Can Philosophy lead to ignorance?

[hammegk]

Wow. The thread is progressing rapidly.

I spent some time culling the discussion for points of interest to me, which I will now reguritate, if for no other reason than my amusement.

OK, by 'ignorance' I mean actually lead us away from asking the really useful scientific questions that lead to provisional understandings.
You've already jumped the shark. Useful science builds bombs, and heals people, etcetc, but the final decisions on resource allocation are not provided by science.


Edit - does further friction emerge due to the nature of the subject matter (i.e., the paranormal) or is this irrelevant?
"Paranormal" is a word most loved by scientists and laymen to provide the pretense that interactive dualism of some sort can be logically defended. It also provides materialists with their ultimate strawman.


Dennett is a philosopher isn't he?
Standard materialist/atheist. I'd like to catch him after a few drinks to see if he really has faith in what he advertises as a philosophical position.


But I never understand Hammy's philosophy ....
You're right. You don't. Nor do you try to; it's more fun to declare what you don't understand as anti-science and Wrong.

hammy is "intelligent design" with a tad of philosophy and injerjections peppered mainly with conjecture, insults, and oblique questions. ..... Hammy likes terms like materialist and darwinist--I think realist is better.
Nothing like a wild-@ss guess, huh?


From an earlier link:Polkinghorne's favorite fact is the minute adjustment of the various cosmological constants and magnitudes without which large atoms and molecules could not exist. Why do they have these fortunate properties? We do not know; and in the absence of fairly wild cosmological speculation, there is no evolutionary story to help us. Most scientists would surely leave it there. Maybe one day there will be a physical theory explaining the value of these constants, or maybe not. But Polkinghorne jumps in. The problem signals the need for a "deeper form of intelligibility, going beyond the scientific." In other words, it must be due to the divine architect, or providence, lovingly going to all that trouble to make a universe especially for us.
How anthropomorphic, yet some essence remains.


Hume and Kant told us that such thinking is natural, but not scientific. It is extravagant, and it is not falsifiable, since it generates no new predictions. It merely represents a primitive preference for explaining the unknown in terms of agency rather than in terms of nature—a tendency that science had to suppress and to overcome before it could develop.
That is one possible implication, albeit a silly one. Folowed by natterings of theology.



...soi-disant philosophers.
Someone other than yourself has actually 'styled' you? What do you claim is the additional source beyond your own perceptions?

the point is some do talk about things they know nothing about and comment on science when they have no idea how it really works in practice. ...
Hmm. You too must be preparing a long-awaited book explaining it all.

... definitely. Anyone who makes a point of not reading and of dismissing the recognized experts in the field they're supposed to be practicing -- such as a wannabe philosopher of mind who scornfully asks whether Blackburn has written anything of significance. and who admits never having read Dennett -- is clearly a poseur.
Which brings to mind (so to speak ;) ) the question; "how many books about penguins must one read to get a very very workable idea about the attributes of penguins?". In our case it's authors' who assume an ontological position whether they admit it or not, and then pretend they are proving their assumption True.

From the thread on Diane Lazarus


We know with 100% predictability when anomalous abilities will not manifest themselves.......under controlled conditions.
Seldom do we see a materialist=atheist=100%. It is a logically defensible position, yet few seem willing to admit for their personal 100-epsilon Confidence, epsilon does equal zero.

Surely, if you can't test it then you are just wasting mental energy on it (?) It may be true, or it may be false, but you'll never progress by assuming it is true ... and it certainly isn't worth building an entire philosophical position from it.
Yet you seem sure your (understood, and tacit) philosophical position -- the antithesis of ~materialism -- although equally untestable is more worthwhile.

It's already published all over the place--it's even written in our DNA--always has been, it turns out.
As irrelevant to the question as Dennet's untestable hypothesis on human consciousness.


--on the other hand--no eternal damnantion either.
What a pointless comment! The Theology discussions are elsewhere. I do find the number of angels on a pin discussion a rehash of Zeno. We see it anew in the mathematized disjoint between QM and General Relativity.


See? --Evidence of perception being in the brain--no supernatural stuff needed. That doesn't mean that it can't exist outside the brain--but it is the burden of the one making the specious claim to provide evidence--otherwise, it's just like saying--"I'm magic; prove me wrong."
Please descibe for us your "supernatural" stuff. My worldview has none, and human level thought exists.

I don't idolize him...I just read him. Have you? And I also noted that he understands science very well.
I have nothing to quibble with on that statement, only to note, again, it adds nothing to our discussion.


I'm not sure I idolize anyone, frankly--but I only criticize that which I read (such as what you write--you seem to be condemning him without knowing what he's written because he is an atheist--so I think you are the one maintaining your ignorance per your comment above.)
I find theology is of lesser merit than raw materialism.


Have you ever once considered that you might be wrong about this disembodied consciousness thing? Ever?
I find nothing that allows me to choose a monism to accept and defend other than logic. Objective idealism is what I name it.


Or are you forever standing firm in your notion that it must exist in some manner?
Less firmly than you hold your notion that the opposite of consciousness is what must exist.


THE TRUTH (that which exists even when no one is thinking about it)
That same truth upholds objective idealism to the exact amount it upholds materialism.

(He has me on ignore because I kept asking awkward questions).
Balderhash. You keep reaching under the table for well-gnawed bones and other orts, then present them as the finest cuisine.
Some tire of your ceaseless offerings.


Geoff's game is to pretend that he has found meaningful answers to meaningless questions, and that the problem is on our end if we don't take him and his "answers" seriously.
You are wrong. His hope is that a single, new, idea may actually be tabled.

As a materialist, I deny the concept of the "mind". If it ain't matter, it don't matter.
That is your choice, which is not the same thing as 'that is a fact'. Your position -- if it truly is materialist=atheist=100% -- is logically defensible.

Unless it's a force, of course.
A stange comment indeed. Materialists have the same universe of quark-lepton-bosons interacting that idealists have.


I, like you, have no problems with the seat of consciousness being the brain. And when people dis Dawkins and Dennett, I find it's because they're not reading them--they can't let themselves--they've labeled the men "atheists" and so nothing they say will compute. There really is no middle ground between truth and faith--truth is just truth--no matter who is observing it or not.
The materialist endpoint at 100% is as logical as is the other endpoint, ~materialist. What does not pass muster is the dualism required to connect the two. That is, choose and defend your monism. I prefer to keep the choice at what most would term the cartesian body / mind problem. SFAIK, Geoff pushes that choice, in some sense, up a level.



I suspect that it's religion or perhaps religious philosophy responsible for Justgeoff's ignorance...and hammegk too.
I suspect you are wrong in that assessment; you are certainly wrong in it's application to objective idealism.

I will agree that the word "religion" is to be shunned. ;)


Impenetrable.
If confused, asking questions sometimes helps. :)

What makes you think that I deal with simple truths? There is nothing inherently simple about provisional truth.
Yup. What we are actually discussing is your understanding of the meaning of your epsilon in the 100%-epsilon probability you assign your provisional truths.


Your mistake here is to attribute something to science (that it is not as complex as philosophy) and then use this to undermine it. I take it your not a scientist then?
I make no claims.


Science can be simplified for reasons of communication, but thinking scientifically, thinking critically, coming up with novel ways to view my data - these are not simple things - at least to me. Obviously you are super human - why not grance us with your great insights???:boggled:
Again, you mistake me for someone else. Perhaps a PhD or two is more to your liking for the provision of great (philosophical) insights. Or perhaps none such (philosophical) insights exist, as your OP suggests.

Yet "common sense" ideas about how the world is have been shown time and time again to be wrong.
Imagine that! Darat and I agree with a statement he made!

[nescafe]

Again, that's the position most materialists would like to defend, but its not logically defendable.

With all due respect, you have not shown this.

The more clearly the materialists try to coherently define what they mean by "mind", the more obvious it becomes they cannot do so. That is why there is a plethora of equally meaningless words used to connect "brain process" and "mind", and never any actual explanation as to what the relationship actually is. There is not accidental.


Fair enough, though I would posit that the "not accidental" part is because we do not know enough about how brains work, and until we do we will not be able to precisely define what we mean by "mind".

It is a direct consequence of the fact that there is a metaphysical/conceptual misunderstanding in the context in which the explanation is being attempted. The relationship they are trying to explain is the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, and it is this relationship which has been the central theme of all metaphysics. The reason they cannot do it is that they are trying to explain the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity from within a paradigm (scientific materialism) which has already been designed to eliminate subjectivity. In other words, science can't explain the relationship because science is committed to providing the objective answers to objective questions, not questions about the nature of the objectivity/subjectivity relationship itself.

hmmm... are you saying that it is not possible to embed a subjective frame in a larger framework that is not subjective?

(edited: trivial grammar)

[Dr B]

Hammy - do you speak English or are you going to hide behind trying to sound profound?

You should know it will not work here. :D

[UndercoverElephant]

With all due respect, you have not shown this.


Not in this thread I haven't. Fancy a 50-page marathon?


Fair enough, though I would posit that the "not accidental" part is because we do not know enough about how brains work, and until we do we will not be able to precisely define what we mean by "mind".


I would have to contest that, on logical grounds. I will find some links to relevant threads if you really want to trawl through them.


hmmm... are you saying that it is not possible to embed a subjective frame in a larger framework that is not subjective?


Yes. (provided "not subjective" means "objective", which it does....)

There's a chicken-and-egg thing going on. Subjectivity encompasses everything. Logically speaking, solipsism could be true. We are trapped in our own minds, in our own subjective little world. So in a sense, mind or subjectivity forms the framework for our experience in life. Schrodinger puts this beautifully:


The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as part of it.


So from our point of view, minds are the frame which everything else occur in, including objects. What we think of as "objective" is to do with those things we percieve as objects. But we have already seen that these objects are a subset of our mental realm. This sets up the problem. Materialism then comes along and declares that reality is composed of a load of mind-independent objects, just like the ones we percieve mentally. It then tries to define mind in terms of those objects, but instead of defining it as the frame of reference for all experiences, it defines it as a process in an object called a brain. But objects called brains are things which exist in our subjective experiences.......and so the logical paradoxes begin.

This situation drives some people (like hammegk, Ian and lifegazer) into defending idealism. Personally, I view idealism as a dialectical reaction to materialism and choose neutral monism instead, which for me is the only way to escape the endless chain of paradoxes and contradictions.

[hammegk]

Hammy - do you speak English or are you going to hide behind trying to sound profound?

You should know it will not work here. :D
You are the master of adding nothing of substance to a discussion. :)

[nescafe]

Not in this thread I haven't. Fancy a 50-page marathon?

:) Sure! I think we are already in a few... but pointing me at your favourite 700 page philosophical tome might be easier. It will go on my reading list (currently: Consciousness Explained (reading it again), Sociobiology (the 25th anneversary edition), and The Retreat to Commitment (again).

I would have to contest that, on logical grounds. I will find some links to relevant threads if you really want to trawl through them.


Point away. It might be relavent for me to point out that I have already read all the threads your profile says you have started, though.



Yes. (provided "not subjective" means "objective", which it does....)


More like the no-viewpoint that is the noumena. Objective is the closest we can get to it, unfortuanetly. :)

There's a chicken-and-egg thing going on. Subjectivity encompasses everything.


erm, I have to disagree with that. Subjectivity encompasses everything we experience, which is not everything unless you are a closet solipsist.

[hammegk]

There's a chicken-and-egg thing going on. Subjectivity encompasses everything. Logically speaking, solipsism could be true. We are trapped in our own minds, in our own subjective little world. So in a sense, mind or subjectivity forms the framework for our experience in life. Schrodinger puts this beautifully:

"The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as part of it."


So from our point of view, minds are the frame which everything else occur in, including objects. What we think of as "objective" is to do with those things we percieve as objects. But we have already seen that these objects are a subset of our mental realm. This sets up the problem. Materialism then comes along and declares that reality is composed of a load of mind-independent objects, just like the ones we percieve mentally. It then tries to define mind in terms of those objects, but instead of defining it as the frame of reference for all experiences, it defines it as a process in an object called a brain. But objects called brains are things which exist in our subjective experiences.......and so the logical paradoxes begin.

This situation drives some people (like hammegk, Ian and lifegazer) into defending idealism. Personally, I view idealism as a dialectical reaction to materialism and choose neutral monism instead, which for me is the only way to escape the endless chain of paradoxes and contradictions.
Ouch. I consider myself as far from lifegazer as you do. I find Ian's brand of idealism confusing.

As for myself, yup. Objective Idealism treating the "physical" as the epiphenomena works logically so far. I admit I may have missed a subtlety -- or glaring example -- somewhere that destroys it as a logical framework. If someone can point me to something I've overlooked that does so I'd appreciate it ... :)

Full-blown materialism is of course equally logical. I continue to suspect there are damn few people who meet that criteria, or bother to understand it.

And I find your monism, "above" both mind and matter, to be a copout equal to Stimpy's.

[UndercoverElephant]

:) Sure! I think we are already in a few... but pointing me at your favourite 700 page philosophical tome might be easier

It will go on my reading list (currently: Consciousness Explained (reading it again), Sociobiology (the 25th anneversary edition), and The Retreat to Commitment (again).


It sort of depends exactly what you are interested in but given the current subject matter, which is try to resolve the subjective and objective perspectives the following book is top of the list and very highly recomended:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195056442/102-3725960-4495312?v=glance&n=283155


Point away. It might be relavent for me to point out that I have already read all the threads your profile says you have started, though.


All of them? That must be a lot of reading. There is one thread in particular I am thinking of, but I'm not sure it was even me who started it. I'll go check.


erm, I have to disagree with that. Subjectivity encompasses everything we experience, which is not everything unless you are a closet solipsist.

In never said it was everything. That is the logical leap made by the solipsists and the subjective idealists. I'm a neutral monist, which is rather a different ballgame.

[UndercoverElephant]

Nescafe,

The most relevant recent thread is this one, which is 43 pages long. Amidst the noise and fireworks there is an attempt by Paul to understand and refute the proof, which works by asking Paul (or anyone) to provide a set of definitions and then demonstrating that if those definitions include a non-redundant definition of "mind" then materialism can be shown to be false. Paul eventually seems to understand this and starts defending eliminativism instead. The thread then turns into a debate about what the eliminativists are actually eliminating. When Paul realises that the eliminativists really are eliminating his mind, he goes back to trying to defend reductionism again, but this doesn't work either. The thread finally peters out after Kevin Lowe makes the same logical error six times in succession and as a result he ends up with six telescopically-collapsed definitions of what "mind" means, none of them actually being useful for describing a mind.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54975

[hammegk]

:) ... Subjectivity encompasses everything we experience, which is not everything unless you are a closet solipsist.
This raises an interesting point. Materialists must say solipsism is not logically defensible, full stop. Objective Idealists can choose to believe they are not The Solipsist -- should one exist -- and agree with, say, you, that you aren't T.S. either and discuss things.

Brain-in-vat scenarios are logically acceptable either way, of course, assuming the objective idealist considers what is perceived as physical as epiphenomena associated with the (sentient, in some sense, or will-full, perhaps) what-is.

[Jeff Corey]

... Full-blown materialism is of course equally logical. I continue to suspect there are damn few people who meet that criteria, or bother to understand it.
I think I do. It would help if you would elaborate on what those criteria are.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think I do. It would help if you would elaborate on what those criteria are.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/


Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. Descartes famously challenged much of what we take for granted, but he insisted that, for the most part, we can be confident about the content of our own minds. Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge of the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted.


Eliminativism differs from reductionism in that it [implicitly] recognises that reductionist materialism is in fact not logically supportable. Instead, it claims that no reduction is necessary because minds don't actually exist.

Personally, I think it is absolutely insane, regardless of the fact it doesn't suffer from the logical problems inherent with reductionism.

[hammegk]

Eliminativism differs from reductionism in that it [implicitly] recognises that reductionist materialism is in fact not logically supportable.
Just so.


Instead, it claims that no reduction is necessary because minds don't actually exist.
Which provides the first (hammy) 100% certainty problem. Denial of the one thing you are most certain does exist.


Personally, I think it is absolutely insane, regardless of the fact it doesn't suffer from the logical problems inherent with reductionism.
I'll settle for "odd". :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Ouch. I consider myself as far from lifegazer as you do.


OK, fair enough. He's on his own little planet somewhere.


And I find your monism, "above" both mind and matter, to be a copout equal to Stimpy's.

:shrugs:

Each to his own......

[Dr B]

You are the master of adding nothing of substance to a discussion. :)

I would ask you to back that up with evidence but (i) I know you do not like being asked questions, and (ii) I know you do not like dealing with facts...:D :D

cue more innane waffle from the fringes of common sense.....

[hammegk]

I know you do not like dealing with facts...:D :D
Provide a fact. I'll see what I can do with it.


cue more innane waffle from the fringes of common sense.....
cue another pile of monkey poo to throw at me.....

Doc, you do better furthering your agenda when your opponent's formal schooling stopped after (the US version of) high-school. :p

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nescafe,

The most relevant recent thread is this one, which is 43 pages long. Amidst the noise and fireworks there is an attempt by Paul to understand and refute the proof, which works by asking Paul (or anyone) to provide a set of definitions and then demonstrating that if those definitions include a non-redundant definition of "mind" then materialism can be shown to be false. Paul eventually seems to understand this and starts defending eliminativism instead. The thread then turns into a debate about what the eliminativists are actually eliminating. When Paul realises that the eliminativists really are eliminating his mind, he goes back to trying to defend reductionism again, but this doesn't work either.


Geoff's memory is failing him, unfortunately.

The way everyone else remembers that thread, Geoff couldn't advance a coherent argument for the position that minds cannot be the functioning of a piece of meat between our ears to save his life. Instead he played a very long-running and silly game where he challenged people to come up with definitions for a set of loaded terms such that Geoff couldn't construe the definitions to be self-contradictory.

You might think that such an exercise would prove nothing, and you would be right. Geoff's excuse for it was outright mysticism. He claimed that we were magically unable to see the truth of his position unless we engaged in this exercise, and if we did so "with an open mind" then we'd come to embrace this position of his, which apparently could not be argued for rationally.


The thread finally peters out after Kevin Lowe makes the same logical error six times in succession and as a result he ends up with six telescopically-collapsed definitions of what "mind" means, none of them actually being useful for describing a mind.

As always, Geoff manages to sound like he might have a meaningful argument by concealing the awkward fact that in his lexicon "mind" implies "spooky magic!", and so any term that refers to mental processes which excludes spooky magic is "not useful for describing a mind" in his terms.

Thus he gets to the conclusion that I used a variety of terms to refer to mental processes that were "not useful for describing a mind", because they did not imply the presence of spooky magic.

That's how he gets to say things like "materialists believe we don't have a mind!". Of course materialists believe no such thing, unless you use the bizarre and personal Geoff-definition of mind which means "spooky magic!". This has been pointed out to him often enough that he knows he is being actively deceitful, as opposed to just being the victim of innocent confusion.

He can't even get his lies in chronological order. He put me on ignore long before the thread petered out, so presenting something I did as the end of the thread is a very bizarre claim to try out. I guess he just hoped I'd stopped reading this thread.

I can't say that philosophy led to his ignorance though, since apparently he expressed exactly the same wacky views on these forums before he drifted into academic philosophy. He just misuses philosophy to dress up his idiotic mysticism as something respectable or interesting.

[UndercoverElephant]

Nescafe,

As Kevin pointed out, he's on ignore. I read this post because it was in this thread, outside the philosophy board, and I needed to find out what he posted. I'll respond to one line only:


silly game where he challenged people to come up with definitions for a set of loaded terms


The entire purpose of challenging people to come up with definitions for themselves was, of course, so I could not be accused of loading the definitions. This was explained several times to Kevin, but he doesn't seem to have understood it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nescafe,

As Kevin pointed out, he's on ignore. I read this post because it was in this thread, outside the philosophy board, and I needed to find out what he posted. I'll respond to one line only:


How surprising.


The entire purpose of challenging people to come up with definitions for themselves was, of course, so I could not be accused of loading the definitions. This was explained several times to Kevin, but he doesn't seem to have understood it.

The purpose was to avoid having to actually make an argument. His intent was that he would get other people to make an argument, then he'd construe their definitions to be either self-contradictory or to imply the non-existence of "minds", and then he would assert that since their position did not work that his position must be correct by elimination.

I referred to the words he demanded definitions for as loaded because he chose terms, like "subjective" and "objective", that could be taken to imply a distinction between minds and physical reality at the outset. I don't think his tactic actually fooled anybody, but it certainly confused people effectively enough. Geoff's good at sounding like he is saying something interesting when he's not.

[joller]

The purpose was...
Can anyone post a link to that thread?

[nescafe]

Can anyone post a link to that thread?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54975



Also, JustGeoff, I am still waiting on that proof that a subjective frame (my mind, your mind) cannot exist in a framework that is not subjective (the physical world as described by QCD and GR).

[nescafe]

Materialism:
What happened to life, mind and free will? All we have are little bits of stuff interacting according to rules? Crazy talk!

Dualism (and more!):

Ripe for some nice proof-by-contradiction, and Ockham's Razor says that any stance that needlessly multiplies entities (worlds, in this case) should not be considered. Since every other family of stances have less entities than this set, dualist stances should not be considered until all the monist stances have been discarded. Good luck.

With Idealism:

Minds/qualia/whatever are notoriously hard to define -- hardly the sort of thing I would want to use as a foundation for a causal explanation of anything.

Neutral Monism:
What is a neutral monad, anyways? Seems like some sort of bizzare idealistic materialism except it is neither.

Is there any other stance I need to wax cynical about (barring solipsism, because that is just too easy)?

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin,

Maybe I should take you back off ignore. Your posts crack me up.


I referred to the words he demanded definitions for as loaded because he chose terms, like "subjective" and "objective", that could be taken to imply a distinction between minds and physical reality at the outset.


Erm......how is one supposed to analyse the relationship between people's concepts of subjective and objective unless you get them to define "subjective" and "objective", Kevin? :oldroll:

Erm......how can one be accused of loading the terms when one is giving one's opponent the freedom to define them however he wants?

Had I defined the terms myself, any proof I had supplied which used those terms would have been rejected on the grounds that I had supplied loaded definitions. Only in Kevinworld can you be accused of "loading the definition" when all you have done is asked somebody else to supply their definitions.

The only way to demonstrate that materialists have an illogical position is to get them to define the words, and then show there is an inconsistency in their position. It was because you, Kevin, could not grasp this principle that led you, Kevin, to end up with six telescopically collapsed definition of mind. Every time you tried to define anything to do with a mind I put your definition into the argument and showed there was a problem. Each time, you then invented a new word for "mind", only to subsequently redefine that word to mean "brain process" a few sentences later. It was like Geoff was being the Penn and Teller of metaphysics. I even explained to you how the trick worked. But even though I explained the trick to you, you kept on falling for it anyway. Had you been able to figure out what was going on then you, like Paul (see sig line), would have realised the game was up. But you are slower than Paul, so you didn't. You just got more and more annoyed.

[UndercoverElephant]

Also, JustGeoff, I am still waiting on that proof that a subjective frame (my mind, your mind) cannot exist in a framework that is not subjective (the physical world as described by QCD and GR).

What do you think is the relationship between

a) the quantum/relativistic world
b) the classical newtonian world of billiard-ball-matter
c) the actual objects of perception - that monitor in front of you

?

It's quite impossible for me to prove anything at all unless other people supply me with their definitions of things. How, for example, do you resolve the wave/particle duality?

This is going to end up being a re-run of that monster thread.....

[UndercoverElephant]

Materialism:
What happened to life, mind and free will? All we have are little bits of stuff interacting according to rules? Crazy talk!


Well, the disappearance of mind is a bit disconcerting. I swear mine hasn't gone anywhere.....


Dualism (and more!):

Ripe for some nice proof-by-contradiction, and Ockham's Razor says that any stance that needlessly multiplies entities (worlds, in this case) should not be considered. Since every other family of stances have less entities than this set, dualist stances should not be considered until all the monist stances have been discarded. Good luck.


Substance dualism is a non-starter, IMO. Property dualism isn't a non-starter, but everybody hates it anyway, including me.


With Idealism:

Minds/qualia/whatever are notoriously hard to define -- hardly the sort of thing I would want to use as a foundation for a causal explanation of anything.


"Mind" is dead simple to define. What was wrong with Schrodingers definition?

"The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as part of it."


Neutral Monism:
What is a neutral monad, anyways? Seems like some sort of bizzare idealistic materialism except it is neither.


Not neutral monadism. Monadism is Leibnizian metaphysics, a form of idealism. It's pre-Kantian.

Neutral monism could be described as a sort of idealistic materialism, but that would be a crude description. It is not this. It is something else.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK.....

I've got the whole summer and nothing to do. Kevin clearly still doesn't understand how he got into the logical mess last time, so I see no reason why we can't have some more fun.

Geoff's claim:

It is impossible to provide a non-redundant definition of mind/subjective/1st-person and maintain a coherent materialistic position. I can demonstrate this by asking people for a set of definitions, and then showing those definitions lead to contraditions. In other words, the only form of materialism which is logically coherent is eliminativism.

Here, to help Kevin, is a reminder of where his logical loop finally led to him directly contradicting himself in the space of one post, on his fifth time round the loop. The post is number 1579: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1584523&postcount=1579

Posted by Kevin:


Geoff-mind : Totality of subjective experiences
Kevin-mind : Completed neuroscientific description of brain processes

Those definitions are probably okay.


Here, Kevin accepts two definitions. It is quite clear how they differ, and there is no ambiguity about their definitions.

Later on in the same post we have got:


Well, if in straw-land you are equating "Geoff-mind" and "what we experience"...


See the problem? First, Kevin agrees to a clear definition of what we experience. Later, in the same post, this definition causes Kevin's position to collapse so he has to claim that it is invalid to equate "geoff-mind" to "experience", even though he himself accepted this very same definition earlier in the very same post. If he is silly enough to take the bait and provide a definition of anything which refers to "My subjective experiences", the logical farce will begin again.

Please define.....

Subjective:
Mental/Mind:
Objective:
Physical/Material:

Go for it Kev! :cool:

[hammegk]

... Neutral monism could be described as a sort of idealistic materialism, but that would be a crude description. It is not this. It is something else.
Er, try "objective idealism". :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Er, try "objective idealism". :D

Actually, "objective idealism" is a better label for the definition that was given for neutral monism. Neutral monism needs a different definition to that one.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,
Erm......how is one supposed to analyse the relationship between people's concepts of subjective and objective unless you get them to define "subjective" and "objective", Kevin? :oldroll:


An approach that avoids the semantic confusion you like to spread would be to ask people what they think their minds are, and what they think their sense experiences are. The problem with that approach for you is that most people will reply "They are matter and energy doing their thing, in the form of brain cells and nerve cells and neurotransmitters and so forth", which leaves you nowhere to go.

Whereas "subjective" and "objective" are words with all sorts of ambiguity and baggage you can exploit to drag threads out for tens of pages without once contributing anything sensible.


Had I defined the terms myself, any proof I had supplied which used those terms would have been rejected on the grounds that I had supplied loaded definitions.

In fact they would be rejected on the basis that your definitions would be bizarre and stupid. The thing with sensible positions is that you can define your terms and your argument without making it obvious that you are talking patent nonsense. The thing with your position is that you can't. That's why you stick to the creationist strategy of pretending you have discovered a disproof of someone else's position, to distract everybody from the hilarious weakness of your own.


Only in Kevinworld can you be accused of "loading the definition" when all you have done is asked somebody else to supply their definitions.


The terms you asked people to define are tailor-made for causing confusion.


The only way to demonstrate that materialists have an illogical position is to get them to define the words, and then show there is an inconsistency in their position. It was because you, Kevin, could not grasp this principle that led you, Kevin, to end up with six telescopically collapsed definition of mind. Every time you tried to define anything to do with a mind I put your definition into the argument and showed there was a problem. Each time, you then invented a new word for "mind", only to subsequently redefine that word to mean "brain process" a few sentences later. It was like Geoff was being the Penn and Teller of metaphysics. I even explained to you how the trick worked. But even though I explained the trick to you, you kept on falling for it anyway. Had you been able to figure out what was going on then you, like Paul (see sig line), would have realised the game was up. But you are slower than Paul, so you didn't. You just got more and more annoyed.

The problem was not that I misunderstood the rigmarole, it was that I understood it too clearly and kept pointing out why it was idiotic.

There is only a problem if you sneak in the covert assumption that minds (and/or subjective experiences) are spooky magic things. As long as you keep sneaking that assumption back in, then any definition of a mind that excludes spooky magic is inconsistent with the covert assumption. But who cares if a definition is inconsistent with your idiotic, irrational, preconceived ideas? Certainly I don't.

[nescafe]

Well, the disappearance of mind is a bit disconcerting. I swear mine hasn't gone anywhere.....


Neither has mine. It is the same place I left my money. :)



"Mind" is dead simple to define. What was wrong with Schrodingers definition?

"The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as part of it."


and based on that definition, we can infer what properties about minds? Does that definition help us make any predictions on how minds will percive the world? Is it anything more than a tautology?

Neutral monism could be described as a sort of idealistic materialism, but that would be a crude description. It is not this. It is something else.

Based on the SEP entry (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/) for it, it seems to be materialism + idealism in the sense that there is an underlying layer to both that is both (or neither) physical nor mental. So it just explicitly creates the layer of abstraction linking the two that substance dualism implies. It is as ugly as the Standard Model in QM but without the overwhelming leap in predictive and explanatory power the SM has.

(edited: After a bit more reading, Kenneth Sayre's formulation of Neutral Monism seems to be the most interesting of the bunch, and one that I would probably agree with much of it -- information as an ontological prior to both mind and matter.)

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin Lowe


An approach that avoids the semantic confusion you like to spread would be to ask people what they think their minds are, and what they think their sense experiences are.


Err....Right. So asking people to define words like "mind", isn't asking them what they think their minds are, yes?

You seem to be objecting to me actually asking you to define a word and stick to that definition.

***NEWSFLASH***

If a person can't define what they mean or can't stick to one definition of a word, then it always means the same thing: They don't understand what they are talking about.


The problem with that approach for you is that most people will reply "They are matter and energy doing their thing, in the form of brain cells and nerve cells and neurotransmitters and so forth", which leaves you nowhere to go.


I have no problem with that approach, Kevin. I have no idea why you think that asking people to define "mind" is any different to what you are suggesting.


Whereas "subjective" and "objective" are words with all sorts of ambiguity and baggage.....


Even before they have been defined? :oldroll:


...you can exploit to drag threads out for tens of pages without once contributing anything sensible.


No Kevin, that's not what happened. What happened was that your definitions were incoherent.


Had I defined the terms myself., any proof I had supplied which used those terms would have been rejected on the grounds that I had supplied loaded definitions.


Incorrect. You failed to supply any coherent definitions. You are now trying to justify this in the grounds that "even if I'd supplied them, you'd reject them." Try supplying them instead of whining.


The thing with sensible positions is that you can define your terms and your argument without making it obvious that you are talking patent nonsense.


Yep, and you can't do it. :)


The terms you asked people to define are tailor-made for causing confusion.


Only for people who are easily confused. ;)


The only way to demonstrate that materialists have an illogical position is to get them to define the words, and then show there is an inconsistency in their position.


Which is what I did.


There is only a problem if you sneak in the covert assumption that minds (and/or subjective experiences) are spooky magic things.


How can I sneak an assumption into definitions supplied by somebody else? That would be truly magical.

Stop moaning. Stop making excuses. Supply the definitions.

[UndercoverElephant]

and based on that definition, we can infer what properties about minds? Does that definition help us make any predictions on how minds will percive the world? Is it anything more than a tautology?


The only question which matters right now is "Is that a valid definition of what a mind is?" And I think it is very hard to deny that it is. Your subsequent questions are along the lines of "How useful is this definition for science?" Whilst this is a valid question, it should not be allowed to get in the way of answering the question which matters. The problem is as follows: if we do not define mind in the way Shrodinger defines it then we will have to invent a new word to denote the thing Schrodinger is defining. The line you are taking in response to this is similar to Kevins. You are trying to say "wouldn't it be more useful to define mind as being a brain process?" The answer to that question is that it might be more useful in some ways, but that if you want to use the word "mind" to denote the physical processes then you will simply be left with a referent which has no term. The thing Schrodinger defined will just have to be given a new name. That is how we ended up with the idiotic terms "Geoff-mind" and "Kevin-mind". "Geoff-mind" has to be invented to distinguish it from the thing Kevin and yourself want to call "mind". In the end, it doesn't matter what you call the thing Schrodinger defined as mind, as long as it is called something and that name is reserved for that thing. Kevin's logical loop consisted of continually inventing new terms for Schrodingers definition of what "mind" is, then taking that word and trying to use it to denote the physical process as well. Each time he did it, he then needed to invent yet another new term to denote subjective experiences. By post #1616, just by allowing Kevin to chase his own logical tail, we had ended up with

"What we experience(2)(*MINDS*) is what we experience(1)(now:brain), which is a Geoff-mind(now:brain), inside a Kevin-mind(now:brain) inside a brain."

You can't fool me, mister. It's brains all the way down! :D

Incidentally, this is how the word qualia ended up having to be invented, although that only requires one trip round the loop. Only Kevin repeated the error six times in succession.


Based on the SEP entry (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/) for it, it seems to be materialism + idealism in the sense that there is an underlying layer to both that is both (or neither) physical nor mental. So it just explicitly creates the layer of abstraction linking the two that substance dualism implies.


No, no. That isn't neutral monism. There are several versions of neutral monism, but none of them fit your description. Substance dualism doesn't imply another layer of abstraction. It just states there are two kinds of stuff. Neutral monism does imply another layer of abstraction, and uses this point to deny there are two kinds of stuff, even though the phenomenal world appears dualistic to us.


(edited: After a bit more reading, Kenneth Sayre's formulation of Neutral Monism seems to be the most interesting of the bunch, and one that I would probably agree with much of it -- information as an ontological prior to both mind and matter.)

My own position is not that far from this. My own version of neutral monism implies that the neutral entity is basically mathematical in nature. All that exists are mathematical entities, but with a slightly modified conception of Zero.

[nescafe]

What do you think is the relationship between

a) the quantum/relativistic world
b) the classical newtonian world of billiard-ball-matter
c) the actual objects of perception - that monitor in front of you


The quantum/relativistic description of the world is the most accurate one we have at the moment. The classical newtonian description is a simplified version of the quantum/relativistic description that works well at the scales we usually interact with the world with. The monitors in front of me are fully describable in both newtonian and QM/GR terms to the limits of their respective descriptive powers. The fact that they are not fully describable by me is an artifact of my limited sensorium, my limited bandwith, my cognitive architecture, and the time it would take to overcome all of the above. The two monitors themselves are black-framed engineering sample 15 inch LCD panels.

How, for example, do you resolve the wave/particle duality?


I do not. As far as I can tell, it is a brute fact.


This is going to end up being a re-run of that monster thread.....

:) Well, I pointed out the solution to that (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1709291&postcount=737) in the materialists... thread, did I not? If you don't like these sorts of threads, stop bringing it up. Otherwise, bringing it up just shows you like this particular form of pig wrasslin'.

(edited: speling)

[UndercoverElephant]

So now that we have revealed the bits of woo (yours taoist, mine buddhist) that our metaphysical beliefs rationalize, is it time to end this war between the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front and focus our massive throbbing organs of rationalization on the real non-enemy?


Who is the real non-enemy?

[nescafe]

The only question which matters right now is "Is that a valid definition of what a mind is?" And I think it is very hard to deny that it is. Your subsequent questions are along the lines of "How useful is this definition for science?" Whilst this is a valid question, it should not be allowed to get in the way of answering the question which matters.


Schrodinger's definition does not seem to say anything beyond "your mind is identical to your percived world", which by itself does not mean anything without also describing the entirety of the percived world, and then you have to define what you mean by percived world, why it is percived the way it is, etc, etc, etc. What is the advantage of it over materialism again?


My point in the context of mind-as-primary-entity is that accepting "mind" as an axiomatic component is fraught with peril -- axioms should be so simple that pretty much everyone can agree as to exactly what they are and that they cannot be broken down into something simpler within whatever formalism you are working in. Since it is obvious that there is a lot of flaming^W reasoned debate as to what mind is and what (if anything) it is composed of, using it in an axiomatic fashion is rather foolish.



No, no. That isn't neutral monism. There are several versions of neutral monism, but none of them fit your description. Substance dualism doesn't imply another layer of abstraction. It just states there are two kinds of stuff. Neutral monism does imply another layer of abstraction, and uses this point to deny there are two kinds of stuff, even though the phenomenal world appears dualistic to us.


Fair enough. I only found about the neutral monist stance by reading your posts, so I am bound to have some incorrect ideas about it. I should have said "The only way to make substance dualism coherent is to add another layer of abstraction, and this is what neutral monism seems to do".

My own position is not that far from this. My own version of neutral monism implies that the neutral entity is basically mathematical in nature. All that exists are mathematical entities, but with a slightly modified conception of Zero.

Your basic entity is mathematical in nature, or is mathematically describable in nature? ;)

(ed. speling again)

[nescafe]

Who is the real non-enemy?

The Romans, of course. :D

Those who wilfully mislead others whose logic is not as honed as ours is.

[articulett]

To me "mind" is one of those words that people think there is some "divine" definition for like "good", "evil", "morality"--to me this words are clearly human constructs to understand and influence the behavior of themselves and others. You can throw "god", "souls", and demons into the equation too--thetans and fairies also. The mind is based in language and tells a story about your world so your world makes sense. It is a brain process. And it's very interesting to see the way certain sorts of brain damage can cause people to confabulate the oddest things to describe what they are experiencing. A common delusion in dementia is that the face in the mirror is not your own. Humans describe (and make up) the reasons they do things. An animal doesn't wonder how or why it has a sex drive--bowery birds don't need to study how to make nests--but language allows a way to transmit information that can be better than imitation or intuition (primal instincts). But it also means humans can extrapolate their own death...and so it's is normal to spin a story that this could not be so.

We have no problem with the time before we were conscious, but a conscious brain has a hard time with the realization that it may not be conscious in the future. What people hope or wish or extrapolate from this realization doesn't change the reality of it one bit. There is no evidence for consciousness outside the brain. Without a hippocampus you can build no new memories. Clive Wearing is a man in the UK in a constant twilight zone because of this. He always feels like he is waking up from a coma--he cries every time he sees his grown kids because he missed seeing them grow up--but he didn't. He is unable to comprehend his dilemma so he "lies" to himself and perpetually feels that he has just woken up from a long coma of nothingness. Now, if Clive cannot make memory without a hippocampus--what can any entity be without some form of memory? You could not learn--punishment and reward rely on memory as well...what sort of existence could it be? And where is this magic essence for Clive Wearing? Fooling yourself is perfectly fine--but to try and fool those who prefer truth over belief and evidence over conviction is pretty ignorant.

[UndercoverElephant]

Schrodinger's definition does not seem to say anything beyond "your mind is identical to your percived world", which by itself does not mean anything without also describing the entirety of the percived world, and then you have to define what you mean by percived world, why it is percived the way it is, etc, etc, etc.


I'm not sure you have to do any of that stuff. I think his definition just works, all on its own.


What is the advantage of it over materialism again?


It's not illogical.


My point in the context of mind-as-primary-entity is that accepting "mind" as an axiomatic component is fraught with peril......


I'm not advocating idealism.


-- axioms should be so simple that pretty much everyone can agree as to exactly what they are and that they cannot be broken down into something simpler within whatever formalism you are working in. Since it is obvious that there is a lot of flaming^W reasoned debate as to what mind is and what (if anything) it is composed of, using it in an axiomatic fashion is rather foolish.


My point was that unless you use the word "mind" to refer to that thing schroedinger was refering to, you'll have to make up another word, instead.


Fair enough. I only found about the neutral monist stance by reading your posts, so I am bound to have some incorrect ideas about it. I should have said "The only way to make substance dualism coherent is to add another layer of abstraction, and this is what neutral monism seems to do".


That makes neutral monism sound like substance dualism with bells on, which it really isn't.


Your basic entity is mathematical in nature, or is mathematically describable in nature? ;)


Both.

[UndercoverElephant]

You can throw "god", "souls", and demons into the equation too--thetans and fairies also.


I haven't, though.


It is a brain process.


"IS" doesn't mean anything in your sentence. This statement of yours is my number one bugbear. It is total mythology. It is completely impossible to support. What do you think "is" means?


And where is this magic essence for Clive Wearing?


Nobody said there was a magic essence.

I don't know if your post was actually directed at me, maybe it wasn't. But if it was, then can I ask you to stop attacking straw men and stick to what I am actually posting?

[nescafe]

I'm not sure you have to do any of that stuff. I think his definition just works, all on its own.


Well, I do not. It looks about as useful on its own as the Axiom of Identity is on its own. Which is to say not at all.


It's not illogical.


True, it is logical. That does not make it meaningful on its own, though.

My point was that unless you use the word "mind" to refer to that thing schroedinger was refering to, you'll have to make up another word, instead.


Why? His is not the only definition, and it is a matter of taste as to how good his definition is. A rose by any other name and all that.



Your basic entity is mathematical in nature, or is mathematically describable in nature?

Both.

Then get cracking on those theorems. When you win the Fields Medal and/or the Gauss Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss_Prize), you can gloat all you want. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, I do not. It looks about as useful.....


Useful for what?

Who said definitions had to be "useful"? I think it is more important that they are accurate, don't you? What is the use of a definition which is useful, but no longer refers to the thing you want to refer to? :con2:

It may be useful (scientifically) to define a mind (a set of subjective experiences) to be brain processes, but it's not much use when you subsequently want to refer to subjective experiences and no longer have a word!


True, it is logical. That does not make it meaningful on its own, though.


Not on its own, no.


Why? His is not the only definition, and it is a matter of taste as to how good his definition is. A rose by any other name and all that.


If you define "mind" to mean "brain processes" then what word do I use for the thing that everybody else calls "mind"?

[UndercoverElephant]

Nescafe,

Regarding neutral monism.....

I ended up at this position not because of any deductively valid argument or because of any direct evidence or mathematical theorems. I ended up at it partly via a process of elimination of all the others and partly because of the influence of several important individuals. These especially include David Bohm and Arthur Eddington, two scientists who held a deep interest in many areas of thought far beyond the realm of science. They were both people who believed it was possible for science and religion to co-exist, for example. And both of them turned to neutral monist theories in order to explain why. Neutral monism is the only metaphysical position I can successfully incorporate into my wider structure of beliefs.

[UndercoverElephant]

Nescafe....

The following was the thread (on philosophyforums) which finally convinced me that neutral monism was the only position I would defend in the future. It's not very long.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=2826&highlight=%20saying%20goodbye

The turning point was this comment, by Paul, who is the owner/founder of that site:


If you're still considering idealism, I'd have to say physicalism isn't quite dead for you.


And though hammy will hate me for it, I think he was right.

[I less than three logic]

What do you think "is" means?
A third person singular present indicative of be. :)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/is

[UndercoverElephant]

A third person singular present indicative of be.

"IS" has loads of meanings in different places.

What exactly does it mean in the context of the sentence : "A mind is a brain process"?

What meaning is being conveyed by that word in this sentence?

[I less than three logic]

What meaning is being conveyed by that word in this sentence?
Guess I'm not sure, what does "is" mean in this sentence?

[nescafe]

I think it is more important that they are accurate, don't you?

No. I think they have to be accurate and (directly or indirectly) useful.


What is the use of a definition which is useful, but no longer refers to the thing you want to refer to? :con2:


A logical stepping stone. We still use Newtonian mechanics for many things even though the core set of ideas it is based on have been superceded (and in some cases are flat wrong). As far as things (including definitions) changing, I would be much more suprised if they did not. Either you adapt to them or get left behind.



It may be useful (scientifically) to define a mind (a set of subjective experiences) to be brain processes, but it's not much use when you subsequently want to refer to subjective experiences and no longer have a word!

You make up a new word. No big deal. If your ideas have merit, it might even be accepted.


If you define "mind" to mean "brain processes" then what word do I use for the thing that everybody else calls "mind"?

I am not defining "mind" as anything specific right now. I am simply noting that I think "mind" is too complex to be used in an axiomatic fashion, and I note that (unlike "electron", for example) there are multiple inconsistent definitions of "mind", and no compelling reason to believe that any one of those definitions or sets of definitions seem to apply in all situations.

[UndercoverElephant]

No. I think they have to be accurate and (directly or indirectly) useful.


So if they are accurate but not particularly useful (for whatever "use" you have in mind), what do you do?


You make up a new word. No big deal.


Oh, that's alright then. Somebody has already done that. The word is "qualia".

Personally, I think it is a redundant term, but that is only because I do not make the crucial "stepping stone" move that you make. By redefining "mind" in that way, you legitimise the word "qualia" to replace the vacancy created by redefining "mind".

[The Atheist]

Oh goody, one of my favourite subjects!

Only joined yesterday, so I am coming in late on this one, but I have an article on philosophy which has proven pretty popular, covering the subject of philosophy. Being a humble newbie, I can't place the URL here, so send me a message if you're interested.

Subtitled Emmanuel is a Kant, it should prove valuable for anyone to whom Schrodinger is anything other than on object of pity.

Love the comment from another Kiwi way back in the posts about the philosophy students being in that stream because they have nowehere else to go!

Message to all philosophy students, everywhere - Big Mac and two large fries, please.....

[nescafe]

So if they are accurate but not particularly useful (for whatever "use" you have in mind), what do you do?


I don't do anything with them.



Oh, that's alright then. Somebody has already done that. The word is "qualia".

Personally, I think it is a redundant term, but that is only because I do not make the crucial "stepping stone" move that you make. By redefining "mind" in that way, you legitimise the word "qualia" to replace the vacancy created by redefining "mind".

And? You do realize that by using the term "mind" where you meant "qualia" you have been causing unneeded confusion, yes? If you had pointed out that you meant "qualia" to me originally we would not have gone off on this tangent.

[UndercoverElephant]

And? You do realize that by using the term "mind" where you meant "qualia" you have been causing unneeded confusion, yes? If you had pointed out that you meant "qualia" to me originally we would not have gone off on this tangent.

I assumed you would be one of the people who claimed the word had no right to exist. If that assumption is wrong, then you are correct, it was a waste of time.

So what do you think is the relationship between qualia and brain processes (which you now call "mind")?

[UndercoverElephant]

Message to all philosophy students, everywhere - Big Mac and two large fries, please.....

I can't stand McDonalds. Gave me food poisoning, twice. I can't resist the occasional KFC, though.

[UndercoverElephant]

Guess I'm not sure, what does "is" mean in this sentence?

Nothing. It doesn't mean anything at all. It functions as a fig-leaf to cover up the fact that materialism can't explain how minds relate to matter.

It isn't a statement of identity like "The Evening Star is Venus". Venus and the evening star is one thing with two names. But every property of Venus is identical to that of the Evening Star. The same cannot be said of minds and brain processes. They are not identical. One of them is your conscious experiences and the other is a physical process in a lump of squishy meat. So "is" can't mean "is identical to". Which means there must be some explanation of how they differ, and how they relate. When a materialist says "A mind is a brain process", he has not explained what minds are. All he has offered as an explanation is the word "is", which has no discernable meaning in this case.

[nescafe]

Nescafe....

The following was the thread (on philosophyforums) which finally convinced me that neutral monism was the only position I would defend in the future. It's not very long.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=2826&highlight=%20saying%20goodbye


Interesting thread, although I think the last post in it is the most compelling.

[nescafe]

I assumed you would be one of the people who claimed the word had no right to exist. If that assumption is wrong, then you are correct, it was a waste of time.


Oh, I think that the word has a right to exist. Aether, philogiston, and geocentrism also have rights to exist as words. The concept for which they are labels may be incoherent, but that is another argument entirely, which I have no intention of getting into. :)

So what do you think is the relationship between qualia and brain processes (which you now call "mind")?
Somewhere in between the relationship between biology and chemistry and the relationship between economics and money. Emergent is the best word I have for it.

Also, please do not assume that I directly equate "brain processes" with "mind".

(ed. speling)

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, I think that the word has a right to exist. Aether, philogiston, and geocentrism also have rights to exist as words.


That contradicts what you just said. We just agreed that we would actually need a new word to refer to what Schrodinger defined. So there actually is something for the word qualia to refer to. The same does not apply to phlogiston. Phlogiston can be reasonably eliminated. Qualia (mind) cannot.

[UndercoverElephant]

...unless you are a neutral monist, that is.

[nescafe]

...unless you are a neutral monist, that is.

Well, if you thought I was a materialist, you were mistaken -- I just enjoy this sort of pig wrasslin' as well. :) If I had to choose a stance, the name for it would be computational naturalist.

[nescafe]

That contradicts what you just said. We just agreed that we would actually need a new word to refer to what Schrodinger defined. So there actually is something for the word qualia to refer to. The same does not apply to phlogiston. Phlogiston can be reasonably eliminated. Qualia (mind) cannot.

Why? You have not convinced me that qualia exist in a way that cannot be defined in terms the interaction of simpler units, nor have you shown that qualia = mind -- you have simply asserted so. I have stated that the term "mind" has several different definitions all in common usage, and that some of those definitions are mutually inconsistent. We do not appear to have set any precedent in this thread -- I have said that I do not accept Schrodinger's definition of mind, and listed the reasons for doing so:
Schrodinger's definition does not seem to say anything beyond "your mind is identical to your percived world", which by itself does not mean anything without also describing the entirety of the percived world, and then you have to define what you mean by percived world, why it is percived the way it is, etc, etc, etc.


Please refrain from thinking I have agreed to something when I did not, mmkay?

[UndercoverElephant]

Why? You have not convinced me that qualia exist in a way that cannot be defined in terms the interaction of simpler units......


No. What I have shown you is that if you define qualia in those terms you will then have to invent another new word to refer to what qualia refers to. In which case, what was the point in defining qualia in those terms? You are going round Kevin's logical loop. The word "qualia" was only invented because "mind" got redefined by the materialists to mean "brain process". Now you are trying to redefine "qualia" to mean "brain process", so we've got to invent a new word. "Subjective qualia", perhaps?

Remember what happened to Kevin?:

"What we experience(2)(*MINDS*) is what we experience(1)(now:brain), which is a Geoff-mind(now:brain), inside a Kevin-mind(now:brain) inside a brain."

Your version currently is "What we experience (subjective qualia) are qualia (now: brain processes) which are brain processes.

[articulett]

I haven't, though.

"IS" doesn't mean anything in your sentence. This statement of yours is my number one bugbear. It is total mythology. It is completely impossible to support. What do you think "is" means?

Is has approximately the same meaning as saying walking IS a process of the legs--it IS what legs do. You are the one who tries to place nebulous and magical meaning on words and define them to suit your purposes. I do not hear scientists use the word "mind" because it has religious and metaphysicaland woo connotations that new age bs spreaders like to exploit using a mixture of pseudoscience with "mystery" and ignorance.

Nobody said there was a magic essence.

I don't know if your post was actually directed at me, maybe it wasn't. But if it was, then can I ask you to stop attacking straw men and stick to what I am actually posting?

Well, you didn't start this thread...and you haven't yet given us a good reason for caring about your opinion on the subject. Why should we care more about what you have to say and respect it more than, Say Tom Cruises beliefs and understanding of essences. Why would you insult people who do exactly what skeptics do--ask for evidence. Why would you demand that people respect your opinion when you show so little respect for theirs--people who actually know more than you and could show you where your thinking is going wrong. A million people have claims and strong convictions and opinions--the only way I know to separate the truth from the blather is through probing, asking questions, and asking for evidence. I am well aware of human logic errors such as confirmation bias--and when I see someone unable to comprehend some very simple concepts and getting blustery and changing the subject when the errors of his thinking are pointed out--then that is a big clue to me, that the guy is either lying to me or to himself. I want no part of someone elses lies. I will not be a party to someone else's delusion. I do not owe respect to those who don't respect me nor do I read those who seem to have problems reading anything that doesn't quite mesh with the truth he wants.

[hammegk]

And though hammy will hate me for it,
Nope. No way. :)


I think he was right.
Objective idealism does not agree with Paul's "islands" concept, although you may convince me my mental>physical epiphenomenalism fails in some way I haven't considered.

[hammegk]

Is has approximately the same meaning as saying walking IS a process of the legs--it IS what legs do.
Evidence?


LOL. Thinking-at-human-level is a process of a (perceived) human brain.

Hmm, let me amend that: "Thinking-at-human-level is a process of at least some (perceived) human brains." There. Much better.

[articulett]

Evidence?


LOL. Thinking-at-human-level is a process of a (perceived) human brain.

Hmm, let me amend that: "Thinking-at-human-level is a process of at least some (perceived) human brains." There. Much better.

You and justgeoff (and probably Ian) seem to be the only ones who agree. We know a lot about consciousness, neurology, genetics, and how our sense of "self" most likely evolved. If you want to be part of the learning and understanding then quit insulting those who know more than you in these areas. Of Course, to understand any of them, you've got to stop clinging so tightly to your cherished dualism belief system and using words to obfuscate and throwing tantrums to avoid the obvious truth. You have never provided a scintilla of evidence as to how anything could think or feel or remember anything without a brain. We understand that these are brain dependent processes--so is pain--so is logic--so is abstract thinking--we even know about the most common errors humans make when considering logical conundrums. All of these studies are backed by mountains of evidence--and dualism remains just idle speculation of the arrogant, mendacious, faith oriented and/or unyielding--with evidence fashioned out of BS words, aspersions to those who disagree (without even reading them even--Dennett) and twisting of science and spin and appeal to authority to prop up a cherished notion and pass it off as "higher truth". It's what every woo does. Why do you think your special woo notion of dualism deserves more respect is beyond me... and why you would insult those who actually know more than you on given topics is also beyond me. So why should your opinion on dualism matter more to me than Tom Cruise's opinion on dualism again. He's very rich and successful afterall. No thanks, I'll stick to the evidence--so many insane men convinced of their rightness--what's a gal to do?--I'll go towards the evidence--it is the best path to truth every time

Yep, philosophy can lead to ignorance in pretty much the same manner that religion can apparently. It gets people looking for the truth they want and attacking all those who threaten their illusion of the "truth that is". Can you give us an example of you respecting someone so we can gather how it is you expected "skeptics" to react to your persistant insults and deluded thinking.
Dualism is an illusion until proven otherwise. You can't wish it into fact. You can fool yourself--but you aren't fooling anybody else on this forum.

[articulett]

Evidence?


LOL. Thinking-at-human-level is a process of a (perceived) human brain.

Hmm, let me amend that: "Thinking-at-human-level is a process of at least some (perceived) human brains." There. Much better.

Did you actually write LOL? Are you 12? If so...that explains it. And no, I think my definition is far more accurate than your self important misleading dualism-promoting one. Truth can be simple--but not for those who cannot compute that which doesn't fall into the illusion they want to be true. Don't you think I'd love for souls to exist? I lost my husband and best friend to cancer at age 28!-- I very much wanted souls to exist and all that other crap to be true--but I came to want to know what is really true--for certain--because there is so much crap and claims and opinions that it's mind boggling. And I find the truth very easy to understand--I find that I can weigh and measure facts just as well as anyone else--better even than many. I score very high on tests of analagous reasoning and logic. And I've long been interested in the way humans fool themselves. You are one of the most interesting case studies I've seen. We live in a time where we can know so much, and you belong to a forum where many do know a lot and are eager to share that knowledge--and yet the philosophy of dualism has made your brain a wasteland when it come to benefitting from all the information out there. I find road toad's assessment of you in the language award thread very accurate indeed.

[hammegk]

Thanks for sharing your high opinion of yourself, and tossing some monkey poo my way. Feel better now? ;)

Remember to look both ways when crossing the street. :D




ROTFLMGDFAO! You are a bigger hoot than Uppie!


PS. I'll spring for the cost of a room for you and your Toadie.

[articulett]

When asked for proof--hammekg throws out more indefinate terms to explain lesser terms. These are the words you will see that change meaning according to what a person wants you to believe and indicative of a "no true scotman" version of fallacious reasoning favored by the religious and woo believers every where. Souls, dualism, free will, good, evil, higher powers, quantum mechanics utilized as proof somewhat akin to saying (electons jump levels--so consciousness can too or some other wild extrapolation.)

Seep a persons brain in religion too long (or philosophy it seems) and you have a brain capable of spinning poop into adorable little critters--and they'll tantrum when you point out the critters smell.

If it plays semantics games--it might be truth--but my guess is that it's nothingness disguised as truth--religion, woo, philosophy, voodoo, "higher knowledge" (as if), etc.

A thing I know I will never see-- an apology from Hammegk for his arrogance and a thankful but sheepish not of gratitude for all of those who hung in with his obstinate self--in order to finally help him see where his think was incorrect. Justgeoff--maybe. Interesting Ian--when hell freezes over. You could be learning so very much, but instead you see yourselfin the role of wise teacher and we see you in the role of stubborn, scientifically ignorant, fool.

[Jeff Corey]

Been away for a bit and contemplating eliminative materialism. From what I read so far, it looks like I agree on some contentious points and will have to think more about others.
The concept "mind" has no explanatory power, as far as I can see. As far as I can judge, you don't have a mind anymore than I do. Nor a soul nor any other ghost in the machine.
As for "folk psychology", where someone does something because she wants to do it or believes it will lead to some desired outcome, this looks primitively circular. Luckily, scientific psychology recognized this long ago.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Err....Right. So asking people to define words like "mind", isn't asking them what they think their minds are, yes?


Quit weaselling. You asked for a number of definitions, including ones tailor made for casuing confusion.


You seem to be objecting to me actually asking you to define a word and stick to that definition.

***NEWSFLASH***

If a person can't define what they mean or can't stick to one definition of a word, then it always means the same thing: They don't understand what they are talking about.


That hasn't been a problem for the people who are on to you. On the other hand, you can define what you mean but you desperately try to avoid doing so, because whenever you do so it's obvious you are peddling nonsense.


No Kevin, that's not what happened. What happened was that your definitions were incoherent.


No. There is absolutely no problem until you sneak in the covert assumption that spooky magic must be afoot.

If you don't believe there is spooky magic involved then the various definitions of minds you have been provided with are all perfectly coherent.


Incorrect. You failed to supply any coherent definitions. You are now trying to justify this in the grounds that "even if I'd supplied them, you'd reject them." Try supplying them instead of whining.


We've been there and done that. When presented with such definitions you sneak the assumption that woogly woo magic is involved back in, dismiss the definitions provided because they exclude woogly woo woo, and pretend you've proven something.


How can I sneak an assumption into definitions supplied by somebody else? That would be truly magical.

You sneak it in in addition to their definitions without announcing that you are doing so, then claim that their definitions fail to do the job because they exclude spooky magic stuff. It's the only trick you've got.

You want to know the stupidest thing about your trick? It's solely a linguistic game. Brains and nervous systems do what they do regardless of the labels we stick on them. However you try to pretend that by muddling about with those arbitrary labels we can bootstrap ourselves into new knowledge about how the brain works. That's never going to happen. The very best you can ever hope for is to discover an inconsistency in someone's labels, and that would prove nothing about the nature of the thing under the labels. Of course you've failed to do even that.

[Jeff Corey]

So the best way to stop playing that linguistic game is to not define "mind" at all. It connotates surplus baggage we can easily do without.
Even if some term it "insane" or "odd".

[articulett]

So the best way to stop playing that linguistic game is to not define "mind" at all. It connotates surplus baggage we can easily do without.
Even if some term it "insane" or "odd".

I believe it was Uninteresting Ian who describe the concept of a soul as "astonishingly obvious". I think it's astonishingly obvious that the world is flat--except the evidence shows otherwise. Ergo--I'll take evidence or unknowingness over "speculation" and egotisitical blather.

[UndercoverElephant]

Been away for a bit and contemplating eliminative materialism. From what I read so far, it looks like I agree on some contentious points and will have to think more about others.


Well, good for you. My policy is not to argue with eliminativists. I think it is crazy, but I can't prove it's wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quit weaselling. You asked for a number of definitions, including ones tailor made for casuing confusion.


And you can't supply them. Kevin, you don't have a leg to stand on. If you cannot coherently define "objective"/"subjective"/"mind"/"matter" then you do not have a coherent position. Period.

Of course, you can refuse to define "mind" at all and claim it's a meaningless word, but that isn't what you have done. You try to define it, then you have to wobble on the definition, then you blame other people for the fact that you can't stop wobbling.

[UndercoverElephant]

So the best way to stop playing that linguistic game is to not define "mind" at all.

At least as far as the logic goes, you've figured it out. Paul also figured it out. Kevin still doesn't get it. He thinks the problem is that I ask him to define mind or subjectivity. The real problem is not me asking him to define them, but that there is no definition he can supply that doesn't cause serious problems for materialism. He thinks this is because I am "sneaking in assumptions". I'm doing no such thing. All I am asking him to do is define the word "mind". If he defines it 100% materialistically, it's a redundant term. If he doesn't, I can use the definition to falsify materialism. I wonder how long it is going to take before he figures out what's going on?

[articulett]

Justgeoff seems only capable of seeing evidence to support his shaky theory of dualism. Scientists don't use terms like mind because it's the word of the woos.

Consciousness and perception do quite well and have means of measurement--they are associated with organs of the brain, electrical impulses and the chemicals of the body. There is no special hidden powers science doesn't understand that philosophy explains better--certainly not quantum physics.

The problem is not someone elses definition. It's that for all our years of believing in dualism (as most people have no doubt) we have come to understand that it is an illusion and are eager to show others how and why we know that --and what interesting findings result from that. Those who would like you or anyone to believe otherwise--are hoping that you or someone else will see them as extra wise so they can keep spinning their little tale that goes nowhere. Eons of belief in dualism--Not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Tons of evidence to show how humans fool themselves--not a smattering of evidence for a disembodied consciousness--no matter how you want to define it. Reems of data about how the brain can be altered to change learning and perception and the stories people tell themselves--and not one iota of evidence in support of an entity doing this without a physical equivalent of a brain.

Despite all the flummery, the truth is obvious to most who study this area--but once someone sets their belief in stone--they are very unlikely to change it despite all evidence to the contrary. It takes a special kind of human to want to know the facts--even if the facts reveal him to have been a fool.

No scientist worries about definitions to discredit belief--because definitions just don't change the facts. You avoid explaining how a person could have any memory or sense of self given the knowledge we have about the role of the hippocampus in forming memory--and you think a reality based thinker has problems defining words that woos play with. You are an expert at fooling yourself, justgeoff. And I find that fascinating.

[articulett]

Justgeoff seems only capable of seeing evidence to support his shaky theory of dualism. Scientists don't use terms like mind because it's the word of the woos.

Consciousness and perception do quite well and have means of measurement--they are associated with organs of the brain, electrical impulses and the chemicals of the body. There is no special hidden powers science doesn't understand that philosophy explains better--certainly not quantum physics.

The problem is not someone elses definition. It's that for all our years of believing in dualism (as most people have no doubt) we have come to understand that it is an illusion and are eager to show others how and why we know that --and what interesting findings result from that. Those who would like you or anyone to believe otherwise--are hoping that you or someone else will see them as extra wise so they can keep spinning their little tale that goes nowhere. Eons of belief in dualism--Not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Tons of evidence to show how humans fool themselves--not a smattering of evidence for a disembodied consciousness--no matter how you want to define it. Reems of data about how the brain can be altered to change learning and perception and the stories people tell themselves--and not one iota of evidence in support of an entity doing this without a physical equivalent of a brain.

Despite all the flummery, the truth is obvious to most who study this area--but once someone sets their belief in stone--they are very unlikely to change it despite all evidence to the contrary. It takes a special kind of human to want to know the facts--even if the facts reveal him to have been a fool.

No scientist worries about definitions to discredit belief--because definitions just don't change the facts. You avoid explaining how a person could have any memory or sense of self given the knowledge we have about the role of the hippocampus in forming memory--and you think a reality based thinker has problems defining words that woos play with. You are an expert at fooling yourself, justgeoff. And I find that fascinating.

It isn't that Kevin has problems with definitions--it's that justgeoff is bound to reject any and all definitions that don't suit his beliefs--it's ye ol' "no true scotsman" technique of blather and spin used by religion for eons and idealogues too. It just sucks as a method for truth.

[DreadNiK]

It just sucks as a method for truth.

That works as a good answer to the OP.

[Jeff Corey]

At least as far as the logic goes, you've figured it out...
I wouldn't want you to get the impression that this was a recent epiphany. In nearly 50 years of studying and practicing experimental psychology, the term has never proven useful.

[Kevin_Lowe]

And you can't supply them. Kevin, you don't have a leg to stand on. If you cannot coherently define "objective"/"subjective"/"mind"/"matter" then you do not have a coherent position. Period.


You got served with perfectly coherent definitions of those terms by a number of people including myself in the last thread.

But even if you hadn't, so what? You're still playing a shell game with the labels we put on the brain, and that's never going to lead you to any new knowledge about what the brain under the labels actually is and does.


Of course, you can refuse to define "mind" at all and claim it's a meaningless word, but that isn't what you have done. You try to define it, then you have to wobble on the definition, then you blame other people for the fact that you can't stop wobbling.

Even if this were not a false claim, and anyone who is so inclined can wade through the last train wreck and verify that you're making false claims if they wish, what would it prove? People other than myself gave you coherent definitions.

At least as far as the logic goes, you've figured it out. Paul also figured it out. Kevin still doesn't get it. He thinks the problem is that I ask him to define mind or subjectivity. The real problem is not me asking him to define them, but that there is no definition he can supply that doesn't cause serious problems for materialism. He thinks this is because I am "sneaking in assumptions". I'm doing no such thing. All I am asking him to do is define the word "mind". If he defines it 100% materialistically, it's a redundant term. If he doesn't, I can use the definition to falsify materialism. I wonder how long it is going to take before he figures out what's going on?

There is no "problem", I'm just elucidating the reasons why your demands are silly. You have been given multiple definitions that cause absolutely no problems for the world view of the sensible JREF posters.

It turned out in the last thread when we finally pinned you down that you were using your own highly idiosyncratic definitions of "mind" and "materialism" to present the appearance of an interesting philosophical claim when you were actually just trolling for attention.

If "materialism" refers to the scientific world view that humans, brains and all, are almost certainly made up of just the same sort of matter as everything else in the universe, and that this matter almost certainly exists whether or not you are looking at it at the time, there is no problem.

Your whole argument boils down to advancing a covertly magical conception of mind as the only alternative to a straw-man version of materialism that no philosophically sophisticated poster ever actually advanced.

[Darat]

Nescafe,

....snip...

Neutral monism is the only metaphysical position I can successfully incorporate into my wider structure of beliefs.

And you don't see that approach may have problems?

Without hawking on about very stuff you posted here a long time ago remember your "wider structure of beliefs" has to encompass a document appearing on your computer, by no known means, that explains how the universe really is. In other words you started with a need for the "supernatural". It means you are starting with evidence that is only available to you and therefore can never provide evidence to persuade anyone else you are correct.

[nescafe]

No. What I have shown you is that if you define qualia in those terms you will then have to invent another new word to refer to what qualia refers to. In which case, what was the point in defining qualia in those terms? You are going round Kevin's logical loop. The word "qualia" was only invented because "mind" got redefined by the materialists to mean "brain process". Now you are trying to redefine "qualia" to mean "brain process", so we've got to invent a new word. "Subjective qualia", perhaps?


Still trying to put words in my mouth? I have not said anything in this thread about what (if any) links there are between mind, qualia, brain processes, and the so-called objective reality. All I have done is:

Implied that I do not think there is any one standard definition of mind. You, Geoff, appear to like Schrodinger's, but I have already stated why I do not. Since you appear to need the implication spelled out, I do not think we know enough to make a precise definition of mind that everyone will agree works in all the situations one would use the term "mind", so I do not use it to mean anything precise when precision is required (like this conversation).
Implied that I accept the standard definition of "qualia", mainly because it is much more sharply defined than "mind" is so I feel confident that the term will not be misunderstood when it comes time to start splitting semantic hairs. Apparently that confidence was misplaced.


Your version currently is "What we experience (subjective qualia) are qualia (now: brain processes) which are brain processes.
No. I have not stated that I think qualia map directly onto brain processes. I do not know how many layers of abstraction are between:

noumenal reality (sometimes "objective reality" means this)
brains
brain processes
qualia
"mind"
subjective reality
intersubjective reality (and sometimes "objective reality" means this)


I believe (but cannot prove) that each layer in that list can be explained either by the layer above it or some as-yet unnamed layers in between the layers in that list. I believe (but cannot prove) that science has or can develop the tools and abstractions to discover and explain how all the layers in that list (including ones that aren't there yet because they have not been discovered) interrelate.
(ed. speling)

[hammegk]

You and justgeoff (and probably Ian) seem to be the only ones who agree.
Nah, Ian has termed hinself a subjective idealist; imo that stance fails on the "islands of subjectivity" problem and is really a form of dualism.

I often do find Geoff's ideas interesting.


We know a lot about consciousness, neurology, genetics, and how our sense of "self" most likely evolved.
I won't bother you with my 'are you pregnant' line .... :p

However, we (you and I) are in agreement that our "selves", as I suspect you mean the word, depend completely on the wetware of the perceived-as-body, with the neural system of particular interest.

As Geoff continues to point out, should you, Jeff Corey, and anyone who wants to assume that eliminative materialism is correct, and defend that viewpoint, it is completely logical. Unfortunately, the initial choice is an assumption, and logic will never prove that assumption True.

My own choice, equally unprovable as True, I call objective idealism; it could be termed eliiminative idealism.


If you want to be part of the learning and understanding then quit insulting those who know more than you in these areas. Of Course, to understand any of them, you've got to stop clinging so tightly to your cherished dualism belief system and using words to obfuscate and throwing tantrums to avoid the obvious truth.
Here you are fully wrong. My worldview presents no barrier to understanding, accepting, and agreeing with any and all results that can be provided by scientific reductionism.


You have never provided a scintilla of evidence as to how anything could think or feel or remember anything without a brain.
I would be as surprised as you if I could do so.

A key dicotomy for me could be expressed by "intentless and random" vs "that all is intentless and random has yet to be verified".


We understand that these are brain dependent processes--so is pain--so is logic--so is abstract thinking--we even know about the most common errors humans make when considering logical conundrums. All of these studies are backed by mountains of evidence--
Human physiology from genetics through HPC can certainly be described and analysed by the scientific method. What results thereof do you suggest I disagree with?


and dualism remains just idle speculation of the arrogant, mendacious, faith oriented and/or unyielding--
Yup, completely illogical.


with evidence fashioned out of BS words, aspersions to those who disagree (without even reading them even--Dennett) and twisting of science and spin and appeal to authority to prop up a cherished notion and pass it off as "higher truth".
Sorry. I don't consider my assumption to yield a "higher truth". I only note it forms a logically defensible worldview, and I choose the results of that worldview as more satisfying than your alternative stance.


It's what every woo does. Why do you think your special woo notion of dualism deserves more respect is beyond me...
You have confused me with someone else, perhaps.


and why you would insult those who actually know more than you on given topics is also beyond me.
When those who would teach decide to furnish data, or even conjecture, I'm more than happy to address it, and if such changes my understanding of things so be it.


So why should your opinion on dualism matter more to me than Tom Cruise's opinion on dualism again. He's very rich and successful afterall. No thanks, I'll stick to the evidence--so many insane men convinced of their rightness--what's a gal to do?--I'll go towards the evidence--it is the best path to truth every time

Yep, philosophy can lead to ignorance in pretty much the same manner that religion can apparently. It gets people looking for the truth they want and attacking all those who threaten their illusion of the "truth that is".
Hmm, my basic claim is that both eleminative materialism and eliminative idealism are logocally defensible. What other "truth" do you have faith I'm peddling?


Can you give us an example of you respecting someone so we can gather how it is you expected "skeptics" to react to your persistant insults and deluded thinking.
Certainly. I respect drkitten's explanation and discussion of the chirality aspects of operational rna/dna.


Dualism is an illusion until proven otherwise. You can't wish it into fact. You can fool yourself--but you aren't fooling anybody else on this forum.
I've apparently fooled you into a belief I hold some position I do not. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Still trying to put words in my mouth? I have not said anything in this thread about what (if any) links there are between mind, qualia, brain processes, and the so-called objective reality. All I have done is:

Implied that I do not think there is any one standard definition of mind. You, Geoff, appear to like Schrodinger's, but I have already stated why I do not. Since you appear to need the implication spelled out, I do not think we know enough to make a precise definition of mind that everyone will agree works in all the situations one would use the term "mind", so I do not use it to mean anything precise when precision is required (like this conversation).
Implied that I accept the standard definition of "qualia", mainly because it is much more sharply defined than "mind" is so I feel confident that the term will not be misunderstood when it comes time to start splitting semantic hairs. Apparently that confidence was misplaced.



No. I have not stated that I think qualia map directly onto brain processes. I do not know how many layers of abstraction are between:

noumenal reality (sometimes "objective reality" means this)
brains
brain processes
qualia
"mind"
subjective reality
intersubjective reality (and sometimes "objective reality" means this)


I believe (but cannot prove) that each layer in that list can be explained either by the layer above it or some as-yet unnamed layers in between the layers in that list. I believe (but cannot prove) that science has or can develop the tools and abstractions to discover and explain how all the layers in that list (including ones that aren't there yet because they have not been discovered) interrelate.
(ed. speling)

You think science can make it all the way to noumenal reality??? Then you think that science can exceed limits that according to Kant, not even metaphysics can touch.

[UndercoverElephant]

It means you are starting with evidence that is only available to you and therefore can never provide evidence to persuade anyone else you are correct.

I am not going to discuss the first half of your post. There actually isn't any need, since even though I might nitpick with a few things, it is the quoted sentence which is relevant. I have been stating right through this thread that starting with evidence which is only available to me is precisely what I am doing. For this reason, it isn't even worth discussing that evidence. For anybody other than myself, it is utterly irrelevant.

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin,

I am not going to bother responding to your post. The fact remains that you cannot or will not define "mind", but you won't accept eliminativism either.

Others can judge for themselves whether or not they think you understand this topic, based upon that simple observation.

Geoff

[Darat]

I am not going to discuss the first half of your post. There actually isn't any need, since even though I might nitpick with a few things, it is the quoted sentence which is relevant. I have been stating right through this thread that starting with evidence which is only available to me is precisely what I am doing. For this reason, it isn't even worth discussing that evidence. For anybody other than myself, it is utterly irrelevant.

But don't you see a problem in that approach? (Especially since you are trying to evangelise your viewpoint?)

[UndercoverElephant]

But don't you see a problem in that approach? (Especially since you are trying to evangelise your viewpoint?)

If I were evangelising my viewpoint, then it would be a problem. But since I'm not, it isn't.

[nescafe]

You think science can make it all the way to noumenal reality??? Then you think that science can exceed limits that according to Kant, not even metaphysics can touch.

and? Since when was Kant's word the final word on anything? I think science stands a better chance then metaphysics when it comes to usefully describing noumenal reality. If it turns out that science cannot describe noumenal reality, I will accept that. I will not accept it based on thought experiments alone, which is all that metaphysics seems to have.

[UndercoverElephant]

and? Since when was Kant's word the final word on anything?


Kant was wrong about some things. I didn't think you'd disagree with this one, though.

[articulett]

Kevin,

I am not going to bother responding to your post. The fact remains that you cannot or will not define "mind", but you won't accept eliminativism either.

Others can judge for themselves whether or not they think you understand this topic, based upon that simple observation.

Geoff

http://www.sciammind.com/

mind defined--no dualism needed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,

I am not going to bother responding to your post. The fact remains that you cannot or will not define "mind", but you won't accept eliminativism either.


I don't reject the position actual eliminativists have, which is that in theory all the folk-psychological ideas about the mind could be recast in scientific terms. I do reject Geoff-eliminativism, which is your imaginary version of eliminativism which says that if we did so we would no longer have minds.

That's just silly, like the rest of your ideas. You can't change what's under the labels by rearranging the labels.


Others can judge for themselves whether or not they think you understand this topic, based upon that simple observation.


As always I understand it too well for your comfort, which is why you keep running away, snipping arguments you cannot respond to and putting me on ignore. Or claiming to put me on ignore, at least, since you keep replying to my posts.

[articulett]

Oh Doc, you really are depressingly clueless. It is precisely through thinking about the world that led us out of caves.

I think it was thinking a scientific manner--not in a philosophic matter--it takes actual matter to build tools and weapons and engage in trade.

There is no friction between science and philosophy. The only friction is between philosophy and those people whose philosophical position is simply an unthinking implicit acceptance of the prevailing materialist worldview. In other words the people who are completely unable to philosophise for themselves.

Actually, materialism is more of a scientific position--because we don't make up things to explain that which we don't understand. And dualism is the prevailing world view and has been for sometime, you nut. I'm sure most everyone on this forum believed in dualism at one time. Some who are not dualist would LIKE to believe in it. But the more you look at the facts, the more it looks like dualism is a manmade notion--an adjunct of language. We feel like we are "ghosts" in the machine just like the earth feels flat and unmoving. But we test and measure things in science because it's much easier to build and expand upon facts then upon wild speculation or woo or divine sources of quantum leaping--

It's not like science teaches materialism--it's just that you can't do science if you're testing for something unnamed and undefined and "metaphysical" --moreover, what we know about genetics and neurology only hone the conclusion that we don't need to--we've been getting major pieces of the puzzle without having to venture into wooland--and wooland is generally a dead end for factual truths anyhow. I'm sorry that reality doesn't conform to your expectations. I think souls would be nice too. But it's not my fault that the laws of the universe are as they are. I can't help that there are no rain gods to delight in rain dances either. I never was part of the lie--and I won't be a party in spreading ignorance. But quit pretending science is a faith. Science is about where the facts lead--dualism is only associated with religion and pseudoscience as far as I can tell. People want to believe they have a purpose and will live forever. It suggests to me that there was some sort of survival and reproductive advantage in having a big ego. It does not suggest dualism. Dualism is the trick religions use to hook you --and happily ever after is what they promise to keep you coming back.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't reject the position actual eliminativists have, which is that in theory all the folk-psychological ideas about the mind could be recast in scientific terms. I do reject Geoff-eliminativism, which is your imaginary version of eliminativism which says that if we did so we would no longer have minds.


In other words, you don't understand eliminativism either. :)


As always I understand it too well for your comfort, which is why you keep running away, snipping arguments you cannot respond to and putting me on ignore. Or claiming to put me on ignore, at least, since you keep replying to my posts.

Don't worry, I'll go back to ignoring them quite soon.

You are all bark, Kevin, and no bite. [back on ignore....]

[Kevin_Lowe]

In other words, you don't understand eliminativism either. :)


What would I know? I only look these things up in my copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

[kieran]

Ian has been permanently banned after repeated suspensions and warnings. It's too bad he couldn't keep his cool because even though many of his ideas were nonsense, and he was excessively obstinant, it was still good to have someone to argue with.
Did his last offending post get automatically removed? I couldn't see anything that looked "ban-worthy". Shouldn't the official reason for his ban be recorded somewhere - like on his user profile.

I don't know how many times he was suspended, or whether he was aware that he was on a final chance, is the official policy set down on the JREF forum site?

[hammegk]

... I find the truth very easy to understand--I find that I can weigh and measure facts just as well as anyone else--better even than many. I score very high on tests of analagous reasoning and logic.
The problem is that my concern is with the initial axioms, not the logic that follows.


And I've long been interested in the way humans fool themselves. You are one of the most interesting case studies I've seen.
Hmm. Should we trade our MMPI's?


We live in a time where we can know so much, and you belong to a forum where many do know a lot and are eager to share that knowledge--and yet the philosophy of dualism has made your brain a wasteland ...
What knowledge have you shared with that comment? I agree you seem to equate your "opinions" with "knowledge".


when it come to benefitting from all the information out there.
I've learned a number of things here on JREF.


I find road toad's assessment of you in the language award thread very accurate indeed.
I usually find Toadies' comments bad fiction. I also have no inclination or intent to bore our gentle readers with details of personal, real-life, situations -- fictional or real as the case might actually be.

[Dr B]

Provide a fact. I'll see what I can do with it.



I already know what you will do with it - you will treat it like an obstacle, and try to avoid it ;)

You provide more evidence than most to support a 'yes' to the answer of this thread. btw - agenda? what agenda? All i ever did was ask you a question - one you never answered....how is that an agenda.... Oh, I see, you are soooo clever, people should not ask a question, not even for clarity....ohhhh now i get it.....:D

[hammegk]

What would I know? I only look these things up in my copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.
Few will admit it ... ;) Most of them wouldn't be so anxious to demonstrate it. :p



I already know what you will do with it - you will treat it like an obstacle, and try to avoid it

You provide more evidence than most to support a 'yes' to the answer of this thread. btw - agenda? what agenda? All i ever did was ask you a question - one you never answered....how is that an agenda.... Oh, I see, you are soooo clever, people should not ask a question, not even for clarity....ohhhh now i get it.....
Are you as silly as crap posing as "questions" make you appear?

Now I've asked you a "question". :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Few will admit it ... Most of them wouldn't be so anxious to demonstrate it.



You mean....


which is your imaginary version of eliminativism which says that if we did so we would no longer have minds.


:hb:

What does he think "eliminativism" means? :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

What does he think "eliminativism" means?

Eliminativism in general refers to a point of view which holds that the labels used in a given area are so muddled or misleading that it would be better to scrap them entirely.

Eliminativism with respect to subjectivism and minds is just the view that the folk psychological labels we apply to these things are such a mess that we should get rid of those labels and apply different labels instead.

[UndercoverElephant]

Eliminativism in general refers to a point of view which holds that the labels used in a given area are so muddled or misleading that it would be better to scrap them entirely.

Eliminativism with respect to subjectivism and minds is just the view that the folk psychological labels we apply to these things are such a mess that we should get rid of those labels and apply different labels instead.

So you think the eliminativists want to get rid of all existing mental terminology and replace it with new mental terminology? This would gain us nothing, Kevin. It would leave us right back where we started, going round the logical loop you have made your own. Each time you tried to redefine mental terms as physical ones you immediately had to make up a new mental term. You did it six times in succession.

Eliminativism involves a denial that the the statement "Minds are brain processes" means anything. Yet whenever you talk about this subject, you continually make the claim that minds are brain processes. You keep wobbling between two positions:

1) Minds don't exist.
2) Minds are brain processes.

This problem, dear readers, crippled the writings of the earliest proponents of eliminative materialism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#1


Here we see a tension that runs throughout the writings of many early eliminative materialists. The problem involves a vacillation between two different conditions under which mental concepts and terms are dropped. The first scenario proposes that certain mental concepts will turn out to be empty, with mental state terms referring to nothing that actually exists. Historical analogs for this way of understanding eliminativism are cases where we (now) say it turned out there are no such things, such as demons and crystal spheres. The second scenario suggests that the conceptual framework provided by neurosciences (or some other physical account) can or should come to replace the common-sense framework we now use. Unlike the first scenario, the second allows that mental state terms may actually designate something real -- it's just that what they designate turn out to be brain states, which will be more accurately described using the terminology of the relevant sciences. One possible model for this way of thinking about eliminativism might be the discontinuance of talk about germs in favor of more precise scientific terminology of infectious agents. Given these two different conceptions, early eliminativists would sometimes offer two different characterizations of their view: (a) There are no mental states, just brain states and, (b) There really are mental states, but they are just brain states (and we will come to view them that way).

These alternative ways of understanding eliminative materialism produced considerable confusion about what, exactly, eliminative materialism entailed. Moreover, since it was difficult to see how the second version was significantly different from various forms of reductive materialism.


And there is the problem with eliminativism. To work, eliminativism needs to be interpretation (a). It has to be, because (b) is indistinguishable from the reductive forms of materialism which caused the logical problems in the first place. So we have to "interpretations" of what eliminativism means:

(a) escapes from the logical trap, but is an outright denial that minds exist. Kevin thinks this is silly, and that this isn't what eliminativism entails.

(b) allows minds to still exist, but is no longer distinguishable from reductive materialism, and suffers from all the same old problems.

This just serves to highlight hammegk's claim that very few materialists are actually 100% materialists. They can see that (a) solves their problems, but deep down they know it is insane. So they flibble and flobble between the two positions.

the article continues...


As one might expect, the ensuing discussion focused on getting clear on what Rorty's theory actually claimed, and one helpful article by William Lycan and George Pappas (1972) -- entitled, appropriately enough, "What Is Eliminative Materialism?" -- convincingly argued that you can't have it both ways. You can either claim that common sense mental notions do not pick out anything real -- in which case you are a true eliminative materialist; or you can claim that mental notions can be, in some way, reduced to neurological (or perhaps computational) states of the brain -- in which case you are really just a good-old fashioned materialist/reductionist.


:)

So, Kevin, you cannot have it both ways. Which is it going to be? Are you an a-eliminativist or a b-eliminativist?

I predict you won't be able to answer that question (and will start ranting about how minds can still exist just not in the magical way geoff thinks they do), or you will try to answer "both".

[BPScooter]

Hey everyone, I just read through the first 4 pages or so of this, and then jumped to the last couple. Early on the question was about the value of philosophy, got to some definitions and practical things, and mentioned some people and books that I'll go look up like Blackburn, Dennett, Russell. Ian got involved and that was OK for a while, and now it looks like a discussion of consciousness or the nature of "knowing" which is great, too, but I don't have the energy now to really track it.

Here's my question: Has anybody read Owen Flanagan's book "The Problem of the Soul"? I've asked it here a couple times. I thought it was good. He has the credentials, I think he's a professor at Duke in the US. I recommend it. He deals with these issues in a way that blends his personal views with a great deal of familiarity with the science vs. religion history, in addition to the basic definitions and framework for the discussion. I felt like he clarified things to me in a new and meaningful way.

Anybody here taken a class from him? or read any other books by him?

[Dr B]

Are you as silly as crap posing as "questions" make you appear?

Now I've asked you a "question". :)

Try as I might - I still cannot understand a word you say...ahhh well....

[articulett]

Try as I might - I still cannot understand a word you say...ahhh well....

I can't understand him either. He just seems to interject with tangential questions or oblique statements peppered with the philosophy equivalent of psychobabble. I remember that he believes in Intelligent Design (though he has his own name for it)--Does anyone else know what he believes or is trying to say. I end up giving up. I know he won't concede to materialsim viewpoint--and that he uses terms that equate faith with science (people "worship Darwin")--So I'm guess he believes his life has a purpose (to fluster the skeptics, maybe). Does anyone understand him beyond this. I need a translator. Do you think he and Justgeoff understand eachother? I kind of understand Justgeoff--but I believe he's fooling himself. He's had experiences he can't understand so he's attributes them to some sort of quantum mysticism--they are too uncanny to be mere coincidences and too real for him to believe he's hallucinating or imagining things. I was that way for a while, myself. But Hammegk... sometimes I wonder if he's sane. He uses smilies a lot--so it seems like he's happy, or at least smug...so I'm guessing whatever it is he believes, works for him. :)

[DreadNiK]

I can't understand him either. He just seems to interject with tangential questions or oblique statements peppered with the philosophy equivalent of psychobabble. I remember that he believes in Intelligent Design (though he has his own name for it)--Does anyone else know what he believes or is trying to say. I end up giving up. I know he won't concede to materialsim viewpoint--and that he uses terms that equate faith with science (people "worship Darwin")--So I'm guess he believes his life has a purpose (to fluster the skeptics, maybe). Does anyone understand him beyond this. I need a translator. Do you think he and Justgeoff understand eachother? I kind of understand Justgeoff--but I believe he's fooling himself. He's had experiences he can't understand so he's attributes them to some sort of quantum mysticism--they are too uncanny to be mere coincidences and too real for him to believe he's hallucinating or imagining things. I was that way for a while, myself. But Hammegk... sometimes I wonder if he's sane. He uses smilies a lot--so it seems like he's happy, or at least smug...so I'm guessing whatever it is he believes, works for him. :)

He's the only person to grace my ignore list, for the reasons already stated.

[Darat]

A reminder - attack the arguments not the Member.

[hammegk]

Hmm. Summing up here for Articulet & Dr B, "we don't understand a word you say -- you must be nuts".



I don't know anyone here well enough to make a diagnosis, nor do I purport to be a mental health professional offering free (will;) ) advise to strangers.

In keeping with the civility requirements here, I'll just wish you a pleasant day and a nice tomorrow. Ditto for the horse you rode up on. :D

[Jeff Corey]

...This just serves to highlight hammegk's claim that very few materialists are actually 100% materialists. They can see that (a) solves their problems, but deep down they know it is insane...
I've had enough of this. You previously stated thay you would not debate an eliminative materialist.
Fine. However,since then you have repeatedly resorted to the subtle tactic of characterizing the postion as crazy or insane.
Pretty ironic, considering your delusions of synchronisity.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So you think the eliminativists want to get rid of all existing mental terminology and replace it with new mental terminology? This would gain us nothing, Kevin. It would leave us right back where we started, going round the logical loop you have made your own. Each time you tried to redefine mental terms as physical ones you immediately had to make up a new mental term. You did it six times in succession.

You keep pretending there is an actual problem. There isn't. The problem is your straw man.


Eliminativism involves a denial that the the statement "Minds are brain processes" means anything.


No.


Yet whenever you talk about this subject, you continually make the claim that minds are brain processes. You keep wobbling between two positions:

1) Minds don't exist.
2) Minds are brain processes.

This problem, dear readers, crippled the writings of the earliest proponents of eliminative materialism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#1


No. I think you've gotten confused. What we refer to as minds are brain processes. If anyone at any stage said that minds don't exist in any of these threads please link to it, because I certainly don't remember it. I know that's never been my position.


And there is the problem with eliminativism. To work, eliminativism needs to be interpretation (a). It has to be, because (b) is indistinguishable from the reductive forms of materialism which caused the logical problems in the first place. So we have to "interpretations" of what eliminativism means:


Because the "logical problems" are neither logical nor problems, but merely figments of your imagination, it's no problem if eliminativism and the scientific world-view are the same.

This just serves to highlight hammegk's claim that very few materialists are actually 100% materialists. They can see that (a) solves their problems, but deep down they know it is insane. So they flibble and flobble between the two positions.


Again, you are assuming to be true something that you have tried and failed to prove for tens of pages of drivel - that there is a problem.


So, Kevin, you cannot have it both ways. Which is it going to be? Are you an a-eliminativist or a b-eliminativist?

I predict you won't be able to answer that question (and will start ranting about how minds can still exist just not in the magical way geoff thinks they do), or you will try to answer "both".

B-eliminativist, same as always. Eliminativism is just about changing the labels. What goes on under the labels is unaffected. The things folk-psychologists refer to as minds will exist in the same way they always did, whatever you do to the labels. The scientific world view works just the way it always did too.

[Dr B]

Hmm. Summing up here for Articulet & Dr B, "we don't understand a word you say -- you must be nuts".



I don't know anyone here well enough to make a diagnosis, nor do I purport to be a mental health professional offering free (will;) ) advise to strangers.

In keeping with the civility requirements here, I'll just wish you a pleasant day and a nice tomorrow. Ditto for the horse you rode up on. :D

I never said you must be nuts at all - go and find where I said that. All I said was I could not understand you no matter how hard I tried. Now, that failure to understand you could be with me, or it could be with you. Either way, I cannot understand most of what you are trying to say. This is all i have said.

[nescafe]

Kant was wrong about some things. I didn't think you'd disagree with this one, though.

I am not an expert on Kant, but I think that charecterizing noumenal reality as unknowable is false -- we can know that it is at least complex enough to support entities like us, and consistent enough to allow us to make meaningful predictions and assumptions. From a computational standpoint, it must be at least complex enough to act as a universal turing machine, and the work of Konrad Zuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse) (later expanded upon by Jürgen Schmidhuber (http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/)) outline a framework that can be used to explain the consistency (http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html) we see.

[hammegk]

I never said you must be nuts at all - go and find where I said that.
You are correct. My apologies, you never baldly stated that.


All I said was I could not understand you no matter how hard I tried.
And I say I suspect you understand my position better than you admit. Feel free to research objective idealism, or ask me a question concerning it.


Now, that failure to understand you could be with me, or it could be with you. Either way, I cannot understand most of what you are trying to say. This is all i have said.
Some people, faced with a failure to communicate take one of the pieces you do understand (i.e. "I cannot understand most of what you are trying to say.") and use it as starting point for an actual question.

[Dr B]

You are correct. My apologies, you never baldly stated that.


And I say I suspect you understand my position better than you admit. Feel free to research objective idealism, or ask me a question concerning it.


Some people, faced with a failure to communicate take one of the pieces you do understand (i.e. "I cannot understand most of what you are trying to say.") and use it as starting point for an actual question.

Indeed. Which is what i thought I had done. Its OK though...;)

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not an expert on Kant, but I think that charecterizing noumenal reality as unknowable is false -- we can know that it is at least complex enough to support entities like us, and consistent enough to allow us to make meaningful predictions and assumptions. From a computational standpoint, it must be at least complex enough to act as a universal turing machine, and the work of Konrad Zuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse) (later expanded upon by Jürgen Schmidhuber (http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/)) outline a framework that can be used to explain the consistency (http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html) we see.

These things are all very general and somewhat vague. Sure..noumenal reality must follow some sorts of laws, at least most of the time. That's about as close as we can get via empirical science.

[UndercoverElephant]

You keep pretending there is an actual problem. There isn't. The problem is your straw man.


We will see. The audience is watching.


No. I think you've gotten confused. What we refer to as minds are brain processes.


And you think that's eliminativism? It's not. It's plain old reductive materialism. In what way do you think this is eliminativism? You haven't eliminated anything. You're claiming a reduction is possible.

What do you think is the difference between your claim and the reductive materialism. Please do tell, because I'd love to know.

If you are going to stop falling down logical holes you are going to need to understand the difference between eliminative and reductive materialism. Right now, you don't.


Because the "logical problems" are neither logical nor problems, but merely figments of your imagination....


:words:


Again, you are assuming to be true something that you have tried and failed to prove for tens of pages of drivel....


:words:

[UndercoverElephant]

I've had enough of this. You previously stated thay you would not debate an eliminative materialist.


I don't usually, I am debating Kevin because he doesn't actually understand eliminative materialism. He's not a proper eliminativist. He's a reductive materialist who says he's an eliminativist.


Fine. However,since then you have repeatedly resorted to the subtle tactic of characterizing the postion as crazy or insane.


That's why I don't debate with them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

And you think that's eliminativism? It's not. It's plain old reductive materialism. In what way do you think this is eliminativism? You haven't eliminated anything. You're claiming a reduction is possible.


Eliminativism is just the view that a given set of labels are counterproductive. It's not necessarily the view that a given set of labels refer to absolutely nothing at all, although it could encompass that too.

Whereas science is about what goes on under the labels.

The relationship between them is that if you get enough of an understanding about what is going on under the labels, it might turn out that the existing labels are counterproductive or, conceivably, refer to nothing at all.

You need to get this distinction straight. Eliminativism is a claim about labels. There is no necessity for eliminativism to be distinct from the scientific world-view.

You need to start being clearer with your terms. Henceforth please use Geoff-eliminativism to refer to your straw man version of eliminativism, Geoff-mind to refer to your silly idea of what a mind is and so forth if you are not using standard philosophical definitions.

For example: "And you think that's Geoff-eliminativism? It's not. It's plain old reductive materialism. In what way do you think this is Geoff-eliminativism?".

See how that clears things up?


What do you think is the difference between your claim and the reductive materialism. Please do tell, because I'd love to know.

If you are going to stop falling down logical holes you are going to need to understand the difference between eliminative and reductive materialism. Right now, you don't.


Maybe you should back up a step and try to establish that there are in fact logical holes and that I'm falling in to them, by explaining in simple terms what Geoff-eliminative materialism and Geoff-reductive materialism are, and what hangs on the distinction.

[articulett]

A reminder - attack the arguments not the Member.

My bad.

I'm sorry, Hammegk. (It wasn't Dr. B.)

[UndercoverElephant]

Kevin Lowe

Since you did not answer the question, and just gave some more :words: , I will repeat the question:


What do you think is the difference between your claim and reductive materialism? Please do tell, because I'd love to know.

If you are going to stop falling down logical holes you are going to need to understand the difference between eliminative and reductive materialism. Right now, you don't.


I predict you will once again fail to provide an answer to this question.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I predict you will once again fail to provide an answer to this question.

That was a safe prediction since you still haven't answered my request for clarification, so I'm still in the dark as to precisely what you are asking.

Are you planning on explaining in simple terms what Geoff-eliminative materialism and Geoff-reductive materialism are, at any point, and what you think hangs on the distinction?

[UndercoverElephant]

That was a safe prediction since you still haven't answered my request for clarification, so I'm still in the dark as to precisely what you are asking.


I am asking you to tell me what you think the difference is between (b)-eliminativism ("There really are mental states, but they are just brain states")
and reductive materialism.

Why are you having such difficulty understand this very simple question?


Are you planning on explaining in simple terms what Geoff-eliminative materialism and Geoff-reductive materialism are, at any point, and what you think hangs on the distinction?

I have no idea what "Geoff-eliminative" and "Geoff-reductive" materialism are. Strangely enough, I am quite happy to work with the existing concepts. I have no need to redefine them. So, no, there is no such thing as Geoff-elimininative or geoff-reductive materialism, so there is nothing to explain.

[UndercoverElephant]

That was a safe prediction since you still haven't answered my request for clarification, so I'm still in the dark as to precisely what you are asking.


I am asking you to tell me what you think the difference is between (b)-eliminativism ("There really are mental states, but they are just brain states")
and reductive materialism.

Why are you having such difficulty understand this very simple question?


Are you planning on explaining in simple terms what Geoff-eliminative materialism and Geoff-reductive materialism are, at any point, and what you think hangs on the distinction?

I have no idea what "Geoff-eliminative" and "Geoff-reductive" materialism are. Strangely enough, I am quite happy to work with the existing concepts. I have no need to redefine them. So, no, there is no such thing as Geoff-elimininative or geoff-reductive materialism, so there is nothing to explain.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have no idea what "Geoff-eliminative" and "Geoff-reductive" materialism are. Strangely enough, I am quite happy to work with the existing concepts. I have no need to redefine them. So, no, there is no such thing as Geoff-elimininative or geoff-reductive materialism, so there is nothing to explain.

I'll rephrase the request to remove ambiguity.

I am asking you to explain exactly what you mean by "eliminativist materialism" and exactly what you mean by "reductionist materialism". I am further asking you to explain what you think hangs on the difference or lack thereof between your conceptions of these two positions.

[Jeff Corey]

Apparently he feels the first to be logically consistent but insane, while the second is logically inconsistent.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Apparently he feels the first to be logically consistent but insane, while the second is logically inconsistent.

The question is whether the reasoning used to justify those feelings stands up to scrutiny.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'll rephrase the request to remove ambiguity.

I am asking you to explain exactly what you mean by "eliminativist materialism" and exactly what you mean by "reductionist materialism".


I have explained this very clearly. Reductive materialism is based around the claim "minds are brain processes" where "are" means "can be reduced to".

Eliminative materialism vacillated between two forms, which I have already identified as (a) and (b). (a) simply denies there is any such thing as a mind. Period. It doesn't let you go back to sneaking in "minds are brain processes". (b) tries to sneak "minds are brain processes" in, but it is not at all clear how (b) differs from reductive materialism. It appears to be the same position with a different name.


I am further asking you to explain what you think hangs on the difference or lack thereof between your conceptions of these two positions.

Reductive materialism claims that there is no independent, autonomous level of phenomena in the world that would correspond to the level of conscious mental states. It also states that the level of conscious phenomena is identical with some level of purely neurological description. Conscious phenomena are nothing over and above the neural level, thus it can be reduced to that level.

Similar reductions have taken place in the history of science, like water = H2O.

Reductive materialism claims some sort of reduction, along these lines, is possible for "minds = brain processes".

Eliminative materialism, if it is to be anything other than reductive materialism, denies the above. It claims that no such reduction is either possible, and that no such reduction is even required, since minds do not exist.

Here is an article from the secular web:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html


When someone today describes himself or herself as a materialist, they generally mean they stand somewhere in a spectrum defined at one end as reductive materialism[3] and at the other end as eliminative materialism[4]. Reductive and eliminative materialism[5] describe the poles of the process known as intertheoretic reduction. Intertheoretic reduction[6] refers to what happens when a new scientific theory either better explains or else completely invalidates an existing scientific theory. If the new theory better explains the old one, it is said to have reduced it to a fuller, more convincing explanation. A successful reduction of this kind was the incorporation and clarification of Newton's laws of motion in Einstein's theory of relativity, or of Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism in quantum theory.

The other pole of intertheoretic reduction, eliminative materialism, consists of the invalidation or complete displacement of an earlier theory by a new one. Examples of this kind of elimination are: the theory of demonic possession being eliminated by the theory of mental disease, the theory of phlogiston being eliminated by the discovery of oxygen as the cause of combustion, or creationism being eliminated by evolution as an explanation of the earth's history.


There is no such thing as "demonic posession". It wasn't reduced to something else. It was eliminated (from the point of view of science) by being entirely replaced by a completely different theory. So with respect to materialism, an eliminativist who insists on saying "minds are brain processes" is making a statement akin to "demonic possesions are diseases". Which is nonsense. Demonic posessions are not diseases. They simply don't exist.

Now - are you saying that minds simply don't exist, or are you saying they can be reduced to brains?

[Hellbound]

Ah...semantics is the problem.

Brilliant!!!

HAve you considered that a statement like "minds are brain processes" or "demonic possessions are diseases" are not intended to paint demonic possessions (or minds) as seperate, physical things? That the meaning of the statements is, quite simply, "that which we currently refer to as mind is actually the result of brain activity" or likewise "that which we call demonic possession, that displys the attributes thereof, are not actually caused by demons but are a form of disease".

Your arguments here are entirely semantic.

This is comparable to walking. If one says "Walking is a leg process", this does not imply in any fashion that walking is not reducible to movement of the legs, or that walking exists as some seperate entitiy from the legs.

Really, if semantics is all you have, this is an entirely empty and specious argument.

But, of course, it is philosophy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ah...semantics is the problem.

Brilliant!!!

HAve you considered that a statement like "minds are brain processes" or "demonic possessions are diseases" are not intended to paint demonic possessions (or minds) as seperate, physical things?


I don't understand the question. What do you mean?


That the meaning of the statements is, quite simply, "that which we currently refer to as mind is actually the result of brain activity"....


That doesn't help. Now you have to explain what "is actually the result of" is supposed to mean.


or likewise "that which we call demonic possession, that displys the attributes thereof, are not actually caused by demons but are a form of disease".


This is fine, it's just another way of specifying the reduction.


Your arguments here are entirely semantic.


No, they have a semantic component, as do all philosophical arguments - but the problem itself is a logical one once you have sorted out the semantics.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have explained this very clearly. Reductive materialism is based around the claim "minds are brain processes" where "are" means "can be reduced to".

Eliminative materialism vacillated between two forms, which I have already identified as (a) and (b). (a) simply denies there is any such thing as a mind. Period. It doesn't let you go back to sneaking in "minds are brain processes". (b) tries to sneak "minds are brain processes" in, but it is not at all clear how (b) differs from reductive materialism. It appears to be the same position with a different name.


This is progress.

Now, firstly I'd like to check over the assertion that eliminative materialists claim there is any such thing as a mind, period. Now that claims seems straightforwardly nonsensical, because without something that does the job of a mind they could not have made that claim. I find it hard to believe that they never noticed this little problem.

So that leads me to suspect that they actually made some subtly different claim that you have misinterpreted. Perhaps they claimed that we did not have spooky woo woo immaterial mind-stuff, for example?

Nonetheless, if we refer to this possibly mistaken interpretation as Type A Geoff-eliminativism for the sake of convenience, and assume that you are not engaging in any monkey trickery of your own with the word "mind", then Type A Geoff-eliminativism is self-contradictory.


Reductive materialism claims that there is no independent, autonomous level of phenomena in the world that would correspond to the level of conscious mental states. It also states that the level of conscious phenomena is identical with some level of purely neurological description. Conscious phenomena are nothing over and above the neural level, thus it can be reduced to that level.

Similar reductions have taken place in the history of science, like water = H2O.

This talk of "levels of phenomena" seems to me to be dangerously fuzzy. I don't think nature knows anything about "levels of phenomena".

Would it be accurate to rephrase your statement as "reductive materialism claims that there are no spooky immaterial woo woo thingies involved in the mind"?

I'll assume that this is an accurate rephrasing and move on, but I'll backtrack if necessary.


Reductive materialism claims some sort of reduction, along these lines, is possible for "minds = brain processes".


Okay. I think in those terms I would characterise the scientific world view, and that of most JREF posters, as "minds probably = brain processes, based on what we know". That's not quite as strong a claim as Geoff-reductive materialism, if that ever becomes important.


Eliminative materialism, if it is to be anything other than reductive materialism, denies the above. It claims that no such reduction is either possible, and that no such reduction is even required, since minds do not exist.

We come to the nub of the matter. It seems to me that the truth of Geoff-reductive materialism would in fact entail the truth of Type B Geoff-eliminativism. My questions: So what? What's the problem?


Now - are you saying that minds simply don't exist, or are you saying they can be reduced to brains?

Are we talking spooky woo woo immaterial mind-stuff or just whatever it is that solves logic problems and composes posts on internet forums?

The spooky woo woo stuff almost certainly does not exist. The thing that composes posts almost certainly does exist barring positively Cartesian levels of skepticism.

[UndercoverElephant]

This is progress.

Now, firstly I'd like to check over the assertion that eliminative materialists claim there is any such thing as a mind, period.


Well, you go and check it then. Start with Paul and Patricia Churchland.


Now that claims seems straightforwardly nonsensical, because without something that does the job of a mind they could not have made that claim. I find it hard to believe that they never noticed this little problem.


That's because you've still got your concepts confused. An entirely mindless computer can carry out cognitive-style processing.

Regardless of that, most people think it straightforwardly nonsensical for a much better reason: The fact that minds exist is the one solitary fact that you can ever know for sure: "I have a mind". You do not need to make it any more complicated than that.



So that leads me to suspect that they actually made some subtly different claim that you have misinterpreted.


Of course it does. That's because you are the worst offender on this board when it comes to putting the cart before the horse. You start by assuming you (or people you think might represent you) are right, and if something they say looks wrong you immediately leap to the conclusion its because the person who is saying they are wrong must have made a mistake.


Perhaps they claimed that we did not have spooky woo woo immaterial mind-stuff, for example?


No, because they wouldn't want to look ridiculous. Your question is just meaningless rhetoric, just like nearly everything else you say.


Nonetheless, if we refer to this possibly mistaken interpretation as Type A Geoff-eliminativism for the sake of convenience...


No, Kevin, let's not. Let's not allow Kevin to use rhetorical devices to avoid confronting the real issues. Let's actually use the terms as they are defined in the links I provided. Then we can talk about actual position and not mischaracterisations of positions invented by Kevin.


, and assume that you are not engaging in any monkey trickery of your own with the word "mind", then Type A Geoff-eliminativism is self-contradictory.


More rhetoric. I am not tricking you. I have explained on numerous occasions how the "trick" works. There is no such thing as "Geoff-eliminativism". And you are wrong, anyway. Type-a eliminativism is NOT self-contradictory. It is logically coherent. Please explain where you think the contradiction is.


This talk of "levels of phenomena" seems to me to be dangerously fuzzy.


Oh, there's plenty of fuzziness round here. It comes from the materialists.


Would it be accurate to rephrase your statement as "reductive materialism claims that there are no spooky immaterial woo woo thingies involved in the mind"?


No. That would not be accurate. That would be more meaningless rhetoric in place of an actual attempt to understand and analyse the concepts.


I'll assume that this is an accurate rephrasing and move on, but I'll backtrack if necessary.


Time to backtrack, then.


Okay. I think in those terms I would characterise the scientific world view, and that of most JREF posters, as "minds probably = brain processes, based on what we know".


Then you'd be wrong again. "Science" has no clear definition of what "mind" is. If you meant scientific materialism then the statement would be better, but still not quite correct. Materialism is an ontological claim that minds are brain processes, but is not based on anything we know. It is based on an ontological claim, not science.


That's not quite as strong a claim as Geoff-reductive materialism, if that ever becomes important.


There is no such thing as Geoff-reductive materialism.


We come to the nub of the matter. It seems to me that the truth of Geoff-reductive materialism would in fact entail the truth of Type B Geoff-eliminativism. My questions: So what? What's the problem?


There is no such thing as Geoff-anything.

Did you mean that reductive materialism implies type-b eliminativism?


Are we talking spooky woo woo immaterial mind-stuff or just whatever it is that solves logic problems and composes posts on internet forums?


More meaningless rhetoric.


The spooky woo woo stuff almost certainly does not exist. The thing that composes posts almost certainly does exist barring positively Cartesian levels of skepticism.

Even more meaningless rhetoric.

Would you like to try again? This time, bear in mind that I am going to ignore meaningless rhetoric and purile "interpretations" of what I said. I want you to understand and acknowledge the real philosophical terms and the real philosophical positions. I do not want you to frantically wave your arms in the air screaming "woo woo woo woo".

[UndercoverElephant]

General notice to all readers:

There is a reason why Kevin Lowe insists on refusing to use standard terminology and instead tries to keep introducing terms like "Geoff-eliminativism". You'll notice he uses tries to use these terms as replacements for the proper terms, not as extensions. This is because he doesn't actually know what the proper terms mean, but that's not the primary reason. The primary reason is as an insurance policy. He knows he may find himself in a situation in the future where it may turn out he would have to admit he was wrong about something, but by introducing terms like "geoff-eliminativism" he knows he can always turn around and say "ah, but that hasn't falsified real eliminativism, only your straw man version of it that I called geoff-eliminativism."

Kevin, I am not stupid.

[Kevin_Lowe]

General notice to all readers:

There is a reason why Kevin Lowe insists on refusing to use standard terminology and instead tries to keep introducing terms like "Geoff-eliminativism". You'll notice he uses tries to use these terms as replacements for the proper terms, not as extensions. This is because he doesn't actually know what the proper terms mean, but that's not the primary reason. The primary reason is as an insurance policy. He knows he may find himself in a situation in the future where it may turn out he would have to admit he was wrong about something, but by introducing terms like "geoff-eliminativism" he knows he can always turn around and say "ah, but that hasn't falsified real eliminativism, only your straw man version of it that I called geoff-eliminativism."

Kevin, I am not stupid.

Actually, after the last thread I do not trust you and the definitions you provide as far as I could spit a rat. I don't think what you mean by "mind" is in any way guaranteed to be what anybody else means by "mind", and the same goes for every other philosophical term you touch.

The last thing I want is for people to get the impression that the way you use philosophical terms is correct or authoritative. Thus when I use a term as you have defined it, I label it as your version so that nobody gets the wrong idea.

WThat's because you've still got your concepts confused. An entirely mindless computer can carry out cognitive-style processing.

Regardless of that, most people think it straightforwardly nonsensical for a much better reason: The fact that minds exist is the one solitary fact that you can ever know for sure: "I have a mind". You do not need to make it any more complicated than that.


See what I mean? By "mind" you don't mean "whatever it is that does the job ascribed by folk psychology to the mind". You mean "something that, by spooky woo woo means, does more than process data".

Then you pile another layer of nonsense on top by saying that we all know for sure we have a "mind", where "mind" means "something that, by spooky woo woo means, does more than process data".


Of course it does. That's because you are the worst offender on this board when it comes to putting the cart before the horse. You start by assuming you (or people you think might represent you) are right, and if something they say looks wrong you immediately leap to the conclusion its because the person who is saying they are wrong must have made a mistake.


In academic philosophy we call it the principle of charity. You assume that the most sensible possible reading of the text is the correct one.


No, because they wouldn't want to look ridiculous. Your question is just meaningless rhetoric, just like nearly everything else you say.


Bolded for hypocrisy.


No, Kevin, let's not. Let's not allow Kevin to use rhetorical devices to avoid confronting the real issues. Let's actually use the terms as they are defined in the links I provided. Then we can talk about actual position and not mischaracterisations of positions invented by Kevin.


I'm being nice, Geoff. I'm engaging with the terms exactly as you would have them. I'm just making sure we are all clear on what you mean by them before we go further and get muddled.

It's obvious from the "mind" mess why this is absolutely necessary in dealing with you.


More rhetoric. I am not tricking you. I have explained on numerous occasions how the "trick" works. There is no such thing as "Geoff-eliminativism". And you are wrong, anyway. Type-a eliminativism is NOT self-contradictory. It is logically coherent. Please explain where you think the contradiction is.


If you define mind as "the thing that does the job that in folk psychological terms is said to be done by the mind", then it's straightforwardly idiotic to claim that humans don't have minds.

If you define mind as "spooky woo woo magic", then there is no contradiction but it's also a profoundly uninteresting claim.


Then you'd be wrong again. "Science" has no clear definition of what "mind" is. If you meant scientific materialism then the statement would be better, but still not quite correct. Materialism is an ontological claim that minds are brain processes, but is not based on anything we know. It is based on an ontological claim, not science.


You're getting science and Geoff-materialism muddled I think.

It's simply a fact that as far as science knows minds are brain processes, for sensible people's definitions of minds.


There is no such thing as Geoff-reductive materialism.

There is no such thing as Geoff-anything.

Did you mean that reductive materialism implies type-b eliminativism?


I mean that Geoff-reductive materialism, as you defined it, entails Type B Geoff-eliminative materialism, as you defined it.


Would you like to try again? This time, bear in mind that I am going to ignore meaningless rhetoric and purile "interpretations" of what I said. I want you to understand and acknowledge the real philosophical terms and the real philosophical positions. I do not want you to frantically wave your arms in the air screaming "woo woo woo woo".

I'm not interested in what you claim to want.

I'm interested in getting everybody clear on what your position actually is, what your definition of "mind" as you have been using it is, and what this problem you claim to have discovered is. The best way of doing this is by precisely nailing down what you are claiming, and for some reason you are being terribly wiggly again.

I have my own theory as to why, and you know what it is.

[UndercoverElephant]

The last thing I want is for people to get the impression that the way you use philosophical terms is correct or authoritative.


Well, that's your hard cheese. I can't help it if I know what the terms mean and you have to look them up in a dictionary of philosophy.


Thus when I use a term as you have defined it, I label it as your version so that nobody gets the wrong idea.


Except, Kevin, the definitions I use are not mine. :oldroll:


See what I mean? By "mind" you don't mean "whatever it is that does the job ascribed by folk psychology to the mind". You mean "something that, by spooky woo woo means, does more than process data".


Here comes the meaningless rhetoric again......

Can you try to make one post without using the word "woo woo". "woo woo", in your case, means nothing more than "something I don't understand."


Then you pile another layer of nonsense on top by saying that we all know for sure we have a "mind", where "mind" means "something that, by spooky woo woo means, does more than process data".


:words: :words: :words:

Kevin, I give up. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Back on ignore.

[hammegk]

Quite a good demonstration of philosophy leading to ignorance. Dr B, what do you think?

[articulett]

Eek! --Philosophers telling scientist what they mean without revealing. There is so much obfuscations and philosophy words and hubris that I can't even tell what they think or where the differences in thinking are. I understand that geoff is trying to back scientists into a corner, because he thinks their views are inconsistent--though I know of no scientist who has a problem with materialism nor do they use terms like "free will". Whan a person in science is talking about the mind or thoughts--they most definitely are talking about a process of the brain--how the brain interprets various stimuli. No scientists would say demonic possession doesn't exist. We'd say that person believes they are possessed, but I think we should run some tests for hallucinogens, schizophrenia, etc. We don't say, "gee, it must be possession, because the person says it is"--nor do we say, people must have souls because it sure seems that way...or there must be an intelligent designer, because I can't understand how things can be so complex. You don't understand phenomena by assuming it's mystical and incomprehensible. Human history is a slow and evolving comprehension of "how things work".

Assuming "synchronicity" is just confirmation bias. Why should we assume any of the above as existing when there is no evidence of their existence and lots of evidence as to how people fool themselves or insert their own answers to conundrums they don't understand. There is even a mental disorder, where the brain just makes up stuff as it goes (confabulation)--such thinking might be fun and deep and comforting--but what is it good for other than that? It just seems to promote ignorance and a self centered reality.

Sure, personal experiences matter--but I am more interested in how people misinterpret their reality--That is something worth studying. I am interested in the facts--in conjuction with what people believe is going on. But I can no longer believe in the above because my knowledge has evolved--I understand that people feel very certain about things and be very wrong. But the facts never change. DNA was in our genes all along, even during the eons when we thought god made babies and that you needed to toss virgin in volcanos to please angry gods. To continue this sort of ignorance into adulthood when so much evidence exists to the contrary is childish to me.

[UndercoverElephant]

To continue this sort of ignorance into adulthood when so much evidence exists to the contrary is childish to me.

I was 33 when I was overcome by ignorance. My own. :)

[hammegk]

Hmmm. Here I agree with every word in articulett's post, yet remain an objective idealist.

I suspect Geoff also agrees with you, while his philosophy, and philosophy as a topic, remains unchanged.

[Jeff Corey]

Eek! ... I know of no scientist who has a problem with materialism nor do they use terms like "free will". Whan a person in science is talking about the mind or thoughts--they most definitely are talking about a process of the brain--how the brain interprets various stimuli...
It's like when an astronomer (not the bad one) talks of the sun rising at 6:45. No one says, "Aha, gotcha! What are you, some geocentist? The sun doesn't rise, the Earth rotates as it revolves around the sun."
Scientists may sloppily use the term "mind" when they are trying to explain certain aspects of behviour, but that doesn't mean that minds exist, anymore than the sun actually rises.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's like when an astronomer (not the bad one) talks of the sun rising at 6:45. No one says, "Aha, gotcha! What are you, some geocentist? The sun doesn't rise, the Earth rotates as it revolves around the sun."
Scientists may sloppily use the term "mind" when they are trying to explain certain aspects of behviour, but that doesn't mean that minds exist, anymore than the sun actually rises.

Jeff,

Is this more like the elimination of demonic posession by the theory of microbial disease or more like the reduction of water to H20?

Is it an elimination or a reduction? Or somewhere in between? Was there ever a sun-rise?

Geoff.

[Jeff Corey]

There was the perception of the sun rising. But there was no mind perceiving it.

[articulett]

It's like when an astronomer (not the bad one) talks of the sun rising at 6:45. No one says, "Aha, gotcha! What are you, some geocentist? The sun doesn't rise, the Earth rotates as it revolves around the sun."
Scientists may sloppily use the term "mind" when they are trying to explain certain aspects of behviour, but that doesn't mean that minds exist, anymore than the sun actually rises.

Yes--and like a scientist speaking of solid objects--no one says, "it's really made of atoms which is mostly empty space."

Or a painter speaking of pigment might say purple--without someone saying "you really mean a combination of red pigment and blue pigmen..."

When my son was young, he accused a friend of mine of lying--she had said she was going to pop in the store for "3 or 4 items"--she came back with 5...

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, that's your hard cheese. I can't help it if I know what the terms mean and you have to look them up in a dictionary of philosophy.


By checking my facts I avoid misrepresenting particular philosophical views. For example, I don't go around saying "eliminativists believe minds don't exist", which is a spectacularly deceptive way of describing their viewpoint.


Except, Kevin, the definitions I use are not mine. :oldroll:


I wouldn't take responsibility for them if I were you either.


Here comes the meaningless rhetoric again......

Can you try to make one post without using the word "woo woo". "woo woo", in your case, means nothing more than "something I don't understand."


It would be better characterised as "something there is no evidence for", or possibly as "something there is no evidence for, but which Geoff dearly wishes existed".


Kevin, I give up. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Back on ignore.

You just had one, or rather you just had half of one. I can't be responsible for your half of the conversation.

Once again you snip the awkward arguments and hide behind your ignore file.

[UndercoverElephant]

There was the perception of the sun rising. But there was no mind perceiving it.

This example isn't supposed to have anything to do with consciousness. "Sun-rise" was reduced/eliminated to "The Earth turning".

[Dr B]

Quite a good demonstration of philosophy leading to ignorance. Dr B, what do you think

Hiya Hammy

I am staying out of this one....I have said all I have to say. However, you are all making this still very much a deeply fascinating thread. ;)

[Jeff Corey]

This example isn't supposed to have anything to do with consciousness. "Sun-rise" was reduced/eliminated to "The Earth turning".
Consciousness? Did I say consciousness? I was not conscious of doing that.
Another kettle of worms appears.

[hammegk]

It's not nice for p-zombies to throw out confusing terms (for other p-zombies) like "consciousness".

[Jeff Corey]

But they have a nasty habit of doing that. I "think" that the concept of "p zombies" is without meaning. A straw zombie, if it were.

[hammegk]

Didn't you mean to say "I "behave as if I think" that the concept of "p zombies" is without meaning."?

Or is it "I "behave without thinking" that the concept of "p zombies" is without meaning."?

[Jeff Corey]

No.

[hammegk]

Then if "thinking" is not a behavior, what is it?

[articulett]

Then if "thinking" is not a behavior, what is it?

A brain process--we have been over this before. Perception is also a brain process. I have no idea what a "p-zombie" is or if anyone other than you knows what the term means. Behavior generally defines an action. People have more "free will" in regards to the later (behavior) than the former (thoughts).

You seem to be unable to grasp basic scientific concepts due to (I think) a need to believe a certain "truth".

Why don't you tell us what you think "free will" is...or how you perceive "god"...or how you perceive thinking vs. behavior (are they really the same to you?). Tell us the mysteries you feel like you understand better than scientists and the like. Don't you terms like "elimitive", "mono..." "materialist" "scientism" "darwinism" "reductionism"--just leave out the philosophy babble and anything with "ist" "ism" if you desire comprehension and/or dialogue with your audience.

[hammegk]

You may choose which monism to defend, although that is part of the problem; materialists are not free to choose since their monism provides 0.0% chance of an ability to choose. That takes care of 'god' as well; chance= zero.

It's all just machinery computing; deterministically and/or randomly.


BTW, I suspect Jeff Corey and other behavorists actually understood my comment. I don't "think" you "got it". :)

[Jeff Corey]

Thinking is a form of behavior, technically termed "private", in that it is not publically observable and from a behavior analyst's point of view, all behavior is caused.
I do agree that this p zombie concept is nonsense.