British Athiest & Philosopher now believes in God

[SpaceFluffer]

Antony Flew, having written about athiesm for over 50 years, now believes in God. Oh yeah, and he's 81 years old.

Damage limitation, anyone?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20041209/ap_on_re_us/believing_atheist

[SpaceFluffer]

More here

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

[Darat]

It's being discussed here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49804

As for damage limitation, the great thing about being sceptical is that its not the person that matters but the evidence and the argument.

[Dr Adequate]

And, in the absence of any evidence or arguments, which aren't provided, their field of expertise. I mean he's fallen for what? Intelligent Design. Well, the old boy's past it, obviously, but apart from that, what's his profession?

A philosopher.

Yeah, they know a lot.

I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?

No? Me neither.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?

It must have been a philosopher that invented dipnosophistry - the art of philosophising whilst eating.

That's a great invention. But it was more than 2000 years ago.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And, in the absence of any evidence or arguments, which aren't provided, their field of expertise. I mean he's fallen for what? Intelligent Design. Well, the old boy's past it, obviously, but apart from that, what's his profession?

A philosopher.

Yeah, they know a lot.



Would you express those sentiments if Richard Swinburne converted to atheism?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate


I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?

No? Me neither.

Do you imagine without philosophy we'd have our present technological culture, our political system? Nope, it would be like the middle ages and most probably you wouldn't be alive.

Please get a clue.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would you express those sentiments if Richard Swinburne converted to atheism? The jockey ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Antony Flew, having written about athiesm for over 50 years, now believes in God. Oh yeah, and he's 81 years old.

Damage limitation, anyone?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20041209/ap_on_re_us/believing_atheist

From link

"Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife".

Thank God for that!

[SpaceFluffer]

Sorry for starting up a duplicate thread...

I thought the article was interesting, not because I hold any great stock in Flew's opinion, but because of the reasons he gives for the turnaround.

For someone that has spent decades writing in support of athiesm, becoming even a Deist is a major turnaround. And his evidence? DNA is apparently too complex to have arrived at by a probabilistic process.

I guess he's lost faith in science to figure things out. Not so long ago it seemed impossible to have even discovered DNA.

And yes, Ian, thank Jeff that he's not become a 'regular' God-believer. That would be awful! Phew!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would you express those sentiments if Richard Swinburne converted to atheism? People "convert sides" all the time. It does not change the whether or not God(s) actually exist.

I believe the concern is that theists will latch on to this as some sort of proof that God(s) actually exists, because he/she/it turned the heart of this curmudgeony old athiest. SF is bemoaning that there will be just that more BS to put up with.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you imagine without philosophy we'd have our present technological culture, our political system? Nope, it would be like the middle ages and most probably you wouldn't be alive.

Please get a clue.
Well, that's an excellent method of not actually giving any examples while pretending there are lots. It must have fooled any eight-year old browsing these fora for at least five seconds.

[iain]

Like Darat says. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and to change them. What would be interesting is the reasoning behind his change of opinion.

As for damage limitation, the existence or otherwise of God would not (presumably) change whether everyone or no-one believed in it and I don't think there are lot of people who are atheists or poised to convert who will now decide not to (not that it bothers me either way).

[c4ts]

Articles about famous athiests who decide to believe in God are basically testimony. They are articles about someone who says they believe something, not "proof exists, here is a summary of what it is." You know what would be exciting? Evidence. Not people who convert to deism, but actual proof of God's existence. In the meantime, a million famous atheists could turn deist, and it won't prove a thing, other than deism is suddenly popular among former famous athiests. You could argue from popularity at that point, but I would advise you against a fallacy like that. But I guess some people will jump at the slightest indication that they might be right, instead of settling for actually being right.

[Mike D.]

It's my understanding that famous skeptic Martin Gardner is also a Deist.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?



Actually I do. But it's not this guy. His name was "Socrates" or something, some Greek guy wrote about him. I think his name started with a "P." He discovered, oh, I don't know, critical thinking? Anyway, philosophy has the ability to change our lives forever because it can change the way we think. But that kind of philosophy is not the same as "in my opinion, God should exist (or should have existed)" which, judging by the articles, is what this guy is saying.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Some people just need to believe. Perhaps this man in the last years of his life decided to go ahead and let his need to believe outweigh logic and reason. If it makes him happy in his last years, more power to him.

I understand the need to believe. But that need has slowly been fading.

[Eleatic Stranger]

I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?


In addition to "critical thinking", as mentioned above, may I also suggest Coordinate Plane Geometry (Descartes), Differential Calculus (Leibniz), Mathematical Logic (Frege/Russell/Godel/etc), SCIENCE (Aristotle and Bacon primarily), and underlying that, the idea that, hey, maybe it's a good idea to try explaining things in terms of simple principles and observed facts instead of, you know, Gods (Thales and onward).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've never heard of Antony Flew. I've never heard of Richard Swinburne.

Not only do I have a lack of belief in god, I guess I have a lack of interest in worrying about it.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr. A said:
I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?
You got yourself in trouble here because the question is not worded specifically enough.
I mean, you remember that metaphysical philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?
No.

~~ Paul

[c4ts]

I mean, you remember that metaphysical philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?

You mean Aristotle? Yeah, I remember him.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I mean, you remember that philosopher that made that really important philosophical discovery that changed our lives forever?

No? Me neither.

Descartes, Kant and so many others... I mean, without them, science would not be the same... Aristote was the first one who created the scientific methodology. And the democracy would not be the same without the fondation of Socrate, Plato or Aristote... I mean, what do you think? That philosophy don't have any impact in our lives? Don't be silly...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by JMA
And the democracy would not be the same without the fondation of Socrate, Plato or Aristote...

Also Locke! Don't forget Locke! That's where our bill of rights comes from, anyway.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
[B]Some people just need to believe.



Bear in mind that if you do not believe in an afterlife, then believing in God doesn't actually do anything for your existence. You will still cease to exist for the whole of eternity very shortly ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
In addition to "critical thinking", as mentioned above, may I also suggest Coordinate Plane Geometry (Descartes), Differential Calculus (Leibniz), Mathematical Logic (Frege/Russell/Godel/etc), SCIENCE (Aristotle and Bacon primarily), and underlying that, the idea that, hey, maybe it's a good idea to try explaining things in terms of simple principles and observed facts instead of, you know, Gods (Thales and onward).

Indeed. You would think that skeptics would especially be enthusiastic about philosophy and what it has achieved! It's difficult to overestimate the contribution of philosophy in shaping our beliefs and creating the modern world.

But unfortunately the world is full of people like Dr A who haven't got a clue :(

Dear me!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I've never heard of Antony Flew. I've never heard of Richard Swinburne.


:eek:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

c4ts said:
You mean Aristotle? Yeah, I remember him.
Ignoring the fact that Metaphysics was cobbled together by some editor long after Aristotle was dead, what do you think it contributes to our fundamental understanding of life? Remember, Dr. A's question was about an important philosophical discovery. I know I'm going way out on a limb here, insulting my Greek ancestors and all, but there appears to be no destination for metaphysics. Where is the list of conclusions that metaphysical philosophers have come to over the centuries? Which of these should I adopt in my life?

Ian: Nope, sorry, never heard of them. Actually, the name Richard Swinburne is familiar, but I have no idea what he's done. You may be mistaking me for someone who reads philosophy.

~~ Paul

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you imagine without philosophy we'd have our present technological culture, our political system? Nope, it would be like the middle ages and most probably you wouldn't be alive.

Please get a clue.

Yes, and Aristotle defined the Middle Ages. Leaning Towers, anyone?

[T'ai Chi]

I see this as nothing more than a curiousity.

The argument from popularity is a poor argument, and 1 person instead of thousands makes the argument even worse. :)

[Aussie Thinker]

His argument IS worth listening to.

As Ian says.. belief in a God that includes NO afterlife is hardly a "cop out".. it aint gunna do you any good anyway.

His FLAW is the "complexity" = God theory.

That is just ridiculous.. we just 'deem" DNA as complex.. it maybe as simple as anything if you look at it from a different "philosophy.

If he used my "proof" of God he would have got way more kudos from people I think..

My "proof" is that if you extrapolate mans potential you end up with Godlike creatures.. if we could get there then at some stage in the gazzilions of years of expandign and contracting universes SOMEONE or SOMETHING would have alreadt attained this status.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]His argument IS worth listening to.

As Ian says.. belief in a God that includes NO afterlife is hardly a "cop out".. it aint gunna do you any good anyway.

His FLAW is the "complexity" = God theory.



:confused: Have you read his arguments Aussie?? How can we possibly deem him to be stupid without listening to hiis arguments first? Would you deem me to be stupid for believing in a type of "God", amd a "life after death", and reincarnation without listening to my arguments first?? Ummm . .I guess that's a daft question . .yes you would! ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hold the presses! A word from Antony Flew:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hold the presses! A word from Antony Flew:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

~~ Paul

WOW! Thank God for that! :rolleyes: It's the same kinda thing that happened with AJ Ayer all over again :rolleyes:

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by JMA
Descartes, Kant and so many others... I mean, without them, science would not be the same... Aristote was the first one who created the scientific methodology. And the democracy would not be the same without the fondation of Socrate, Plato or Aristote... I mean, what do you think? That philosophy don't have any impact in our lives? Don't be silly...
Descartes! Who believed that the mind squirts thought into the brain through the pineal gland! that animals couldn't feel pain but just behaved exactly as if they did! and who had an a priori proof of his own sanity! Kant! who discovered that space was a priori Euclidean! Aristotle! who said that slavery was natural! that diamonds disolve in goat's blood! that bodies fall at speeds in proportion to their weight! that women have a lower body temperature than men! which proves that they have no souls! Socrates! who left no writings, and whose thought we know through the writings of... Plato! who invented totalitarianism! the myth of Atlantis! and was about as smart as Aristotle! who said that slavery was natural! because some people are so naturally inferior that that's all they're fit for!

:wow2:

Even if you're going to count ethical thought as a branch of philosophy, which, to clarify, I wasn't, since we all do it, you could have chosen better examples.

Have you read these people? "Aristote was the first one who created the scientific methodology"...!?!?!?!?!?

That's just weird.

Or was the whole post intended to be sarcastic?

[Hellbound]

Also, I have to argue against the idea that Socrates (more accurately, Plato) came up with "critical thought."

What he came up with was "Socratic reasoning", which is a way of leading someone to the conclusion you wish while making it seem to be their idea. Doesn't exactly seem to be critical thinking to me. He did use a lot of questions, btu the questions were leading and formulated to lead to a pre-decided conclusion.

Now, admittedly, I haven't read all the works of Plato, only most. However, critical thinking is one thing I would NOT ascribe to him (the cave, the republic, etc, etc).

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
In addition to "critical thinking", as mentioned above, may I also suggest Coordinate Plane Geometry (Descartes), Differential Calculus (Leibniz), Mathematical Logic (Frege/Russell/Godel/etc), SCIENCE (Aristotle and Bacon primarily), and underlying that, the idea that, hey, maybe it's a good idea to try explaining things in terms of simple principles and observed facts instead of, you know, Gods (Thales and onward).
Which part of "philosophical discovery" didn't you understand?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed. You would think that skeptics would especially be enthusiastic about philosophy and what it has achieved! It's difficult to overestimate the contribution of philosophy in shaping our beliefs and creating the modern world.

But unfortunately the world is full of people like Dr A who haven't got a clue :(

Dear me!
Still trying to pretend that my question has an answer, while ducking out of actually giving it. You can duck and weave all you like... it's no substitute for being right. Oh, and I see you're using your usual arrogance-as-a-smokescreen-for-ignorance trick. Unfortunately, by now we all know how very, very little you have to be arrogant about, so it just makes you look pathetic.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Which part of "philosophical discovery" didn't you understand?

What part of "At the time those were philosophical discoveries, and we've seen backdated our classificatory system" didn't you understand?

Or would you also claim that Julius Ceasor was Emporer of Italy, Egypt, and Serbo-Croatia?

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Descartes! Who believed that the mind squirts thought into the brain through the pineal gland! that animals couldn't feel pain but just behaved exactly as if they did! and who had an a priori proof of his own sanity! Kant! who discovered that space was a priori Euclidean! Aristotle! who said that slavery was natural! that diamonds disolve in goat's blood! that bodies fall at speeds in proportion to their weight! that women have a lower body temperature than men! which proves that they have no souls! Socrates! who left no writings, and whose thought we know through the writings of... Plato! who invented totalitarianism! the myth of Atlantis! and was about as smart as Aristotle! who said that slavery was natural! because some people are so naturally inferior that that's all they're fit for!

:wow2:

Even if you're going to count ethical thought as a branch of philosophy, which, to clarify, I wasn't, since we all do it, you could have chosen better examples.

Oh my GOD! Someone long ago thought something that wasn't strictly accurate! We must therefore discount anything else they may have said, and any way in which that incorrect statement lead to future correct statements! Seriously here, are you trying to say anything or are you just being sarcastic yourself?

And if you're trying to say anything useful you should probably correct the above statements, because most of them are, you know, wrong. And by wrong, I mean not just wrong, but also stupid.

Also, you're seriously saying that you don't think ethics isn't a branch of philosophy because we all do it?

Hey, guess what, this morning I mixed baking soda and vinegar together to see what would happen - I guess chemistry isn't a science. And then I went to the bathroom, ate some food, and saw an animal - so there goes biology as well. And I threw something in the air and caught it, so physics isn't a science to boot. It's fun to use ridiculous criteria, innit?

Come on here, I would expect better out of most people.

Originally posted by Huntsman
Also, I have to argue against the idea that Socrates (more accurately, Plato) came up with "critical thought."

What he came up with was "Socratic reasoning", which is a way of leading someone to the conclusion you wish while making it seem to be their idea. Doesn't exactly seem to be critical thinking to me. He did use a lot of questions, btu the questions were leading and formulated to lead to a pre-decided conclusion.

Now, admittedly, I haven't read all the works of Plato, only most. However, critical thinking is one thing I would NOT ascribe to him (the cave, the republic, etc, etc).

Um, The Cave is a analogy, as is, to a fairly significant extent, the Republic. Are you saying that people using critical thinking can't use analogies to convey ideas? Even if they're explicitly labeled as analogies in the text?

Also, Socratic Reasoning was precisely the refining dialectic he used to examine the ideas - you're thinking of Socratic Irony, which is where he pretended he was just innocently asking questions to get clear on what the other person was saying. That the questions were leading in the ironic sense doesn't bear in the slightest on whether or not it was good critical thinking.

Perhaps you should read some works of Plato before you comment on them in the future.

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ignoring the fact that Metaphysics was cobbled together by some editor long after Aristotle was dead, what do you think it contributes to our fundamental understanding of life? Remember, Dr. A's question was about an important philosophical discovery. I know I'm going way out on a limb here, insulting my Greek ancestors and all, but there appears to be no destination for metaphysics. Where is the list of conclusions that metaphysical philosophers have come to over the centuries? Which of these should I adopt in my life?
.....
~~ Paul

Yes, indeed let's ignore that fact as it's entirely irrelevant to anything. Also, what does it contribute? Well, it's the basis among certain other texts for a still raging debate involving the nature of causation (and, in fact, Aristotle's theory of causation has come back into fashion to a certain extent in the last few years due to some of the things that a more Humean account commits you to).

As far as metaphysics in general goes, though, how does materialism or naturalism strike you? These are metaphysical theses, you know, and I'd say they're useful ones to adopt in your life.

For crying out loud here people, I hate to say this but Ian is right here.

[Hellbound]

I have read the works of Plato.

Almost all fo them, in fact. At least, all that are available to us.

I'm still waiting to see some express creation of critical thinking. I referred to the cave, the republic, and others not because they were analogies, but because I fail to see how critical thinking was expressed or implied by them.

Perhaps you can give me some exerpts from Plato's texts that demonstrate his development of critical thinking? It seems more to me that he developed several ideas and, while some were right, simply did not question his own methods to any great extent. Also, I specifically mentioned Socratic Irony (to use your term) because he did not lead others to question their own beliefs, but used this method to lead them to his belief.

I am willing to be proven wrong, but I'm sorry, I have read Plato's works multiple times, and I need more than your say-so to believe he developed critical thinking.

Perhaps you should learn to understand what you read before comemnting on others in the future. See, I'm capable of gatuitous personal attacks based on assumption, too! Now impress me, back up your assertions.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eleatic said:
Yes, indeed let's ignore that fact as it's entirely irrelevant to anything. Also, what does it contribute? Well, it's the basis among certain other texts for a still raging debate involving the nature of causation (and, in fact, Aristotle's theory of causation has come back into fashion to a certain extent in the last few years due to some of the things that a more Humean account commits you to).
I fully admit that Aristotle and other philosophers have contributed to a still-raging debate involving all sorts of metaphysical issues. My question, and I believe Dr. A's, is: Where is the list of handy conclusions from this debate?

As far as metaphysics in general goes, though, how does materialism or naturalism strike you? These are metaphysical theses, you know, and I'd say they're useful ones to adopt in your life.
I'd say they are more epistemological theses, but perhaps I am picking nits. If we say that science arose from the metaphysical ramblings of long-dead philosophers, then I will admit that metaphysics has produced something useful and withdraw my rant. I'm tempted to say that science arose in spite of these metaphysical ramblings, but perhaps that would be unfair of me. :D

~~ Paul

[Eleatic Stranger]

Huntsman-
First off if you don't understand how texts in which ideas commonly formulated are subjected to a series of logically relevant questions and shown, as often as not, to be logically inconsistent demonstrates some sort of critical thinking then I'm not sure what more there is to say. Perhaps you could explain your notion of critical thinking, assuming as I must that it's one not satisfied by the above definition?

Secondly perhaps you should consider reading my posts more carefully, as well as the dialogues. I clearly distinguished between the Socratic Dialectic (elenchus) and Socratic Irony. One is his argumentative strategy - the concerted attempt to clearly delineate some position and critique it as described above. The other is his pretence of ignorance and style of doing the first. If all you have gotten from his dialogues is that Socrates liked to pretend he didn't know stuff, and ask leading questions then perhaps you should rethink the claim that you have actually read the dialogues.

Finally I'd suggest looking over The Meno - as in it you can clearly see a shift from the Socratic dialectic to a Platonic one about half way through, which at the very least should show you some significant development. And, more importantly, I'd suggest reading some of his works on thought, knowledge, and rationality. The Thaeatetus, Sophist, Euthydemus, and Parminedes would probably be a good starting point - though since you've read most of his dialogues you can probably just think back to them instead of having to read them.

I'd say they are more epistemological theses, but perhaps I am picking nits. If we say that science arose from the metaphysical ramblings of long-dead philosophers, then I will admit that metaphysics has produced something useful and withdraw my rant.

Erm... You wouldn't be picking nits to call them epistemological theses, but you would probably be wrong barring some impressive contortions. Naturalism and materialism are both statements about how things are, not about how we come to know things. (The contortions would probably involve defining materialism and naturalism in terms of linguistic conventions, but that's iffy....)

Also, what would science have arisen from apart from philosophy? It didn't exactly burst out of the heads of man sui generis, you know....

[Sanamas]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hold the presses! A word from Antony Flew:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

~~ Paul

That article is from 2001 debunking some older rumors that he converted. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 is the current situation with him.

As for those of you saying that philosophy is useless, aren't skepticism and critical thinking philosophical concepts?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I'd say they are more epistemological theses, but perhaps I am picking nits.


They are metaphysical.




If we say that science arose from the metaphysical ramblings of long-dead philosophers, then I will admit that metaphysics has produced something useful and withdraw my rant. I'm tempted to say that science arose in spite of these metaphysical ramblings, but perhaps that would be unfair of me. :D

~~ Paul [/B]

Unfair and completely wrong. Modern science arose as a consequence of metaphysical contemplation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oops, Sanamas is correct about the Flew article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1400368,00.html

Eleatic said:
Naturalism and materialism are both statements about how things are, not about how we come to know things.
Yes, if you take them ontologically, but I don't, since I think ontology is meaningless. I would take them more as scientific materialism or some such thing, which is purely epistemological in its assumptions. Science does not need to claim that "stuff is physical." Really, what the hell does that mean anyway?

Sanamas said:
As for those of you saying that philosophy is useless, aren't skepticism and critical thinking philosophical concepts?
Indeed, but what have they got to do with metaphysics? I am not rejecting philosophy as a whole.

Ian said:
Unfair and completely wrong. Modern science arose as a consequence of metaphysical contemplation.
Well, possibly in the sense that after centuries of metaphysical contemplation, philosophers threw their hands up in the air and took an epistemological approach to things instead. Science could now arise without lots of nonsense about whether stuff is really physical or mental or furious green cheese. If before we could invent science, we first had to decide what stuff is really made out of or whether there are one or two primary stuffs, there would be no science. All we had to do is decide that the scientific program was to investigate those things that we could actually know.

~~ Paul

P.S.: I am taking all my remarks with a grain of salt, as should y'all also.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Yes, if you take them ontologically, but I don't, since I think ontology is meaningless. I would take them more as scientific materialism or some such thing, which is purely epistemological in its assumptions. Science does not need to claim that "stuff is physical." Really, what the hell does that mean anyway?


Um... ok, so if you insist that metaphysics is meaningless and still want to be able to talk about things like naturalism and materialism then, yeah, I guess they'd have to be epistemological sorts of positions. But that's just saying "Those can't be metaphysical positions - I don't believe in metaphysics!", and spelling out what they are is going to require those contortions I was talking about.

For instance, if they have to do with knowledge, what do they concern knowledge about? If it's the world, than you're back to making a metaphysical claim about the world....


Well, possibly in the sense that after centuries of metaphysical contemplation, philosophers threw their hands up in the air and took an epistemological approach to things instead. Science could now arise without lots of nonsense about whether stuff is really physical or mental or furious green cheese. If before we could invent science, we first had to decide what stuff is really made out of or whether there are one or two primary stuffs, there would be no science. All we had to do is decide that the scientific program was to investigate those things that we could actually know.


Look - science is as committed metaphysically as it is epistemologically. This is not a bad thing, necessarily, in fact it's a pretty darn good one all things considered. The fact is, though, that it's almost impossible to make any sense of an epistemological position without an accompanying metaphysical one -- even if your epistemological position makes holding any metaphysical position somewhat tricky at all (early-Wittgenstein had a very detailed metaphysics which, he admitted, was only true if he couldn't say anything about it....(putting it loosely and ironically))

Trying to come up with a story where a bunch of disgusted scholastic philosophers threw down their metaphysics and decided to be humble about it all and just use the scientific method sounds nice, yes, but it's just not accurate or plausible when you get down into the details.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eleatic said:
Um... ok, so if you insist that metaphysics is meaningless and still want to be able to talk about things like naturalism and materialism then, yeah, I guess they'd have to be epistemological sorts of positions. But that's just saying "Those can't be metaphysical positions - I don't believe in metaphysics!", and spelling out what they are is going to require those contortions I was talking about.
Are you accusing me of a No True Scotsman maneuver? :D I should be more careful in my pronouncements. I'm not sure what I think of metaphysics in general, but I think that ontological musings are pretty much worthless. Questions about what "actually exists" make no sense. For example, can you formulate an experiment that could, in principle, distinguish physicalism from idealism?

Look - science is as committed metaphysically as it is epistemologically. This is not a bad thing, necessarily, in fact it's a pretty darn good one all things considered. The fact is, though, that it's almost impossible to make any sense of an epistemological position without an accompanying metaphysical one -- even if your epistemological position makes holding any metaphysical position somewhat tricky at all (early-Wittgenstein had a very detailed metaphysics which, he admitted, was only true if he couldn't say anything about it....(putting it loosely and ironically))
I don't see why science needs an ontological position. Who knows or cares if everything is "physical" or "mental" or "ideal" or "some of both"? What does that even mean? All we need to do is define what we can study.

I agree that it's easier to speak of things in science as if they are external and physical, but that is just habit.

Trying to come up with a story where a bunch of disgusted scholastic philosophers threw down their metaphysics and decided to be humble about it all and just use the scientific method sounds nice, yes, but it's just not accurate or plausible when you get down into the details.
I didn't mean to imply that they did it purposefully. They just subconsciously tired of pondering furious green cheese and picked up another hobby.

~~ Paul

[Eleatic Stranger]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Are you accusing me of a No True Scotsman maneuver? :D I should be more careful in my pronouncements. I'm not sure what I think of metaphysics in general, but I think that ontological musings are pretty much worthless. Questions about what "actually exists" make no sense. For example, can you formulate an experiment that could, in principle, distinguish physicalism from idealism?


It's not a No True Scotsman manuever, no, but it's a bit vague at the same time. There's enough "what is naturalism?" discussion that it's not unwarranted to take it as a linguistic theory or to claim it's some sort of conceptual position instead of a metaphysical one*, but it's still something that requires a lot of care to do, for the reasons I pointed out there.

Do you have any reason to think, aside from general meaning verificationalism (and there are all sorts of problems with that) that a question which could not be decided on the basis of an experiment is meaningless?

If so, be prepared to come up with a rough description of an experiment that, in principle, could ascertain whether or not questions that are not decideable on the basis of an experiment are meaningless ones....

(*or ontological - those two terms really don't pick out different subject matters.... (maybe different traditions in answering the related questions - but that's it))


I don't see why science needs an ontological position. Who knows or cares if everything is "physical" or "mental" or "ideal" or "some of both"? What does that even mean? All we need to do is define what we can study.


But, right there, that's a set of metaphysical committments. You're committing yourself to a metaphysics in which observable regularities occur, for one. That's rather minimal, and there's a bunch more as well that needs to be filled in, but the point is that you simply can't do science without a whole lot of methodological starting points - and those are valid concerns for philosophy. And if you want to claim that those methodological starting points are ones that can reliably get you to the truth.... well... now we're entering a whole range of metaphysical issues.

I didn't mean to imply that they did it purposefully. They just subconsciously tired of pondering furious green cheese and picked up another hobby.

~~ Paul

Except of course that too is false.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I've never heard of Antony Flew. I've never heard of Richard Swinburne.

Not only do I have a lack of belief in god, I guess I have a lack of interest in worrying about it.

~~ Paul

You are an "apathetic agnostic" and I claim my $5 :D

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Modern science arose as a consequence of metaphysical contemplation.
For those of you who may have missed it... it made my day. I may have to put it in my sig.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
What part of "At the time those were philosophical discoveries, and we've seen backdated our classificatory system" didn't you understand?
Oh, boy, there's a clumsy tu quoque. Now that someone has actually said it, I understand it perfectly despite typos. I can also see why it's silly, which suggests I may understand it better than you.

The contention seems to be that I'm wrong because... I'm speaking modern English. In the same way, if I ask you for an example of a warm-blooded fish, you might argue that "a whale" is a good answer, because whales used to be classified as fish, and the fact that we've "backdated our classificatory system" doesn't invalidate that. Except that it does, because obviously when I say fish, I am using the modern and not the Bronze Age usage.

If we were to stick to the ancient usage of the term, then I would concede the point absolutely, since in that case all scientists would be classified as philosophers, all scientific activity would be classified as philosophy, and all scientific discoveries would be classified as philosophical discoveries. So let me just set my mind back a thousand years, ond sothlice thu sprecest, ond wislic thu redest. Wes thu hael!

Anyone want to continue the discussion in modern English?

[hammegk]

Damn. I wish I could have said that!

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger


It's not a No True Scotsman manuever, no, but it's a bit vague at the same time. There's enough "what is naturalism?" discussion that it's not unwarranted to take it as a linguistic theory or to claim it's some sort of conceptual position instead of a metaphysical one*, but it's still something that requires a lot of care to do, for the reasons I pointed out there.

Do you have any reason to think, aside from general meaning verificationalism (and there are all sorts of problems with that) that a question which could not be decided on the basis of an experiment is meaningless?

If so, be prepared to come up with a rough description of an experiment that, in principle, could ascertain whether or not questions that are not decideable on the basis of an experiment are meaningless ones....

(*or ontological - those two terms really don't pick out different subject matters.... (maybe different traditions in answering the related questions - but that's it))



and this ...


But, right there, that's a set of metaphysical committments. You're committing yourself to a metaphysics in which observable regularities occur, for one. That's rather minimal, and there's a bunch more as well that needs to be filled in, but the point is that you simply can't do science without a whole lot of methodological starting points - and those are valid concerns for philosophy. And if you want to claim that those methodological starting points are ones that can reliably get you to the truth.... well... now we're entering a whole range of metaphysical issues.


Also, perhaps Eleatic would explain the crucial difference between non-reductive materialism and dualism. :) Please?

[Eleatic Stranger]

Also, perhaps Eleatic would explain the crucial difference between non-reductive materialism and dualism. Please?

Well, the difference is mostly in how far one is willing to go in inferring metaphysical positions from how our language works. A non-reductive materialist would argue, sometimes, depending on which non-reductive materialist it is, that our materialist language (say, the language in which we describe the world in physical terms) and our non-materialist language (or the language in which we describe things in intentional terms) are to a certain extent incommensurable. That sounds like I'm going to head into a wierd Kuhnian account, I know, but bear with me for a second.

The arguments often go something like this: the language we use to describe things in intentional terms has a certain structure. Particularly, we explain things in intentional terms with reference to certain norms (usually of rationality). When we say that someone believes that p, we are attributing a certain state (believing that p) to them - and it is a state that only makes sense to attribute to them based on our willingness to attribute to them a variety of other states which bear certain relations to each other. (Non-reductive materialism is a generally holist picture, in most cases.) The problem is that the relations that various states bear to each other as described in intentional terms are - generally or ideally at any rate - rational relations. And it's very, very hard to imagine what one could to to translate rational relations into physical relations.

(In other words, try to translate 'x logically entails y' in a way that respects both that x and y are different, yet clearly related to each other, and that anyone endorsing x should endorse y, though they might not, into purely physical terms. )

There are various arguments of varying complexity about why, in further detail, this sort of a translation would be impossible (very good ones, in fact) but does what I've said so far make it at least somewhat intuitive why someone might claim that our intentional vocabulary is not translatable into our physical vocabulary?

(Note: another problem is that it's very hard to imagine how to phrase metalinguistic statements like "it is possible to translate all the sentences in our intentional vocabulary into our physical vocabulary" in purely physical terms - which adds another wrinkle to the problem.)

Of course, claiming that does not imply that the two vocabularies describe two different things, merely that they can't be inter-translated. So nonreductive materialism at times leaves exactly what actually exists somewhat mysterious (though not always, there are ways of phrasing it that make it less mysterious) - but it isn't committed to alleging that there are two different things entirely.


Originally posted by Dr Adequate
The contention seems to be that I'm wrong because... I'm speaking modern English. In the same way, if I ask you for an example of a warm-blooded fish, you might argue that "a whale" is a good answer, because whales used to be classified as fish, and the fact that we've "backdated our classificatory system" doesn't invalidate that. Except that it does, because obviously when I say fish, I am using the modern and not the Bronze Age usage.


And if we extend that analogy, you are now claiming that if you asked what sort of things were in fish markets in the bronze age, and I responded that whales were among them. And then you said "AH! No, whales aren't fish, so they couldn't have been sold at a fish market." And the above was your response to my point that, at the time, whales were considered fish.

Well, that's sensible of you.

If you want to use the modern usage, use it in reference to the modern philosophers. If you want to talk about philosophers more generally you'll have to accept that what philosophers argue about has to a certain extent changed over time (because, you know, they actually did come to conclusions about things). To claim both that any time they did come to a conclusion that doesn't count as philosophy (because only things that are, right now philosophic problems count as philosophy) and ask what things philosophers have come to a conclusion about is rather intellectually dishonest.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eleatic said:
Do you have any reason to think, aside from general meaning verificationalism (and there are all sorts of problems with that) that a question which could not be decided on the basis of an experiment is meaningless?
Looking up meaning verification[al]ism... aha.

If a question cannot be decided logically or empirically, then I would say it was meaningless, except possibly as an intellectual exercise. Why? Because it does not matter how you answer the question.

If so, be prepared to come up with a rough description of an experiment that, in principle, could ascertain whether or not questions that are not decideable on the basis of an experiment are meaningless ones...
This, of course, depends on your definition of meaningless. If I use it formally, to mean the same thing as incoherent, then this trick might work. Actually, though, I have no idea what it would mean to run an experiment to test a question for meaninglessness. I think that idea is meaningless. :D

However, I am using the word meaningless informally, to mean "not worth much of a damn." If you can explain how to make unverifiable ontological questions meaningful, I will listen. Hell, I'll listen anyway, because I'm not much of a philosopher.

But, right there, that's a set of metaphysical committments. You're committing yourself to a metaphysics in which observable regularities occur, for one. That's rather minimal, and there's a bunch more as well that needs to be filled in, but the point is that you simply can't do science without a whole lot of methodological starting points - and those are valid concerns for philosophy. And if you want to claim that those methodological starting points are ones that can reliably get you to the truth.... well... now we're entering a whole range of metaphysical issues.
I'll leave it to you to tell me whether my epistemological assumptions constitute a metaphysical commitment. All I'm dismissing are ontological commitments. I think there are only a small handful of epistemological assumptions, not a whole lot.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eleatic, in our post-logical positivist world, what sort of meaning do philosophers attribute to questions that cannot be answered analytically or empirically? Do they hope that the lack of an answer is simply a temporary thing?

~~ Paul

[Eleatic Stranger]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Looking up meaning verification[al]ism... aha.

If a question cannot be decided logically or empirically, then I would say it was meaningless, except possibly as an intellectual exercise. Why? Because it does not matter how you answer the question.


This, of course, depends on your definition of meaningless. If I use it formally, to mean the same thing as incoherent, then this trick might work. Actually, though, I have no idea what it would mean to run an experiment to test a question for meaninglessness. I think that idea is meaningless. :D

However, I am using the word meaningless informally, to mean "not worth much of a damn." If you can explain how to make unverifiable ontological questions meaningful, I will listen. Hell, I'll listen anyway, because I'm not much of a philosopher.


If your question is just 'why should I care about something that isn't going to, say, help me build a toaster oven?' I'm not entirely sure I can give you a substantial reason to care - but I suspect from the fact that you're willing to talk about the issue at all and read things about it that you are, in fact, interested......
(Almost everyone is, in my experience, to some or other degree - I think it's a monkey curiosity thing.)

Also, there's something to be said (perhaps not enough) for the claim that any epistemological theory is going to involve some metaphysical committments. In fact, generally speaking, in philosophy any position (logical, epistemological, ethical, etc) will directly or indirectly imply a certain set of committments in all the other areas. Epistemology and metaphysics (or ontology - seriously, the only difference between the two is in the level of self importance involved) are probably more closely linked than the rest.

Think about it this way - barring some really odd theory of knowledge you'd probably be willing to say that when you know something, that thing - whatever it is - that you know holds true out in the world. Or, in other words, that knowledge gets it right.

If you want to hold that science works to give you knowledge about the world - furthermore- you're going to be committed to a bunch more stuff. For instance, that the world contains predictable causal regularities; that the world is mostly such that correct applications of the parsimony principle will yield truths; that a basically materialist or mechanistic approach to the causal regularities is the most accurate one; that evaluative statements about the world do not particularly represent an objective reality of interest to science (this is far more contentious, admittedly); and so on.

Now, I'd hope no one read that list and thought any of those sounded particularly improbable metaphysical committments - but it's important to note that if science is the sort of thing that can get it right about the world, then the world has to be a certain way (namely: a way such that science will be the sort of thing that can get it right about the world).

That's all reasonably trivial sounding (though I think in practice it actually does end up becoming more interesting - try to spell out a list of ways the world could be in which science would not have a hope of returning knowledge), but it's always important to remember how these things are linked to each other.

[Jeff Corey]

Back to the original point.

Today, in Rationalist International Bulletin #137, in the article titled, "Sorry to Disapoint, but I'm Still an Atheist", Anthony Flew said, "Those rumors (concerning his conversion) speak false."

He concluded by saying, "In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me."

[Eleatic Stranger]

I think if you look closer you'll notice that that article was from 2001 - or at least the part you quoted is.


Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Eleatic, in our post-logical positivist world, what sort of meaning do philosophers attribute to questions that cannot be answered analytically or empirically? Do they hope that the lack of an answer is simply a temporary thing?

~~ Paul

Hm, well that isn't a complicated and loaded question.... ;)

I should just first note that the post logical positivist world has been around since about the 1950s or so -- logical positivism was very exciting in philosophy, but it didn't, itself, last very long. (It did have a lot of influence though.)

I suppose the answer depends on whether you mean 'meaning' or 'importance' by meaning - I'm going to guess it's more of the second than the first, in line with your above post, right?

As far as lacking an answer, philosophy has not experienced a particular dearth of answers to questions - trust me on that. Of course, that isn't the same as saying we've settled for those answers. I suppose the main thing to say is that philosophy has gone on doing what it has always done (and did before the positivists) which is to attempt to formulate clear ways of putting things and muster rational arguments in favor of various positions (and face them off against each other of course). In many cases, sure, a deductive proof of some answer doesn't look to promising, but that's no different than anything else.

I'm really unsure that I even came close to answering any question there, though. Could you perhaps rephrase what you were after?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eleatic said said:
If you want to hold that science works to give you knowledge about the world - furthermore- you're going to be committed to a bunch more stuff. For instance, that the world contains predictable causal regularities; that the world is mostly such that correct applications of the parsimony principle will yield truths; that a basically materialist or mechanistic approach to the causal regularities is the most accurate one; that evaluative statements about the world do not particularly represent an objective reality of interest to science (this is far more contentious, admittedly); and so on.
Seems to me we need two axioms: (a) Real things can be described according to laws; (b) These laws can be determined by observing the effects of the real things. We have to define "real thing," of course, using cause and effect or something.

I don't see any ontological committment here, but perhaps I'm naive.

I'm really unsure that I even came close to answering any question there, though. Could you perhaps rephrase what you were after?
Let's take a specific question: Do philosophers actually believe that they can someday distinguish between materialism and idealism?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


Let's take a specific question: Do philosophers actually believe that they can someday distinguish between materialism and idealism?

~~ Paul [/B]

What about a matter duplicator, and duplicating a human being? If a corpse was produced, this would refute materialism and indeed any materialist based metaphysic. On the other hand, if a live duplicate were produced, that would refute at least my version of idealism.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What about a matter duplicator, and duplicating a human being? If a corpse was produced, this would refute materialism and indeed any materialist based metaphysic. On the other hand, if a live duplicate were produced, that would refute at least my version of idealism.
How does that logically follow? Seriously, I'm curious.
I mean, if a matter duplicator only produced corpses, what good would it be?
We got enough corpses already.
It may well be that the matter duplicator was somehow flawed and could not produce live people.
But is this Star Trek epistomology or some other kant?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
How does that logically follow? Seriously, I'm curious.
I mean, if a matter duplicator only produced corpses, what good would it be?
We got enough corpses already.
It may well be that the matter duplicator was somehow flawed and could not produce live people.
But is this Star Trek epistomology or some other kant?

It would be great for meat eaters! :D

How does it follow? We're considering the situation where materialism is false. More specifically I'm saying that the self or consciousness is not physical. But the duplicator only duplicates physical things. Therefore it wouldn't duplicate the self or consciousness. Hence you would end up with a corpse.

More generally it would refute any hypotheses that has it that the self or consciousness (even if consciousness is non-physical) arises from the brain. Because if it did then a duplicate's brain would immediate fire up consciousness on its creation, even if consciousness in itself were not physical.

Thus a matter duplicator, which could duplicate any non-sentient thing perfectly, but only produced corpses when trying to duplicate people, would show that self or consciousness cannot have their origin in the brain.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It would be great for meat eaters! :D

How does it follow? We're considering the situation where materialism is false. More specifically I'm saying that the self or consciousness is not physical. But the duplicator only duplicates physical things. Therefore it wouldn't duplicate the self or consciousness. Hence you would end up with a corpse.

More generally it would refute any hypotheses that has it that the self or consciousness (even if consciousness is non-physical) arises from the brain. Because if it did then a duplicate's brain would immediate fire up consciousness on its creation, even if consciousness in itself were not physical.

Thus a matter duplicator, which could duplicate any non-sentient thing perfectly, but only produced corpses when trying to duplicate people, would show that self or consciousness cannot have their origin in the brain.
It would simply mean that the matter duplicator was imperfect at duplicating matter, and instead only making a rough semblance of the matter.

But your point on "duplicating non-sentient things" raises a question. Would it duplicate living chimpanzees? Dogs? Amoebas? Everything but humans? If it replicated a live human, but that human was a moron, would that count?

And since no one expects matter duplicators any time inthe near future, we must again return to Paul's question:
Do philosophers actually believe that they can someday distinguish between materialism and idealism?
Do you actually believe that we can someday develop a matter duplicator? One that duplicates absolutely perfectly? Seriously.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger and precised by me.
And if we extend that analogy, you are now claiming ...

... constructs ridiculous straw man, because he can't answer my actual arguments...

... rather intellectually dishonest.
He he he.

Enough of your stupid word games. Aristotle's work on chicken embryos would have been called "philosophy" by his contemporaries. We, on the other hand, distinguish between science and philosophy, because it is useful to make a distinction between two completely different activities, and we would call his work on chicken embryos "science", and say that sometimes he did science and sometimes he did philosophy. Now, it was my question, and I can assure you that I was speaking modern English and not classical Greek. If you wish to answer a completely different question and then claim victory... enjoy. But it does make you look silly.

(NB: although "silly" meant "wise" a thousand years ago, I should make it plain that I am not using it in this sense. Just so's you don't get confused again.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And what if the matter duplicator produced a p-zombie? Then we would be falsely led to the conclusion that materialism is correct, because we could not distinguish the p-zombie from an actual human being.

Distinguishing between materialism and idealism: Hard.

~~ Paul

[Ashles]

I mean, if a matter duplicator only produced corpses, what good would it be?
We got enough corpses already.
It may well be that the matter duplicator was somehow flawed and could not produce live people.
But is this Star Trek epistomology or some other kant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be great for meat eaters!
Credit where credit's due, that was a good one Ian.

But what happens if we get a conscious being indestinguishable from the original? I mean we are defining a matter duplicator as a theoretical perfect machine here, so if consciousness is physical they are conscious and if it is not (if the brain is merely some form of pathway) then they are unconscious or some form of drooling moron. By definition of your example.

So what point are you making here?
That if consciousness is physical then it is physical, and if it isn't, then it isn't?

Is this modern philosophy? Because if it is then it's silly.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian was offering a method by which we might distinguish materialism from idealism. Unfortunately, the p-zombie problem bolluxes it up. So does the possibility that the duplicator does not duplicate the mind, but then the duplicate body is invaded by the same mind that inhabits the original body. Again, we can't distinguish this scenario from materialism.

~~ Paul

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
More specifically I'm saying that the self or consciousness is not physical. But the duplicator only duplicates physical things. Therefore it wouldn't duplicate the self or consciousness. Hence you would end up with a corpse.

Thus a matter duplicator, which could duplicate any non-sentient thing perfectly, but only produced corpses when trying to duplicate people, would show that self or consciousness cannot have their origin in the brain.

How do you think the self knows which brain to attach itself to, Ian?

I thought you believed in the Transmission Theory? In which case, won't you expect the self to attach itself to both brains producing two streams of consciousness, instead of corpses?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
It would simply mean that the matter duplicator was imperfect at duplicating matter, and instead only making a rough semblance of the matter.


Obviously we have to assume the matter duplicator actually works properly.



But your point on "duplicating non-sentient things" raises a question. Would it duplicate living chimpanzees? Dogs? Amoebas? Everything but humans? If it replicated a live human, but that human was a moron, would that count?



I believe that the duplicate of any sentient creature would be a corpse.



And since no one expects matter duplicators any time inthe near future, we must again return to Paul's question:

Do you actually believe that we can someday develop a matter duplicator? One that duplicates absolutely perfectly? Seriously. [/B]


Yes, at least very nearly perfectly. QM ensures that we won't be able to produce copies to an arbitrary accuracy - but that's not important. If materialism is correct you would still get a living duplicate.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
And what if the matter duplicator produced a p-zombie? Then we would be falsely led to the conclusion that materialism is correct, because we could not distinguish the p-zombie from an actual human being.

Distinguishing between materialism and idealism: Hard.

~~ Paul

Under what metaphysic would you expect a p-zombie? If materialism is incorrect, then the self or/and consciousness is non-physical. Now in order for you to produce a p-zombie this non-physical consciousness must both be causally inefficacious, and yet also not arise from the brain (so it can't be epiphenomenalism). Otherwise once the duplicate brain is there, it would arise.

So we have here consciousness which doesn't do anything, and also doesn't arise from the brain. Hmmm . .what position in the mind/body problem would this indicate??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Credit where credit's due, that was a good one Ian.

But what happens if we get a conscious being indestinguishable from the original?



It seems to me this would vindicate a materialist based metaphysic eg materialism or epiphenomenalism etc


I mean we are defining a matter duplicator as a theoretical perfect machine here, so if consciousness is physical they are conscious and if it is not (if the brain is merely some form of pathway) then they are unconscious or some form of drooling moron. By definition of your example.

So what point are you making here?
That if consciousness is physical then it is physical, and if it isn't, then it isn't?

Is this modern philosophy? Because if it is then it's silly.

Well, it's my philosophy. I don't see what is silly about it. It's an experiment to determine whether we have a causally efficacious non-physical self.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Humphreys
[B]How do you think the self knows which brain to attach itself to, Ian?


I'm guessing it would continue to operate through the original. Why should it jump to another body?



I thought you believed in the Transmission Theory? In which case, won't you expect the self to attach itself to both brains producing two streams of consciousness, instead of corpses?

You don't mean that I experience out of both bodies? You mean that my self would become 2 selves kinda thing? That just isn't part of my belief system. As part of my ongoing experiences I would either experience no change, or suddenly find myself jumping into the other Ian.

Only 3 possibilities here.

a) I experience simultaneously out of both bodies so that I see out of 4 eyes etc.

b) I continue to experience out of my own body.

c) My self jumps to the other body.

It makes no sense for there to be 2 streams of consciousness and yet both of them to be me. This is so by definition of what I mean by self.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well, it's my philosophy. I don't see what is silly about it. It's an experiment to determine whether we have a causally efficacious non-physical self.

Word games do not make experiments.

The non-physical in not within the realm of experimentation.

You are therefore powerless to generate answers or dent materialism in even the slightest way.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Under what metaphysic would you expect a p-zombie? If materialism is incorrect, then the self or/and consciousness is non-physical. Now in order for you to produce a p-zombie this non-physical consciousness must both be causally inefficacious, and yet also not arise from the brain (so it can't be epiphenomenalism). Otherwise once the duplicate brain is there, it would arise.
Ah, but this p-zombie is a duplicate of an existing real person. Perhaps its brain has such good memories of what it's like to be conscious, from back when it had consciousness, that it can fool us into thinking it is conscious now. Then again, I have to admit that I'm not sure where the memories of consciousness are stored in the idealist model of things.

But here is my real question: In an idealist world, if the duplicator cannot duplicate consciousness, why is there even a corpse? Why isn't there simply nothing at all, since the person's body supervenes on his mind, and there is no mind?

~~ Paul

[Bob Klase]

by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

So is God not alive or was he created by a super-intelligent-design?

[Loki]

Paul,

In an idealist world, if the duplicator cannot duplicate consciousness, why is there even a corpse? Why isn't there simply nothing at all, since the person's body supervenes on his mind, and there is no mind?
Nice one! Lets see Ian answer that and stay fashionable!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki

Paul Agnog
In an idealist world, if the duplicator cannot duplicate consciousness, why is there even a corpse? Why isn't there simply nothing at all, since the person's body supervenes on his mind, and there is no mind?

Loki
Nice one! Lets see Ian answer that and stay fashionable!
[/B]

There's a corpse there because it's a matter duplicator, and it works.