Can Philosophy lead to ignorance? [Archive]

Dr B

27th June 2006, 05:42 AM

OK, by 'ignorance' I mean actually lead us away from asking the really useful scientific questions that lead to provisional understandings.

There is obviously a tension between science and some around here who think themselves philosophers having profound thoughts. Although I think the Philosophy of science is a crucial area in its own right, and every scientist should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the topics, if knowledge were left to philosophers alone we would all still be in caves (wondering if 'I' was separate from the cave and if the saber tooth tiger that is about to eat me has consciousness....:D ).

What I see, and it is just my perception, is that philosophical arguments around here are quite basic, riddled with reasoning error, fudging of science, semantics that keep shifting the goal posts in debate and concentrating on what was never said in a post as opposed to what was explicitly justified.

What do others here think of this apparent friction and whether, by leading people down irrelevant tangents, philosophy (or certain forms of it) can lead to ignorance and away from knowledge and understanding (in the scientific sense of the word)?

Edit - does further friction emerge due to the nature of the subject matter (i.e., the paranormal) or is this irrelevant?

Anacoluthon64

27th June 2006, 06:37 AM

What do others here think of this apparent friction and whether, by leading people down irrelevant tangents, philosophy (or certain forms of it) can lead to ignorance and away from knowledge and understanding (in the scientific sense of the word)?Certainly, too much philosophising at the expense of doing could lead to ignorance in the manner you suggest. The real question, however, is whether it will do so.

I do not think so, at least for the forseeable future.

If doing science has taught us anything, it is that the world is usually otherwise from what we expect. On the whole, scientists pragmatically continue to probe ever more obscure corners of reality with greater precision and increasing penetration, pretty much regardless of what philosophers are saying. In response, philosophers, once closely in concert with scientists (as "natural philosophers"), have increasingly become both more remotely abstract (try reading Sklar on spacetime physics!) and, more importantly, reactive in examining science since any pronouncements about how science should be will unceremoniously drown in the flood of how it actually is. For this reason it is unlikely that philosophising about science will play any significant role in how it is routinely practised, and its momentum and track record of success are simply too insistent to be swayed. Perhaps when the fruitfulness of scientific inquiry begins drying up, a different method of investigation may supersede it, but that hardly means stepping away from knowledge and understanding in the scientific sense.

Nonetheless, that is not to say that scientists should not take heed of philosophical issues, especially those with appreciably moral flavours.

Finally, it is my considered opinion that science is greatly more imperilled by the vagaries and whims of socio-political and economic pressures than anything pure philosophy could conceivably muster.

'Luthon64

Hellbound

27th June 2006, 07:23 AM

... if knowledge were left to philosophers alone we would all still be in caves ...

Yes, but they would be ideal caves, and we could study our shadows...

;)

Jimbo07

27th June 2006, 08:48 AM

I wish we had some working Ph.D. philosophers on this board to respond to questions like these. My limited experience has been that legitimate philosophers can be wise, soft-spoken, aware of the limitations of their disciplines and others' and are almost never as ignorant as the self-styled 'philosophers' around here make themselves out to be.

I've had the benefit here at JREF of running up against more experienced (practicing) physicists and mathematicians, and have had to publicly admit to my own mistakes or being wrong. I have learned. Has the same happened with our local 'philosophers'?

Now... one or two could come back and say, "I am a philosophy Ph.D. currently teaching at so-and-so U," but it just doesn't seem like it.

I don't know...

:(

drkitten

27th June 2006, 09:08 AM

Now... one or two could come back and say, "I am a philosophy Ph.D. currently teaching at so-and-so U," but it just doesn't seem like it.

Well, I've taught philosophy (specifically, ethics and epsitemology) at the university level. Does that count?

I think the opening poster is trying to compare two things that are fundamentally incomparable. I could be sarcastic and say that one of the problems is that philosophers never agree on anything -- but there's more truth to that than many laypeople (and scientists, and for that matter philosophers) are comfortable with. Biologists, for example, have little trouble establishing a basic set of ground truths from which to work -- "Do you see that green thing inside the cell wall there? That's called a 'chloroplast.'" Philosophers typically can't even get this level of agreement. And if for some reason there's a disagreement, scientists can typically resort to experiment to settle it -- "There are too more chloroplasts in onions than in corn!" "Nuh-uh!" "All right, we'll count them. Get your microscope, loser!" Philosophers have to resort to argument, without having first established the ground rules and facts.

From the opening post:

Philosophical arguments around here are quite basic, riddled with reasoning error, fudging of science, semantics that keep shifting the goal posts in debate and concentrating on what was never said in a post as opposed to what was explicitly justified.

Well, the philosophical argument here is pretty incompetent. But so is the science argument. It's hard to get a fully-fleshed out argument that might take Dennett 200 pages to write into a clearly-written 100 word post. And part of the problem with both science and philosophy here is that many of the people making arguments are so astonishingly ignorant that one can't assume a "professional" level of discussion. I would never have to argue in a paper for Nature that evolution has been observed, and similarly, I would never need to argue in a paper for a philosophy journal about the valldity of scientific epistemology -- even the people who disagree with it recognize and understand it. Many of the discussions that we have here on the forum actually go backwards in time:

Look at what we discovered in today's press!
Oh, yeah? How do we know that <X>?
Well, we found that out in 2002, in this paper.
But that's only true if <Y>!
But we've known that since 1970....
But how about <Z>?
[*}Um, that was known to Newton....

.. because people aren't familiar with the history of the field(s).

It's also in some sense easier to spot the frauds in science than it is in philosophy; there's enough "authoritative" scientific writing (and more people are familiar with it) that someone pretending to a degree of scientific expertise he doesn't have will be more easily caught out. It's hard to tell an ignorant neo-Platonist from a knowledgeable one, because there aren't a lot of real neo-Platonists around for comparison....

Irish Murdoch

27th June 2006, 09:08 AM

What I see, and it is just my perception, is that philosophical arguments around here are quite basic, riddled with reasoning error, fudging of science, semantics that keep shifting the goal posts in debate and concentrating on what was never said in a post as opposed to what was explicitly justified.

That's about as much proof as you need that the people advancing the arguments are soi-disant philosophers only. Professional philosophers, at least in the analytic tradition, tend to be respectful of the findings of science, eager to avoid fallacious reasoning (including the fallacy of equivocation, and other fallacies that involve the shifting of semantic goalposts), and committed to very precise use of language.

gumboot

27th June 2006, 09:09 AM

Irish Murdoch

27th June 2006, 09:12 AM

I wish we had some working Ph.D. philosophers on this board to respond to questions like these.

Ermm ... well I'm one! I don't post much though, mainly because I'm too busy doing philosophy! (Any UK academics will only need to hear the expression "RAE" to know what I mean!)

I learned my lesson long ago about getting involved in detailed philosophical discussion on the Internet. It takes up vast amounts of time, and no good ever seems to come of it. So I don't really do it any more.

Irish Murdoch

27th June 2006, 09:16 AM

I've always thought philosophy was a bit silly, but that's probably because the only "philosophers" I knew were friends from high school who were too stupid/lazy to decide what to study at university so they chose philosophy because they figured they could fudge it and then sound clever.

Aha! I see you have met my students!

I'm sure that's not really what it's about though. I think it's great to have people sitting around contemplating crazy stuff, just as long as there's still some people *doing* as well.

You're right, that's not really what it's about. And it's not all contemplation of crazy stuff either. I have colleagues who have philosophical input into projects that aim at all sorts of worthy outcomes, and which endeavour directly to influence governmental policy decisions.

Jimbo07

27th June 2006, 09:50 AM

That's about as much proof as you need that the people advancing the arguments are soi-disant philosophers only. Professional philosophers, at least in the analytic tradition, tend to be respectful of the findings of science, eager to avoid fallacious reasoning (including the fallacy of equivocation, and other fallacies that involve the shifting of semantic goalposts), and committed to very precise use of language.

And this is exactly the sort of measured, reasonable response that I would have expected.

IM - I was referring specifically to a small group of posters around here, while trying not to refer to any one of them by name.

...

What spooks me most about the philosophy hacks around here is that, likewise to the more experienced posters, I may come off looking like a science/engineering hack. :boxedin:

Irish Murdoch

27th June 2006, 10:00 AM

IM - I was referring specifically to a small group of posters around here, while trying not to refer to any one of them by name.

Oh yes, I recognise that. And perhaps you can understand why, as a professional, I choose not to get into arguments with such people?

Jimbo07

27th June 2006, 11:58 AM

Oh yes, I recognise that. And perhaps you can understand why, as a professional, I choose not to get into arguments with such people?

From the other end, and a position of profound ignorance, I would be loathe to challenge General Relativity, say, in front of the likes of drkitten. In fact, various physical theories have been challenged on this site by people who are obviously ignorant of the ramifications.

So...

What distinguishes a philosophy student or enthusiast from a philosophy professor? For example, I have yet to take our techniques of experimental physics course (much less grad school), so I would be unqualified to make any statements on the current state of experimental physics. At our school, I know that at the graduate level they give comprehensive exams, I suspect to ensure that an individual is well versed in the basics of physics and won't embarrass the department. Given that this may not even be an accurate benchmark, are there similar benchmarks in philosophy? Is it having read certain numbers of writers? Specific treatises?

Or in short, why does every idiot (including me) think they can do philosophy?

ferd burfle

27th June 2006, 05:16 PM

You're right, that's not really what it's about. And it's not all contemplation of crazy stuff either. I have colleagues who have philosophical input into projects that aim at all sorts of worthy outcomes, and which endeavour directly to influence governmental policy decisions.

IM, is it accurate to say that there is pure and applied philosophy, just as there is pure and applied mathematics and science? If so, what are the correct terms for those branches of philosophy?

I'll admit I find the classic philosophers so abstract and intimidating I'm afraid to try them. But a philosophy that can inform other disciplines, say medical ethics, seems much more accessible because of its obvious potential for practical benefit.

Ferd

Interesting Ian

27th June 2006, 05:25 PM

if knowledge were left to philosophers alone we would all still be in caves (wondering if 'I' was separate from the cave and if the saber tooth tiger that is about to eat me has consciousness....:D ).

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

What do others here think of this apparent friction

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.

fuelair

27th June 2006, 05:31 PM

c4ts

27th June 2006, 07:40 PM

There are productive lines of questioning and unproductive ones. An unproductive line of questioning leads to no knowledge, sometimes with side effects like derealization and the problem of solipsism. Unproductive thought is far easier and produces the illusion of philosophy and the simultaneous rejection of logic, or stagnant fixation on a single problem created by the philosophy itself. Certainly science itself would not be possible without a foundation in natural philosophy, and for a long time there was no distinction between science and philosophy. Not all philosophy deals with the problem of "consciousness" you describe. Nietzche didn't fret over it, for example, neither did Lucretius or Adam Smith, and they were able to produce volumes of philosophy. Without it there could be no JREF, as critical thinking itself is a philosophical invention.

Loki

27th June 2006, 08:54 PM

Ian,

You funny! Me laugh ..

Senor_Pointy

27th June 2006, 10:18 PM

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.

Well, Ian, I think everyone is able to philosophise, but their attempts usually end up fallacious and self-serving like yours. :D

epepke

27th June 2006, 10:38 PM

OK, by 'ignorance' I mean actually lead us away from asking the really useful scientific questions that lead to provisional understandings.

Uh, yes.

The question is, can it ever not?

Rasmus

27th June 2006, 10:53 PM

Or in short, why does every idiot (including me) think they can do philosophy?

My guess is, because it doesn't look difficult. Those parts that are difficult come across as silly, funny or pointless to the uninitiated rather than difficult, interesting or complex.

A lot of people assume, or even expect, that they should be able to use their computers, VCRs and cell phones because they appear to be very simple devices. Also, mostly everyone has dealt with such devices on some intermediate level at least.

It is not much different with philosophy: Everybody is basically able to do it - you would have to be insane, otherwise. It is the step from an intermediate to an advanced level that people fail to recognize for what it is. It is not entirely unlike all the other little steps, only it requires more practice, background knowledge, and practice. And when it works, it is not easily distinguished form the lower levels.

Says I, at least, the most dangerous type of idiot with a first degree in philosophy.

Jeff Corey

27th June 2006, 11:10 PM

Eeeemanuel Kant
Was a real pissant
And very rarely stable.

epepke

28th June 2006, 12:19 AM

Eeeemanuel Kant
Was a real pissant
And very rarely stable.

Heidegger, hedegger, was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 02:42 AM

What distinguishes a philosophy student or enthusiast from a philosophy professor? For example, I have yet to take our techniques of experimental physics course (much less grad school), so I would be unqualified to make any statements on the current state of experimental physics. At our school, I know that at the graduate level they give comprehensive exams, I suspect to ensure that an individual is well versed in the basics of physics and won't embarrass the department. Given that this may not even be an accurate benchmark, are there similar benchmarks in philosophy? Is it having read certain numbers of writers? Specific treatises?

Well, I can only speak for the UK here, but a philosopher doesn't tend to get a lectureship (become a professor, in US-speak) until he or she has had a decent amount of his or her own, original work published in peer-reviewed journals or books. So, it's not how many books, or which books, you've read, but how good you have shown yourself to be at actually doing philosophy. It's the same, mutatis mutandis, for other academic disciplines.

That, of course, doesn't mean that it's impossible for an undergraduate to be as good as a professional, but I think that's fairly rare (though I'm sure that people like Davidson or Quine were better as undergraduates that I will ever be!). You get good at philosophy through lots of exposure to it, and chiefly through getting involved in debate with people who really know their stuff. One of the best things I ever did as an undergraduate was to go to a reading group that was almost exclusively made up of academic staff. At the group, these people discussed and debated philosophy at their own level. Whenever I ventured to add my own thoughts, they invariably wiped the floor with me. It was wonderful training!

Or in short, why does every idiot (including me) think they can do philosophy?

Well, first of all, I'm sure you're not an idiot!! But you're right, an awful lot of people who haven't had the sort of exposure to philosophy that I mentioned above think that they can do it really well, when they can't. The frustrating thing is that, because they don't have that exposure, they don't recognise that they can't do it especially well! I've often wondered why this happens. I imagine it's because philosophy doesn't essentially involve much in the way of specialised knowledge, but is instead, as Russell said, simply an unusually obstinate attempt to think about things clearly. The point is, though, that that clarity doesn't come to any of us overnight.

By the way, just to qualify what I said above, some philosophy does require specialist knowledge. You wouldn't really cut the mustard as a philosopher of science if you didn't know a fair bit about science (this is one of the reasons that I'm not a philosopher of science!).

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 02:57 AM

IM, is it accurate to say that there is pure and applied philosophy, just as there is pure and applied mathematics and science? If so, what are the correct terms for those branches of philosophy?

It is accurate to say that, yes. And "pure" and "applied" are usually the names given to the two different types. Applied philosophy tends, on the whole, to be applied ethics. Applied ethics concerns itself with questions within ethics: that is, with first order questions such as "Would human cloning be morally permissible?", "Is there such a thing as a just war?", "How ought scarce resources to be distributed?", and so on. This distinguishes applied ethics from both moral theory (which asks what principles guide, or ought to guide, our moral reasoning) and metaethics (which asks questions about the status of morality, such as "What does it mean when we say that a given act is right?", or "Are moral judgements the sorts of things that can be true or false?"). As you can see, moral theory and metaethics are concerned with second-order questions about ethics.

There are a number of branches of applied ethics, including bioethics (which incorporates medical ethics), environmental ethics, business ethics, global ethics (which addresses questions of international justice), and so on.

I'll admit I find the classic philosophers so abstract and intimidating I'm afraid to try them. But a philosophy that can inform other disciplines, say medical ethics, seems much more accessible because of its obvious potential for practical benefit.

I think it's really a matter of temperament which type of philosophy (if any) one finds oneself drawn to. I confess that I'm drawn to both!

But you oughtn't to avoid reading pure philosophy just because you find it intimidating, simply because there's no need to find it initimidating! If I were to recommend an introductory philosophy book, suitable for whetting your appetite, it would be Simon Blackburn's Think. Like all introductions, it is severely limited, but it benefits from being written for the intelligent layperson by someone who really knows what he's on about: Blackburn is a top-notch philosopher, who has the gift of explaining quite complex ideas very clearly

kieran

28th June 2006, 03:19 AM

Oh Doc, you really are depressingly clueless. It is precisely through thinking about the world that led us out of caves.
Clueless? Depressingly so? That's constructive ... and typical.

If all we did was think about it - where exactly would we be now?

Thinking is one of our great skills. It can be used constructively, or it can be used in a completely self-serving circular manner that leads nowhere.

The point is that some people got up and conducted the experiment ... they left the cave. The rest watched to see what happened. The leavers may have found it was better outside, or been killed by predators - and the observers built upon this information.

Thinking about the world did not lead us out of the caves ... putting one foot in front of the other did. Thinking was conducted alongside experiment - not instead of it.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 04:47 AM

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

No Ian, you would still be there if it were down to people like you....Please now go and find one useful and practical piece of information (of the type that would get us out of caves) you have provided on this forum in any discussion whatsoever.....
:D

Dr B

28th June 2006, 05:04 AM

Ian

I would add, there is little or no friction between good philosophy and good science....the type of self-claimed philosophy often banded about here bares little or no resemblance to it as far as I can see. :)

There is nothing clever about tring to carve a point out on what people do not say in their posts, while totally ignoring what they do say....this is the primary debate tactic of your good self (for example). If you spot an omission that is crucial to the debate - point it out and ask for clarification - but do not ignore what has been requested of you, that which is central to the debate, in a pittiful attempt to go off on some ridiculous tangent....

The rest of the comments above are deeply interesting to me and I thank all concerned for their thoughts on the issue. It is clear that there is friction - maybe its a bit like getting a plumber....some good, some bad...but at least a plumber shows up rather than thinking about how we can be conscious of a blocked toilet....and that clearly the toilet is not blocked at all......when view at the nano-scopic (not a word I am sure...) level :boggled:

articulett

28th June 2006, 06:33 AM

Dr B

28th June 2006, 06:38 AM

There are truly some excellent philosophers out there and Dennett is a good read, unfortunately it does not appear as if he posts around here....:mad:

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 06:55 AM

Dennett is a philosopher isn't he?

But I never understand Hammy's philosophy and I can't even tell if Ian is philosophical or just...daft. But Dennett's a gem. Of course he's an evil atheist so no-one but heathens will read him. But I'm a heathen and an evil atheist, so he is write up my alley. Religion as a meme-plex virus. But of course! Not all that different from a chain letter, is it? Goodies for those who spread the word, bad stuff like eternal damnation for those who don't--go forth and make copies--genius! And it evolves over and over--even more often than the eye!

I think the vast majority of analytic philosophers nowadays would call themselves atheists, or say that the whole question of religion just is of no interest. There are exceptions of course, but then there are religious scientists too.

To see what an atheistic philosopher has to say about a theistic scientist, look here: http://www.polarbearandco.com/blackburn.html . (Since this is my second mention of Simon Blackburn, it may start to look as if I am either Blackburn's agent, or Blackburn himself. I promise I am neither!)

I've not read vast amounts of Dennett, but I gather that his stuff nowadays is increasingly populist. Nothing wrong with that, of course: it's just that it's probably not especially representative of the stuff that fills the peer-reviewed journals.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 07:37 AM

Dennett is a philosopher isn't he?

But I never understand Hammy's philosophy and I can't even tell if Ian is philosophical or just...daft. But Dennett's a gem.

He's completely off his trolley. He denies the existence of consciousness.

Of course he's an evil atheist so no-one but heathens will read him.

It's nothing to do with the fact he's an atheist. It's the fact he is insane. I would never read anything by him in a million years. I have more important things to do in my life than to read palpable falsehoods.

Meffy

28th June 2006, 07:40 AM

(Must not respond to oh-so-obvious straight line at end of II's last post... must resist easy bait...)

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 07:42 AM

I think the vast majority of analytic philosophers nowadays would call themselves atheists, or say that the whole question of religion just is of no interest. There are exceptions of course, but then there are religious scientists too.

To see what an atheistic philosopher has to say about a theistic scientist, look here: http://www.polarbearandco.com/blackburn.html .

The article says:

Polkinghorne's beam is the more surprising since he holds the belief that unless some things last forever, everything is futile, a "meaningless empire of accident."

Yes absolutely. And this is something that people on here just don't get.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 07:45 AM

This thread contains more evidence for a 'yes' to the orginal question by the day.....:yikes:

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 07:47 AM

The article says:

Yes absolutely. And this is something that people on here just don't get.

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with Polkinghorne or Blackburn here.

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 07:48 AM

This thread contains more evidence for a 'yes' to the orginal question by the day.....:yikes:

Is at least some of the evidence coming from me? If so, then it could just be that I'm not explaining myself very well.

Hellbound

28th June 2006, 07:56 AM

Is at least some of the evidence coming from me? If so, then it could just be that I'm not explaining myself very well.

No, rest assured it isn't you.

Ian, our resident "filosafer", is providing an abundant amount. His entire years of arguments in the forum rest on the fact that his "proof", as he calls it, presupposes that consciousness is non-physical as an implicit underlying assumption, and then uses this to prove that consciousness can't be physical.

Yet if you disagree, it isn't because he is wrong (as he's told us numerous times, he never lies or exaggerates, and is always right), but because you are an idiot who doesn't understand (and that category includes almost all scientists, professional philosophers, assorted geniuses (geniui?), historians, bakers, and a good portion of street sweepers and fry cooks, among others).

Flo

28th June 2006, 07:57 AM

He's completely off his trolley. He denies the existence of consciousness.

It's nothing to do with the fact he's an atheist. It's the fact he is insane.

How would you know, since you admit you wouldn't read anything by him ?

I would never read anything by him in a million years. I have more important things to do in my life than to read palpable falsehoods.

Very philosophical and convincing argument ... :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 07:57 AM

To see what an atheistic philosopher has to say about a theistic scientist, look here: http://www.polarbearandco.com/blackburn.html . .

I read the first third of the article, and I just get tired of reading the same old utterly naive and ridiculous arguments. He says:

So to bypass all the devastating Humean objections.

Care to name just one devastating objection? Certainly nothing he said in the first third of article is remotely a devastating objection. Indeed I would argue that they do not constitute valid objections at all, least of all devastating ones.

Does Blackburn ever say anything which is worthwhile?

Meffy

28th June 2006, 07:58 AM

@Huntsman: Yuppers, that puts it in a globule. You gotcher honest philos and your... other kinds.

To answer the question in the thread's subject line: You can lead an amateur philostomopher to ignorance, but you can't make it think.

Flo

28th June 2006, 07:59 AM

This thread contains more evidence for a 'yes' to the orginal question by the day.....:yikes:

Yes, you can always count on good old Ian for support, can't you ? ;)

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 08:00 AM

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with Polkinghorne or Blackburn here.

I agree with Polkingthorne. If the contemporary scientific understanding of the Universe is correct then everything is ultimately meaningless.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 08:10 AM

Is at least some of the evidence coming from me? If so, then it could just be that I'm not explaining myself very well.

Not at all, I have enjoyed reading what you have written and you expressed yourself well. Indeed I was going to post a response agreeing with much of it until a certain person cropped up here. Look around at the comments of others (not so far away) and you will see what I meant :)

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 08:10 AM

Yes, you can always count on good old Ian for support, can't you ? ;)

Philosophers disagree, and there isn't a great deal of progress. But as I said, if philosophy is a waste of time and we believed this, we'd still be in caves. Everything that we are has come about due to philosophical reasoning about the world. All of our technology, all of our political systems, everything we think about the world, our day to day personal conduct.

Not that our philosophical reasoning needs to be necessarily correct in order to have practical benefits. Take the mechanical philosophy of the 17th Century. This philosophy has resulted in our modern day world with its technological ubiquity. But the mechanical philosophy does not accurately characterise reality.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 08:13 AM

Hellbound

28th June 2006, 08:14 AM

I agree with Polkingthorne. If the contemporary scientific understanding of the Universe is correct then everything is ultimately meaningless.

Just wanted to point out that this has no bearing on whether or not it's true or correct.

Meaningfulness, in the sense of purpose, is not a requirement for truth. Even if it makes you feel like a small, insignificant speck.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 08:15 AM

No, rest assured it isn't you.

Ian, our resident "filosafer", is providing an abundanat amount. His entire years of arguments in the forum rest on the fact that his "proof", as he calls it, presupposes that consciousness is non-physical as an implicit underlying assumption, and then uses this to prove that consciousness can't be physical.

Yet if you disagree, it isn't because he is wrong (as he's told us numerous times, he never lies or exaggerates, and is always right), but because you are an idiot who doesn't understand (and that category includes almost all scientists, professional philosophers, assorted geniuses (geniui?), historians, bakers, and a good portion of street sweepers and fry cooks, among others).

All quite right....;)

Hellbound

28th June 2006, 08:19 AM

All quite right....;)

You know, I have a working theory that all of Ian's postings are actually a reflection of an underlying, unconscious narcissism.

Every paranormal thread, every philosophy thread, and as many scientific threads as he can butt in to, he spouts his semantic nonsense and turns it into a thread about him and his ideas.

Which is why, for the most part, I've quite responding to him seriously. He isn't interested. He only wants to talk about himself, and his ideas, and has no interest in any alternative viewpoints, or in evidence, or knowledge, or learning.

So to me, he's kinda like a hornet's nest. You know you should just leave it alone and walk away, but there's a nice long stick right there, and you can run pretty fast, and it's fun to watch em buzz around all over the place...

:D

Kevin_Lowe

28th June 2006, 08:28 AM

Is at least some of the evidence coming from me? If so, then it could just be that I'm not explaining myself very well.

The "philosophers" they are referring to are a few regulars here who are amateur philosophy enthusiasts, and who mine philosophy for arguments to support preconceived kooky beliefs.

Interesting Ian, for example, has the preconceived belief that our minds must be somehow spooky, just because the alternatives depress him. He's been endlessly recycling Berkeley's arguments for immaterialism for as long as I have been here.

Because they are the only people who make a song and dance about philosophical issues on these forums, the other forumites get the impression that these enthusiasts are representative of philosophers in general.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 08:32 AM

How would you know, since you admit you wouldn't read anything by him ?

Very philosophical and convincing argument ... :rolleyes:

Not literally true. I read half of his quinning qualia article and his exchanges with John Searle (he who invented the Chinese room thought experiment refuting strong AI even though he claims to be a materialist).

And here's another point. The hostility between Searle and Dennet is quite breathtaking. I get the impression that Searle is in full agreement of my assessment of Dennet. That is not to say I agree with Searle's position though. And the savage attack by Searle on Chalmer's ideas on the mind/body problem are quite breathtaking too.

Does the fact that many professional philosophers make disparaging comments on other professional philosophers somehow devalue philosophy or make it less useful?

Obviously not at all!

articulett

28th June 2006, 08:38 AM

There are truly some excellent philosophers out there and Dennett is a good read, unfortunately it does not appear as if he posts around here....:mad:

Maybe we can lure him here with our sparkling wit and candy.

or

Maybe Ian can channel Bertrand Russel? Thai? (Amy Wilson has an in with John Edwards.)
Hammy likes philosphy--why don't Ian and Hammy ever tango? I'd like to see some philosoper on philospher action--I don't know about you all...

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 08:38 AM

The "philosophers" they are referring to are a few regulars here who are amateur philosophy enthusiasts, and who mine philosophy for arguments to support preconceived kooky beliefs.

Interesting Ian, for example, has the preconceived belief that our minds must be somehow spooky, just because the alternatives depress him.

You obviously haven't read my arguments.

He's been endlessly recycling Berkeley's arguments for immaterialism for as long as I have been here.

I scarcely ever argue for immaterialism.

Because they are the only people who make a song and dance about philosophical issues on these forums, the other forumites get the impression that these enthusiasts are representative of philosophers in general.

I certainly agree with you here. The vast majority of philosophers are atheists and materialists and certainly do not believe in anything remotely paranormal. Their only redeeming factor is that they tend to be non- reductive materialists rather than reductive materialists.

So I'm certainly not defending philosophy because I am impressed with what most philosophers spout forth. Depressingly they tend to be far too much influenced by fashion. However this does nothing to diminish the importance of philosophy one iota. At least they're making some attempt to think about the world.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 08:54 AM

A philosophy that avoids the facts, and has a whimsical affinity to evidence, reason and logic is one we can do without - at least for those of us passionately involved in working on provisonal truths and practical understanding.

Ian you have been asked to justify your ideas so many times on so many levels, i will not bother to ask again....but i am thinking it ;)

ferd burfle

28th June 2006, 09:15 AM

It is accurate to say that, yes. And "pure" and "applied" are usually the names given to the two different types. Applied philosophy tends, on the whole, to be applied ethics. Applied ethics concerns itself with questions within ethics: that is, with first order questions such as "Would human cloning be morally permissible?", "Is there such a thing as a just war?", "How ought scarce resources to be distributed?", and so on. This distinguishes applied ethics from both moral theory (which asks what principles guide, or ought to guide, our moral reasoning) and metaethics (which asks questions about the status of morality, such as "What does it mean when we say that a given act is right?", or "Are moral judgements the sorts of things that can be true or false?"). As you can see, moral theory and metaethics are concerned with second-order questions about ethics.

Wow, many thanks for this orientation. Maybe I was just too lazy to go to Wikipedia, but it's a treat to get it directly from someone working professionally in the discipline.

But you oughtn't to avoid reading pure philosophy just because you find it intimidating, simply because there's no need to find it initimidating! If I were to recommend an introductory philosophy book, suitable for whetting your appetite, it would be Simon Blackburn's Think. Like all introductions, it is severely limited, but it benefits from being written for the intelligent layperson by someone who really knows what he's on about: Blackburn is a top-notch philosopher, who has the gift of explaining quite complex ideas very clearly

I had an intro philosophy course back in college. It was taught by a law school student who emphasized the Enlightenment philosophers and their influence on the Western legal system. This I found interesting and accessible but it wasn't the overview I expected in an intro course. So many thanks for the reference.

Cheers,

Ferd

WhiteLion

28th June 2006, 09:28 AM

Yes, aka, "DT-CAC" (Disfigurement through the course of analytic contemplation.)

:crowded:

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 09:41 AM

Does Blackburn ever say anything which is worthwhile?

A number of people appear to think so, as he's Professor (in the UK sense) of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge.

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 09:58 AM

A philosophy that avoids the facts, and has a whimsical affinity to evidence, reason and logic is one we can do without - at least for those of us passionately involved in working on provisonal truths and practical understanding.

Well, quite. And for those of us committed to doing philosophy that genuinely aims at getting straight about things, too.

To go back, too, to the original question: a lot of philosophy can be useful, and a lot has a direct influence on the world (the political philosophy of Locke and John Stuart Mill, for instance, have helped shape modern liberal democracies). A lot of pure philosophy is, strictly speaking, useless. But it's fun for all that; and, I would argue, its value is not diminished by its being useless (at least some valuable things must be useless, as Aristotle pointed out a long, long time ago).

JamesDillon

28th June 2006, 12:17 PM

A philosophy that avoids the facts, and has a whimsical affinity to evidence, reason and logic is one we can do without - at least for those of us passionately involved in working on provisonal truths and practical understanding.

I've been skimming through this and while I'm not sure that I can add much to Irish Murdoch's eloquent explanation, I feel compelled to add my two cents anyway. I suppose I fall into a middle category; I have an MA in philosophy, but I have never taught or published any academic work in the field (the practice of law is more lucrative, if much less intellectually rewarding). I understand that the opening post was made in a good-faith effort to understand the value of philosophy, but I do get somewhat frustrated by the rather frequent criticisms of and attacks on all philosophical study in this forum by people who don't seem to have sufficient experience with the field to make an informed judgment of its merit.

Crazy people posting unintelligible rants on Internet forums, claiming to have solved all of the problems that have vexed mankind for millennia, is no more closely related to the practice of philosophy than the practice of physics is related to, well, crazy people posting unintelligible rants on Internet forums, claiming to have solved all of the problems that have vexed mankind for millennia. Yet for some reason, people seem to realize that the physics crackpots are just that, and that the "real" practice of physics is a robust and productive area of inquiry that is entirely distinct from Joe Blogger's bastardization of it, whereas in the area of philosophy, there seems to be an assumption that this is a fair representation of what philosophers actually do.

I cannot recommend strongly enough to anyone who has had no exposure to the field, that you take some introductory course at the local community college or get some similar exposure to the field from practicing academics who know what they're talking about. Not only are the basic problems of philosophy fascinating and enlightening in their own right, but getting some exposure to the direct source-- the study of the great minds of philosophy by practicing philosophers-- will dispel a lot of the misconceptions that I think get created by people who once read an article about Kant and therefore think they know all there is to know on the matter.

I would also recommend the last chapter of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, entitled "The Value of Philosophy," which includes my following favorite quote:

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices of common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world becomes definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find... that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given... Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, [philosophy] greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Finally, to those who suggest that the study of philosophy is "useless" and "unproductive," I would note the historical fact that virtually all of the modern academic disciplines, including all branches of science, grew initially out of philosophical inquiry. I would hardly call this unproductive, or a waste of time.

Piscivore

28th June 2006, 12:26 PM

Ian's ideas about "philosophy" : science :: alchemy : chemistry

Dr B

28th June 2006, 12:30 PM

James -

All very interesting, but it works both ways - is it not important that if philosophers are going to bang on about the brains role in consciousness, they at least make the effort to understand what they are talking about?

My initial post was hinting at, can one 'think' too much? Of course the question is evaluating philosophy in terms of scientific knowledge and not philosophical knolwedge that lies out side of that - however, as we have many self-claimed philosophers around here trying to be expert on brain science and cognitive science that is entirely justified. ;)

There comes a time when we have to get out of the armchair and do something rather than get too comfortable remaining in it.

I have never said it is useless, though the comments of some clearly are. You do not have to look too far for clear evidence of that.

drkitten

28th June 2006, 12:39 PM

Finally, to those who suggest that the study of philosophy is "useless" and "unproductive," I would note the historical fact that virtually all of the modern academic disciplines, including all branches of science, grew initially out of philosophical inquiry. I would hardly call this unproductive, or a waste of time.

I would set against that the equally historical facts that chemistry grew initially out of alchemy, that astronomy grew initially out of astrology, and that cryptography grew out of numerology.

I.e. dumb parents can have smart children.

ETA embarassing typo fix

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 12:43 PM

James -

All very interesting, but it works both ways - is it not important that if philosophers are going to bang on about the brains role in consciousness, they at least make the effort to understand what they are talking about?

Philosophy of Mind isn't my area, but I believe that nowadays, philosophers of mind tend to do just that. When I was doing my graduate work at Oxford, the then Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy, Martin Davies, had very strong links with the neuroscientists in the University, and was well up to speed on the field.

I think the important thing for those on this forum is, as has already been said, to distinguish carefully between philosophers proper, and soi-disant philosophers.

JamesDillon

28th June 2006, 12:43 PM

I would set against that the equally historical facts that chemistry grew initially out of alchemy, that astronomy grew initially out of alchemy, and that cryptography grew out of numerology.
Ok, also true. But I think it's safe to say that the scientific method, in particular, is largely the outcome of philosophical inquiry, particularly in epistemology.

I.e. dumb parents can have smart children.
I hesitate to strongly condemn the alchemists and astrologers of centuries past. They may have been wildly wrong, but they were working under conditions of much broader ignorance than we enjoy today, and their early efforts and mistakes contributed to narrowing the zone of ignorance to a point at which real science could get going.

Hellbound

28th June 2006, 12:47 PM

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 12:50 PM

A number of people appear to think so, as he's Professor (in the UK sense) of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge.

Which doesn't answer my question. No matter. I'm not particularly interested anyway.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 12:53 PM

and the conversation was going so well.....

JamesDillon

28th June 2006, 12:55 PM

All very interesting, but it works both ways - is it not important that if philosophers are going to bang on about the brains role in consciousness, they at least make the effort to understand what they are talking about?
Well, sure, but I don't see how that's inconsistent with what I said above. As I said in another post recently, I don't recall exactly where, I think a fair practical distinction (though I wouldn't propose it as a definitive one) between science and philosophy is that science asks how things work, whereas philosophy asks what things mean. Obviously a philosopher should be as informed as possible about the current state of scientific knowledge in his or her area of specialization while engaging in philosophical speculation. Some areas of philosophy are more dependent on scientific knowledge than others, though.

My initial post was hinting at, can one 'think' too much?
I can't imagine how that's possible. One can, of course, make errors or be led down paths that are not ultimately fruitful, but I would think that that danger applies to scientists as much as to philosophers-- and in any case, as I suggested in my comment to drkitten above about alchemists and astrologers, we have learned a great deal from the mistakes and dead ends of past theories. (Popper famously argued that we can learn more from a bold theory that is falsified than from a modest one that is not).

Of course the question is evaluating philosophy in terms of scientific knowledge and not philosophical knolwedge that lies out side of that - however, as we have many self-claimed philosophers around here trying to be expert on brain science and cognitive science that is entirely justified. ;)
Well, yeah, again, people should know what they're talking about before expressing an opinion on an issue, and certainly before proclaiming that their opinion is the greatest revelation of all time, that promises to wipe the slate clean of all that has come before. I think scientists and philosophers both refer to those people using the technical term, "idiots."

There comes a time when we have to get out of the armchair and do something rather than get too comfortable remaining in it.
I hear this a lot, but I honestly just have no idea what the hell it's supposed to mean.

I have never said it is useless, though the comments of some clearly are. You do not have to look too far for clear evidence of that.
Sure; there are lots of useless comments from self-proclaimed "philosophers." My point is that that fact is not a criticism against the discipline itself, any more than the fact that there are crackpots out there invoking quantum mechanics is a fair criticism of physics.

Dr B

28th June 2006, 12:57 PM

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. Not always the case, but i never said it was always the case....

Dr B

28th June 2006, 01:02 PM

Well, yeah, again, people should know what they're talking about before expressing an opinion on an issue,

agreed, but some branches of philosophy seem very prone to this - IMHO.

Sure; there are lots of useless comments from self-proclaimed "philosophers." My point is that that fact is not a criticism against the discipline itself, any more than the fact that there are crackpots out there invoking quantum mechanics is a fair criticism of physics.

I know, I never said it was. Some branches are useful to science, some clearly not practical and useful (i.e., less so). I dont think it is helpful to take a position that ignores evidence - except that which fits your opinion - look above for some excellent examples....:D

hammegk

28th June 2006, 01:03 PM

.... When I was doing my graduate work at Oxford, the then Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy, Martin Davies, had very strong links with the neuroscientists in the University, and was well up to speed on the field.
Which, unfortunately, brings nothing to discussions of monism of choice: materialism vs. ~materialism being one way to express the choices.

Most here do seem to agree any form of interactive dualism is not logically defensible. I have yet to see the subtlety that subjective idealists have faith in that separates that position from dualism of some sort.

drkitten

28th June 2006, 01:07 PM

Philosophy of Mind isn't my area, but I believe that nowadays, philosophers of mind tend to do just that. When I was doing my graduate work at Oxford, the then Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy, Martin Davies, had very strong links with the neuroscientists in the University, and was well up to speed on the field.

I think there's a wider variety of backgrounds among philosophers, even philosophers in the same subdiscipline, than in many other fields. You would be hard pressed, for example, to find a neuroanatomist who didn't know a fair amount of chemisty. It's not that hard to find a philosopher of mind who doesn't know much neuroanatomy. I think that Prof. Davies is an exceptionally good neuroscientist, to the point of perhaps being atypical.

But your central point stands:

I think the important thing for those on this forum is, as has already been said, to distinguish carefully between philosophers proper, and soi-disant philosophers.

... 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.

supercorgi

28th June 2006, 01:08 PM

I've always found pure philosophy rather boring and pointless, and I find Interesting Ian even more so. :s2:

Huntsman is quite right, Ian tends to derail almost any thread he posts in -- he can turn an interesting thread boring in nanoseconds.

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 01:12 PM

Which doesn't answer my question. No matter. I'm not particularly interested anyway.

I know.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 01:15 PM

Philosophy of Mind isn't my area, but I believe that nowadays, philosophers of mind tend to do just that. When I was doing my graduate work at Oxford, the then Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy, Martin Davies, had very strong links with the neuroscientists in the University, and was well up to speed on the field.

I think the important thing for those on this forum is, as has already been said, to distinguish carefully between philosophers proper, and soi-disant philosophers.

No. What we need to do is examine peoples' arguments to see if they have any merit. Have people like you or Dr Kitten ever provided any impressive philosophical arguments on here? I rather think not. Certainly not from what I have read of your posts. Academic qualifications do not entail that one is necessarily very intelligent or is able to argue effectively (and I say that even though I have plenty of qualifications -- including in philosophy).

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 01:15 PM

Allow me to make an attempt to "laymanize" the situation, and our experts* can correct me if I'm wrong:

"Ignorance can lead to bad philosophy. Bad philosophy leads to ignorance."

*-Actual experts, not our resident philosopher, Juana Beze

I would hesitate to call myself an expert, but your "laymanisation" seems sound to me!

And with that, I really must get on with doing some philosophy rather than just talking about it.

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 01:19 PM

No. What we need to do is examine peoples' arguments to see if they have any merit. Have people like you or Dr Kitten ever provided any impressive philosophical arguments on here? I rather think not. Certainly not from what I have read of your posts. Academic qualifications do not entail that one is necessarily very intelligent or is able to argue effectively (and I say that even though I have plenty of qualifications -- including in philosophy).

If you read back, you'll find a post where I say I long ago gave up philosophising on the 'Net.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember you saying a long time ago that you have no philosophy qualification. Ah well.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 01:46 PM

If you read back, you'll find a post where I say I long ago gave up philosophising on the 'Net.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember you saying a long time ago that you have no philosophy qualification. Ah well.

I'm not surprised you gave it up since you were quite unable to counter any of my arguments. It is an absolute scandal that people like you and Dr Kitten should actually teach it. JamesDillon seems to have a good understanding from what little I've read. Even Keven Lowe does to a certain extent. But you and Dr Kitten? Give me a break.

Yes I have qualifications in philosophy. Not that this is at all relevant but I have an A level in philosophy albeit only a grade C (although I was the only student who ended up taking the exam!). I've got a degree in the "History of Ideas" which included modules on the Mind/Body problem, the philosophy and history of science, and the philosophy of religion, and the empiricists. All of which I got a 1st in, although I only ended up with a 2.1 due to getting a 2.2 in the ethics module.

Oh yes, I'm also doing a Ph.D on George Berkeley's immaterialism (but only part-time). More specifically I'm looking at how he perceived the ontological status of the microscopic realm and the position he ought to have took.

But my qualifications are really completely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure my beliefs would be pretty much the same whether or not I had ever gone to University.

But more importantly I feel that saying to people you have loads of qualifications in philosophy is to detract from your actual arguments. What you're saying to people is effectively that you must be right because you have more qualifications than the guy you're arguing with. Damn the actual argument itself! I consider that to be dishonest. It's not only you, it's people like Dr Kitten, and all the other morons who put Dr in front of their name. They can't impress people with their actual arguments, so they broadcast to the word that they have loads of qualifications.

Very very sad indeed. I would never dream of doing that in a million years. I only told you about my qualifications as you thought I didn't have any. But it's not the sort of information I'm interested in providing. I want people to be impressed with my arguments for their own sake. Quite unlike many of you guys on here.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 01:59 PM

Irish Murdoch
I think the important thing for those on this forum is, as has already been said, to distinguish carefully between philosophers proper, and soi-disant philosophers.

Mr Kitten
... 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 poseuri

Eh? I'm the poseur? Excuse me but I'm not the one who puts "Dr" in front of my name.

It is perfectly legitimate to dismiss an expert who claims to have explained consciousness by the simple expedient of denying that it exists. What else is there to say? Of course if I were doing a Ph.D in the philosophy of mind, that would be a different thing. But I'm not. So I can allow myself the luxury of not reading cr@p.

And as for Blackburn. If one reads a few hundred pages of a so-called philosopher who presents very poor arguments (or indeed no arguments at all), it does not inspire me with a great deal of confidence that his other work will be vastly better. I want to read philosophers who I can actually learn from. Not read about ideas which I have already exhaustively thought about and dismissed a very long time ago.

Irish Murdoch

28th June 2006, 02:04 PM

But more importantly I feel that saying to people you have loads of qualifications in philosophy is to detract from your actual arguments. What you're saying to people is effectively that you must be right because you have more qualifications than the guy you're arguing with. Damn the actual argument itself! I consider that to be dishonest. It's not only you, it's people like Dr Kitten, and all the other morons who put Dr in front of their name. They can't impress people with their actual arguments, so they broadcast to the word that they have loads of qualifications.

I wasn't aware I'd said that. I pointed out Simon Blackburn's position, but I'm honestly not him. But I'm sure you're right, because the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I see that you are right about everything. I have been a benighted fool. I am indeed, as you suggest, a moron. I'm off to sign on.

I less than three logic

28th June 2006, 02:05 PM

Hey, anyone know if there is a word that means something along the lines of, "doing exactly what you claim you never do while you're in the act of claiming you never do it"?

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 02:09 PM

I wasn't aware I'd said that. I pointed out Simon Blackburn's position, but I'm honestly not him.

I never thought you were him.

Big Les

28th June 2006, 02:12 PM

You know, I have a working theory that all of Ian's postings are actually a reflection of an underlying, unconscious narcissism.

Every paranormal thread, every philosophy thread, and as many scientific threads as he can butt in to, he spouts his semantic nonsense and turns it into a thread about him and his ideas.

Which is why, for the most part, I've quite responding to him seriously. He isn't interested. He only wants to talk about himself, and his ideas, and has no interest in any alternative viewpoints, or in evidence, or knowledge, or learning.

I've been thinking along similar lines... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1642919&highlight=narcissistic#post1642919)

Meffy

28th June 2006, 03:24 PM

I've been studying the phenomenon, trying to formulate a theory of singly- and multiply-Ianized threads. Chemistry isn't much of a guide, its workings are completely rational.

[edit] The phrase "free radical" must be in there somewhere. I'll gladly adjust facts to accommodate this preconceived notion.

Loki

28th June 2006, 03:47 PM

Ian,

Polkinghorne's beam is the more surprising since he holds the belief that unless some things last forever, everything is futile, a "meaningless empire of accident."

Yes absolutely. And this is something that people on here just don't get.

And yet you can't offer any 'purpose' to 'forever', can you? You've refused to do so in the past. As best I can tell, your philosophy is :

1. There is no meaning to this life unless there is 'something more'.
2. The meaning of that something more is unknown.

But I'd take this further Ian - if you accept the above proposition, then how can the 'something more' have meaning unless there is 'something more' beyond that? Don't you have to believe that at some point "this is as good as it gets"?

Take the basic (simplistic) christian perspective. Beyond this life (for those who follow the rules) is a timeless existence of happiness. Assuming for a moment that is correct, what's the meaning of that? What is the purpose of 'eternal happiness'? Why is achieving this state more meaningful that achieving a state of 'eternal death'?

You seem to believe that 'purpose' is a process - it's movement towards a destination. But once you reach that destination, what then is the purpose?

Dogdoctor

28th June 2006, 04:27 PM

Philosophy is really only useful in dealing with questions not answerable by science.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 04:30 PM

Philosophy is really only useful in dealing with questions not answerable by science.

So almost everything then.

Dogdoctor

28th June 2006, 04:46 PM

There is really a lot of which is not known by science

Jimbo07

28th June 2006, 04:59 PM

not known by science

not answerable by science.

Aren't those two different things?

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 05:07 PM

There is really a lot of which is not known by science

Science just deals with the patterns in our perceptual qualia. It just doesn't deal with the same subject matter as philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with all the important questions that we as human beings can ask ourselves.

Lord Muck oGentry

28th June 2006, 05:25 PM

Science just deals with the patterns in our perceptual qualia. It just doesn't deal with the same subject matter as philosophy.

What are these perceptual qualia of which you speak? No dog Latin or idealist gibberish, please.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 05:44 PM

What are these perceptual qualia of which you speak? No dog Latin or idealist gibberish, please.

What we hear, see, taste, smell and touch.

hammegk

28th June 2006, 05:48 PM

"Qualia are introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives." is one definition.

Lord Muck oGentry

28th June 2006, 06:26 PM

What we hear, see, taste, smell and touch.

Like burglar alarms, tables, glasses of Lagavulin, rotting lettuce, and Tony Blair with someone else's bargepole?

But all of these things are ...umm, things. Are qualia things?

Or am I pressing your words too far?

Dogdoctor

28th June 2006, 06:30 PM

Aren't those two different things?
If science hasn't yet answered them then you can use philosophy to try to understand them. Otherwise the data tells you the answer. If no data exists to answer your question and you still seek to find an answer you can make a guess using logic and try to extend thought from the known into the unknown. Or just make a wild assed guess. Philosophy by itself not grounded in reality is an exercise in futility.

Interesting Ian

28th June 2006, 06:52 PM

Like burglar alarms, tables, glasses of Lagavulin, rotting lettuce, and Tony Blair with someone else's bargepole?

But all of these things are ...umm, things. Are qualia things?

Or am I pressing your words too far?

An object is simply a family of perceptual qualia related together in a specific systematic manner but which the mind interprets as a 3D object existing at a distance from us. But this interpretation is not implied by the perceptual qualia. It's the mind trying to make sense out of reality from its experience of perceptual qualia.

Let's say there is a blue box in front of you. The perceptual qualia are simply the sensation of blueness, of hardness in reaching out your hand etc.

So objects are a theoretical construction actively created by the mind. Qualia are kinda prior to objects. Perceptual qualia are the basic "materials" from which the mind creates objects.

Dr B

29th June 2006, 12:52 AM

Some of the most convincing evidence I have ever seen that some forms of philosophy lead directly to ignorance (do not pass Go, do not collect £200) :)

Some people here seem to know little about nothing and others a good deal about many things. I will leave it to you all to work out where Ian fits in that observation. :flamed:

gumboot

29th June 2006, 01:25 AM

Let's say there is a blue box in front of you. The perceptual qualia are simply the sensation of blueness, of hardness in reaching out your hand etc.

This is like the philosophy of "we don't know anything". While Socrates had a point, I can appreciate why the Athenians got rid of him.

Society ceases to function correctly if you accept that none of us know anything, nor ever can know anything, and that objects (and everything else for that matter) are just invented in our heads from "qualia".

Philosophy to the point of pointlessness.

-Andrew

politas

29th June 2006, 01:47 AM

kieran

29th June 2006, 02:03 AM

Eh? I'm the poseur? Excuse me but I'm not the one who puts "Dr" in front of my name.
... and putting "Interesting" in instead is in some way less posteur-istic?

I want to read philosophers who I can actually learn from. Not read about ideas which I have already exhaustively thought about and dismissed a very long time ago.
"Perfect" Ian strikes again - he knows best - his world-view is unassailable - he couldn't have made a mistake or not fully understood something ... :confused:

Ian - either you are perfect (remote, but possible), or you are delusional. How do you intend to learn anything when you point-blank dismiss those you don't agree with? Apparently you think you can only learn from people who's ideas agree with your own. I think you need to admit to yourself that you don't actually want to learn anything ... you are just on an ego trip. :boggled:

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 06:17 AM

This is like the philosophy of "we don't know anything". While Socrates had a point, I can appreciate why the Athenians got rid of him.

Society ceases to function correctly if you accept that none of us know anything, nor ever can know anything, and that objects (and everything else for that matter) are just invented in our heads from "qualia".

Philosophy to the point of pointlessness.

-Andrew

Eh?? I don't think you can have understood what I was saying. I'm certainly not saying that we know nothing. I'm just pointing out that the familiar 3D world that we see is a theoretical construct. Everything we perceive is a theoretical interpretation subconsciously carried out by the mind.

We don't actually literally see 3D objects at a distance from us. That's the spin our minds give us on reality. Our tactile and visual sensations are strictly speaking heterogeneous. On experiencing a particular visual quale, and receiving a particular tactile quale on reaching our our hand, we build up this idea of an object existing at a distance from us.

What's the problem?

articulett

29th June 2006, 06:26 AM

Science just deals with the patterns in our perceptual qualia. It just doesn't deal with the same subject matter as philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with all the important questions that we as human beings can ask ourselves.

And all the important answers Ian can provide I supposed. I don't trust most philosophers, because like preachers, their major talent seems to be spinning the truth they want out of pieces of facts and emotion and conjecture and then asking people to thank them for their interpretations and profundity.

I'm sticking to the facts thanks--haven't seen anything much that the other team is offering--or even how one spurious notion is supposed to be more believable than all the other alternatives. Maybe if those engaging in the pedantry were a bit more humble...

Of course there is Dennett--and he's fabulous--but I can't think of any other philosophers I want to get information from. I think Shermer has a PhD--a doctorate in philosophy; but he knows his science as does Dennett. Ian, you do not. Why should we want to hear what you are trying to teach us, and does it ever occur to you that you may have something to learn in return.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 06:27 AM

... and putting "Interesting" in instead is in some way less posteur-istic?

As I have mentioned before I was partially inspired by the snooker player "Steve "interesting" Davis" (called "interesting because he was so boring). But I neither mean to convey that I'm interesting, nor boring. It's up to other people to decide whether I'm using the word interesting in the "tongue in cheek" sense or whether I'm literally calling myself interesting. But people are so thick on here that the tongue in cheek sense just doesn't seem to occur to them! Anyway, it's just an amusing and cool name. You cannot compare it to putting Dr in front of my name!

articulett

29th June 2006, 06:30 AM

An object is simply a family of perceptual qualia related together in a specific systematic manner but which the mind interprets as a 3D object existing at a distance from us. But this interpretation is not implied by the perceptual qualia. It's the mind trying to make sense out of reality from its experience of perceptual qualia.

Let's say there is a blue box in front of you. The perceptual qualia are simply the sensation of blueness, of hardness in reaching out your hand etc.

So objects are a theoretical construction actively created by the mind. Qualia are kinda prior to objects. Perceptual qualia are the basic "materials" from which the mind creates objects.

But even if you aren't looking at it--the blue wavelengths still exist as does the density (hardness) of the box. You perceive it with your brain (not some magical soul) and if we blind you, it will still be blue--maybe not to you...but to all who see color and spectometers too. Your brain is an organ for perceiving. You keep trying to extrapolate this sort of perception outside of a brain, but you never bring any evidence to the table--ever...even though people bring you pet scans of emotions and all sorts of evidence to show you just how much a brain is necessary for perception of anything.

Dr B

29th June 2006, 06:37 AM

I cant decide if all the bull**** on using 'Dr' (cos Ian aint got one :D ) is an ad-hominem or a non-sequiter...maybe both....either way I am sure there is much more to come....if my nose can take it...:faint:

Dr B

29th June 2006, 06:43 AM

Ian

A 'C' for A-level Philosophy.....:boggled: christ I would be too embarassed to tell anyone.....

mind you standards were obviously quite bad back then. Did you get a D for debate? :dig:

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 06:48 AM

But even if you aren't looking at it--the blue wavelengths still exist as does the density (hardness) of the box.

Well that's your hypothesis.

You perceive it with your brain (not some magical soul)

Again an unsubstantiated hypothesis. I think the self perceives (or magical soul as you call it).

and if we blind you, it will still be blue--maybe not to you...but to all who see color and spectometers too. Your brain is an organ for perceiving. You keep trying to extrapolate this sort of perception outside of a brain, but you never bring any evidence to the table--ever...even though people bring you pet scans of emotions and all sorts of evidence to show you just how much a brain is necessary for perception of anything.

None of this conveys any meaning to me. You need to learn to communicate more effectively.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th June 2006, 06:55 AM

I'm not surprised you gave it up since you were quite unable to counter any of my arguments. It is an absolute scandal that people like you and Dr Kitten should actually teach it. JamesDillon seems to have a good understanding from what little I've read. Even Keven Lowe does to a certain extent. But you and Dr Kitten? Give me a break.
Since you have not seen these people teach, nor do you know what they teach, nor how, perhaps you should not defame them.

~~ Paul

Dr B

29th June 2006, 06:58 AM

None of this conveys any meaning to me. You need to learn to communicate more effectively.

Kettle.....pot.....:yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

kieran

29th June 2006, 06:59 AM

Well that's your hypothesis.
Correct - it is a hypothesis. Feel free to test it and confirm or deny whether it holds true after your test ... we can suggest many ways to test this but I doubt you will accept any of them as you seem to prefer your hypotheses to be untestable.

Again an unsubstantiated hypothesis. I think the self perceives (or magical soul as you call it).
Now this is your hypothesis - any ideas how it might be tested in the real world? :rolleyes:

None of this conveys any meaning to me. You need to learn to communicate more effectively.
I read that paragraph and managed, with no difficulty what-so-ever, to see beyond a couple of spelling mistakes and a lack of punctuation - the content was not lost and was still understandable.:rolleyes:

Communication is a two-way process - if you choose not to receive information then it is not entirely the fault of the sender. I think you need to learn to communicate more effectively. :)

drkitten

29th June 2006, 07:08 AM

... and putting "Interesting" in instead is in some way less posteur-istic?

Let's be reasonable here. It's not Ian's nom de Net that brands him as a wannabe and a poser, but the contents of his posting. He could use the name "Dougal the Magic Toothbrush" and he'd still be posting ill-informed, ignorant, semi-delusional rants on topics about which he deliberately avoids becoming educated. Alternatively, he could use the name "Sir Isaac Newton" and he'd still be posting gibberish.

It's actually fairly characteristic of a certain type of "reasoning" that they mistake the role of credentials and names. When you're dealing with a collaborative, cooperative, cumulative enterprise (like science, philosophy, law, medicine -- or for that matter, much of art and music), there's a certain amount of background and shared knowledge you're routinely expected to acquire as a matter of course. In the academic fields, this can be formalized as degree qualifications, but need not be as long as you pick up the knowledge. Much of the knowledge, of course, involves learning the contributions of other people to the field. And, of course, these people almost always have degrees, credentials, honours, and titles of their own (e.g. Professor Doctor Daniel Dennett, who holds a named chair at Tufts University, and has earned two two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science).

Ian rejects the demands that the degree/qualification system puts on him, but by the same token rejects the recognized authority of Prof Dennett . It's not even so much that Dennett is necessarily right -- but simply that Dennett addressed most of Ian's gibberish long ago (I recommend Consciousness Explained) Obviously someone consideres his ideas worth looking at or the Guggenheim Foundation wouldn't be showering him with money. But Ian not only hasn't read Dennett, but he specifically rejects any suggestions that he should.

That, of course, is why "no one has refuted his arguments on the Web." He refuses to read and understand the refutations, and of course, a full expression of Dennett's theories would take several 200-page books (which is why Dennett has written eleven of them). So the conversation goes like this:

Ian: Here is my theory <gibberish>
Sensible Person : That's wrong. <Refutation>
Ian : No, that's not a refutation, because <fallacious category error and misdefinition>
SP: No, that's not what those words mean. Check the literature: <Authoritative Citation> explains this much better than I can
Ian : Why should I read <Authoritative Citation>?
SP: Because he laid out a very clear framework for what you're trying to analyze and didn't make those category mistakes
Ian : But he's wrong
SP: How do you know he's wrong? You've never even read him.
Ian : And I never will. Because he's obviously an idiot

Against logic like that,.... who can argue?

kieran

29th June 2006, 07:08 AM

As I have mentioned before I was partially inspired by the snooker player "Steve "interesting" Davis" (called "interesting because he was so boring). But I neither mean to convey that I'm interesting, nor boring. It's up to other people to decide whether I'm using the word interesting in the "tongue in cheek" sense or whether I'm literally calling myself interesting. But people are so thick on here that the tongue in cheek sense just doesn't seem to occur to them! Anyway, it's just an amusing and cool name. You cannot compare it to putting Dr in front of my name!
I see - now thick old me (thanks!) is armed with the information - I shall chuckle along to your joke with you.

(BTW - any programmes I've seen with Steve Davis outside the snooker environment - chat shows, quiz shows, etc - show him to be a thoroughly entertaining chap. So I think the Steve Davis comparison is doubly apt as this place wouldn't be the same without you Ian.)

However, I think you will find that I can still compare your "Interesting" to their "Dr" - maybe they have an equally "tongue in cheek" explanation and you are just too thick to get it (without being told).

Flo

29th June 2006, 07:09 AM

Well that's your hypothesis.

Again an unsubstantiated hypothesis. I think the self perceives (or magical soul as you call it).

None of this conveys any meaning to me. You need to learn to communicate more effectively.

The shameless arrogance is admirable ... :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 07:13 AM

Ian

A 'C' for A-level Philosophy.....:boggled: christ I would be too embarassed to tell anyone.....

mind you standards were obviously quite bad back then. Did you get a D for debate? :dig:

A grade D is still an A level pass. Only if you get an E or less is it a fail (unless things have changed in the intervening years)

Anyway, many many more people get "A"s now. Back then a D or C was more typical. So we have grade inflation and comparing my grade to present A level grades is pretty meaningless. Same goes for my 2.1. at University.

I would also remind you that I was the only student who actually did the exam. Everyone else either dropped out or didn't bother taking it.

My A level in philosophy also consisted in having to read these set text books which we were examined on. Namely

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
The German Ideology by Karl Marx and Engels
Language Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer
The problems of philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Existentialism and Humanism by Sartre.

Jesus no wonder I was the only one who ended up taking the exam!

Anyway I never actually ever got round to reading the German Ideology. I did try, but not very hard. What a load of cr@p! (although this is not to say I am not a socialist because I am)

I only read the first chapter of language truth and logic. Ayer dismisses metaphysics in it and uses that as a basis for the rest of his book. Problem was that I completely disagreed with his dismissal. So to a large extent I didn't bother with the rest of his book. What I did read I profoundly disagreed with.

I also disagreed with large parts of the Problems of Philosophy by Russell. But I did actually read most of it.

On Liberty by Mill and Existentialism and Humanism by Sartre were both good though. Especially the former!

The point is though that I knew virtually nothing in 2 of the 5 books so couldn't really be expected to do all that well.

Meffy

29th June 2006, 07:13 AM

But people are so thick on here that the tongue in cheek sense just doesn't seem to occur to them!
I think you have it backwards. It occurs but I suspect many people dismiss the idea as improbable. Having seen numerous jokes and wry comments apparently fly right over your head, I decided the odds were that nick and avatar fit each other and that the nick probably wasn't intentionally humorous. I could be wrong; doesn't matter.

I do like DrKitten's suggestion though. "Dougal the Magic Toothbrush" has a distinguished ring, doesn't it?

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 07:16 AM

Since you have not seen these people teach, nor do you know what they teach, nor how, perhaps you should not defame them.

~~ Paul

That's a fallacious argument. The point is that I know they are lacking in intelligence in being able to understand relatively easy philosophical concepts. That being so I do not think they should be teaching philosophy {shrugs}

Meffy

29th June 2006, 07:17 AM

My A level in philosophy also consisted in having to read these set text books which we were examined on. [...]

Anyway I never actually ever got round to reading the German Ideology. [...]

I only read the first chapter of language truth and logic. [...]
So you're saying that you didn't actually complete your coursework... and (correct me if I've misinterpreted what you said) you're boasting about it?

Ohhhhh... kay. *9_9*

[edit] No wonder you consider yourself qualified to judge your betters without knowing anything about them.

drkitten

29th June 2006, 07:18 AM

Anyway I never actually ever got round to reading the German Ideology. I did try, but not very hard. What a load of cr@p! (although this is not to say I am not a socialist because I am)

I only read the first chapter of language truth and logic. Ayer dismisses metaphysics in it and uses that as a basis for the rest of his book. Problem was that I completely disagreed with his dismissal. So to a large extent I didn't bother with the rest of his book. What I did read I profoundly disagreed with.

Can't get much better examples than this, can you? "I completely disagreed with him, so I didn't read him."

Some punch lines write themselves.

Darat

29th June 2006, 07:23 AM

"Can Philosophy lead to ignorance?"

From the evidence of this thread alone the answer is clearly "yes".

:D

Flo

29th June 2006, 07:25 AM

That's a fallacious argument. The point is that I know they are lacking in intelligence in being able to understand relatively easy philosophical concepts. That being so I do not think they should be teaching philosophy {shrugs}

Ian's dictionnary:

"fallacious argument" = "contradicting IIan's ideas"
"lacking in intelligence" = "doesn't agree with IIan"
"relatively easy philosophical concepts" = "what IIan says and should be agreed with"
"unfit to teach philosophy" = "anyone teaching anything that runs contrary to IIan's ideas"

:rolleyes:

Meffy

29th June 2006, 07:29 AM

"Can Philosophy lead to ignorance?"

From the evidence of this thread alone the answer is clearly "yes".

:D
You're not the first to note the self-fulfilling prophecy of the subject question. :-} But the evidence does keep piling up, doesn't it?

I'd make one amendment, to say it is the abuse of philosophy that leads to ignorance. IMO Ian is not a practicioner but an abuser of the philosophical arts.

Dr B

29th June 2006, 07:32 AM

:duck:

Above is a picture of everyone's arguments flying right over Ian's head....:D

here is Ian trying to debate them using the philosophy he read on the back of a beer mat

:dig:

then the Forum discussion....

:catfight:

and he claims intellectual victory!!! The rest of the forum community respond with...:boggled: :wide-eyed :yikes: :faint: :footinmou :jaw-dropp

Anacoluthon64

29th June 2006, 07:34 AM

"Can Philosophy lead to ignorance?"

From the evidence of this thread alone the answer is clearly "yes".

:DAssuming, that is, that such extant evidence is deserving of said soubriquet.

'Luthon64

Meffy

29th June 2006, 07:34 AM

@Dr B: *snerk*

I'm not a graphical emoticon fan but that was nicely orchestrated.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 07:34 AM

:
Well that's your hypothesis.

kieran
Correct - it is a hypothesis. Feel free to test it and confirm or deny whether it holds true after your test

The hypothesis that objects when not perceived still nevertheless exist in a concrete sense.

You can't test it. It's a metaphysical hypothesis. By definition you cannot perceive that which is unperceived. Therefore it is not possible for there to be any empirical evidence, and therefore is not possible to test for.

... we can suggest many ways to test this but I doubt you will accept any of them as you seem to prefer your hypotheses to be untestable.

Well it's your hypothesis which is untestable although obviously the contrary hypothesis would also be impossible to test for too.

You can suggest many ways to test your hypothesis? I'm genuinely intrigued. Please do tell.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
Again an unsubstantiated hypothesis. I think the self perceives (or magical soul as you call it).

kieran
Now this is your hypothesis - any ideas how it might be tested in the real world?

Well since the self certainly appears to exist, then obviously anyone claiming it doesn't has the burden of evidence.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
None of this conveys any meaning to me. You need to learn to communicate more effectively.

kieran
I read that paragraph and managed, with no difficulty what-so-ever, to see beyond a couple of spelling mistakes and a lack of punctuation - the content was not lost and was still understandable.

Sorry but I really honestly don't understand what she's saying. I'm often struggling to understand what people are actually trying to say on this board. They're starting from a complete different set of assumptions about reality but I can normally place myself in their shoes to a certain extent. But sometimes I fail.

Communication is a two-way process - if you choose not to receive information then it is not entirely the fault of the sender. I think you need to learn to communicate more effectively.

The paragraph she wrote doesn't actually make any sense. But this is not at all untypical for the posts on here. People have this very ill-formed vague idea about the nature of reality, and it shows when they attempt to communicate. I'm sorry but this is not my fault. If they wish to address me and for me to respond they need to try and decide what their position is. Only then will they be in a position to ask me questions.

Dr B

29th June 2006, 07:35 AM

@Dr B: *snerk*

I'm not a graphical emoticon fan but that was nicely orchestrated.

why thank you, lets face it, i have tried reason, logic, science, evidence, facts, and they fail.....thought i would put it into pictures for him :D

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 07:45 AM

He could use the name "Dougal the Magic Toothbrush" and he'd still be posting ill-informed, ignorant, semi-delusional rants on topics about which he deliberately avoids becoming educated. Alternatively, he could use the name "Sir Isaac Newton" and he'd still be posting gibberish.

Dr Kitten,

Let me be fair. You certainly seem to know your stuff in a few subject areas, and you are obviously highly intelligent. Indeed I often agree with some of the things you say. However I have on a few occasions debated with you on philosophical issues and it was very clear to me that you lack the necessary philosophical understanding.

I really honestly don't think you should be teaching this subject at University level! :eek: Having said that it's par for the course. I wasn't particularly impressed with my lecturers at University either although they had more background understanding than you.

Sorry but I'm not going to read the rest of your post. I really can't be bothered to read posts which simply insult me. I find it tedious. I also think it's unlikely that you think I'm as stupid and as uneducated as you claim.

Post something worthwhile please.

drkitten

29th June 2006, 07:50 AM

Post something worthwhile please.

Certainly.

READ DENNETT!

Because your ignorance on matters philosophical is the stuff of forum legend. I strongly suspect that a survey of forum members on this topic would put you as one of the three most ignorant members.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 07:50 AM

However, I think you will find that I can still compare your "Interesting" to their "Dr" - maybe they have an equally "tongue in cheek" explanation and you are just too thick to get it (without being told).

Ah yes of course! Maybe it's just tongue in cheek. Maybe none of these guys are really a Dr! :D

Yup you're right, I must admit that possibility never occurred to me.

kieran

29th June 2006, 07:59 AM

The hypothesis that objects when not perceived still nevertheless exist in a concrete sense.

You can't test it. It's a metaphysical hypothesis. By definition you cannot perceive that which is unperceived. Therefore it is not possible for there to be any empirical evidence, and therefore is not possible to test for.
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.

Well it's your hypothesis which is untestable although obviously the contrary hypothesis would also be impossible to test for too.
This hypothesis (from articulett) was that you perceive with your brain. We can measure brain response to perceptive stimulii, the same stimulii give the same response across tests and across individuals. Obviously there are some anomalies but the hypothesis did not say that the brains "perception" was identical in all cases. This is evidence that supports the hypothesis. Please give me evidence that contradicts it.

You can suggest many ways to test your hypothesis? I'm genuinely intrigued. Please do tell.
If we assume that the things we perceive exist outside the self, and that there is more than one self, then we can test it by having multiple selves record and compare their perception. If these perceptions show broad agreement, then the thing exists outside the self and the perceptions are independent of the self.

Well since the self certainly appears to exist, then obviously anyone claiming it doesn't has the burden of evidence.
Hang on - the hypothesis I asked you about was not that the self exists, it was that the self perceives and not the brain. Does that help you to come up with a test for your hypothesis?

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 08:02 AM

Certainly.

READ DENNETT!

Because your ignorance on matters philosophical is the stuff of forum legend. I strongly suspect that a survey of forum members on this topic would put you as one of the three most ignorant members.

And you read John Foster's The case for Idealism and Berkeley's The principles.

I won't read Dennett because the man is insane. I refuse to read anyone who claims that he is a p-zombie.

I should mention here to everyone that I often read books expressing positions contrary to my own position. For example I have recently bought books on the mind/body problem by Searle (a self-proclaimed materialist) and David Chalmers (a self-proclaimed naturalist albeit not materialist). But I draw a line at reading books by people who are clearly insane. I've read enough of him, and enough secondary resources outlining his position to justify my conclusion here.

kieran

29th June 2006, 08:06 AM

But even if you aren't looking at it--the blue wavelengths still exist as does the density (hardness) of the box. You perceive it with your brain (not some magical soul) and if we blind you, it will still be blue--maybe not to you...but to all who see color and spectometers too. Your brain is an organ for perceiving. You keep trying to extrapolate this sort of perception outside of a brain, but you never bring any evidence to the table--ever...even though people bring you pet scans of emotions and all sorts of evidence to show you just how much a brain is necessary for perception of anything.
Ian - I'm still reading this without too many problems. articulett seems to me to be saying that there is measureable evidence that the brain reacts to stimulii - and this is what is beiing called perception. Without the brain, there is no such perception. The measureable evidence can be shown to be largely independent from subject to subject, and there are a variety of tests.

articulett - feel free to correct me if I am mis-representing you.

drkitten

29th June 2006, 08:09 AM

I won't read Dennett because the man is insane. I refuse to read anyone who claims that he is a p-zombie.

And, once again, folks -- "I won't read the acknowledged expert on the field because he disagrees with me and is therefore wrong."

I should mention here to everyone that I often read books expressing positions contrary to my own position.

... or, at least, color in the illustrations in your copy of the Kama Sutra.

Thanks, folks. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 08:10 AM

This hypothesis (from articulett) was that you perceive with your brain.

I thought we were discussing her hypothesis that objects and processes when not perceived still exist in a full-blooded sense.

Perceive with your brain?? Well we use our brain to perceive. But you mean something more than that? If it means something more than that then what are you actually saying? Do you and her have any idea yourselves what you are actually saying?

This is the problem I was talking about earlier.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 08:24 AM

This hypothesis (from articulett) was that you perceive with your brain.

I don't even understand what this could possibly mean. The self uses the brain to perceive certainly. But you're not saying that are you?

We can measure brain response to perceptive stimulii, the same stimulii give the same response across tests and across individuals. Obviously there are some anomalies but the hypothesis did not say that the brains "perception" was identical in all cases. This is evidence that supports the hypothesis. Please give me evidence that contradicts it.

Well such data would be expected on my hypothesis too. Not that I understand what your hypothesis is saying.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
You can suggest many ways to test your hypothesis? I'm genuinely intrigued. Please do tell.

kieran
If we assume that the things we perceive exist outside the self,

Yes good one! Let's start off by assuming that your conclusion is correct!

and that there is more than one self, then we can test it by having multiple selves record and compare their perception. If these perceptions show broad agreement, then the thing exists outside the self and the perceptions are independent of the self.

Jesus I knew you wouldn't be able to answer :rolleyes: You said you can test that unperceived objects exist. How the hell can testing for the perceived constitute evidence for the unperceived??

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
Well since the self certainly appears to exist, then obviously anyone claiming it doesn't has the burden of evidence.

kieran
Hang on - the hypothesis I asked you about was not that the self exists, it was that the self perceives and not the brain.

What?? The self exists but never perceives anything?? :eek: In that case how come I experience qualia if I never ever perceive anything? If the self exists then presumably it perceives. Either that or the self doesn't exist.

Does that help you to come up with a test for your hypothesis??

No.