have already declared to have nothing to do with these things. Your position is completely incoherent.

I'm not sure you have ever actually understood my position, Kitty.

Everything we experience is phenomenal. We construct a model to test the behaviour of an 'external world' which we can never actually experience. Our phenomenal experience remain our phenomenal experiences. They do not suddenly 'become' the model. The physical world is intrinsically fictional. Out phenomenal experiences are not intrinsically fictional - they actually exist.

That position is not incoherent. A position which claims that there is no difference between phenomenal experiences and a fictional model of a physical world, then claims that the physical world actually exists and the phenomenal experiences are actually part of the physical world and no different to it is incoherent.

Especially when it is founded on a claim that "If materialism is false then we are lost!" :eek: :rolleyes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As already said, this is so so d*mne*d obvious that it amazes me that I find myself having to explain it, and yet I do, because I am presented with somebody who is seriously trying to claim that there is no such exclusive dualism, and that there is a blurred line between mental and physical things. Such is the poverty of the materialist claim to be able to explain reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it very difficult to understand how an intelligent person could consider something so blatantly incoherent as what you have described as being obvious. Clearly at least one of us is not thinking about this rationally.

Clearly. I wonder if it is the one of us who admits there is a difference between phenomenal mental experiences and the physical Universe or the one who keeps trying to claim that there is in fact no difference between phenomenal experiences and the physical Universe, and bases it on a claim that if he is wrong then the sky will fall in? :rolleyes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason it is impossible to define a thing which is genuinely ambigious between physical and mental is because these things 'point in different directions'. They are mutually exclusive because of their point of reference - that which they have meaning with respect to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a metaphysical assumption which you have not demonstrated. I do not subscribe to this irrational and incoherent belief system of yours.

Materialism is true!
It must be!
The mind is a physical thing!
Otherwise all is lost!

:D

Materialism is built on the foundation of the realization that our experiences are only an imperfect representation of the external World.

WHAT external world? :D

What evidence do you have which suggest this supposed 'external world' is any more real than a bunch of information existing in the phenomenal realm of the Mind which we directly know exists?

Why assume reality is built upon a chimera we can never see, instead of assuming it is built upon the undeniably real realm of mind?

All you can ever know about the 'physical Universe' is a bunch of equations describing how bits of it behave with respect to other bits of it. Why not just assume it is made of information?

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd January 2003, 06:59 AM

UCE,

It's possible that no scientific explanation exists, but if that is the case, we are screwed anyway. Science is the only tool we have
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After all these months on this forum you still haven't figured out the difference between science and materialism, have you?

I have no doubt that there is a difference between what you call science, and what you call materialism. But since my philosophy is not what you call materialism, and the scientific method that I am referring to bears little, if any, resemblance to what you seem to think science is, this hardly matters.

Modern materialism, also referred to as scientific materialism, or physicalism, is the philosophical basic of the scientific method.

Your comment amounts to "If materialism isn't true then all is lost! Science can only investigate material things, and science is all we have, therefore we will go on assuming materialism is true, even if it isn't."

Close. Science is the only reliable method for extracting information about reality from our experiences that we have. And our experiences are the only source of information about reality that we have access to. So yes, I would say that if materialism is wrong, we are pretty much screwed.

This is utterly pointless. You have done exactly what I said you would do. Any example of a word that has both physical and mental connotations, you just split into two separate definition. Of course you can redefine them like that, but that is not how those words are used in common English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They don't just have both physical and mental 'connotations'. They refer to completely different physical and mental things. The physical workings of a retina really isn't the same as the experience of seeing blue. Using one word to describe both does not solve the materialists ontological nightmares.

I didn't say it solved any ontological problems. I only said that the word refers to both mental and physical concepts at the same time. The English language has nothing to do with ontology. That is the whole point.

When people talk about their emotions, what they are talking about includes lots of intermingled concepts, from the mental states associated with these emotions, to the physiological effects of those motions, and so on. It is you who are arbitrarily designating some of the characteristics to be "mental" and some to be "physical", even though the only criteria you can do this by are your own ontological preconceptions. And it is you who are trying to split these words into multiple definitions that only refer to one or the other of these two sets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have to try very hard, do I?

Not if you aren't concerned about being coherent. Dividing all the characteristics of something into two boxes, one labeled physical, and one labeled mental, is easy. It is justifying your choice of which box those characteristics go in that is hard. Where is the line between physical and mental? How do they interact with each other? Which box do the characteristics representing those interactions go in? These are the questions which you cannot coherently answer.

The words refer to two types of phenomena that are quite obviously completely different to each other. No-one really has difficulty telling the difference between a chemical reaction and a phenomenal experience, not even the dumb materialists who insist on trying to claim these different things are actually "the same thing". But you are right - words in English can be used to define two different things at the same time.

The above is simply false. Nobody can provide a coherent distinction between the physical process and the phenomenal experience. The best anybody can do is assert that any aspects of the emotion that cannot be explicitly shown to be physical are phenomenal, and then make a hand-waving argument about the phenomenal experience being the everything but the physical process.

The chemical reaction is intrinsically fictional. Nobody ever sees a chemical reaction. It is a model. So is the entire "physical" world.

Now who is confusing the model for the territory? Or are you just saying that the territory doesn't exist at all? Isn't that Idealistic monism, not dualism?

Everything we experience is phenomenal. We construct a model to test the behaviour of an 'external world' which we can never actually experience. Our phenomenal experience remain our phenomenal experiences. They do not suddenly 'become' the model. The physical world is intrinsically fictional. Out phenomenal experiences are not intrinsically fictional - they actually exist.

I see. So you are rejecting the existence of an external objective reality at all. Once again, this is not dualism, it is mental monism.

That position is not incoherent. A position which claims that there is no difference between phenomenal experiences and a fictional model of a physical world, then claims that the physical world actually exists and the phenomenal experiences are actually part of the physical world and no different to it is incoherent.

Yup. Good thing nobody here is actually arguing that position, huh? :rolleyes:

I find it very difficult to understand how an intelligent person could consider something so blatantly incoherent as what you have described as being obvious. Clearly at least one of us is not thinking about this rationally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly. I wonder if it is the one of us who admits there is a difference between phenomenal mental experiences and the physical Universe or the one who keeps trying to claim that there is in fact no difference between phenomenal experiences and the physical Universe, and bases it on a claim that if he is wrong then the sky will fall in?

Gee, which one would that be? It certainly isn't me. Are you even capable of arguing against anything besides ridiculous strawmen?

Materialism is built on the foundation of the realization that our experiences are only an imperfect representation of the external World.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT external world?

The one whose existence we must assume in order for philosophy to advance beyond Solipsism.

What evidence do you have which suggest this supposed 'external world' is any more real than a bunch of information existing in the phenomenal realm of the Mind which we directly know exists?

You tell me. You obviously seem to believe that my mind is external to yours. Why?

Why assume reality is built upon a chimera we can never see, instead of assuming it is built upon the undeniably real realm of mind?

What is this "realm of the mind" of which you speak? If it is anything more than your own consciousness, then it is no more undeniably real than physical reality. And if it is not, then you are a Solipsist.

All you can ever know about the 'physical Universe' is a bunch of equations describing how bits of it behave with respect to other bits of it. Why not just assume it is made of information?

My model of it is just information. I make no additional assumptions about it either way. It is what it is. All I claim to know about it is what I can logically deduce about it through the application of the scientific method to my experiences. In order to apply the scientific method to my experiences, I must make some basic assumptions about the nature of reality. I must assume that it is logical, consistent, and that there is more to it that just my own consciousness. Finally, I must assume that my experiences can, in fact, provide me with information about it. Those are the axioms of materialism. Anything that you think materialism claims, that cannot be deduced from those axioms, is not a claim of materialism.

Dr. Stupid

Win

22nd January 2003, 07:11 AM

UCE; Ian; Stimp:

I don't think anyone is denying that emotions like fear have a distinctly physical input in terms of a cause. There is still no ambiguity between the physical causes of certain emotional states and the mental experience of those emotional states.

Again strictly speaking, I wouldn't say that the physical correlates of phenomenal states are the "causes" of those phenomenal states. Rather, when we speak of emotion X, what we mean is physical state X + phenomenal state X'.

The problem with dispensing with "I" is that you are left saying that "My mind experiences my mind", and "My pain experiences my pain". How can you dispense with "I"?

and let me respond here as well to Ian's comment:

Hmmmmm . . . experiences without an experiencer!

How can I dispense with the "I" or formulate a coherent description of experience without an experiencer? With some difficulty. ;)

Nevertheless, I think this boils down to a problem with ordinary language. I'm not saying, "My mind experiences my mind." I'm just saying phenomenal experience exists. And of course, ordinarily one would expect "experience" to imply an "experiencer," but I think that's just an artifact of the words we're using to talk about the phenomenon. Phenomenal experience exists, while the "experiencer" is a construct we create a posteriori to explain the phenomenon. While it's a seductively intuitive construct, I would argue that our intuition leads us astray, and there is no "experiencer" seperate from the experiences themselves.

What is it about their character that render them phenomenal?

That's exactly the question!

We are compelled, I think, to define the properties that any phenomenal world must necessarily have. Among these properties, perhaps, are non-instantaneous quanta and a flowing time. Whatever, those properties turn out to be, however, by establishing them as necessary, we establish their truth in the form: If a phenomenal world exists, it must necessarily have these properties.

Of course, one might always deny the conditional, but our direct access bridges the gap.

Which brings me to Stimpson:

Close. A more accurate depiction would be this: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism is the only framework with which we can even attempt to explain it, so we will assume for now that materialism is true.

No. Materialism isn't the only framework within which we can explain things. The only framework we can explain things within is the framework of rational discourse and that is larger than materialism.

To be honest, I'm not even sure if explanation really is confined to rational discourse. Mysticism may indeed provide a route to explanation outside of rational discourse, and a necessary route. But I don't need to appeal to mysticism to make the points I want to make about phenomenal consciousness.

22nd January 2003, 07:24 AM

Win

How can I dispense with the "I" or formulate a coherent description of experience without an experiencer? With some difficulty.

Nevertheless, I think this boils down to a problem with ordinary language. I'm not saying, "My mind experiences my mind." I'm just saying phenomenal experience exists. And of course, ordinarily one would expect "experience" to imply an "experiencer," but I think that's just an artifact of the words we're using to talk about the phenomenon. Phenomenal experience exists, while the "experiencer" is a construct we create a posteriori to explain the phenomenon. While it's a seductively intuitive construct, I would argue that our intuition leads us astray, and there is no "experiencer" seperate from the experiences themselves.

Who is the 'we' who creates the construct?

This all seems like a rather unneccesary length to go to in order to banish the experiencer, when in fact there is no need to banish the experiencer.

Perhaps the problem is that banishing the experiencer, whilst making the theory more difficult to express, and less intuitive, saves us from being forced to choose between solipsism and mysticism, since they would appear to be the only alternatives that provide space for an "I".

To be honest, I'm not even sure if explanation really is confined to rational discourse. Mysticism may indeed provide a route to explanation outside of rational discourse, and a necessary route.

Shhh! ;)

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd January 2003, 07:42 AM

Win,

Close. A more accurate depiction would be this: Phenomenal consciousness sure seems hard to explain, but materialism is the only framework with which we can even attempt to explain it, so we will assume for now that materialism is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Materialism isn't the only framework within which we can explain things. The only framework we can explain things within is the framework of rational discourse and that is larger than materialism.

OK. Suffice it to say that materialism is the only framework anybody has ever come up with that actually provides a reliable method for explaining things. If you think some form of dualism can provide such a method, then all you need to do is produce the method, and we can have a rational discourse about whether that method is more appropriate than the scientific method for trying to explain certain classes of phenomena.

Unfortunately, every form of dualism that I have ever heard of, as well as every form of Idealism I have ever heard of, is formulated in such a way as to specifically make any method of reliably finding explanations for things impossible.

To be honest, I'm not even sure if explanation really is confined to rational discourse. Mysticism may indeed provide a route to explanation outside of rational discourse, and a necessary route.

Only if you are interested in explanations that are neither useful nor logical. Obviously any phenomena can be explained by saying "it's a mystery", but what's the point?

Dr. Stupid

Win

22nd January 2003, 07:58 AM

Stimpy:

OK. Suffice it to say that materialism is the only framework anybody has ever come up with that actually provides a reliable method for explaining things. If you think some form of dualism can provide such a method, then all you need to do is produce the method, and we can have a rational discourse about whether that method is more appropriate than the scientific method for trying to explain certain classes of phenomena.

I have, Stimp, I have.

But tell you what. Let's try an experiment. For a limited, but sufficiently long, period of time, say two weeks, why don't you try to put yourself in my shoes. Assume dualism is true and try to formulate a coherent dualistic wordlview. Make arguments that support that view.

Of course, you'll have to deal with the apparent problem of our phenomenal judgements, or the interaction problem, whichever way you choose to go. You'll have to address the problem of knowledge, and of justified true belief.

Nevertheless, I think it might be insructive for you. At the very least, you'll gain additional ammunition for your ongoing battle against misguided non-materialists.

What have you got to lose? If you'd like, I'll bind myself by the reverse stricture, and argue that materialism must be true.

I'm sure if we took a vote, we'd find that other members of the board would find it an amusing exercise, at the very least.

22nd January 2003, 08:11 AM

Suffice it to say that materialism is the only framework anybody has ever come up with that actually provides a reliable method for explaining things.

That does not mean that if the evidence suggests that there is a limit to the explanatory power of scientific materialism, that we should continue to pretend that scientific materialism can provide reliable answers (or any answers at all) beyond the limit of its usefullness. If materialism cannot explain phenomenal consciousness then we either accept we cannot explain it, or we investigate mysticism. This is my bugbear with this - materialists like you probably, deep down, know perfectly well that materialism can't solve the Hard Problem, and your fallback position is "well there is no alternative so I'll stick with materialism anyway!" No attempts is made to actually understand what mysticism actually is or why and how it might provide an alternative means of making progress. Mysticism is not even worthy of consideration - not even worthy of discovering what the word actually means - as demonstrated by....

Obviously any phenomena can be explained by saying "it's a mystery", but what's the point?

Mysticism doesn't just declare 'it's a mystery' and sit there under a Banyan Tree!

The problem is that scientific materialists view mysticism as the death of science - the end of their world! Defeat! Woe!

If in fact any attempt was made to understand the central tenets of mysticism, what meaning lies under the various different mystical philosophies in existence, the role of philosophy in the history of religion, and how and why mysticism may provide a path forward for investigating the subjective realm from a subjective perpective (which is the ***ONLY*** way it can be investigated) then it would be realised that the situation is the reverse of that believed by the materialists. It is in fact materialism which is a dead end as far the this question is concerned, and mysticism which provides the only way forward - because mysticism is, and always has been, the subjective investigation of subjective phenomena!

The problem for the materialist is that under materialism mysticism is meaningless because conciousness is a process in the brain. But if they would actually get over the hurdle of admitting to themselves that well, actually, consciousness might NOT be just a process iin the brain then mysticism no longer starts out being a hopeless case.

It is materialism which renders mysticism meaningless. If materialism is false, then mysticism is no longer a dead-end.

(and oh no the sky is falling in.... :rolleyes: )

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd January 2003, 08:43 AM

Win,

But tell you what. Let's try an experiment. For a limited, but sufficiently long, period of time, say two weeks, why don't you try to put yourself in my shoes. Assume dualism is true and try to formulate a coherent dualistic wordlview. Make arguments that support that view.

I would be happy to try. Unfortunately, dualism is not logically coherent. I could try to argue for some sort of non-materialistic monism, but not for dualism.

Reality is composed of characteristics. Monism holds that there are logical relationships between all of those characteristics. Dualism holds that the characteristics can be divided into two distinct groups, A (mental) and B (physical), such that there is no logical relationship between any of the characteristics in A, and any of the characteristics in B. Dualism further asserts that some of the characteristics that affect us are in group A, and others are in group B.

Dualism, as I have defined it above, is incoherent, because if characteristics from group A, and from group B, both affect us, then one of the following must be true.

1) My own characteristics can be divided into two groups that are not logically related. My mind is mental, and my brain is physical. This is impossible, though, because there are logical relationships between my mind and my brain. Defining these relationships to be "coincidental", or trying to explain them in terms of other existents that both my mind and my brain are reducible to, doesn't solve this problem. There is a logical relationship, so dualism is false.

2) Some of my own characteristics have logical relationships to both A and B. This not only implies logical relationships between A and B, which is a contradiction, but also implies that those characteristics do not belong to either A or B, which violates the premise of dualism.

The only way for dualism to be true, is if we are completely confined to one group, A or B, and if everything that affects us in any way is also confined to that group. And in that case, it is impossible to meaningfully say that the other group exists at all. So in effect, we still have monism.

I suppose you could define dualism differently than the above (ie interaction dualism), but if you do, what you end up with is only semantically different from monism. Logically it is the same thing.

What have you got to lose? If you'd like, I'll bind myself by the reverse stricture, and argue that materialism must be true.

I'm sure if we took a vote, we'd find that other members of the board would find it an amusing exercise, at the very least.

If you can provide me with a logically coherent definition of dualism, that is not logically equivalent to monism, I will be happy to try.

UCE,

Suffice it to say that materialism is the only framework anybody has ever come up with that actually provides a reliable method for explaining things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That does not mean that if the evidence suggests that there is a limit to the explanatory power of scientific materialism, that we should continue to pretend that scientific materialism can provide reliable answers (or any answers at all) beyond the limit of its usefullness.

Of course not. There is a limit to its explanatory power, and I have never claimed that we should try to use it to explain things that are outside of that limit. I simply disagree with your assertion that the mind in any way lies outside of that limit. Or at least, any characteristic of the mind that I actually have any logical reason to believe really exists.

If materialism cannot explain phenomenal consciousness then we either accept we cannot explain it, or we investigate mysticism.

That's a pretty big if there. You certainly haven't demonstrated that it can't. And even if you did, what would be the point in turning to mysticism, since mysticism is defined in such a way as to make it impossible for it to supply reliable explanations for anything?

This is my bugbear with this - materialists like you probably, deep down, know perfectly well that materialism can't solve the Hard Problem, and your fallback position is "well there is no alternative so I'll stick with materialism anyway!"

Yes yes, and atheists deep down believe in Jesus. :rolleyes:

Take my word for it. I do not believe, on any level, that there is any aspect of consciousness that cannot, at least in principle, be explained through the scientific method.

Mysticism doesn't just declare 'it's a mystery' and sit there under a Banyan Tree!

No, mysticism declares that only through subjective introspection can the nature of reality be discovered. Unfortunately, the only way this can possibly be true is if reality is illogical.

The problem is that scientific materialists view mysticism as the death of science - the end of their world! Defeat! Woe!

It is the death of science. It specifically rejects at least one of the axioms of science. It is also the death of rationality, because it specifically holds that reality is not rational.

If in fact any attempt was made to understand the central tenets of mysticism, what meaning lies under the various different mystical philosophies in existence, the role of philosophy in the history of religion, and how and why mysticism may provide a path forward for investigating the subjective realm from a subjective perpective (which is the ***ONLY*** way it can be investigated) then it would be realised that the situation is the reverse of that believed by the materialists. It is in fact materialism which is a dead end as far the this question is concerned, and mysticism which provides the only way forward - because mysticism is, and always has been, the subjective investigation of subjective phenomena!

Unfortunately, it is not possible to understand mysticism, because mysticism is not coherent.

The problem for the materialist is that under materialism mysticism is meaningless because conciousness is a process in the brain. But if they would actually get over the hurdle of admitting to themselves that well, actually, consciousness might NOT be just a process iin the brain then mysticism no longer starts out being a hopeless case.

No, mysticism is meaningless because it is incoherent. Even if Materialism was proven dead wrong, beyond any shadow of a doubt, I would still have to reject both mysticism and dualism, because they simply are not logically coherent concepts.

Dr. Stupid

22nd January 2003, 08:56 AM

Stimpson :

It is the death of science.

Woe! :D

It specifically rejects at least one of the axioms of science.

Which?

It is also the death of rationality, because it specifically holds that reality is not rational.

Why?

Unfortunately, it is not possible to understand mysticism, because mysticism is not coherent.

What you mean is that it is not possible to objectively investigate mysticism because mysticism defines itself to be a study of the subjective realm of consciousness from the perspective of consciousness. Materialism claims to be able to answer questions about subjective experiences by attempting to study them objectively using the tools of materialistic science. Mysticism is the attempt to find answers to questions about subjective experiences by attempting to study them subjectively. Mysticism is the investigation of consciousness by consciousness.

Materialists don't understand mysticsm because they think consciousness is physical, not because it is impossible to understand it. Just because something is not investigable scientifically, does not mean it is meaningless.

Franko

22nd January 2003, 09:01 AM

Stimpson,

Of course not. There is a limit to its explanatory power, and I have never claimed that we should try to use it to explain things that are outside of that limit. I simply disagree with your assertion that the mind in any way lies outside of that limit. Or at least, any characteristic of the mind that I actually have any logical reason to believe really exists.

I agree with you there.

That's a pretty big if there. You certainly haven't demonstrated that it can't. And even if you did, what would be the point in turning to mysticism, since mysticism is defined in such a way as to make it impossible for it to supply reliable explanations for anything?

two for two.

Take my word for it. I do not believe, on any level, that there is any aspect of consciousness that cannot, at least in principle, be explained through the scientific method.

I agree again … is this a sign of the apocalypse? You be the judge …

No, mysticism declares that only through subjective introspection can the nature of reality be discovered. Unfortunately, the only way this can possibly be true is if reality is illogical.

Amen Brother! Amen!

It is the death of science. It specifically rejects at least one of the axioms of science. It is also the death of rationality, because it specifically holds that reality is not rational.

I am with you Stimpy. You are right on the money with this stuff.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to understand mysticism, because mysticism is not coherent.

Are you listening to the Man, Elephant?

On this score he knows EXACTLY what he is talking about.

No, mysticism is meaningless because it is incoherent. Even if Materialism was proven dead wrong, beyond any shadow of a doubt, I would still have to reject both mysticism and dualism, because they simply are not logically coherent concepts.

When you are right you are right Stimpson. I am in complete agreement with you here.

Valmorian

22nd January 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Mysticism is the attempt to find answers to questions about subjective experiences by attempting to study them subjectively.

Which is the whole problem. There's a REASON science tries to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible: It's unreliable.

Materialists don't understand mysticsm because they think consciousness is physical, not because it is impossible to understand it.

If something is non-physical, how can it react with something that is? We define what is physical by the way it reacts with other physical things. I reject mysticm because I see no good reason to suspect that it has ever answered ANY question satisfactorily.

Just because something is not investigable scientifically, does not mean it is meaningless.

It does, however, mean it is unknowable.

22nd January 2003, 09:21 AM

Valmorian :

It is a bit late in the day (in this thread) to go back to basics and start asking questions about the binding problem.

Stimpson has basically admitted that he sees the death of materialism as the death of science, and that this must be avoided at all costs. If that is his view then no amount of evidence will convince him, and that's that. We have taken this debate as far as it can go. Of course materialism isn't the same thing as science, and admitting materialism is wrong only limits sciences claim to be able to answer philosophical questions it never had any right to claim it could answer in the first place, but I really can't be naffed to try to explain that to someone who thinks that materialism is science and that admitting materialism is wrong is the death of science.

----------

What is much more interesting is that Franchesca has arrived in this thread and is passionately defending Stimpsons rejection of mysticsm! :)

I wonder who is clever enough to figure out why? ;)

Valmorian

22nd January 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Stimpson has basically admitted that he sees the death of materialism as the death of science, and that this must be avoided at all costs.

Well I happen to agree with him. If things are not objective, you can hardly expect scientific inquiry to work.

As for 'it must be avoided at all costs', that is so much nonsense. I have no good reason to suspect that materialism is false.

If that is his view then no amount of evidence will convince him, and that's that.

*laugh* What 'EVIDENCE' have you even remotely suggested?

Assertions like "The hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable!" isn't evidence.

We have taken this debate as far as it can go. Of course materialism isn't the same thing as science, and admitting materialism is wrong only limits sciences claim to be able to answer philosophical questions it never had any right to claim it could answer in the first place, but I really can't be naffed to try to explain that to someone who thinks that materialism is science and that admitting materialism is wrong is the death of science.

Science depends upon materialism being true.

Tell me, how would you propose to conduct a scientific experiment in a universe where nothing is objective?

What is much more interesting is that Franchesca has arrived in this thread and is passionately defending Stimpsons rejection of mysticsm! :)

I wonder who is clever enough to figure out why? ;)

Eh, I couldn't care less what Franko has to say about things. Now and then I fall into the trap of actually responding to him, but I'm quite certain he's a troll of epic proportions.

22nd January 2003, 09:40 AM

UCE wrote :

I wonder who is clever enough to figure out why?

Valmorian responded :

Eh, I couldn't care less what Franko has to say about things

.....and they all lived happily ever after. ;)

Franko

22nd January 2003, 10:03 AM

Elephant:
Stimpson has basically admitted that he sees the death of materialism as the death of science, and that this must be avoided at all costs.

You are putting words in Stimpy’s mouth. That isn’t even remotely what he said.

Stimpson:
No, mysticism is meaningless because it is incoherent. Even if Materialism was proven dead wrong, beyond any shadow of a doubt, I would still have to reject both mysticism and dualism, because they simply are not logically coherent concepts.

So Stimpy sounds like he is saying that Logic (comprehensibility) is the essential element of science, not materialism. Mysticism is a rejection of logic, ergo mysticism is a rejection of science. He is 100% correct.

----------------------------------

Valmoron:

Eh, I couldn't care less what Franko has to say about things. Now and then I fall into the trap of actually responding to him, but I'm quite certain he's a troll of epic proportions.

Valmorian I’ve always thought that you were an imbecile. If either of us is a Troll it is YOU religious fanatic. Why don’t you run along … www.infidels.org

Interesting Ian

22nd January 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian

Science depends upon materialism being true.

How could it conceivably do so? Let's imagine that subjective idealism is true. Why would it not be possible to carry out science? I would even argue that within the context of Berkeley's metaphysics (who is a subjective idealist or mental monist) we don't even have to be instrumentalists. Scientific entities really do exist despite being mental! Actually science works better on the presumption of subjective idealism because we don't get hung up on supposing that everything requires mechanical explanations. That hinders science.

Tell me, how would you propose to conduct a scientific experiment in a universe where nothing is objective?

Ah perhaps this is the source of your confusion! The empirical realm is objective whether we are materialists or idealists.

Franko

22nd January 2003, 10:51 AM

Ian,

I always enjoy reading your post.

Ah perhaps this is the source of your confusion! The empirical realm is objective whether we are materialists or idealists.

In other words, Materialism (Not necessarily equal to) Logic. Or put another way, Materialism is not the same as Logic. The system need to be logical, but it doesn't HAVE TO BE Materialism.

I think even Stimpson would agree with that.

Win

22nd January 2003, 11:03 AM

Stimpy:

I would be happy to try. Unfortunately, dualism is not logically coherent. I could try to argue for some sort of non-materialistic monism, but not for dualism.

Sorry, brother, but the deal goes for dualism only. Of course, I think materialism is wrong, so I'd be arguing against my gut, as it were, too.

Dualism, as I have defined it above, is incoherent, because if characteristics from group A, and from group B, both affect us, then one of the following must be true

But, *we* are the combination of our physical properties and our phenomenal properties. And never the twain shall meet.

Ian:

Ah perhaps this is the source of your confusion! The empirical realm is objective whether we are materialists or idealists.

Or dualists. By definition, even.

UCE:

Who is the 'we' who creates the construct?

Our physical brains, as they struggle with these very difficult ideas.

Stimpson J. Cat

22nd January 2003, 02:30 PM

UCE,

It is the death of science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Woe!:D

Sure, make light of it. Why should the death of the only philosophical framework concerning the nature of reality that has ever actually contributed anything positive to humanity, be considered a bad thing?

It specifically rejects at least one of the axioms of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which?

The axiom that reality can be described in terms of a logical framework.

It is also the death of rationality, because it specifically holds that reality is not rational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

Because mysticism holds that the only way to understand reality is a method that has been clearly demonstrated to be unreliable. The only way to assert that direct subjective experience is a reliable source of information, is to reject the assumption that reality is logical and consistent.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to understand mysticism, because mysticism is not coherent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you mean is that it is not possible to objectively investigate mysticism because mysticism defines itself to be a study of the subjective realm of consciousness from the perspective of consciousness.

Same thing. Aren't you the one who is always going on about how logic is objective? Well, if mysticism cannot be investigated objectively, then it cannot be investigated logically. That not only means that mysticism is incoherent (by definition), but also that if mysticism is the correct model of reality, then reality cannot be logical either.

Materialism claims to be able to answer questions about subjective experiences by attempting to study them objectively using the tools of materialistic science. Mysticism is the attempt to find answers to questions about subjective experiences by attempting to study them subjectively. Mysticism is the investigation of consciousness by consciousness.

In other words, mysticism is an attempt to employ a method of acquiring knowledge that has been proven not to work.

Materialists don't understand mysticsm because they think consciousness is physical, not because it is impossible to understand it. Just because something is not investigable scientifically, does not mean it is meaningless.

You have already asserted that it is not possible to understand mysticism. That is, unless you think it is possible to understand something that cannot be understood logically. If this is the case, I have no idea what you mean by the word "understand".

Stimpson has basically admitted that he sees the death of materialism as the death of science, and that this must be avoided at all costs. If that is his view then no amount of evidence will convince him, and that's that.

Not true. If the evidence indicates that materialism is false, then I will accept it. I won't like it, but last time I checked, reality doesn't seem to care about whether I approve of the way it works or not.

We have taken this debate as far as it can go. Of course materialism isn't the same thing as science, and admitting materialism is wrong only limits sciences claim to be able to answer philosophical questions it never had any right to claim it could answer in the first place, but I really can't be naffed to try to explain that to someone who thinks that materialism is science and that admitting materialism is wrong is the death of science.

As I said, materialism is the philosophical basis of science. Science is a method that is expected to work under the materialistic framework, because that framework makes the necessary assumptions for the scientific method to be logically valid. I realize that you do not understand this, and that you are going to cling to your strawman of what materialism is, and your naive conception of what science is, no matter how many times you are corrected. So perhaps you are right. This debate is pointless.

Ian,

Science depends upon materialism being true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How could it conceivably do so? Let's imagine that subjective idealism is true. Why would it not be possible to carry out science? I would even argue that within the context of Berkeley's metaphysics (who is a subjective idealist or mental monist) we don't even have to be instrumentalists. Scientific entities really do exist despite being mental! Actually science works better on the presumption of subjective idealism because we don't get hung up on supposing that everything requires mechanical explanations. That hinders science.

The above is only true if your Idealism makes the same axiomatic assumptions as materialism. Namely that reality is objective, logical, and consistent, and that by accounting for subjective bias, we can extract information about it from our observations.

From what you have described, this seems to be the case. Your Idealism seems to be nothing more than materialism, plus the assumption that physical reality is created by minds. That and you define words differently, so that what a materialist calls "physical" you call "mental".

Remember that I am not at all claiming that science is dependent on classical ontological materialism. That form of materialism is incoherent, and no longer considered a viable option by anybody who knows anything about the epistemology of science.

Tell me, how would you propose to conduct a scientific experiment in a universe where nothing is objective?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah perhaps this is the source of your confusion! The empirical realm is objective whether we are materialists or idealists.

Case in point. Since the only characteristics modern materialism attaches to the word "physical", are objectivity, being logical, being consistent, and being empirical, it doesn't make any difference whether we choose to call it "physical" or not. All your Idealism does is take that same logical base, and add on a bunch of other assumptions about the relationships between minds and other things. Materialism makes no such assumptions, and leaves it up to the scientific method to determine what those relationships are.

Franko,

In other words, Materialism (Not necessarily equal to) Logic. Or put another way, Materialism is not the same as Logic. The system need to be logical, but it doesn't HAVE TO BE Materialism.

I think even Stimpson would agree with that.

No, it doesn't have to be materialism. But it would have to be something that includes the axioms of materialism, since they are the axioms of the scientific method. You can add as many additional assumptions as you want, and still have science work. That is, as long as science doesn't end up proving those additional assumptions to be wrong.

Of course, we rarely need to worry about that, since most philosophies deliberately construct their additional assumptions in such a way that they could never be falsified.

Win,

I would be happy to try. Unfortunately, dualism is not logically coherent. I could try to argue for some sort of non-materialistic monism, but not for dualism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, brother, but the deal goes for dualism only. Of course, I think materialism is wrong, so I'd be arguing against my gut, as it were, too.

I've got no problem arguing against my gut. That's something you have to learn to do in order to be a scientist, otherwise you end up letting your own intuitive preconceptions lead you astray. What I can't do is argue for a position that I know to be logically incoherent.

Dualism, as I have defined it above, is incoherent, because if characteristics from group A, and from group B, both affect us, then one of the following must be true
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, *we* are the combination of our physical properties and our phenomenal properties. And never the twain shall meet.

Yes, and as I pointed out, that is exactly where dualism falls to pieces. There is a logical relationship between our physical and our phenomenal properties. Therefore dualism is false.

The only way dualism could be true is if there really were no logical relationship between our physical and phenomenal characteristics. This is nonsensical. We experience what our brain is doing. That is a logical relationship. Our brain knows that we have experiences (whether you think there is a "physical mechanism" for that, or not). That is a logical relationship. Positing a third existent, which both the physical and phenomenal characteristics are reducible to, doesn't change anything. All that does is create another group that you can put characteristics into. Those characteristics still cannot have any logical relationship with characteristics from the other group.

Dr. Stupid

Q-Source

23rd January 2003, 08:48 AM

Bump

Franko

23rd January 2003, 09:04 AM

Me (yesterday):

So Stimpy sounds like he is saying that Logic (comprehensibility) is the essential element of science, not materialism. Mysticism is a rejection of logic, ergo mysticism is a rejection of science. He is 100% correct.

Alright Stimpy ... so despite any other disagreements we may have, on this point I take it we see eye to eye?

Win

23rd January 2003, 09:17 AM

Stimpinator:

Er ... I mean Stimpy. Sorry about that. I must be feeling a little Frankish today.

The only way dualism could be true is if there really were no logical relationship between our physical and phenomenal characteristics. This is nonsensical. We experience what our brain is doing. That is a logical relationship. Our brain knows that we have experiences (whether you think there is a "physical mechanism" for that, or not). That is a logical relationship. Positing a third existent, which both the physical and phenomenal characteristics are reducible to, doesn't change anything. All that does is create another group that you can put characteristics into. Those characteristics still cannot have any logical relationship with characteristics from the other group.

I don't know what you mean by "logical relationship." If, however, what you mean is that either is a logically necessary consequences of the other, of course you know that I think it's demonstrable that neither is.

What's more, I have been arguing that our brains don't know that we have phenomenal experiences. *We* do, but our brains don't. Our brains think that they do, but, considered in isolation, they're wrong.

Under these constraints, there is no contradiction in epiphenomenal dualism. And that's the position I'd like to see you argue for.

23rd January 2003, 09:36 AM

Q-Source wrote :

Bump.

Oh alright then..... :D

Sure, make light of it. Why should the death of the only philosophical framework concerning the nature of reality that has ever actually contributed anything positive to humanity, be considered a bad thing?

I think that's an idiotically one-sided way of looking at things.

For a start, as Ian said, the objective realm remains objective, regardless or not of materialism. It doesn't matter whether you take the Kantian perspective of "We can never know the true nature of the noumenon" or whether you take the rather more progressive approach of "The noumenon is a informational structure in the 'metamind'/'mind of God'. (And since it behaves logically this satisfies both Franko and Stimpy, and yet also leaves a path open for the mystics to follow if they want to).

Everybody wins under such a model. Science doesn't keel over and die - it just accepts that it can't answer the Hard Problem and no longer has to explain why anything exists at all - which I repeat were never scientific questions in the first place anyway.

As for claiming that science/materialism is the only philosophical framework that has ever contributed anything positive to humanity all I can say is maybe you should broaden your horizons a bit, Stimp.

For instance try reading a couple of Aldous Huxley classics :

Brave New World is Huxleys vision of a false Utopia based on presicely the attitude you express : Science gone crazy - the dehumanisation of man and the eradication of religion. It is a scary book - but anyone with an exclusively materialistic/scientific outlook will find it difficult to point out what it is in Huxleys projection of the future does not come from the very attitudes expressed by people like Stimpson, Lucifuge and PixyMisa. Brave New World is a vision of hell.

Huxleys last novel was called "Island" and provides his vision of a true Utopia - a balanced mixture of Western Science and the humanism and mysticism of the East - blended together so they support one another instead of the antagonistic relationship between science and theism which exists in the West. Humanism certainly isn't a product of secular science - it traces its roots to Taoism. Eastern forms of mysticism are in no way incompatible with Humanism, and Humanism does not depend on materialism, or science.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It specifically rejects at least one of the axioms of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The axiom that reality can be described in terms of a logical framework.

Physical Reality can still be described in terms of a logical framework. It does not kill science, Stimp - it just kills sciences claim to be able to explain the entirety of Existence. It places a limit on science - it does not destroy science. It allows for a balance between science and spirituality instead of heading towards Huxleys aformentioned vision of hell.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also the death of rationality, because it specifically holds that reality is not rational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because mysticism holds that the only way to understand reality is a method that has been clearly demonstrated to be unreliable. The only way to assert that direct subjective experience is a reliable source of information, is to reject the assumption that reality is logical and consistent.

Perhaps it is a good thing that the spiritual world remains off-limits to objective science.

You still seem to interpret the placing of limitations on the explanatory power of materialistic science as the end of the world - the breakdown of reality.

Think about this Stimpson :

Mysticism does not claim that 'the ONLY way to understand reality is via mysticism' at all. It seeks BALANCE between subjective and objective.

BY contrast Materialism DOES claim that it can explain the entirety or the which exists - it does not seek balance - it seeks to maintain a monopoly on Truth to which it has no more right then the mystics and religions do. This whole debate, which is a reflection of a wider debate, is the result of science setting itself up as the ultimate arbiter of all truth. Materialism has turned itself into another belief system which claims a hegemony - just like the religious systems it replaced.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, it is not possible to understand mysticism, because mysticism is not coherent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you mean is that it is not possible to objectively investigate mysticism because mysticism defines itself to be a study of the subjective realm of consciousness from the perspective of consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same thing. Aren't you the one who is always going on about how logic is objective? Well, if mysticism cannot be investigated objectively, then it cannot be investigated logically. That not only means that mysticism is incoherent (by definition), but also that if mysticism is the correct model of reality, then reality cannot be logical either.

Again - you are trying to set up an Aristotlean either/or situation which simply does not exist. Either mysticism is correct and science is dead, or materialism is true and mysticism is worthless. The truth is that the only way to really understand this situation is to get a handle on both models and try to understand how they relate to each other. Idealism and Materialism go hand in hand like Yin and Yang. Anyone who tries to emphasise one and kill the other will only ever understand half of the picture. It is a false dichotomy. There is room in one intellect for both. Mysticism does not consider science to be its enemy - science tends to consider mysticism to be its enemy - but I believe this has more to do with the historical role of theism and very little to do with mysticism. Unfortunately this tends to be lost on many scientists.

Both mysticism and materialism have their place. If you want to understand the Big Answers then you have to understand both systems, and how they relate to each other.

In other words, mysticism is an attempt to employ a method of acquiring knowledge that has been proven not to work.

That'll be why it has existed continually as a consistent philosophy since the dawn of civisation. I think you are confusing 'mysticism' and 'religion in general'. Mysticism isn't a religion - it is a philsophical system that lies at the root of every religious system there has ever been, and several philosophical systems which do not consider themselves to be religious. For several thousand years this 'perrenial philosophy' has existed, and its core claims have remained unchanged :

That Reality is a Unified Whole.
That the nature of this Whole can be known directly via individual consciousness.
That all things are in a state of dynamic balance.
That internal reality and external reality reflect one another.

Far from being proven not to work, it has survived all attempts to destroy it, unlike individual religions, unlike 'eras' in philosophy, unlike civilisations and nations and peoples.

You have already asserted that it is not possible to understand mysticism.

Ultimately mysticism is about going beyond the limitations of analytical thinking. That is it's nature. Analytical thinking can only show you the door.

Not true. If the evidence indicates that materialism is false,

Blah blah blah.

Materialism is true, therefore all evidence to the contrary is false, therefore there isn't any, therefore materialism is true.

The true believers will go on believing this, Stimp - and some of them, liek you, will go on claiming that the Hard Problem doesn't exist and that there is no evidence to falsify materialism.

...and yet you are now making it quite clear that you consider materialism being proven an inadequate model of reality to be the end of science and the end of the world as you know it. That is a fairly powerfull incentive to "not see" the evidence. I have long ago given up trying to release people from the bondage of their belief systems, and that includes you.

then I will accept it. I won't like it, but last time I checked, reality doesn't seem to care about whether I approve of the way it works or not.

PHYSICAL reality. (oh yes - I forgot - PHYSICAL reality is all there is....)

As I said, materialism is the philosophical basis of science. Science is a method that is expected to work under the materialistic framework,

STOP!

Science does not stop being able to examine the materialistic world just because it is denied its hegemony on all truth.

because that framework makes the necessary assumptions for the scientific method to be logically valid.

You simply DO NOT have to believe that the material world is all that exists for science to be a valid tool for investigating the material world! This is paranoid nonsense.

I realize that you do not understand this....

Yep, Stimp - me stupid - me not understand science - me dumb religious freak. YOU clever boy. :(

TheERK

23rd January 2003, 11:22 AM

UE, I couldn't help notice that you used Brave New World as an example to illustrate one of your points.

However, here is an excellent critique of Brave New World:

http://www.huxley.net/

To suggest that it will be a false utopia in reality just becaues Huxley presented it that way is to have little faith in what science can accomplish.

23rd January 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by TheERK
UE, I couldn't help notice that you used Brave New World as an example to illustrate one of your points.

However, here is an excellent critique of Brave New World:

http://www.huxley.net/

To suggest that it will be a false utopia in reality just becaues Huxley presented it that way is to have little faith in what science can accomplish.

That is precisely the sort of response that scares me.

"Brave New World" and "Island" really do need to be read as a pair. Huxley knew very well what he was presenting. There is nothing wrong with science or materialism - the problem in BNW isn't science or materialism but the fact they have an exclusive hegemony. They are fine as part of a balance. On their own they are a nightmare.

Unfortunately for us in the West we are a society which arose out of 1000 years of theistic hegemony. The pendulum is yet to find a balance in the middle.

TheERK

23rd January 2003, 12:39 PM

UE,

Instead of just telling me that it scares you, I'd like to know why. Hopefully you can see what is to come, suggested by the website I linked to, is far different than what was the 'theistic hegemony' of the past.

Eric

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd January 2003, 12:45 PM

Win,

The only way dualism could be true is if there really were no logical relationship between our physical and phenomenal characteristics. This is nonsensical. We experience what our brain is doing. That is a logical relationship. Our brain knows that we have experiences (whether you think there is a "physical mechanism" for that, or not). That is a logical relationship. Positing a third existent, which both the physical and phenomenal characteristics are reducible to, doesn't change anything. All that does is create another group that you can put characteristics into. Those characteristics still cannot have any logical relationship with characteristics from the other group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what you mean by "logical relationship." If, however, what you mean is that either is a logically necessary consequences of the other, of course you know that I think it's demonstrable that neither is.

Essentially that is what I mean. Under monism, any specific characteristic of reality is a logically necessary consequence of all of the others. Under dualism, you have two separate monistic sets.

That said, not only is reality not demonstrably dualistic, it is demonstrably nondualistic. Saying that there are correlations between the physical and the phenomenal is identical to saying that there is a logical relationship between the two.

What's more, I have been arguing that our brains don't know that we have phenomenal experiences. *We* do, but our brains don't. Our brains think that they do, but, considered in isolation, they're wrong.

But you are also claiming that what our brains incorrectly think is true about the phenomenal, is in fact true. That means that there is a logical relationship between our brains and phenomenal consciousness. You have claimed that this logical relationship is the result of both the physical and phenomenal both being reducible to the same thing, but that just proves my point. If they are both reducible to the same thing, then that means that the characteristics that make up the physical set, and the characteristics that make up the mental set, are both logically necessary consequences of the same set of other characteristics. That is a monistic framework. Your dualism amounts to nothing more than monism plus the claim that phenomenal consciousness cannot be described in terms of the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

UCE,

Sure, make light of it. Why should the death of the only philosophical framework concerning the nature of reality that has ever actually contributed anything positive to humanity, be considered a bad thing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that's an idiotically one-sided way of looking at things.

For a start, as Ian said, the objective realm remains objective, regardless or not of materialism. It doesn't matter whether you take the Kantian perspective of "We can never know the true nature of the noumenon" or whether you take the rather more progressive approach of "The noumenon is a informational structure in the 'metamind'/'mind of God'. (And since it behaves logically this satisfies both Franko and Stimpy, and yet also leaves a path open for the mystics to follow if they want to).

What matters, as far as science is concerned, is that the axioms of materialism remain intact. You can add as much additional philosophical nonsense to that, like noumena and metaminds and ontological substances, as you want. Doing so serves no purpose, though. There will always be room for unfalsifiable hypotheses. But why bother?

Everybody wins under such a model. Science doesn't keel over and die - it just accepts that it can't answer the Hard Problem and no longer has to explain why anything exists at all - which I repeat were never scientific questions in the first place anyway.

The Hard Problem, as you define it, isn't even a coherent concept, much less a problem science needs to solve. It is just another in an infinite list of "how do you know x isn't true?", questions, where x is some unfalsifiable hypothesis. There are many questions science can't answer. Your attempts to answer these questions by manufacturing unfalsifiable hypotheses is doomed to failure, though.

As for claiming that science/materialism is the only philosophical framework that has ever contributed anything positive to humanity all I can say is maybe you should broaden your horizons a bit, Stimp.

That isn't what I said. What I said was that it is the only philosophical framework concerning the nature of reality that has ever actually contributed anything positive to humanity. See the difference? Do you have a counter-example?

The axiom that reality can be described in terms of a logical framework.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physical Reality can still be described in terms of a logical framework.

Only if non-physical reality (whatever that is supposed to be) doesn't have any affect on it. If you claim that the mind is non-physical, this clearly isn't the case. And if you claim the mind is physical, then I don't see what the difference between the non-physical, and the non-existent, is supposed to be.

It does not kill science, Stimp - it just kills sciences claim to be able to explain the entirety of Existence. It places a limit on science - it does not destroy science. It allows for a balance between science and spirituality instead of heading towards Huxleys aformentioned vision of hell.

Huxley's vision of Hell is not the result of any philosophical assumptions about reality, but rather the result of the absence of any philosophies about morality and ethics. Humanism is perfectly compatible with materialism.

Because mysticism holds that the only way to understand reality is a method that has been clearly demonstrated to be unreliable. The only way to assert that direct subjective experience is a reliable source of information, is to reject the assumption that reality is logical and consistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps it is a good thing that the spiritual world remains off-limits to objective science.

Only if you claim the spiritual world has no effect of the physical world. If it does, then either science is broken, or the spiritual world is also physical.

You still seem to interpret the placing of limitations on the explanatory power of materialistic science as the end of the world - the breakdown of reality.

You seem to think that it is possible for science to provide an accurate description of a Physical World which is subject to supernatural influences. This is nonsensical.

Mysticism does not claim that 'the ONLY way to understand reality is via mysticism' at all. It seeks BALANCE between subjective and objective.

Mysticism claims to be able to extract reliable information about reality from methods that are known to be unreliable. Case closed.

BY contrast Materialism DOES claim that it can explain the entirety or the which exists

No, it claims to able to explain the entirety of what is knowable.

it does not seek balance - it seeks to maintain a monopoly on Truth to which it has no more right then the mystics and religions do.

What do rights have to do with it. A philosophical framework cannot claim to provide knowledge if it has no method for establishing whether what you know is true or not. Mysticism does not provide such a method.

This whole debate, which is a reflection of a wider debate, is the result of science setting itself up as the ultimate arbiter of all truth. Materialism has turned itself into another belief system which claims a hegemony - just like the religious systems it replaced.

Baloney. Materialism works. Science works. The other crap doesn't. That's all there is to it. You don't have to take my word for it. Just take a look at the World you live in. Being sober while doing so might help.

Same thing. Aren't you the one who is always going on about how logic is objective? Well, if mysticism cannot be investigated objectively, then it cannot be investigated logically. That not only means that mysticism is incoherent (by definition), but also that if mysticism is the correct model of reality, then reality cannot be logical either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again - you are trying to set up an Aristotlean either/or situation which simply does not exist. Either mysticism is correct and science is dead, or materialism is true and mysticism is worthless.

Read what I just said again. Mysticism is incoherent. It doesn't make any difference science is valid or not. Mysticism cannot be true, because it is self-contradictory.

The truth is that the only way to really understand this situation is to get a handle on both models and try to understand how they relate to each other.

Mysticism is not a model. It is nonsense.

Idealism and Materialism go hand in hand like Yin and Yang. Anyone who tries to emphasise one and kill the other will only ever understand half of the picture.

Idealism and classical materialism go hand in hand. They are also both incoherent. Modern materialism is as different from classical materialism as it is from idealism.

It is a false dichotomy. There is room in one intellect for both. Mysticism does not consider science to be its enemy - science tends to consider mysticism to be its enemy

No, science, and logic in general, consider mysticism to be nonsensical.

but I believe this has more to do with the historical role of theism and very little to do with mysticism. Unfortunately this tends to be lost on many scientists.

Your belief is wrong. Scientists dismiss mysticism because it is meaningless nonsense. No mystic can even coherently explain what mysticism is, so how could any rational person give it serious consideration?

Both mysticism and materialism have their place. If you want to understand the Big Answers then you have to understand both systems, and how they relate to each other.

But you have already established that it is not possible to understand mysticism.

In other words, mysticism is an attempt to employ a method of acquiring knowledge that has been proven not to work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That'll be why it has existed continually as a consistent philosophy since the dawn of civisation.

No, that is because since the dawn of civilization, there has always been plenty of superstitious people available to believe whatever nonsense is presented to them. The fact that use of mind-altering drugs tends to make mysticism seem to make sense hasn't hurt either.

I think you are confusing 'mysticism' and 'religion in general'.

No. Mysticism is central component of many religions. And a particularly incoherent one at that.

Mysticism isn't a religion - it is a philsophical system that lies at the root of every religious system there has ever been, and several philosophical systems which do not consider themselves to be religious.

I don't know about every one, but since there has never been any religion that there was a rational reason to believe in, this hardly helps your case.

For several thousand years this 'perrenial philosophy' has existed, and its core claims have remained unchanged :

That Reality is a Unified Whole.
That the nature of this Whole can be known directly via individual consciousness.
That all things are in a state of dynamic balance.
That internal reality and external reality reflect one another.

And? So the fact that people have believed in nonsense for thousands of years is supposed to mean something?

Far from being proven not to work, it has survived all attempts to destroy it, unlike individual religions, unlike 'eras' in philosophy, unlike civilisations and nations and peoples.

Working has nothing to do with it. It doesn't work. It has never worked. It never will work. But as long as people are willing to delude themselves into believing that it works, it will persist as the virulent meme that it is.

You have already asserted that it is not possible to understand mysticism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately mysticism is about going beyond the limitations of analytical thinking. That is it's nature. Analytical thinking can only show you the door.

I know what is on the other side of that door. Madness. Abandon logic, and you are done.

...and yet you are now making it quite clear that you consider materialism being proven an inadequate model of reality to be the end of science and the end of the world as you know it. That is a fairly powerfull incentive to "not see" the evidence. I have long ago given up trying to release people from the bondage of their belief systems, and that includes you.

Whatever. If it pleases you to believe that I am close-minded, and would just ignore any evidence against materialism if it were to be presented, that's fine. But unless you actually have such evidence, your opinion is worth about as much as your mysticism is.

then I will accept it. I won't like it, but last time I checked, reality doesn't seem to care about whether I approve of the way it works or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PHYSICAL reality. (oh yes - I forgot - PHYSICAL reality is all there is....)

So are you saying that there is a non-physical reality that does care whether I approve of the way it works or not? Do you even realize how crazy that sounds?

As I said, materialism is the philosophical basis of science. Science is a method that is expected to work under the materialistic framework,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STOP!

Science does not stop being able to examine the materialistic world just because it is denied its hegemony on all truth.

I never said it did. What I did say is that if some non-physical world affects the physical world, then that does prevent science from being applicable to the physical world.

because that framework makes the necessary assumptions for the scientific method to be logically valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You simply DO NOT have to believe that the material world is all that exists for science to be a valid tool for investigating the material world! This is paranoid nonsense.

No, but you do have to assume that nothing non-physical has any affect on it. And I have no idea what it means to say that something exists, but doesn't affect anything physical. Consciousness certainly doesn't match this description.

I realize that you do not understand this....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, Stimp - me stupid - me not understand science - me dumb religious freak. YOU clever boy.

No, you irrational religious person who not thinking clearly. Me trying to help you.

Dr. Stupid

Win

23rd January 2003, 01:16 PM

Stimpy:

Essentially that is what I mean. Under monism, any specific characteristic of reality is a logically necessary consequence of all of the others. Under dualism, you have two separate monistic sets.

OK. So "logical relationship" between A and B = A is a logically necessary consequence of B, or vice versa. Right?

That said, not only is reality not demonstrably dualistic, it is demonstrably nondualistic. Saying that there are correlations between the physical and the phenomenal is identical to saying that there is a logical relationship between the two.

So, the fact of correlation between the physical and the phenomenal establishes a "logical relationship" between them, which in turn is equivalent to saying that the phenomenal is a logically necessary consequnce of the physical. (Or vice versa, but I'll assume for the moment that you haven't morphed into UCE). Right?

Coincidence by pure chance isn't relevant here, IIRC, because we have only two complete systems, and any correlation between two complete systems has to indicate a logical relationship, hence logical supervenience. Right?

Coincidence by virtue of a third causal force, as in the case of two distinct photo-sensitive mechanisms, which always turn on at the same time, isn't relevant because we should consider them to be the same somehow in a way I don't quite understand. But anyway, each individual system + the third causal force should be considered to be in a logical relationship, and hence one logically supervenes on the other. Right?

But you are also claiming that what our brains incorrectly think is true about the phenomenal, is in fact true. That means that there is a logical relationship between our brains and phenomenal consciousness. You have claimed that this logical relationship is the result of both the physical and phenomenal both being reducible to the same thing, but that just proves my point. If they are both reducible to the same thing, then that means that the characteristics that make up the physical set, and the characteristics that make up the mental set, are both logically necessary consequences of the same set of other characteristics. That is a monistic framework. Your dualism amounts to nothing more than monism plus the claim that phenomenal consciousness cannot be described in terms of the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

So, the truth of my belief establishes that the phenomenal supervenes on the physical. If my belief were false, it wouldn't? Truth establishes supervenience, that is to say truth establishes a logically necessary relationship. Right?

As for the idea that, "really," I'm a monist, I guess I have to plead guilty. But that underlying "real" monism is just a matter of terms. The fact is that the physical and the phenomenal don't reduce to one another. Hence materialism is false. That I believe that each must ultimately reduce to another non-physical, non-phenomenal existent is neither here nor there.

23rd January 2003, 01:41 PM

Stimp :

I know what is on the other side of that door. Madness.

It is bed-time for this thread. :)

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd January 2003, 01:54 PM

Win,

Essentially that is what I mean. Under monism, any specific characteristic of reality is a logically necessary consequence of all of the others. Under dualism, you have two separate monistic sets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. So "logical relationship" between A and B = A is a logically necessary consequence of B, or vice versa. Right?

Not exactly. A and B are sets of characteristics, not characteristics themselves. A logical relationship between A and B means that any given characteristic of A is a logically necessary consequence of characteristics of both A and B, and vice-versa.

That said, not only is reality not demonstrably dualistic, it is demonstrably nondualistic. Saying that there are correlations between the physical and the phenomenal is identical to saying that there is a logical relationship between the two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the fact of correlation between the physical and the phenomenal establishes a "logical relationship" between them, which in turn is equivalent to saying that the phenomenal is a logically necessary consequence of the physical. (Or vice versa, but I'll assume for the moment that you haven't morphed into UCE). Right?

No. See above. The logical relationship doesn't have to be that simple.

Coincidence by pure chance isn't relevant here, IIRC, because we have only two complete systems, and any correlation between two complete systems has to indicate a logical relationship, hence logical supervenience. Right?

Nope, just logical relationship. I am not saying that the phenomenal has to be a logically necessary consequence of the physical under monism. Simply that under monism, the physical and the mental are logically intertwined.

Coincidence by virtue of a third causal force, as in the case of two distinct photo-sensitive mechanisms, which always turn on at the same time, isn't relevant because we should consider them to be the same somehow in a way I don't quite understand. But anyway, each individual system + the third causal force should be considered to be in a logical relationship, and hence one logically supervenes on the other. Right?

No. See above.

But you are also claiming that what our brains incorrectly think is true about the phenomenal, is in fact true. That means that there is a logical relationship between our brains and phenomenal consciousness. You have claimed that this logical relationship is the result of both the physical and phenomenal both being reducible to the same thing, but that just proves my point. If they are both reducible to the same thing, then that means that the characteristics that make up the physical set, and the characteristics that make up the mental set, are both logically necessary consequences of the same set of other characteristics. That is a monistic framework. Your dualism amounts to nothing more than monism plus the claim that phenomenal consciousness cannot be described in terms of the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the truth of my belief establishes that the phenomenal supervenes on the physical.

No, it establishes that there is a logical relationship between the two.

If my belief were false, it wouldn't? Truth establishes supervenience, that is to say truth establishes a logically necessary relationship. Right?

No. The correlation establishes the logical relationship. If there were no correlation, there would be no reason for us to think there is a logical relationship. THere still could be one. We just wouldn't know it.

As for the idea that, "really," I'm a monist, I guess I have to plead guilty. But that underlying "real" monism is just a matter of terms. The fact is that the physical and the phenomenal don't reduce to one another. Hence materialism is false.

Not really. Because what you are calling the physical is not what materialists call the physical. On the contrary, the third existent, which you are claiming both the physical and mental are reducible to, is what the materialist would call the physical. It is only a semantic difference.

That I believe that each must ultimately reduce to another non-physical, non-phenomenal existent is neither here nor there.

It is the key point, because under the materialistic definition of "physical", this "non-physical, non-phenomenal" existent is exactly what materialists mean by physical.

Materialism is a monistic framework. Materialism defines the word "physical" to simply be the set of all characteristics in the monistic framework. It makes assumptions as well, such as the assumption that the logical relationships between those characteristics can be deduced from our observations, and the assumption that those characteristics objectively exist. It does not in any way assume that those characteristics are limited to particles, fields, and waves, as we currently understand them.

You appear to define "physical" to refer only to the constructs that make up our current scientific model of the universe. This seems to be the source of your disagreement with materialism, since you clearly think that phenomenal consciousness cannot be described in terms of particles, waves, and fields. But the fact is that materialism doesn't claim that they can. Materialism only claims that phenomenal consciousness can be explained in terms of natural laws, and that those laws can be derived from our observations.

The view that the mind is a process of the brain, and that it can be described in terms of current physics, is a scientific theory, not a philosophical assumption of materialism. If it is proven false, then the laws of physics will change to incorporate this new information, just as they have in the past.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

24th January 2003, 09:54 AM

Stimpson:
What matters, as far as science is concerned, is that the axioms of materialism remain intact.

This is why I don’t consider you a real Scientist Necromancer.

To a Real Scientist the axioms of Materialism (or any other philosophy/religion) don’t mean squat! To a real scientist all that matters is the Truth.

You can add as much additional philosophical nonsense to that, like noumena and metaminds and ontological substances, as you want. Doing so serves no purpose, though. There will always be room for unfalsifiable hypotheses. But why bother?

So suddenly parsimony is a logical rule again?

I never claimed otherwise, I glad it appears we agree on this one again.

The Hard Problem, as you define it, isn't even a coherent concept, much less a problem science needs to solve.

Well I am with you there. It took me a good while just to figure out what HPC meant!

It is just another in an infinite list of "how do you know x isn't true?", questions, where x is some unfalsifiable hypothesis. There are many questions science can't answer. Your attempts to answer these questions by manufacturing unfalsifiable hypotheses is doomed to failure, though.

I’ve been trying to tell him the same thing.

What I said was that it is the only philosophical framework concerning the nature of reality that has ever actually contributed anything positive to humanity. See the difference? Do you have a counter-example?

Don’t use the term “Materialism” when you mean “Logic” – that is the source of confusion. Logic is the only mechanism that was ever successful in determining scientific Truth. Mysticism has never supplied any worthwhile answers.

Huxley's vision of Hell is not the result of any philosophical assumptions about reality, but rather the result of the absence of any philosophies about morality and ethics. Humanism is perfectly compatible with materialism.

That’s not True. Humanism posits that Humans have “free will”, Materialism posits that they do not.

Only if you claim the spiritual world has no effect of the physical world. If it does, then either science is broken, or the spiritual world is also physical.

The latter.

You seem to think that it is possible for science to provide an accurate description of a Physical World which is subject to supernatural influences. This is nonsensical.

Do you think it will sink in with him?

Mysticism claims to be able to extract reliable information about reality from methods that are known to be unreliable. Case closed.

You’d make a good Techno-Mage Stimpson.

Elephant:
BY contrast Materialism DOES claim that it can explain the entirety or the which exists

Stimp:
No, it claims to able to explain the entirety of what is knowable.

Is there a difference between what “Exist”, and what is “Knowable”? I mean … if something “exist”, but you can’t “know” about it, then how do you “know” it “exist”?

Elephant:
it [Materialism] does not seek balance - it seeks to maintain a monopoly on Truth to which it has no more right then the mystics and religions do.

Stimp:
What do rights have to do with it. A philosophical framework cannot claim to provide knowledge if it has no method for establishing whether what you know is true or not. Mysticism does not provide such a method.

I agree with you Stimpy.

Baloney. Materialism works. Science works. The other crap doesn't. That's all there is to it. You don't have to take my word for it. Just take a look at the World you live in. Being sober while doing so might help.

ouch!

Read what I just said again. Mysticism is incoherent. It doesn't make any difference science is valid or not. Mysticism cannot be true, because it is self-contradictory.

When you are right you are right.

Mysticism is not a model. It is nonsense.

What do the entrails say today … ?

No, science, and logic in general, consider mysticism to be nonsensical.

No behalf of “Logic” I concur.

Your belief is wrong. Scientists dismiss mysticism because it is meaningless nonsense. No mystic can even coherently explain what mysticism is, so how could any rational person give it serious consideration?

Based on their Faith in the Mystic?

Mysticism is a basis of Dogma, and you can’t have a “Religion” without Dogma.

But don’t kid yourself Stimpson, there is some Dogma (and ergo some Mysticism) implied in Materialism. Materialism demands that The “Matter” is real. But Logic (which is superior to Materialism) only demands that the Truth be True.

Elephant:
Both mysticism and materialism have their place. If you want to understand the Big Answers then you have to understand both systems, and how they relate to each other.

Stimpson:
But you have already established that it is not possible to understand mysticism.

Honestly, I never understood this approach (mysticism). If the current explanation doesn’t make any logical sense, then why posit another answer that makes even less sense (and deliberately makes less sense)? How is that a better answer? I was trying to pin the elephant down on this same point. I kept asking him – can you explain your beliefs logically – Yes or No?. I knew what his answer was the second he started hemming and hauling.

I don’t understand how a person can acknowledge that something doesn’t make sense in their own mind yet it is suppose to somehow make sense in your mind when they “non-explain” it to you???

Magical thinking.

Stimpson J. Cat

24th January 2003, 11:45 AM

Franko,

What matters, as far as science is concerned, is that the axioms of materialism remain intact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why I don’t consider you a real Scientist Necromancer.

To a Real Scientist the axioms of Materialism (or any other philosophy/religion) don’t mean squat! To a real scientist all that matters is the Truth.

Without axioms, there is no truth. The definition of the word "true" is that a proposition is true if it can be derived from the axioms of the framework in which it is formulated.

I can only assume that by "Truth" you are referring to the way reality is. That is ultimately what I am interested in, but I recognize that the only method I have for finding the "Truth" is science. That means that the only way I can ever know the "Truth" is if the axioms of science are "True".

You can add as much additional philosophical nonsense to that, like noumena and metaminds and ontological substances, as you want. Doing so serves no purpose, though. There will always be room for unfalsifiable hypotheses. But why bother?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So suddenly parsimony is a logical rule again?

I never claimed otherwise, I glad it appears we agree on this one again.

No, it is a principle. We have been over this before. The fact that one hypothesis is less parsimonious than another doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that unless the additional complexity is necessary to describe the phenomenon in question, there isn't any point in using the more complicated one.

What I said was that it is the only philosophical framework concerning the nature of reality that has ever actually contributed anything positive to humanity. See the difference? Do you have a counter-example?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t use the term “Materialism” when you mean “Logic” – that is the source of confusion. Logic is the only mechanism that was ever successful in determining scientific Truth. Mysticism has never supplied any worthwhile answers.

I said exactly what I meant. Logic is not a philosophical framework. And by itself, logic will not get you anywhere. You have to have axioms for you to apply the logic too, and those axioms are what make up a philosophical (or any other logical) framework.

Huxley's vision of Hell is not the result of any philosophical assumptions about reality, but rather the result of the absence of any philosophies about morality and ethics. Humanism is perfectly compatible with materialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s not True. Humanism posits that Humans have “free will”, Materialism posits that they do not.

Neither Humanism nor materialism say jack squat about free-will. That is, unless you are referring to the incoherent notion of libertarian free-will, which both must reject simply on the basis that it is incoherent.

Elephant:
BY contrast Materialism DOES claim that it can explain the entirety or the which exists

Stimp:
No, it claims to able to explain the entirety of what is knowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a difference between what “Exist”, and what is “Knowable”? I mean … if something “exist”, but you can’t “know” about it, then how do you “know” it “exist”?

It is entirely possible that there may be propositions about reality which are unknowable. I am not talking about objects whose existence or non-existence is unknowable. Under the materialistic definition of "exist" that is a contradiction. I am talking about questions about reality that cannot be answered. Materialism does not claim that such questions do, or do not, exist.

But don’t kid yourself Stimpson, there is some Dogma (and ergo some Mysticism) implied in Materialism. Materialism demands that The “Matter” is real. But Logic (which is superior to Materialism) only demands that the Truth be True.

Materialism simply defines the word 'matter" to mean "that which is real". It doesn't make any difference whether you call it energy, information, physical reality, "the Truth", or chicken soup. The logical framework is the same.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

24th January 2003, 12:25 PM

Stimpson,

Without axioms, there is no truth. The definition of the word "true" is that a proposition is true if it can be derived from the axioms of the framework in which it is formulated.

My problem is with your definition of the term “axioms”. I’d say that an axiom is:

Axiom = a self-consistent and parsimonious meme = a self evident idea or notion

The “axiom” that Matter is real may be self evident on the surface, but by the same token a Christian could claim God is real is also “axiomatic”.

2 = * *

… is axiomatic by my definition. It is self consistent (doesn’t contradict itself), and it is parsimonious (no unnecessary steps or superfluous information).

I can only assume that by "Truth" you are referring to the way reality is. That is ultimately what I am interested in, but I recognize that the only method I have for finding the "Truth" is science. That means that the only way I can ever know the "Truth" is if the axioms of science are "True".

I agree with you Stimpson, but once again I think we may have a subtle disagreement on precisely what the “axioms of science” actually are. I would say that the rules of Logic are the rules of science. Whereas, I think you would claim that the rules of Materialism are the rules of science.

Logic supercedes Materialism. It is possible that Materialism could be wrong, but I don’t think that a similar possible exists that Logic could be wrong.

No, it is a principle. We have been over this before. The fact that one hypothesis is less parsimonious than another doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that unless the additional complexity is necessary to describe the phenomenon in question, there isn't any point in using the more complicated one.

That’s Parsimony.

If you have two different theories, and both explain the observation equally well, but one theory is much, much more parsimonious (concise, simple) than the other, the more parsimonious theory is always the theory that is closer to the Truth.

2 + 2 = 4 is more parsimonious than 1 + 1 + -3 + 2 + 5 + -2 = 4.

I said exactly what I meant. Logic is not a philosophical framework. And by itself, logic will not get you anywhere. You have to have axioms for you to apply the logic too, and those axioms are what make up a philosophical (or any other logical) framework.

Your “framework” is the dogma. Why do you need a framework? You have Logic, and you have your observations (perceptions), and then from there you’re off – premise, premise; conclusion – premise, premise; conclusion – premise, premise; conclusion …

Neither Humanism nor materialism say jack squat about free-will. That is, unless you are referring to the incoherent notion of libertarian free-will, which both must reject simply on the basis that it is incoherent.

I’d disagree. I would say that Humanism definitely implies “free will”, just read what the Humanist have to say and see if you think it is NOT implied. As for Materialism it is just the opposite. If the Mater is real, and everything obeys The laws of physics, then even assuming the uncertainty principle as True there is no meaningful “free will” to be found anywhere in Materialism.

If you disagree, then please explain how “free will” could possibly exist under Materialism?

Franko:
Is there a difference between what “Exist”, and what is “Knowable”? I mean … if something “exist”, but you can’t “know” about it, then how do you “know” it “exist”?

Stimpy:
It is entirely possible that there may be propositions about reality which are unknowable. I am not talking about objects whose existence or non-existence is unknowable. Under the materialistic definition of "exist" that is a contradiction. I am talking about questions about reality that cannot be answered. Materialism does not claim that such questions do, or do not, exist.

You almost sound mystical there … ;)

But I think we are saying the same thing. Essentially if the person you are talking to can’t explain it – it might as well not exist, because from your POV incoherent is incoherent (supernatural).

Materialism simply defines the word 'matter" to mean "that which is real". It doesn't make any difference whether you call it energy, information, physical reality, "the Truth", or chicken soup. The logical framework is the same.

Materialism implies the primacy of matter over consciousness. That’s Dogma Stimpson. If the observation and the Logic say that this is not the case then you go with the Logic and the observation and you ditch the “framework”. The problem I see with Materialism (or any such “framework”) is that once you adopt the viewpoint, the viewpoint becomes more important than the Logic or the observation itself.

Stimpson J. Cat

24th January 2003, 01:13 PM

Franko,

Without axioms, there is no truth. The definition of the word "true" is that a proposition is true if it can be derived from the axioms of the framework in which it is formulated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My problem is with your definition of the term “axioms”. I’d say that an axiom is:

Axiom = a self-consistent and parsimonious meme = a self evident idea or notion

Well, you are certainly free to say that, but that is not what the term "axiom" means in formal logic. An axiom is an assumption that a logical framework is built upon.

Self-evidency is a common criteria used for selecting the axioms of a framework, but not a very reliable one. Classical Materialism, Dualism, Idealism, and many forms of Theism are all based on "self-evident" axioms that, upon closer investigation, aren't even logically coherent. Modern Scientific Materialism (or Physicalism, if you prefer) does not use self-evidency as a criteria for its axioms. Instead, it selects as its axioms the minimal set of assumptions necessary for us to logically derive facts about reality from our observations.

The “axiom” that Matter is real may be self evident on the surface, but by the same token a Christian could claim God is real is also “axiomatic”.

As I already pointed out, in Modern Materialism, "matter is real" is not an axiom. It is a definition of the word "matter".

2 = * *

… is axiomatic by my definition. It is self consistent (doesn’t contradict itself), and it is parsimonious (no unnecessary steps or superfluous information).

Actually, it is not. It is a definition. You have just define the symbol "2" to refer to two objects. You do understand the difference between a definition and an axiom, don't you? Logical frameworks are based on both, but they are very different things.

I can only assume that by "Truth" you are referring to the way reality is. That is ultimately what I am interested in, but I recognize that the only method I have for finding the "Truth" is science. That means that the only way I can ever know the "Truth" is if the axioms of science are "True".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you Stimpson, but once again I think we may have a subtle disagreement on precisely what the “axioms of science” actually are. I would say that the rules of Logic are the rules of science. Whereas, I think you would claim that the rules of Materialism are the rules of science.

The rules of science are certainly logical, but the rules of logic are not a logical framework. Science is more than just logic. It is a logical framework. It is the application of logic to a set of axiomatic assumptions.

No, it is a principle. We have been over this before. The fact that one hypothesis is less parsimonious than another doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that unless the additional complexity is necessary to describe the phenomenon in question, there isn't any point in using the more complicated one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s Parsimony.

If you have two different theories, and both explain the observation equally well, but one theory is much, much more parsimonious (concise, simple) than the other, the more parsimonious theory is always the theory that is closer to the Truth.

No, that is not parsimony. The more parsimonious theory is not necessarily closer to the truth. In fact, the less parsimonious theory could be much closer to the truth. But unless the two theories make different testable predictions, there is no way we could ever know it is.

2 + 2 = 4 is more parsimonious than 1 + 1 + -3 + 2 + 5 + -2 = 4.

The above statement is meaningless. The above equations are not theories. They are tautologies. Parsimony is not even an applicable concept to them.

I said exactly what I meant. Logic is not a philosophical framework. And by itself, logic will not get you anywhere. You have to have axioms for you to apply the logic too, and those axioms are what make up a philosophical (or any other logical) framework.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your “framework” is the dogma. Why do you need a framework? You have Logic, and you have your observations (perceptions), and then from there you’re off – premise, premise; conclusion – premise, premise; conclusion – premise, premise; conclusion …

Because without the framework, I cannot draw any logical conclusions from my observations. I must make a minimal set of assumptions about the nature of reality, and its relationship to my observations, before I can draw logical conclusions about reality from those observations.

Neither Humanism nor materialism say jack squat about free-will. That is, unless you are referring to the incoherent notion of libertarian free-will, which both must reject simply on the basis that it is incoherent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’d disagree. I would say that Humanism definitely implies “free will”, just read what the Humanist have to say and see if you think it is NOT implied.

I have read all about humanism. It doesn't say jack squat about free-will. if you think it does, please point out where it does so.

As for Materialism it is just the opposite. If the Mater is real, and everything obeys The laws of physics, then even assuming the uncertainty principle as True there is no meaningful “free will” to be found anywhere in Materialism.

Materialism doesn't mention the concept of free-will at all. If you define free-will in a way that is inconsistent with materialism, then of course that conception of free-will is ruled out by materialism. If your conception of free-will is not inconsistent with Materialism, then it may or may not be possible under Materialism.

If you disagree, then please explain how “free will” could possibly exist under Materialism?

Free-will as you define in cannot exist under materialism. Compatabilist free-will is completely consistent with Materialism. You may not think that the Compatibilist definition of free-will has any business calling itself free-will, but that is a semantic argument, and of absolutely no interest to me.

Materialism simply defines the word 'matter" to mean "that which is real". It doesn't make any difference whether you call it energy, information, physical reality, "the Truth", or chicken soup. The logical framework is the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Materialism implies the primacy of matter over consciousness.

No, Materialism defines the word matter to be that which is real. If consciousness is real, then consciousness is material. That is just the definition of the word "material". It carries no ontological overtones whatsoever. If it turns out that "mind makes matter", as you put it, then all that means is that matter and mind both mean the same thing.

You need to cast off this meaningless preconception that the word "matter" actually means anything more than what it is defined to mean. Under Modern Materialism, it is defined to mean "that which exists". Your above statement is logically equivalent to

"Materialism implies the primacy of that which exists over consciousness."

Now, if you agree that consciousness is something that exists, and do not assume that it is necessarily the only thing that exists, then the above is trivial.

That’s Dogma Stimpson. If the observation and the Logic say that this is not the case then you go with the Logic and the observation and you ditch the “framework”. The problem I see with Materialism (or any such “framework”) is that once you adopt the viewpoint, the viewpoint becomes more important than the Logic or the observation itself.

Like I said before, you have to have a logical framework before you can get anything done. There is simply no way around that.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

25th January 2003, 08:05 PM

Stimpson,

An axiom is an assumption that a logical framework is built upon.

You do realize that “an assumption” is the exact opposite of “an observation”?

Self-evidency is a common criteria used for selecting the axioms of a framework, but not a very reliable one.

If you do it wrong – Yes, but then again you can say that about anything.

Think about it Stimpson, what is the one thing that you are absolutely sure of? … Honestly?

Are you more sure that “matter” is real, or are you more certain that “You” are real?

Classical Materialism, Dualism, Idealism, and many forms of Theism are all based on "self-evident" axioms that, upon closer investigation, aren't even logically coherent.

Then I think we would both agree that ultimately those “axioms” were not self evident.

Modern Scientific Materialism (or Physicalism, if you prefer) does not use self-evidency as a criteria for its axioms. Instead, it selects as its axioms the minimal set of assumptions necessary for us to logically derive facts about reality from our observations.

A minimal amount of assumptions still puts some mysticism in the religion, and a tiny bit of inconsistency becomes a whole, whole lot of inconsistency over Time. You have one small random component to a system, and over time the whole system starts to look random.

When you are looking for the Truth, you can’t be afraid that the Truth may not be “useful”, or “beneficial”, yet that is exactly what you are doing Stimpson. You want to pretend that the “matter” is real because you can’t bear the thought of Solipsism being True. Start there, and you don’t need to make any assumptions, and perhaps even you may come to an altogether different conclusion in the end.

As I already pointed out, in Modern Materialism, "matter is real" is not an axiom. It is a definition of the word "matter".

What’s the difference between a “definition”, and an “axiom” Stimp? … hold that thought …

2 = * *

Actually, it is not. It is a definition. You have just define the symbol "2" to refer to two objects. You do understand the difference between a definition and an axiom, don't you? Logical frameworks are based on both, but they are very different things.

… and that difference is???

The rules of science are certainly logical, but the rules of logic are not a logical framework. Science is more than just logic. It is a logical framework. It is the application of logic to a set of axiomatic assumptions.

That’s where you are wrong. Science is the application of Logic to a sequence of observations. If you are just making up assumptions and then applying logic to them that is mysticism.

No, that is not parsimony. The more parsimonious theory is not necessarily closer to the truth. In fact, the less parsimonious theory could be much closer to the truth. But unless the two theories make different testable predictions, there is no way we could ever know it is.

If you have 2 theories that explain the data equally well and one is more parsimonious than the other explain how the less parsimonious one could actually be more True? That doesn’t make any sense.

That like saying I have two computer programs, and both produce identical outputs based on given inputs, but one program is only half the lines of code and runs twice as fast. You sound like you are claiming its possible for the less efficient program to be more efficient?

Because without the framework, I cannot draw any logical conclusions from my observations. I must make a minimal set of assumptions about the nature of reality, and its relationship to my observations, before I can draw logical conclusions about reality from those observations.

No, you build yourself a vocabulary out of your previous conclusions based solely on logic and observation. You can’t start off by pretending that something is true, and then, using observations, try and confirm that your wishful thinking is actually True. Once you have a faulty premise every subsequent conclusion based on that premise will be flawed in some way.

You are assuming the primacy of matter as your initial premise. If that premise is flawed … you have an awful lot riding on it Necromancer … I think a lot more than you realize.

I have read all about humanism. It doesn't say jack squat about free-will. if you think it does, please point out where it does so.

Determinism … are we on the same sheet of music on that score? You don’t believe in “free will” – do you Stimpson? I am fairly certain you have said this in the past, but I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

No, Materialism defines the word matter to be that which is real. If consciousness is real, then consciousness is material. That is just the definition of the word "material". It carries no ontological overtones whatsoever. If it turns out that "mind makes matter", as you put it, then all that means is that matter and mind both mean the same thing.

That is very perceptive of your Stimpson.

So would you agree with me, that under those circumstances you’d just have Consciousness, and the stuff most people consider “matter” would just be a “byproduct” or manifestation of the (a) consciousness?

You need to cast off this meaningless preconception that the word "matter" actually means anything more than what it is defined to mean. Under Modern Materialism, it is defined to mean "that which exists". Your above statement is logically equivalent to

"Materialism implies the primacy of that which exists over consciousness."

Now, if you agree that consciousness is something that exists, and do not assume that it is necessarily the only thing that exists, then the above is trivial.

What is consciousness is the only thing that exist? In a semantic sense Consciousness would be the “matter” (weird way of thinking of it), so in a way, a version of “Materialism” could still be True? Each consciousness would be a single particle, and those particles would be the only thing that actually existed in reality.

Like I said before, you have to have a logical framework before you can get anything done. There is simply no way around that.

You start by assuming nothing. You’d have logic, and you’d have the initial state … and the initial state – is YOU.

Stimpson J. Cat

26th January 2003, 02:13 AM

Franko,

An axiom is an assumption that a logical framework is built upon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do realize that “an assumption” is the exact opposite of “an observation”?

Opposite? That doesn't even sound meaningful to me. But wat's your point? Observations don't tell you anything unless you interpret them within a logical framework. And that logical framework must be based on axioms. This is basic logic Franko.

Self-evidency is a common criteria used for selecting the axioms of a framework, but not a very reliable one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you do it wrong – Yes, but then again you can say that about anything.

Do it wrong? What's the right way to do it? Don't you realize that what seems self-evident to us is a result of our intuition, which is demonstrably unreliable?

Think about it Stimpson, what is the one thing that you are absolutely sure of? … Honestly?

Are you more sure that “matter” is real, or are you more certain that “You” are real?

Since I define the word "matter"to be "that which is real", the claim that matter is real is a tautology. Likewise, because I define the word "real" to be "that which has an effect on me", the statement that I am "real" is also a tautology. Your question is nonsensical under any framework that doesn't make the mistake of trying to assume that these things exist, without first providing a coherent definition for what "existence" means.

Classical Materialism, Dualism, Idealism, and many forms of Theism are all based on "self-evident" axioms that, upon closer investigation, aren't even logically coherent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I think we would both agree that ultimately those “axioms” were not self evident.

Only if you mean something very different by "self-evident" than I do. Perhaps you should explain exactly what that term means to you.

Modern Scientific Materialism (or Physicalism, if you prefer) does not use self-evidency as a criteria for its axioms. Instead, it selects as its axioms the minimal set of assumptions necessary for us to logically derive facts about reality from our observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A minimal amount of assumptions still puts some mysticism in the religion, and a tiny bit of inconsistency becomes a whole, whole lot of inconsistency over Time. You have one small random component to a system, and over time the whole system starts to look random.

Randomness is not an axiom of materialism, nor is randomness, in any reasonable sense of the term, anything like mysticism or inconsistency.

When you are looking for the Truth, you can’t be afraid that the Truth may not be “useful”, or “beneficial”, yet that is exactly what you are doing Stimpson.

No, I am assuming that it is knowable. That is[/b a necessary assumption, if I want to actually attempt to know it.

You want to pretend that the “matter” is real because you can’t bear the thought of Solipsism being True.

My definition of "matter" has nothing to do with my rejection of Solipsism. The rejection of Solipsism is a result of the axiom of objectivity. I reject Solipsism because, as I said above, if I want to know the truth then I have to assume that it is knowable. Under Solipsism the truth is [b]not knowable.

Start there, and you don’t need to make any assumptions, and perhaps even you may come to an altogether different conclusion in the end.

If you honestly believe that any logical framework can be formulated without making assumptions, or that it is possible to draw conclusions from your observations without making any assumptions, then you clearly don't have the slightest idea of how logic actually works.

As I already pointed out, in Modern Materialism, "matter is real" is not an axiom. It is a definition of the word "matter".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What’s the difference between a “definition”, and an “axiom” Stimp? … hold that thought …

Didn't I already explain that? And shouldn't you already know this? This is basic logic.

And axiom is an assumption upon which a logical framework is based. A definition is a declaration of what the meaning of a word is, in terms of other already defined things.

The word "matter" does not mean anything until a definition is provided for it. Once a definition is provided for it, it means exactly what that definition means. Nothing more, and nothing less. The same goes for "real". It means what it is defined to mean. If you don't provide a definition at all, then the word means nothing.

Good grief, man. Go read some basic logic before you go around making a fool of yourself in public like this. :rolleyes:

[quote]No, that is not parsimony. The more parsimonious theory is not necessarily closer to the truth. In fact, the less parsimonious theory could be much closer to the truth. But unless the two theories make different testable predictions, there is no way we could ever know it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have 2 theories that explain the data equally well and one is more parsimonious than the other explain how the less parsimonious one could actually be more True? That doesn’t make any sense.

OK. You go into a room, and see a table with five coins on it. All are heads-side up. Certainly the most parsimonious explanation is that somebody deliberately put them heads-side up. Are you going to argue that it is not possible that somebody just put them there randomly, and they ended up that way by chance?

The most parsimonious explanation doesn't have to be the truth. That is not why the principle is used in science. It is used because the added complexity of the less parsimonious explanations serves no useful purpose.

That like saying I have two computer programs, and both produce identical outputs based on given inputs, but one program is only half the lines of code and runs twice as fast. You sound like you are claiming its possible for the less efficient program to be more efficient?

No, just that it is possible for the less efficient program to exist. Think about it. If you see the output from a program, can you really be certain that the program isn't doing a bunch of other crap to? Parsimony says that you shouldn't assume it is doing a bunch of other crap. It does not say that it is impossible that the program is doing a bunch of other crap.

Because without the framework, I cannot draw any logical conclusions from my observations. I must make a minimal set of assumptions about the nature of reality, and its relationship to my observations, before I can draw logical conclusions about reality from those observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you build yourself a vocabulary out of your previous conclusions based solely on logic and observation. You can’t start off by pretending that something is true, and then, using observations, try and confirm that your wishful thinking is actually True. Once you have a faulty premise every subsequent conclusion based on that premise will be flawed in some way.

For Ed's sake, Franko, learn something about basic logic and epistemology before you say crap like that.

You are assuming the primacy of matter as your initial premise. If that premise is flawed … you have an awful lot riding on it Necromancer … I think a lot more than you realize.

So I guess we are back to where you repeat the same strawman arguments over and over again, and simply ignore where I explain to you that the position you are attacking isn't my position? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. :rolleyes:

I have read all about humanism. It doesn't say jack squat about free-will. if you think it does, please point out where it does so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determinism … are we on the same sheet of music on that score? You don’t believe in “free will” – do you Stimpson? I am fairly certain you have said this in the past, but I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

No, I don't believe in free-will as you define it.

No, Materialism defines the word matter to be that which is real. If consciousness is real, then consciousness is material. That is just the definition of the word "material". It carries no ontological overtones whatsoever. If it turns out that "mind makes matter", as you put it, then all that means is that matter and mind both mean the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is very perceptive of your Stimpson.

So would you agree with me, that under those circumstances you’d just have Consciousness, and the stuff most people consider “matter” would just be a “byproduct” or manifestation of the (a) consciousness?

Yes, under those circumstances. What "most people consider matter" is of no relevance to materialism or science.

You need to cast off this meaningless preconception that the word "matter" actually means anything more than what it is defined to mean. Under Modern Materialism, it is defined to mean "that which exists". Your above statement is logically equivalent to

"Materialism implies the primacy of that which exists over consciousness."

Now, if you agree that consciousness is something that exists, and do not assume that it is necessarily the only thing that exists, then the above is trivial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is consciousness is the only thing that exist?

What if Grandma had wheels? I guess then she'd be able to go to the mall whenever she wanted.

I am not interested in what-ifs. I am interested in what can be demonstrated to be true through observation. If and when reliable evidence is presented that consciousness is the only thing that exists, I will worry about it.

In a semantic sense Consciousness would be the “matter” (weird way of thinking of it), so in a way, a version of “Materialism” could still be True? Each consciousness would be a single particle, and those particles would be the only thing that actually existed in reality.

In principle. But since there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, who cares?

Like I said before, you have to have a logical framework before you can get anything done. There is simply no way around that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You start by assuming nothing. You’d have logic, and you’d have the initial state … and the initial state – is YOU.

You start by assuming nothing. You'd have Solipsism. You are done.

Bottom line, Franko. If you are not a Solipsist, then you have made some assumptions. You may not realize they are assumptions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

26th January 2003, 10:29 AM

Stimpson,

Opposite? That doesn't even sound meaningful to me. But wat's your point? Observations don't tell you anything unless you interpret them within a logical framework. And that logical framework must be based on axioms. This is basic logic Franko.

Okay … so you observe that:

* * = 2

and then using nothing but logic you can conclude that:

* * (2) + * * (2) = * * * * (?)

So other than Logic and Observation where is this “framework”. When you say “framework” that is where I am hearing “mysticism”, or to put that another way, unnecessary (imagined) Observations, or steps in the process beyond those required by Logic alone.

And for logic, I’m content to use a very basic definition along the lines same in your head as in mine. (which would still be valid even if Solipsism were True – wouldn’t it?)

Do it wrong? What's the right way to do it? Don't you realize that what seems self-evident to us is a result of our intuition, which is demonstrably unreliable?

Right, and when you demonstrate that a particular “intuition” is unreliable then you have demonstrated that the particular intuition was illogical (not logical, not True). But obviously some intuitions turn out to be highly reliable – just ask Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein.

Since I define the word "matter"to be "that which is real", the claim that matter is real is a tautology. Likewise, because I define the word "real" to be "that which has an effect on me", the statement that I am "real" is also a tautology. Your question is nonsensical under any framework that doesn't make the mistake of trying to assume that these things exist, without first providing a coherent definition for what "existence" means

You are making my point about the thin line between “definitions” and “axioms”. In my mind they are the same thing, but I realize that a lot of other people don’t see them that way. The reason is because definitions can be recursive. 1 + 1 = 2, so you conclude that 2 + 2 = 4, which leads to 4 + 4 = 8, and so on. You can so the same kind of mathematical operations with words, but you have to precisely and consistently define them (like numbers) at the start. This is the basis for all computer languages.

Only if you mean something very different by "self-evident" than I do. Perhaps you should explain exactly what that term means to you.

Self-evident, I’d say that means, If I know that the Truth is more important to you then any other thing in reality/existence … if we both agree on something, that “thing” is “self evident”.

Randomness is not an axiom of materialism, nor is randomness, in any reasonable sense of the term, anything like mysticism or inconsistency.

I disagree. Random is the exact opposite of Logical. In Logic, a thing is either True or False, but it cannot be Both at the same Time, nor can it be Neither at the same Time. It can be only One or the other.

But in Randomness, a thing is neither True or False, or both True and False at the same Time. The moment it becomes one or the other it becomes Objective (observable) and ceases to be random.

Franko:
When you are looking for the Truth, you can’t be afraid that the Truth may not be “useful”, or “beneficial”, yet that is exactly what you are doing Stimpson.

Stimpson:
No, I am assuming that it is knowable. That is a necessary assumption, if I want to actually attempt to know it.

Well we BOTH agree that the Truth must ultimately be comprehensible to us (which in and of itself should tell you something), but that is not the same point I am raising here. What I am saying is that if you believe it is possible for the Truth to be harmful to you (a Truth, any Truth), then you are not really looking for the Truth. You are looking for something else, you are looking for “Useful Truth”.

You can’t just assume that Solipsism is False because you don’t like the idea that it might be True. You can’t simply dismiss the idea that there is no “free will” because you don’t find “useful” if all your actions are preordained. Personally I don’t see any difference in that, then a person who simply assumes “afterlife” is True, because he doesn’t like the idea that the opposite is.

You abandon your search for the Truth, even for a moment, and mark my words, the day will come when She’ll abandon you.

My definition of "matter" has nothing to do with my rejection of Solipsism. The rejection of Solipsism is a result of the axiom of objectivity. I reject Solipsism because, as I said above, if I want to know the truth then I have to assume that it is knowable. Under Solipsism the truth is not knowable.

How do you come to that conclusion? If Solipsism were True, then knowing yourself (self-awareness) would become your primary concern. You could still Know the Truth the Truth would just be much smaller than the Universe you originally imagined. But then again, perhaps it wouldn’t really be any smaller at all. No smaller than it ever was. Maybe you are trying to determine how to escape Solipsism? Perhaps this is simply an experiment you have devised? I don’t see how your reality would be any less real (any less “knowable”) if it were the case?

If you honestly believe that any logical framework can be formulated without making assumptions, or that it is possible to draw conclusions from your observations without making any assumptions, then you clearly don't have the slightest idea of how logic actually works.

Stimpy, in what way would you exist if you didn’t perceive Time? Would you exist in any meaningful way? Is it possible for you to exist without the presence of Time?

How about Time itself? Can Time exist without You? If You aren’t around to experience Time, how do you know that Time still exists? If you want to claim you understand Logic better then me, explain that …

[Axioms and Definitions …] An axiom is an assumption upon which a logical framework is based. A definition is a declaration of what the meaning of a word is, in terms of other already defined things.

“other, already defined” things … so run the clock back as far as you can go … and what are the First terms definitions based on? At that point there are no “other already defined things”???

The word "matter" does not mean anything until a definition is provided for it.

So you make “matter” axiomatic by definition. But that has been my point to you all along. You don’t know that “matter” is axiomatic, it certainly isn’t self evident. What self-evident – makes axiomatic – is the You exist. That should have been your starting point, instead you have made a logical error and assumed primacy of “matter”.

For all you know “matter” is simply a figment of Your imagination. If you assume that “matter” is more real than YOU, you have skirted logic, and ignored your observation – in favor of an assumption (framework).

Once a definition is provided for it, it means exactly what that definition means. Nothing more, and nothing less. The same goes for "real". It means what it is defined to mean. If you don't provide a definition at all, then the word means nothing.

I agree with you completely on this point Stimpson. Keep in mind my problem with your worldview is your initial starting axiom (premise). If that premise is flawed, then all subsequent conclusions (which become premises) will be similar flawed (in some way). I think we see eye to eye on the fundamentals of Logic, and what Science is, and what it is not. But we disagree on the starting point. The origin. The Initial state.

I’m out of Time …

Stimpson J. Cat

26th January 2003, 02:26 PM

Franko,

Opposite? That doesn't even sound meaningful to me. But wat's your point? Observations don't tell you anything unless you interpret them within a logical framework. And that logical framework must be based on axioms. This is basic logic Franko.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay … so you observe that:

* * = 2

and then using nothing but logic you can conclude that:

* * (2) + * * (2) = * * * * (?)

So other than Logic and Observation where is this “framework”. When you say “framework” that is where I am hearing “mysticism”, or to put that another way, unnecessary (imagined) Observations, or steps in the process beyond those required by Logic alone.

Your ignorance is showing again, Franko. Arithmetic is a logical framework, and like any logical framework, it is based on axioms.

And for logic, I’m content to use a very basic definition along the lines same in your head as in mine.

What do you mean? Are you saying that is your definition of "logic"? If so, then no wonder nobody understands anything you say. You are using the word "logic" in a completely different way than the rest of us.

(which would still be valid even if Solipsism were True – wouldn’t it?)

Obviously not, since the usage of the terms "your head" and "mine" imply that you have rejected Solipsism.

Do it wrong? What's the right way to do it? Don't you realize that what seems self-evident to us is a result of our intuition, which is demonstrably unreliable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, and when you demonstrate that a particular “intuition” is unreliable then you have demonstrated that the particular intuition was illogical (not logical, not True). But obviously some intuitions turn out to be highly reliable – just ask Galileo, or Newton, or Einstein.

I can't. They're dead. But that doesn't matter. Intuition is unreliable. That doesn't mean that it is never right. It just means that you cannot rely on it being right.

By the way, your equivocation between logical and true is nonsensical. True and false are only meaningful within a logical framework. If something is not logical, it is neither true nor false. It is just meaningless.

Since I define the word "matter"to be "that which is real", the claim that matter is real is a tautology. Likewise, because I define the word "real" to be "that which has an effect on me", the statement that I am "real" is also a tautology. Your question is nonsensical under any framework that doesn't make the mistake of trying to assume that these things exist, without first providing a coherent definition for what "existence" means
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are making my point about the thin line between “definitions” and “axioms”. In my mind they are the same thing, but I realize that a lot of other people don’t see them that way. The reason is because definitions can be recursive. 1 + 1 = 2, so you conclude that 2 + 2 = 4, which leads to 4 + 4 = 8, and so on. You can so the same kind of mathematical operations with words, but you have to precisely and consistently define them (like numbers) at the start. This is the basis for all computer languages.

Once again, your ignorance of basic logic is obvious. Arithmetic is based on axioms too, not just definitions.

Only if you mean something very different by "self-evident" than I do. Perhaps you should explain exactly what that term means to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-evident, I’d say that means, If I know that the Truth is more important to you then any other thing in reality/existence … if we both agree on something, that “thing” is “self evident”.

OK. Then I would say that self-evidency is clearly not a reliable criteria for making axioms. Self-evidency is not in any way an indication that something is true.

Randomness is not an axiom of materialism, nor is randomness, in any reasonable sense of the term, anything like mysticism or inconsistency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. Random is the exact opposite of Logical. In Logic, a thing is either True or False, but it cannot be Both at the same Time, nor can it be Neither at the same Time. It can be only One or the other.

That's called boolean logic, Franko. Logic doesn't have to be that simple. Besides, randomness does not have anything to do with stuff being both true and false at the same time.

But my point still stands. Randomness is not an axiom of materialism.

But in Randomness, a thing is neither True or False, or both True and False at the same Time. The moment it becomes one or the other it becomes Objective (observable) and ceases to be random.

What are you talking about? Before the event happens, it doesn't make any sense to say that it is true or false. After it has happened, then it is either true or false, just like a nonrandom event. The only difference between a random event and a nonrandom event, is that the outcome of the nonrandom event can be determined from other facts, and the outcome of the random event cannot.

Franko:
When you are looking for the Truth, you can’t be afraid that the Truth may not be “useful”, or “beneficial”, yet that is exactly what you are doing Stimpson.

Stimpson:
No, I am assuming that it is knowable. That is a necessary assumption, if I want to actually attempt to know it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we BOTH agree that the Truth must ultimately be comprehensible to us (which in and of itself should tell you something), but that is not the same point I am raising here. What I am saying is that if you believe it is possible for the Truth to be harmful to you (a Truth, any Truth), then you are not really looking for the Truth. You are looking for something else, you are looking for “Useful Truth”.

Huh? That didn't make any sense. Did you mean to say "...if you believe it is not possible for the truth to be harmful..."? I don't follow you at all.

I do not make any assumptions about whether the truth is beneficial or harmful. The truth is what it is.

You can’t just assume that Solipsism is False because you don’t like the idea that it might be True.

Liking or disliking the idea is not the issue. The fact that I must assume solipsism is false in order to construct any meaningful framework for drawing conclusions from my observations, is the issue.

You can’t simply dismiss the idea that there is no “free will” because you don’t find “useful” if all your actions are preordained.

My conception of free-will is consistent with possibility that my actions are preordained, so your point is moot.

Personally I don’t see any difference in that, then a person who simply assumes “afterlife” is True, because he doesn’t like the idea that the opposite is.

Good thing I don't do either of those things then, isn't it?

My definition of "matter" has nothing to do with my rejection of Solipsism. The rejection of Solipsism is a result of the axiom of objectivity. I reject Solipsism because, as I said above, if I want to know the truth then I have to assume that it is knowable. Under Solipsism the truth is not knowable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you come to that conclusion? If Solipsism were True, then knowing yourself (self-awareness) would become your primary concern. You could still Know the Truth the Truth would just be much smaller than the Universe you originally imagined. But then again, perhaps it wouldn’t really be any smaller at all. No smaller than it ever was.

Solipsism rejects the very concept of knowledge.

Maybe you are trying to determine how to escape Solipsism? Perhaps this is simply an experiment you have devised? I don’t see how your reality would be any less real (any less “knowable”) if it were the case?

You seem to have a very different idea of what solipsism is than everybody else on the planet. This seems to be a trend for you. Did it ever occur to you to learn something about these various ideas, or do you just latch onto words you hear used, and assign whatever meaning to them that strikes your fancy?

If you honestly believe that any logical framework can be formulated without making assumptions, or that it is possible to draw conclusions from your observations without making any assumptions, then you clearly don't have the slightest idea of how logic actually works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpy, in what way would you exist if you didn’t perceive Time? Would you exist in any meaningful way? Is it possible for you to exist without the presence of Time?

Impossible to answer. I cannot conceive of not being able to perceive time. What does this have to do with my statement about the necessity of assumptions?

How about Time itself? Can Time exist without You? If You aren’t around to experience Time, how do you know that Time still exists? If you want to claim you understand Logic better then me, explain that …

The same way that I know that my car exists even though I am not looking at it right now. :rolleyes:

[Axioms and Definitions …] An axiom is an assumption upon which a logical framework is based. A definition is a declaration of what the meaning of a word is, in terms of other already defined things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“other, already defined” things … so run the clock back as far as you can go … and what are the First terms definitions based on? At that point there are no “other already defined things”???

The basis of all the definitions is the one thing that I can be certain of, my own existence. Everything else is ultimately defined in terms of that.

The word "matter" does not mean anything until a definition is provided for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you make “matter” axiomatic by definition. But that has been my point to you all along. You don’t know that “matter” is axiomatic, it certainly isn’t self evident. What self-evident – makes axiomatic – is the You exist. That should have been your starting point, instead you have made a logical error and assumed primacy of “matter”.

I make matter axiomatic by definition?!?! What the Hell is that supposed to mean? Do you have any idea what you are saying? Are you just typing words at random?

For all you know “matter” is simply a figment of Your imagination.

That which is real could be a figment of my imagination, but I must assume that it is not if I want to get anywhere beyond solipsism.

If you assume that “matter” is more real than YOU, you have skirted logic, and ignored your observation – in favor of an assumption (framework).

I do not assume that it is more real than me. Not only is the phrase "more real" nonsensical, but I am matter.

Once a definition is provided for it, it means exactly what that definition means. Nothing more, and nothing less. The same goes for "real". It means what it is defined to mean. If you don't provide a definition at all, then the word means nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you completely on this point Stimpson. Keep in mind my problem with your worldview is your initial starting axiom (premise). If that premise is flawed, then all subsequent conclusions (which become premises) will be similar flawed (in some way). I think we see eye to eye on the fundamentals of Logic, and what Science is, and what it is not. But we disagree on the starting point. The origin. The Initial state.

I think it is quite clear that we do not see eye to eye on the fundamentals of logic, or science. On the contrary, it is painfully obvious that you have no understanding of either.

I'm done with this conversation. I have to congratulate you for not regressing into insults and mindless repetition, but there is really no point in my trying to have a logical discussion with you, if you don't even know what logic is.

Dr. Stupid

Win

26th January 2003, 02:40 PM

Frank sez:

But in Randomness, a thing is neither True or False, or both True and False at the same Time. The moment it becomes one or the other it becomes Objective (observable) and ceases to be random.

Stimp replies:

What are you talking about? Before the event happens, it doesn't make any sense to say that it is true or false. After it has happened, then it is either true or false, just like a nonrandom event. The only difference between a random event and a nonrandom event, is that the outcome of the nonrandom event can be determined from other facts, and the outcome of the random event cannot.

Just a clarification, guys. "Events" don't have truth values. "Things" don't have truth values. Statements have truth values.

Back to you.

Stimpson J. Cat

27th January 2003, 05:19 AM

Win,

Just a clarification, guys. "Events" don't have truth values. "Things" don't have truth values. Statements have truth values.

Yes, we know. I would have thought it was clear from the context that we were referring to statements about the events in question being either true or false.

But thanks for sharing.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

27th January 2003, 08:25 AM

Win:
Just a clarification, guys. "Events" don't have truth values. "Things" don't have truth values. Statements have truth values.

You are leaving Time out of the equation.

In LD there are events, and situations. An event is a specific situation in time.

A situation is a pattern of events, outside the context of Time.

Approaching a “red” traffic light is a situation.

Approaching the “red” traffic light on the corner of 4th and Main St. at 8:47 am on your way to work this morning is an event.

For a situation it is very difficult to determine “metatruth”, generally you can only say what is True or False, but for an event, there is always a “metatruth”.

For example, You should you stop at all “red” lights. Applies to a general situation (“red” traffic lights), and the answer would be TRUE, meaning in general you should stop, but you cannot say with certainty – METATRUE – meaning that YES, you should ALWAYS stop at “red” lights regardless of any other circumstances. Sometimes it’s actually in your best interest to run the “red” light (not stop). For those events, the MetaTruth is that you should Not Stop.

Franko

27th January 2003, 08:51 AM

Stimpson:

Your ignorance is showing again, Franko. Arithmetic is a logical framework, and like any logical framework, it is based on axioms.

I’m content to let the reader decide for themselves which of us is showing our “ignorance”, but as to your point on Arithmetic, you are wrong. Mathematics only requires observation and logic, no additional “framework” (dogma, assumptions) are required.

What do you mean? Are you saying that is your definition of "logic"? If so, then no wonder nobody understands anything you say. You are using the word "logic" in a completely different way than the rest of us.

No, I’m using Logic, I’m not quite sure what you and the A-Theists are using however.

For some reason A-Theist believe that their logical fallacies and absurd double standards are still logical.

Kind of like when an A-Theist claims that No evidence for “god” means no “god”. That is kind of like claiming that No evidence means FALSE. As in there is no evidence that “HEADS” will come up when you flip a coin, so obviously “HEADS” coming up is FALSE, and it is only reasonable to believe that “TAILS” will come up.

Unless you have some evidence for “non-god” Stimpy, that is the sum of your Logic.

Obviously not, since the usage of the terms "your head" and "mine" imply that you have rejected Solipsism.

Yeah, but I’m just a figment of your imagination. What would you expect me to say … ?

I can't. They're dead. But that doesn't matter. Intuition is unreliable. That doesn't mean that it is never right. It just means that you cannot rely on it being right.

If intuition is correct sometimes, then it is False and misleading to claim that Intuition (always) unreliable. The fact is Intuition is reliable far more than you imagine. You just don’t know how to use it.

By the way, your equivocation between logical and true is nonsensical. True and false are only meaningful within a logical framework. If something is not logical, it is neither true nor false. It is just meaningless.

Right, but what do you call someone who uses logic, but only to find out things that he isn’t afraid of finding out? If you are using logic selectively then you aren’t being Logical. Logic wants to follow it’s own path, and you have to follow along. You can’t try and direct it, and make it go where you want it to. Not unless you believe that Solipsism is True?

Once again, your ignorance of basic logic is obvious. Arithmetic is based on axioms too, not just definitions.

Stimpson … Mathematics doesn’t just make stuff up! In math every complex function is based on simple functions. Math is a progression. Things start off simple (1 + 1 = 2), and then go on to become “complex” (A x B) + (N x L) = 89.25, but the complex things are based on the simple things that came before. Just like in Science.

OK. Then I would say that self-evidency is clearly not a reliable criteria for making axioms. Self-evidency is not in any way an indication that something is true.

Depends on how sane you are.

That's called boolean logic, Franko. Logic doesn't have to be that simple. Besides, randomness does not have anything to do with stuff being both true and false at the same time.

But my point still stands. Randomness is not an axiom of materialism.

I’d agree. I’d say that Determinism is implicitly implied by Materialism – would you agree?

What are you talking about? Before the event happens, it doesn't make any sense to say that it is true or false.

2 + 2 = ?

You can’t anticipate how this event is going to end? Before the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl yesterday you are saying it didn’t make any sense to say who would win?

After it has happened, then it is either true or false, just like a nonrandom event. The only difference between a random event and a nonrandom event, is that the outcome of the nonrandom event can be determined from other facts, and the outcome of the random event cannot.

If you can’t determine the outcome of a “random” event form any facts, then how is that any different from MAGIC?

Wouldn’t the same statement be true for a Magic event? You wouldn’t be able to determine the outcome from other facts – correct? So when you say “random” Stimp, what is the difference between that, and claiming it’s magic? I don’t see ANY difference.

Huh? That didn't make any sense. Did you mean to say "...if you believe it is not possible for the truth to be harmful..."? I don't follow you at all.

I do not make any assumptions about whether the truth is beneficial or harmful. The truth is what it is.

You are clearly contradicting yourself. You have told me on MANY occasions that you have never seriously considered Solipsism, because even if it were TRUE you would find that Truth non-useful, non-beneficial.

You see unlike a real scientist who is looking for the Truth regardless of where it leads him, you are only looking for the Truth if it takes you where you want to go. If you anticipate that a certain truth might take you somewhere you don’t want to go … you don’t explore that potential “Truth”.

Like with Solipsism, or “free will”, or Fate, or “god” …

27th January 2003, 08:59 AM

I do not make any assumptions about whether the truth is beneficial or harmful. The truth is what it is.

Is this the same person who said that if materialism was false then we are lost?

Doesn't sound much like being able to accept the truth for what it is. Sounds like someone who'd really like materialism to be true, but will stick with it anyway even if it isn't because he believes that science will come to an end if materialism is false. You even admitted as much. That isn't fearless pursuit of the truth - it is dogmatic defence of scientific materialism (aka. scientism).

Stimpson J. Cat

27th January 2003, 10:35 AM

Franko,

Your ignorance is showing again, Franko. Arithmetic is a logical framework, and like any logical framework, it is based on axioms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m content to let the reader decide for themselves which of us is showing our “ignorance”, but as to your point on Arithmetic, you are wrong. Mathematics only requires observation and logic, no additional “framework” (dogma, assumptions) are required.

Don't worry, Franko. I am quite sure they have.

What do you mean? Are you saying that is your definition of "logic"? If so, then no wonder nobody understands anything you say. You are using the word "logic" in a completely different way than the rest of us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I’m using Logic, I’m not quite sure what you and the A-Theists are using however.

For some reason A-Theist believe that their logical fallacies and absurd double standards are still logical.

Kind of like when an A-Theist claims that No evidence for “god” means no “god”. That is kind of like claiming that No evidence means FALSE. As in there is no evidence that “HEADS” will come up when you flip a coin, so obviously “HEADS” coming up is FALSE, and it is only reasonable to believe that “TAILS” will come up.

I knew it wouldn't last. :( So it's back to your non-sensical strawman attacks against atheism, is it? That would be my cue to stop trying to reason with you.

But my point still stands. Randomness is not an axiom of materialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’d agree. I’d say that Determinism is implicitly implied by Materialism – would you agree?

Of course not.

UCE,

I do not make any assumptions about whether the truth is beneficial or harmful. The truth is what it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this the same person who said that if materialism was false then we are lost?

That is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it. What I said was that if the axioms of materialism aren't valid, then it is not possible for us to reliably draw any conclusions from our observations. Any hope for understanding the World is lost.

I never said that the reason I believe materialism is true is because I want it to be true. I believe it is true because those axioms, when put together, form a falsifiable hypothesis. That hypothesis has been extensively tested, and has never failed. Put simply, I believe in the axioms of materialism because science is based on those axioms, and science works.

Doesn't sound much like being able to accept the truth for what it is. Sounds like someone who'd really like materialism to be true, but will stick with it anyway even if it isn't because he believes that science will come to an end if materialism is false. You even admitted as much. That isn't fearless pursuit of the truth - it is dogmatic defence of scientific materialism (aka. scientism).

When did I ever say that I wouldn't reject materialism if it was falsified? When did I ever indicate that I would reject the truth for a lie, just because I would prefer the lie to be the truth? There are all sorts of things that I would like to be true that aren't. I am not into self-delusion.

But the fact is that scientific materialism has not been falsified, and more evidence supporting it accumulates every day. It is the superstitious and the mystics of the World who are deluding themselves, by continuing to believe that the principles of science are, in fact, false, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Dr. Stupid

27th January 2003, 12:03 PM

Stimpson

That is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it. What I said was that if the axioms of materialism aren't valid, then it is not possible for us to reliably draw any conclusions from our observations. Any hope for understanding the World is lost.

Well I disagree that this is true - I think science would have its wings clipped - you think science would keel over and die.

So I'm going to ask you a what-if....

What if it did mean the end of science, but materialism was nevertheless proven false?

Would there be any case for resisting the proof simply on the grounds that science was too valuable to lose?

Stimpson J. Cat

27th January 2003, 12:16 PM

UCE,

So I'm going to ask you a what-if....

What if it did mean the end of science, but materialism was nevertheless proven false?

Would there be any case for resisting the proof simply on the grounds that science was too valuable to lose?

Of course not. If the truth is that the axioms of science are wrong, then that's just the way it is. Too bad, so sad.

We will have lost science. Not wanting to lose it isn't going to change that fact.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

27th January 2003, 12:21 PM

Stimpson:

Of course not. If the truth is that the axioms of science are wrong, then that's just the way it is. Too bad, so sad.

There are no “axioms of science”. Science consists of nothing more than Logic and Observation. When you say “axiom” what you really mean is “religious dogma of A-Theism”.

We will have lost science. Not wanting to lose it isn't going to change that fact.

No, you never lose Science, but your religion (A-Theism) is definitely kaput.

27th January 2003, 03:18 PM

I have to agree with Franchesca. Science would survive and go on investigating the physical world with all its celebrated success. The real casualty would be hard atheism.

PixyMisa

27th January 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy....

Here we go : I've been to dictionary.com and extracted some definitions :Subjective :

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Mental :

Of or relating to the mind.

Objective :

Of or having to do with a material object.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Based on observable phenomena.

Physical :

Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit.
Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.So, one of two definitions of subjective and one of three definitions of physical supports your assertion. Yay.Of course if you'd like to alter them then please feel free to do so, because as you say - languages change. But I do also need you to explain how you think the above words influence the scientific method, and specifically the need for the SM to remain objective.Why do you think I need to explain that?Presumably you understand that the SM is not subject to being changed because of languageIn principle, no, it isn't.so we can use it as a common test for the usefulness of language.Perhaps. How, exactly?The SM is the same in English, in Swedish, in Urdu, in Chinese and in ancient egyptian.Yes. Because the scientific method does not depend on language.And the SM does require that we define these sorts of words in a way that genuinely reflects the reality we find ourselves in - that is the sort of words we are talking about, and that is the nature of the scientific method.If you are using these terms in a scientific way, then they must be defined in such a way.In other words - the above definitions seem to me to be about right for preserving the integrity of the SM and I think we can probably agree that making alterations to them that compromise the SM would not be an acceptable thing to do.Well, I never suggested compromising the scientific method. But those definitions are not suitably precise for a scientific study.Therefore we can agree that these definitions aren't just arbitrary, but are neccesarily fixed - both because they accurately describe the reality we experience and because they are needed to accurately describe that reality in order for science to retain its integrity.No. The two that support your thesis have built-in, unsupported assumptions. They could be restated more clearly so that those assumptions were explicit. The other definitions aren't sufficiently precise either.Follow all that?In my sleep, Mister Elephant.Any time you're ready.Don't wait for me, Mister Elephant. You have a lot of work to do, and you haven't started yet.

Franko

27th January 2003, 07:19 PM

PixyMa:

Yes. Because the scientific method does not depend on language.

What exactly do you mean by that?

PixyMisa

27th January 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Remember we are here discussing fact F.Hypothesis F.FactHypothesisF is that there is a linguistic dualism between mental and physical things.Yes.According to the dictionary defs, mental things are things in a mind (they are subjective).If you are selective of your definitions. And examine only the English language. And deliberately avoid troublesome words. Like thought or emotion or pain.And also according to the dictionary defs, physical things are part of material reality, as distinguished from the mind (they are objective).Again, you must be selective here. Of course, you are selective, so this is no problem.Finally, we both know that the scientific method is, by definition, objective. It deliberately excludes subjective things. It needs to do this because if it allowed subjectivity to creep in then it wouldn't be objective.Well, yes. At least, as Stimpson pointed out, the subjective and objective need to be separated.So we need to be able to make a clear distinction between subjective/mental things and objective/physical things for two reasons.

1) This is the way we experience reality - that is why the dictionary definitions are the way they are.Well, no. Dictionary definitions define words in terms of other words. You need to first ground some of the words in reality before a dictionary can make any sense. And dictionary definitions can and often do contain assumptions - implicit or explicit - about the nature of the world, because they are discussing words using more words. That's the difference between a dictionary and science.2) The scientific method is critically dependent upon our ability to make a clear distinction between the two different sorts of things.Yes. This does not, of course, mean that we are able to do so. Note that science (as it is practised) gets it wrong sometimes.So it looks like we have established that factHypothesisF is indeed a FACT.Nope. You haven't even started yet.We haven't assumed anything about any ontologies in order to arrive at this FACTAs I have pointed out, you are entirely blind to assumptions that mesh with your own belief system, even though you frequently accuse others of the same fault.but instead we have established that the both the accuracy of language to describe the reality we experience AND the integrity of the scientific method are dependent on this FACT being true.Well, no, you have not established either one. Human language is inherently sloppy and inaccurate, and the Scientific Method is a principle, and depends on us being able to distinguish the objective from the subjective in principle. Which is not borne out by human languages or human ability.So far we haven't examined the thesis H, we are still trying to agree on whether FACTHypothesisF is really a FACT and why that FACT must remain a FACT independent of which language we are using, and that FACTHypothesisF must remain a FACT or we compromise the scientific methods ability to remain objective.

Can we agree that FACTHypothesisF is a FACT? No.

PixyMisa

27th January 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Franko
What exactly do you mean by that?Let's see:

The scientific method does not depend on language.

Which word were you having trouble with, Franko dear?

28th January 2003, 02:09 AM

Pixy

I read your post......

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the dictionary defs, mental things are things in a mind (they are subjective).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are selective of your definitions. And examine only the English language. And deliberately avoid troublesome words. Like thought or emotion or pain.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And also according to the dictionary defs, physical things are part of material reality, as distinguished from the mind (they are objective).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you must be selective here. Of course, you are selective, so this is no problem

I debate on this board because I enjoy it. Most of the people I debate with, including people like Stimpson (who I often disagree with) tend to make sure that they do not keeping repeating the same fallacies, and that their posts are rich in content and not just dripping in attitude but empty of content.

I must have explained to you about five times why the word 'thought' is quite blatantly defined to mean two different things - "qualia" and "physical brain process". Yet you insist on trying to use it again in an attempt to try to make out that the subjective/objective dualism in English actually isn't there. You are also now arguing with the normally accepted definitions of words like mental and physical, even though you failed to take up my invitation to redefine them in any way you chose.

Finally you garnish your posts with thinly veiled insults and a undercurrent of attitude that I'm not interested in engaging with - you seem to think that if you talk down to me from a great enough height and express a great enough contempt for my views that nobody will notice the fact that you continually logically contradict yourself, repeat the same fallacies over and over again even though it has been pointed out to you why they are fallacies and you haven't addressed those points, and openly try to base your argument on assuming your conclusion even though this too has been repeatedly pointed out to you as fallacious.

Pixy - The people reading these exchanges aren't stupid, and aren't generally taken in by attitude alone when the content is lacking and the critical points get continually ignored. You have to earn your respect around here with content, not attitude (in this forum anyway). Unless you have got something new to say, or are actually willing to think about some of the critical holes in your position (e.g. like why you have to keep using things like "thought" as an example of a dualism-busting word when it is clearly doubly defined and the respective definitions are totally unambigious) then talking to you is a waste of time. I am confident that any fence-sitters (and most materialists) reading this are quite capable of understanding that "Qualia" is not "brain process", and that "thought" is double-defined as both of these things. If you can't (won't) grasp this then that speaks for itself, and I don't have to.

:)

edited...

When I first encountered you Interesting Ian was in the process of telling you that materialism ultimately ended up trying to confuse the definition of brain and mind - that they try to claim that the mind is the brain. You, characteristically, told him that was nonsense because they were different things by definition. Now here you are challenging the dictionary definitions associated with these things and repeatedly attempting to claim that the word 'thought' is mental/physical ambigious, even though it has been repeatedly explained to you that this is a simple logical fallacy of defining one word to have two different meanings and then try to mix up the two definitions in order to claim there is an ambiguity. QED, Pixy. Stop digging. ;)

(Oh sorry....You're right, I'm wrong....it says so in your signature line so it must be true :( ).

28th January 2003, 03:30 AM

Pixy....

Maybe this will help.....

The leading materialistic philosopher of the past decade has probably been Daniel Dennett, whose most relevant work is called "Consciousness Explained".

Even though you initially had no problem accepting the mind and brain where clearly different things, by definition, you have since found yourself struggling with the dictionary definitions of the words associated with them. You are not alone - Ians observation that materialism implies mind=brain is absolutely accurate.

Here is a quote from a (friendly) review of Dennetts book :

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Consciousness_Explained.html

The rest of the book is devoted to discussing the consequences of this view of consciousness for several well known thought experiments and problems in the philosophy of mind (zombies, inverted spectra). It includes a rousing rejection of the whole concept of qualia, a chapter which I found particularly enjoyable.

So even Mr Dennet, in an attempt to defend materialism, is forced to claim that the subjective/objective mind/brain dualism doesn't really exist, in this case by a "rousing rejection of the whole concept of Qualia". In the original "mind/body problem" paper I sent you which was the source of "thesis 5" it said quite clearly that "eliminative materialism is the straightforward denial of thesis 4 (that people have mental states)". You nevertheless attempted to challenge thesis 5 instead, because you failed to realise that your own philosophy was a denial of thesis 4, and that thesis 5, being about language, can't actually be challenged. What I am trying to say is that instead of trying to fight a losing battle of attempting to redefine words you've already accepted the meaning of, or claiming that theses about language contain hidden ontological assumptions which aren't actually there, you take up the true materialist position, as defended by Dennet. Materialism amounts to a straightforward denial of the concept of Qualia.

PixyMisa

28th January 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I read your post......Yay.I debate on this board because I enjoy it. Most of the people I debate with, including people like Stimpson (who I often disagree with) tend to make sure that they do not keeping repeating the same fallacies, and that their posts are rich in content and not just dripping in attitude but empty of content.Well, you might do well to emulate them.I must have explained to you about five times why the word 'thought' is quite blatantly defined to mean two different things - "qualia" and "physical brain process".Yes. You have thus defined it.Yet you insist on trying to use it again in an attempt to try to make out that the subjective/objective dualism in English actually isn't there.Not quite. I merely point out that what you claim as an infallible absolute truth is in the reality of language a vague area of fuzzy greyness. Take another look at dictionary.com: the first section on thought gives 25 definitions! How can you claim that language is rigidly dualistic with this sort of mess going on?You are also now arguing with the normally accepted definitions of words like mental and physicalMerely pointing out the implicit assumptions. The definitions were indeed valid uses of the words, but they also contained implicit assumptions, which would ruin the point that you are trying to make.even though you failed to take up my invitation to redefine them in any way you chose.Well, I didn't see the point, really. Why should I be redefining the words at all?Finally you garnish your posts with thinly veiled insults and a undercurrent of attitude that I'm not interested in engaging with - you seem to think that if you talk down to me from a great enough height and express a great enough contempt for my views that nobody will notice the fact that you continually logically contradict yourself repeat the same fallacies over and over again even though it has been pointed out to you why they are fallacies and you haven't addressed those points, and openly try to base your argument on assuming your conclusion even though this too has been repeatedly pointed out to you as fallacious.Mister Elephant, you have never, not once, pointed out a contradiction in any of my statements. You have on numerous occasions pointed out contradictions in statements that I did not make. Nor have I based my argument on assuming my conclusion, though I have on a number of occasions tried to bring to your attention that this is precisely what you are doing. Nor have you ever shown any of my arguments to be false; your attempts to do this have all rested on assumptions that you have no evidence for. This is, after all, why we are now discussing language rather than HPC: you are trying to find some support for your Hypothesis F. So far, you have not done very well.Pixy - The people reading these exchanges aren't stupid, and aren't generally taken in by attitude alone when the content is lacking and the critical points get continually ignored.No. Which is why I redirect you back to the critical points when you wander off.You have to earn your respect around here with content, not attitude (in this forum anyway).Indeed.Unless you have got something new to say, or are actually willing to think about some of the critical holes in your position (e.g. like why you have to keep using things like "thought" as an example of a dualism-busting word when it is clearly doubly"Doubly"? What's the adverbial form of 25?defined and the respective definitions are totally unambigious) then talking to you is a waste of time.Go deal with the 25 definitions of "thought". Then you can start on pain. Then emotion. Then you can explain why your definitions represent the "true" English language when the dictionary definitions do not. Then show that your rigid dualism holds true for all other such words in English. Then show that it holds true for all other languages. Then show that it holds true for all other possible lnaguages. Then we can get back to discussing HPC. I am confident that any fence-sitters (and most materialists) reading this are quite capable of understanding that "Qualia" is not "brain process", and that "thought" is double-defined as both of these things. And what of the other 23 definitions? And what if your "qualia" are merely the result of a physical process?If you can't (won't) grasp this then that speaks for itself, and I don't have to.Well, it doesn't speak for itself. You will have to speak for it, if you wish to make your point.When I first encountered you Interesting Ian was in the process of telling you that materialism ultimately ended up trying to confuse the definition of brain and mind - that they try to claim that the mind is the brain.No confusion at all, except on Ian's part. The mind is not the brain. They are different things.You, characteristically, told him that was nonsense because they were different things by definition.Quite so.Now here you are challenging the dictionary definitions associated with these things and repeatedly attempting to claim that the word 'thought' is mental/physical ambigious, even though it has been repeatedly explained to you that this is a simple logical fallacy of defining one word to have two different meanings and then try to mix up the two definitions in order to claim there is an ambiguity. QED, Pixy. Stop digging.No. You are wrong.

My point was that when we speak of the brain, we speak of a physical object, and when we speak of the mind, we speak of a process. Physical objects are not processes. Note that we even have two different words for these things.

You, however, are attempting to make an ontological statement by redefining words to suit your own purposes. Perhaps you'd like to address English for a change, rather than whatever you think English should be?(Oh sorry....You're right, I'm wrong....it says so in your signature line so it must be true) You'd save a lot of time if you remembered that. If you stopped and thought before you posted: "Oh yes, I'm wrong, now where is my error?" you would be a much more interesting correspondent.

28th January 2003, 04:13 AM

Pixy.....

when we speak of the mind, we speak of a process

When a materialist speaks of the mind, she speaks of a process.

When anyone without a metaphysical absurdity to defend speaks of the mind they speak of QUALIA .

Materialism rests on the definition that "Qualia" ARE "physical processes". That is, that two things which appear to be utterly different are in fact the same thing. An unbrainwashed person would have difficulty finding anything in common with these things. You (and Dennet) apparently can't distinguish between the two. Note : I am not talking about the difference between "brain" and "physical process in brain" - these are different things - no - what materialism (and you, and Dennett) are claiming is that there is no difference between "physical process in brain" and "qualia". Just let me rephrase this so you can't get it confused - there are two 'differences' being discussed :

1) The difference between brain and physical process.

2) The difference between physical process and qualia.

Your problem is that you want to define "physical process = qualia", which is a denial of difference (2), even though such a denial is a blatant absurdity. When this denial is pointed out to you you just keep pointing to difference (1) and claiming it is the same as difference (2). :rolleyes:

Try to give me a straight answer to these questions....

Do you accept the concept of qualia?
Do you therefore accept and understand (1) and (2) above do not refer to the same 'difference'?

If the difference between mind and brain is the difference between brain and process, then what difference is there between process and a qualia?

What is the relationship between process and qualia, Pixy?

Are a process and a quale indisinguishable (Dennets position)?

PixyMisa

28th January 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Maybe this will help.....

The leading materialistic philosopher of the past decade has probably been Daniel Dennett, whose most relevant work is called "Consciousness Explained".I have read Dennett.Even though you initially had no problem accepting the mind and brain where clearly different things, by definitionWhich indeed they are.you have since found yourself struggling with the dictionary definitions of the words associated with them.Which indeed I have not. You are the one who found it necessary to redefine thought in dualistic terms. The simple fact that the mind and the brain are different things does not mean that they are unrelated, nor that there cannot be a phenomenological continuum between the two.You are not alone - Ians observation that materialism implies mind=brain is absolutely accurate.Apart from being false, you mean?Here is a quote from a (friendly) review of Dennetts book :

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Consciousness_Explained.html

So even Mr Dennet, in an attempt to defend materialism, is forced to claim that the subjective/objective mind/brain dualism doesn't really exist, in this case by a "rousing rejection of the whole concept of Qualia".Well, that's an interesting point, and rests on the precise definition of "Qualia". I f qualia are simply mental concepts, then there is no problem. If qualia are mental concepts that are explicitly unconnected to the material world in any way, then that is a denial of materialism. So naturally a materialist must deny the existence of definition-2 qualia. In the original "mind/body problem" paper I sent you which was the source of "thesis 5" it said quite clearly that "eliminative materialism is the straightforward denial of thesis 4 (that people have mental states)".Uh, no. You seem confused. Materialism does not suggest that the mind does not exist, or that people do not have mental states. It merely says that these must arise from a material basis.You nevertheless attempted to challenge thesis 5 insteadIndeed. I said at the time: Of your theses, 1 is false, 2 is incomplete, 3 depends on a definition of "physical" which is not provided, 4 is clearly true, and 5 is, I believe, false, though this is yet to be demonstrated.because you failed to realise that your own philosophy was a denial of thesis 4Perhaps I failed to realise this because it is no such thing? You seem to lack any understanding of what materialism actually implies about the brain and the mind - even though I and others have explained this to you at length.and that thesis 5, being about language, can't actually be challenged.Eh? What? Any statement about language can be challenged - paticularly if it is unsupported. Just as if you said "All marbles are purple" or "All sunflowers wear pink felt hats in the Autumn".What I am trying to say is that instead of trying to fight a losing battle of attempting to redefine words you've already accepted the meaning ofAh, Mister Elephant, might I point out that it's you who has been redefining words, and that you just jumped heavily on me for declining to do so?or claiming that theses about language contain hidden ontological assumptions which aren't actually thereStill on that track, Mister Elephant?

Do you want me to show you what your Hypothesis H really is?

Well, I will anyway.

Your statement 5, what we have now termed Hypothesis H, says: "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set of purely physical descriptions."

I have already broken this down as follows:

We have a descriptive system L.
We have two sets of phenomena, X and Y.

We can make the following initial statements regarding the relationship of L to X and Y:

L can describe phenomena in X and the results of such phenomena.
L can describe phenomena in Y and the results of such phenomena.

Now, we can rephrase Hypothesis H as:

No phenomenon in X can be described using system L purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

But this lacks precision, is incomplete, and contains a hidden assumption (which I shall get to in a moment).

Let's revisit L for a moment. We need to address the power of L as a descriptive system to avoid the example of toy languages. So:

L is deemed sufficiently powerful if it can describe all possible phenomena in the sets X and Y.

So. English, and other human languages, may not qualify initially, but since languages are adaptive, they can grow to include the necessary vocabulary and definitions.

Next, we are not talking merely about a descriptive system, but about all possible descriptive systems. So we must rephrase H again, to get:

There does not exist a descriptive system L, L being sufficiently powerful, such that a phenomenon in X can be described purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

Now it's time to address Assumption A.

We say that phenomena in X cannot be described in terms of phenomena in Y. Clearly this requires that Assumption A be true:

Assumption A: X and Y are disjoint sets.

Now we can phrase Hypothesis H - the same thing you were claiming as an established fact not too long ago - correctly and precisely:

Given X and Y as disjoint sets, there does not exist a descriptive system L, L being sufficiently powerful, such that a phenomenon in X can be described purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

Now, here's the rub: Hypothesis M says: All phenomena, including but not limited to those in X, are actually the result of the phenomena in Y.

In other words, X is a subset of Y - the sets are not disjoint at all.

That's your hidden assumption, Mister Elephant, dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day, and that's why HPC falls flat in the face of materialism. you take up the true materialist position, as defended by Dennet. Materialism amounts to a straightforward denial of the concept of Qualia. Sorry, how exactly were you defining qualia again? If you define them so as to be a straightforward denial of materialism, well then, what goes around comes around, Mister Elephant.