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

Jono

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 ************ 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.

Flo

29th June 2006, 08:32 AM

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

"well, not so much because he disagrees, but more because a) what he writes is too complicated for me (on account of me not having read the books I was supposed to in order to become somewhat competent in the field), and most importantly b) there's not a chance in hell he'd consider me as at least his equal."

kieran

29th June 2006, 08:33 AM

I thought we were discussing her hypothesis that objects and processes when not perceived still exist in a full-blooded sense..
I was discussing the hypothesis stated directly before the line you quoted me on. Didn't realize you had redefined it.

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.
I think the hypothesis (I repeat - made by articulett) is saying that perception is a by-product of the physical processes in the brain. You don't need to add a "self" to the melting pot - as a "self" is also a by-product of such processes. (Again - articulett - apologies if this is not what you meant).

It's only a problem if you keep looking for it.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 08:34 AM

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

I don't think he's the acknowledged expert in the field. Scarcely anyone agrees with him apart from the lunatics on here.

The point here is that life is finite and we only really have time to read the good stuff. Now it's basically acknowledged even by materialist philosophers that Dennett lamentably fails in his task of explaining consciousness. So with what good reason should I read him if scarcely anyone thinks his arguments have any philosophical merit?

Now Dr Kitten. Try to get this through that concrete block you call your head. I do not read him not because I disagree with him. That accusation could scarcely be levelled at me. I do not read him because it is virtually universally acknowledged that he basically does not address the title of his book. Moreover the man is clearly insane.

Do you understand yet?

And BTW it's a bit rich you complaining about me not reading a book given your appalling philosophical ability.

If you want me to read it then pay me a large sum of money. Otherwise go f*** yourself.

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

Eh? Why don't you try communicating in English?

Lamuella

29th June 2006, 08:36 AM

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

this can only be correct if you are insecure enough that you count on the universe to give your life meaning.

I count on my life to give my life meaning, so I have no problem with the contemporary understanding of the Universe.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 08:36 AM

I was discussing the hypothesis stated directly before the line you quoted me on. Didn't realize you had redefined it.

I think the hypothesis (I repeat - made by articulett) is saying that perception is a by-product of the physical processes in the brain.

She's saying that? Oh well in that case I have nothing to say. If she could have clearly stated that at the outset we wouldn't have had to waste our time discussing this.

Interesting Ian

29th June 2006, 08:38 AM

She's saying that? Oh well in that case I have nothing to say. If she could have clearly stated that at the outset we wouldn't have had to waste our time discussing this.

Let's suppose it is. So what? What was her point?

drkitten

29th June 2006, 08:43 AM

I don't think he's the acknowledged expert in the field. Scarcely anyone agrees with him apart from the lunatics on here.

... and the lunatics at:

the Guggenheim Foundation
the National Endowment for the Humanities
the Santayana Foundation
the Fullbright Foundation
All Souls College, Oxford University
the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Zentrum für Interdisziplinäre Forschung
Centre for the Mind, Institute for Advanced Study, Australian National University
Bertrand Russell Society

... as well as other universities too countless to mention.

The point here is that life is finite and we only really have time to read the good stuff.

Oddly enough, I agree with you here.

The problem is that Dennett is one of the best of the good stuff.

Now it's basically acknowledged even by materialist philosophers that Dennett lamentably fails in his task of explaining consciousness.

I defy you to find five reputable philosophers who have published statements to that effect.

I do not read him not because I disagree with him. That accusation could scarcely be levelled at me.

On the contrary, I specifically did level that accusation at you.

I do not read him because it is virtually universally acknowledged that he basically does not address the title of his book. Moreover the man is clearly insane.

You have no evidence beyond the fact that you disagree with him for either of the statements you make in the paragraph above.

I stand by my accusation.

Lamuella

29th June 2006, 08:45 AM

call me old-fashioned, but I always like to read a book before criticizing it.

That's why I've helf off on criticizing godless until I get a strong enough stomach to read Ann Coulter's latest shriekings. Treason nearly did me in.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th June 2006, 08:52 AM

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?
What does it mean for the self to use the brain to perceive, when the brain is one of the objects of perception of the self, just like a chair is?

~~ Paul

kieran

29th June 2006, 08:59 AM

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?
Just raising the possibility that the self is a by-product of the brain perceiving reality.

Yes good one! Let's start off by assuming that your conclusion is correct!
I'm sorry - you still appear to be discussing the another hypothesis (things exist if we don't perceive them), I was discussing the hypothesis that our brain perceives things, not the "self".

Jesus I knew you wouldn't be able to answer :rolleyes: You said you can test that unperceived objects exist.
I don't think I said that.

Dr B

29th June 2006, 09:50 AM

... and the lunatics at:

the Guggenheim Foundation
the National Endowment for the Humanities
the Santayana Foundation
the Fullbright Foundation
All Souls College, Oxford University
the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Zentrum für Interdisziplinäre Forschung
Centre for the Mind, Institute for Advanced Study, Australian National University
Bertrand Russell Society

... as well as other universities too countless to mention.

Hey drkitten - dont forget - Ian got a C-grade in A-level Philosophy :D :D :boggled: I bet Dennett is S****ing himself...

articulett

29th June 2006, 10:45 AM

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.

I understand just fine, thanks. It's you who seem to lack understanding as to what anyone else has said. I just want to know if you have any converts yet is the world of people who like evidence before eating from the woo buffet. Have you ever admitted a mistake? To me, you make the same argument over and over--with nary a shout out to evidence...and then insult those who don't speak woo and are trying to get you to speak scientifically.

You really ought to read Dennett before presuming you have a clue (as if) to what he says. He is well received in the scientific community because he understands what evidence is. You have a truth you want everyone to share and you have no intention of ever finding out if you might be wrong. You prefer your particular truth to the "truth" that is--that truth doesn't give one iota about what Ian finds interesting. So why are we supposed to again?

See, because you keep coming back with your mighty hubris, I think you serve a much more positive role as the woo whipping boy. We'd all love for you to understand what measurable evidence means, of course--but I doubt anyone his hold their breath (though some may hold their nose with the poop you pass of as "wisdom")

articulett

29th June 2006, 10:46 AM

articulett

29th June 2006, 10:54 AM

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

"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:

Bingo! On both. Now is the first one irony--or just standard woo hypocrisy?

As to the 2nd--why would someone preach at a skeptics sight--isn't it funny that Ian comes here to enlighten us poor ignorant non-philosophers. I understand Dennett so much easier, and he has a Darwinish look to boot. And not a scintilla of arrogance from what I see. He bends over backwards not to hurt feelings--but pretending everyone's silly notions are worthy of respect, does get old, no? Why are those who insult so affronted when it boomerangs back? That's the only philosophical question I care about.
(unless under the influence of cannibis of course).

articulett

29th June 2006, 10:56 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:

I think his professors should be admonished immediately and put on administrative hold or sent to teach at community college after being fined and made to listen to the "interesting" case-study they spawned.

No amnesty for those clowns, no sir.

articulett

29th June 2006, 11:00 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

And why do people go to old texts and spin--when there is so much great new stuff--and the facts don't need to be spun for the intelligent--they can add them up just fine without "divine" help. The guys writing this crap back then didn't even know that you could spread disease by not washing your hands after wiping your rectum. Are they really good sources for present day knowledge? They didn't even have a printing press, much less a computer!
I imagine popping into their existence, because it would be so easy and cool to convince them we are gods--moreso if we brought our ipods.

kieran

29th June 2006, 11:11 AM

Bingo! On both. Now is the first one irony--or just standard woo hypocrisy?
Fair play - Ian has already explained that - it is based on a sports-man (?) (snooker-player) in the UK, Steve Davis, that had a reputation for being very dull, and for that reason was ironically nick-named "Interesting" (I think originally in a sketch in the Spitting Image programme). So it is, and Ian has confirmed it himself, irony.

Whenever I see his forum name, I do not now think Ian thinks himself interesting. I do still find Ian interesting however. At least he sticks around and gives it a go, unlike some trolls that lumber past. :)

Hellbound

29th June 2006, 11:11 AM

I think his professors should be admonished immediately and put on administrative hold or sent to teach at community college after being fined and made to listen to the "interesting" case-study they spawned.

No amnesty for those clowns, no sir.

Hmm, I got straight A's in Psychology and Sociology, both high school and college level.

Does this mean I was correct in my assessment of Ian's personality? According to Ian-logic, it must be so! I know more than psychologists!

:D

hammegk

29th June 2006, 11:12 AM

I understand just fine, thanks. It's you who seem to lack understanding as to what anyone else has said.

Originally Posted by Irish Murdoch :
.... 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.

hammegk: Which, unfortunately, brings nothing to discussions of monism of choice: materialism vs. ~materialism being one way to express the choices.

You really ought to read Dennett before presuming you have a clue (as if) to what he says. He is well received in the scientific community because he understands what evidence is.

Dennett trods the same circular path destined for all materialists. :)

supercorgi

29th June 2006, 11:30 AM

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)
Geeesh! Can I assume that the English grading system is the same as the American in terms of letters and points (A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, and F<2)? If so, a C is pretty pathetic. If I had gotten a C in college, I would have been pretty depressed and it would have been because I either didn't understand the material or I just didn't do the work.

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.
Ian, when did you graduate from college? I graduated in '83 and in the US, but 2.1 is almost failing. Grades haven't inflated that much - particularly at the good universities. I would have been pretty embarrassed to graduate with a 2.1 back then.

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.
If that's the case, you must have gone to a college with pretty unmotivated students and lax standards. That doesn't speak well for the quality of the school.

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.
So you didn't even bother to read most of the books in the course and you still got a C! :jaw-dropp What kind of exam was it? Multiple-choice? I don't know about you, but for my college philosophy course we had to write essays, and if you hadn't read the material you couldn't form a coherent argument.

So you've had one college level (at least that's what I assume an A-level course is) philosophy course which you didn't do very well in because you were too lazy/opinionated to read the material, and you consider yourself a better philosopher than people who have advanced degrees and have exhaustively studied the literature in their discipline? :rolleyes:

supercorgi

29th June 2006, 11:32 AM

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:
Nice summation! :D

Irish Murdoch

29th June 2006, 11:37 AM

Ian, when did you graduate from college? I graduated in '83 and in the US, but 2.1 is almost failing. Grades haven't inflated that much - particularly at the good universities. I would have been pretty embarrassed to graduate with a 2.1 back then.

Not so in Britain: a 2:1 is a very respectable degree. A 3rd is not respectable, and next door to a fail.

Irish Murdoch

29th June 2006, 11:39 AM

Say, is it really pounds on the Monopoly money in the UK? Or does monopoly have a monopoly on the fake money used? Enlighten me.

Well, of course they're not real pounds, but the Monopoly money here does call itself pounds, yes. What worries me is that there's only one Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Oh, sorry, I'm not meant to be talking on this thread. I'm too thick to do my job, so I'm obviously too thick for the thread.

Meffy

29th June 2006, 11:54 AM

So you've had one college level (at least that's what I assume an A-level course is) philosophy course which you didn't do very well in because you were too lazy/opinionated to read the material, and you consider yourself a better philosopher than people who have advanced degrees and have exhaustively studied the literature in their discipline? :rolleyes:
Nonono... that's backward. Ian didn't do very well precisely because he's a better philosopher than people who have advanced degrees dah de doo wah. They resented his irrepressible native brilliance and naturally wanted to hold him back, but even in the worst extremity "he stood upon the burning deck / whence all but he had fled." Dashed noble, really.

supercorgi

29th June 2006, 11:56 AM

Not so in Britain: a 2:1 is a very respectable degree. A 3rd is not respectable, and next door to a fail.
Thanks for that clarification Murdoch, I've got a question. Looked on Wikipedia for the grading of A-level courses and they said this:

The Advanced Level (A level) is graded on a scale of A-E, with U as Unclassified (Fail).

NOTE: Grade % Averages are estimates

A: Excellent (Grade % Average: 80 and above)
B: Above average (Grade % average: 70-79)
C: Average (Grade % average: 60-69)
D: Below Average (Grade % average: 50-59)
E: Poor (Grade % average: 40-49) is the lowest passing % average
U: Unclassified (Grade % average: 0-39)

What grade does a 2nd and 3rd refer to? Also, I assumed that A-level courses were university courses but according to Wikipedia they're equivalent to the US's grade 11th & 12th which one takes at around age 17-19. Is Wikipedia incorrect or am I confused (not an unusual occurence! :D )

In the US we only have A, B, C, D, and F.

supercorgi

29th June 2006, 11:59 AM

Nonono... that's backward. Ian didn't do very well precisely because he's a better philosopher than people who have advanced degrees dah de doo wah. They resented his irrepressible native brilliance and naturally wanted to hold him back, but even in the worst extremity "he stood upon the burning deck / whence all but he had fled." Dashed noble, really.
Ah yes, conspiracy theories fit everywhere. ;)

P.S. Meffy I love your posts. The same goes for DrKitten's post (plus he has Kitten in his/her? name). :catface:

drkitten

29th June 2006, 11:59 AM

Ian, when did you graduate from college? I graduated in '83 and in the US, but 2.1 is almost failing. Grades haven't inflated that much - particularly at the good universities. I would have been pretty embarrassed to graduate with a 2.1 back then.

Different system, different interpretation. UK universities don't give grades, so there's no such concept as a grade-point average. Instead, you sit a really nasty set of examinations at the end -- basically a final-exam-from-hell squared. On the basis of those tests, you get a degree category, from 1 to 3.

1 is *****' brilliiant, go to graduate school and make us proud.
2 is acceptable, go into the work force and help build the Empire
3 is poor, go into the House of Lords

They have since subdivided the 2nd class degree into upper and lower 2nds, colloquially 2.1 and 2.2. Generally a 2.1 is considered a "good" degree, 2.2 is considered marginal, and a 3rd is an effective failure.

So you've had one college level (at least that's what I assume an A-level course is)

Nope. A-level is high school.

Meffy

29th June 2006, 12:00 PM

In the US we only have A, B, C, D, and F.
That's because this is America, not England, and 'E sounds like a cockney, 'e does. :-}

kieran

29th June 2006, 12:01 PM

I graduated in '83 and in the US, but 2.1 is almost failing.
... sounds like a pointless grading system you have there in the US, your description leads me to believe that you can either:

fail,
nearly fail, or
get a 1st

Are you sure you aren't exaggerating this? :confused:

[derailing rant]

Grade inflation has taken place here in the UK for many years - the government makes targets to improve education and they define these targets based on grades - but in order to hit them, the grades are made easier to get - so you end up with everyone getting top grades, and you have to invent new categories of top grade to distinguish between them. (Sounds made up - doesn't it?)

Every year at exam time, grade inflation becomes apparent and when it is commented on, we have to put up with the school kids moaning that we don't give them credit for all the hard work they are doing - they completely miss the point that people also used to work bloody hard in the past, but only the best got top grades.

More kids go to higher education (another government target is to increase numbers of kids going to higher education so there are more places than ever before), but the universities have to start them off from a much lower base than previously as they haven't covered most of the pre-requisites for the first year courses. Then the universities have to decide whether to dumb down the degree (as they can't cover as much due to the catching up early on) or have courses that are a year longer.

This process is nothing to be proud of - it has its parallels in the liberal attitude to competitive sports that prevailed when I was at school ... we can't have competitive matches as then some kids would lose.

[/derailing rant]

Lord Muck oGentry

29th June 2006, 12:04 PM

drkitten

29th June 2006, 12:07 PM

... sounds like a pointless grading system you have there in the US, your description leads me to believe that you can either:

fail,
nearly fail, or
get a 1st

Are you sure you aren't exaggerating this?

As I said earlier, different system, different interpretation.

In the United States, one gets grades for each individual class, so I might do really well in my topology class but badly in algebra. A typical B.S or B.A. involves about 40 individually grades classes, with grades from A to F, excluding 'E.'

The "official" interpretation of grades is that A is superior, B is above average, C average, D below average but still passing, and F failure. In practice, grade inflation has made B the average at most schools, and D an effective failure.

These grades are converted to numerical values as follows. A is 4 "grade points," B is 3, C 2, D 1, and F 0. So you can calculate an overall "grade point average" (GPA) reflecting the quality of schoolwork. Someone who gets an A in every course she takes will have a 4.0 GPA. If you get half B's and half A's, you'd have a 3.5. If you get half A's and half C's, you'd get a 3.0, which is numerically the same as if you got all B's.

A "2.1" GPA means, more or less, that you got C's (a generally unacceptable mark, but still a technical "pass" in most of your classes, with a few A's and B's scattered in. At most schools, if your overall GPA is less than 2.0, you can't graduate at all... so a 2.1 GPA represents barely more than a failure.

Irish Murdoch

29th June 2006, 12:15 PM

Thanks for that clarification Murdoch, I've got a question. Looked on Wikipedia for the grading of A-level courses and they said this:

What grade does a 2nd and 3rd refer to? Also, I assumed that A-level courses were university courses but according to Wikipedia they're equivalent to the US's grade 11th & 12th which one takes at around age 17-19. Is Wikipedia incorrect or am I confused (not an unusual occurence! :D )

In the US we only have A, B, C, D, and F.

Yes, the A-level is a pre-University qualification. You're awarded them, typically, at the age of 18. The grades awarded for them have nothing to do with the grades awarded at degree level. Here's, more or less, how those work:

1st: Distinctive work showing independent thought and critical engagement with alternative views.

2:1 (upper second): May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent critical position.

2:2 (lower second): Sound work which expresses a personal position only in broad terms and in ubcritical conformity to one or more standard views on the topic.

3rd: Largely derivative; no critical view is adequately formed.

Fail: No evidence of personal thought; cursory paraphrase or quotation of others.

drkitten

29th June 2006, 12:17 PM

So how shall I know a quale if one happens to be passing?

Check its American Express card. They usually have names written on them.

"Don't leave home without it."

supercorgi

29th June 2006, 12:18 PM

As I said earlier, different system, different interpretation.

In the United States, one gets grades for each individual class, so I might do really well in my topology class but badly in algebra. A typical B.S or B.A. involves about 40 individually grades classes, with grades from A to F, excluding 'E.'

The "official" interpretation of grades is that A is superior, B is above average, C average, D below average but still passing, and F failure. In practice, grade inflation has made B the average at most schools, and D an effective failure.
This is very true at the high school level and is becoming increasingly true at the university level. :( Even universities that would like to maintain their grade integrity are forced to practice grade inflation just so their graduates can complete in graduate school (advanced degree in the US - a Masters or a Ph.D) and in the workplace.

DrKitten, do you teach in the US? You seem very conversant with both the US and British systems.

These grades are converted to numerical values as follows. A is 4 "grade points," B is 3, C 2, D 1, and F 0. So you can calculate an overall "grade point average" (GPA) reflecting the quality of schoolwork. Someone who gets an A in every course she takes will have a 4.0 GPA. If you get half B's and half A's, you'd have a 3.5. If you get half A's and half C's, you'd get a 3.0, which is numerically the same as if you got all B's.

A "2.1" GPA means, more or less, that you got C's (a generally unacceptable mark, but still a technical "pass" in most of your classes, with a few A's and B's scattered in. At most schools, if your overall GPA is less than 2.0, you can't graduate at all... so a 2.1 GPA represents barely more than a failure.

Nice summation! This is much more interesting to me (and educational) than Ian's ramblings. :D

drkitten

29th June 2006, 12:20 PM

DrKitten, do you teach in the US? You seem very conversant with both the US and British systems.

I've taught in both. As a result, I can't spell for toffee. How many 'u's are there in 'honouuur' again?

Meffy

29th June 2006, 12:20 PM

Check its American Express card. They usually have names written on them.

"Don't leave home without it."
Alternatively, by their potatos shall ye know them.

Irish Murdoch

29th June 2006, 12:28 PM

I've taught in both. As a result, I can't spell for toffee. How many 'u's are there in 'honouuur' again?

What?! You mean to say that your inability to understand elementary philosophical concepts, as certified by Ian, didn't hold you back from getting a job on either occasion?! ;-)

drkitten

29th June 2006, 12:32 PM

What?! You mean to say that your inability to understand elementary philosophical concepts, as certified by Ian, didn't hold you back from getting a job on either occasion?! ;-)

You get farther with a kind word and compromising photographs of the Vice-Chancellor than you do with a kind word alone.

Irish Murdoch

29th June 2006, 12:34 PM

You get farther with a kind word and compromising photographs of the Vice-Chancellor than you do with a kind word alone.

Now you see you've gone and put some images of our V-C into my head .... It's not pleasant!

supercorgi

29th June 2006, 12:38 PM

I've taught in both. As a result, I can't spell for toffee. How many 'u's are there in 'honouuur' again?
For some bizarre reason, ever since I was a child, I spelled the 'or words with the British spelling. Colour, honour, labour, etc. I still catch myself doing it. I must have read a bunch of books by English authors when I was little.

Lord Muck oGentry

29th June 2006, 12:50 PM

Check its American Express card. They usually have names written on them.

"Don't leave home without it."

Cue totally irrelevant Pamela Stephenson sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF-U9nL9Ios

Meffy

29th June 2006, 01:14 PM

@supecorgi: I rather look forward to your posts too, and rather a lot of others. Some first-class wits hang 'round here, and so far they've not chased me off. =^_^=

articulett

29th June 2006, 09:49 PM

articulett

29th June 2006, 09:51 PM

articulett

29th June 2006, 09:56 PM

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}

Nor should you. We get the easy concepts--we want a bit of evidence--you have none--just insults and arrogance. Or did I miss something. Just because we think you are full of crap, doesn't mean you are deep and believe something beyond our comprehension.

Mood rings are not reallly all that accurate at reflecting moods either. We get the idea--and find it spurious without evidence. We know the properties of heat and how it changes the color of a mood ring--but we also know that it's pretty simplistic and even childish to associate the color change with mood. You are trying to get us to do the equivalent of accepting mood rings as "attenae of mood truth". And squawking about our stupidity when we say--prove it.

articulett

29th June 2006, 09:59 PM

Dennett trods the same circular path destined for all materialists. :)

Your crybaby way of associating the truth that there is no such thing as consciousness outside of a brain--with materialistc (wallet biased) thinking.

It fails. As always. No matter how much you want to believe something; it still doesn't make it true. And no matter how you decry the facts--they are still the facts. Sorry.

articulett

29th June 2006, 10:00 PM

articulett

29th June 2006, 10:02 PM

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.

or maybe the ignorant are drawn to philosphy...

correlation isn't causation necessarily--

Dr B

30th June 2006, 04:14 AM

So what thinks everyone, based on all the current discussions, of the original question?

I think there are some quarters of philosphy that do indeed have a serious and welcome impact on practical science - and that is where you tend to find good arguments (Dennett being one example). I also think all scientists should have a good feel for the basics (at least) of the philosophy of science and the process of how science does what it does, why science does what it does(not all science courses teach this!) and what the limitations are (even touching on the sociology of scientific knowledge a bit if needs be). When I was a UK undergraduate - we had three years of this type of stuff (I trained in cognitive psychology / neuropsychology and neuroscience) - I was amazed when i went to another university to do my PhD and found others had no idea of some fundamental principles of science, the limitations of science, or even some history of science....:eek:

However, some aspects of philosophy seem less relevant to daily science - though no less important in its own right of course. The problem here seems to be when people try to recruit what they think are clever arguments from the deep pit of philosophical ramblings, and use them against science and to undermine quite good quality evidence, data, facts, logic, and reasoning. It is at this point the friction emerges. This is of course just my opinion and I could go on, but I am far more interested in your summary of this whole thread in relation to the original question. In other words - if we use this thread as some form of evidence to answer the thread question - what answer would you give? ;)

Dr B

30th June 2006, 04:23 AM

Sorry for going OT here;

Say, is it really pounds on the Monopoly money in the UK? Or does monopoly have a monopoly on the fake money used? Enlighten me.

It has been a while since I played but my recollection is that yes indeed it does use pounds (fake obviously) and the term pounds on chance cards etc...however, if someone reading this in the UK has the game within their reach they could provide a more concrete answer....I seem to remember the "do not collect £200 as you pass go" bit....and the fine for jail being £50.... now back to it...:cool:

brodski

30th June 2006, 05:35 AM

Sorry for going OT here;

It has been a while since I played but my recollection is that yes indeed it does use pounds (fake obviously) and the term pounds on chance cards etc...however, if someone reading this in the UK has the game within their reach they could provide a more concrete answer....I seem to remember the "do not collect £200 as you pass go" bit....and the fine for jail being £50.... now back to it...:cool:
your memory is not failing you, we do use £'s in monopoly in the UK, and the values you gave are still correct, but really do need adjusting for inflation ;)

hammegk

30th June 2006, 06:42 AM

Your crybaby way of associating the truth that there is no such thing as consciousness outside of a brain--with materialistc (wallet biased) thinking.
That depends on the consciousness being discussed. Lifeforms with neural systems demonstrate a particular class of consciousness. Life as such also demonstrates consciousness. You state all consciousness disappears when life disappears -- and at 100% certainty. I'm just not that sure.

It fails. As always. No matter how much you want to believe something; it still doesn't make it true. And no matter how you decry the facts--they are still the facts. Sorry.It is a fact you have faith in that assumption. As an idealist, I have no difficulty accepting implications I see in "reality"; DCQE results, buckyball size molecules exhibiting the same behavior as photons when given a 2-slit experiment, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum effects. What is your solution as a (no, not Wallet, philosophical) materialist?

Dr B

30th June 2006, 06:50 AM

You state all consciousness disappears when life disappears -- and at 100% certainty. I'm just not that sure.

Why? On what Scientific grounds would you have to question this? On what Philosophical grounds would you have to question this? Note, I ask the questions separately!

it is a fact you have faith in that assumption.

More language play from the fringe for me. It is an objective fact that if you put your hand in a fire you will burn it - it matters not what my assumptions are concerning that fact.

Facts are those things that do not disappear when i choose to stop believing in them

hammegk

30th June 2006, 08:06 AM

Why? On what Scientific grounds would you have to question this?
Did you actually read my (edited) post?

On what Philosophical grounds would you have to question this?
Thought exists.

Note, I ask the questions separately!
It is in your best interests to separate the two. I see no such bifurcation.

More language play from the fringe for me. It is an objective fact that if you put your hand in a fire you will burn it - it matters not what my assumptions are concerning that fact.

Facts are those things that do not disappear when i choose to stop believing in them
We agree. The discussion concerns the underlying attributes of those "objective facts".

Finally, my congraulations and/or condolences to all who participated in providing rope to Ian; of course, each of us are responsible for are own actions. :)

Dr B

30th June 2006, 08:20 AM

Did you actually read my (edited) post?

Yes - now read and answer mine. The questions stands - if i have misunderstood you - please indulge me in your cogent explanations.

It is in your best interests to separate the two. I see no such bifurcation.

Put the thesaurus down and discuss the issues. The reason for asking it in this way is not becasue the two are unrelated - but complex issues are best approached in simple ways at first - or was my question too complex for you?

We agree. The discussion concerns the underlying attributes of those "objective facts".

Right then, we are talking science - so answer the questions above as to why you are not sure. I am genuinely interested in your uncertainty :)

Finally, my congraulations and/or condolences to all who participated in providing rope to Ian; of course, each of us are responsible for are own actions. :)

I wish I could claim it was all part of a big JREF plan....but alas it was not. Ian dug a hole, and jumped right in.....no one pushed him :eek:

hammegk

30th June 2006, 09:06 AM

Yes - now read and answer mine. The questions stands - if i have misunderstood you - please indulge me in your cogent explanations.
Ask a cogent question. Do you understand the implications of DCQE or Bell-Aspect or double slit buckyballs?

Put the thesaurus down and discuss the issues. The reason for asking it in this way is not becasue the two are unrelated - but complex issues are best approached in simple ways at first - or was my question too complex for you?

Complex in the sense answering without having some idea of your level of knowledge & understanding is pointless.

Right then, we are talking science - so answer the questions above as to why you are not sure. I am genuinely interested in your uncertainty :)
I have no uncertainty whatsoever that thought exists.

I wish I could claim it was all part of a big JREF plan....but alas it was not. Ian dug a hole, and jumped right in.....no one pushed him :eek:
Just a standard clique response to someone unliked. Ian is indeed in final analysis responsible. It's taken years of adding Rules and trying Darat's patience to accomplish it; Ian wasn't paying attention. His loss.

kieran

30th June 2006, 10:05 AM

Just a standard clique response to someone unliked. Ian is indeed in final analysis responsible. It's taken years of adding Rules and trying Darat's patience to accomplish it; Ian wasn't paying attention. His loss.
I'm not very observant - I thought Ian had gone quiet because he was engrossed the the Germany-Argentina game ... does anyone know how long does ban lasts for? - the place isn't the same without him ..

Dr B

30th June 2006, 10:39 AM

Ask a cogent question. Do you understand the implications of DCQE or Bell-Aspect or double slit buckyballs?

The sign of a truly clever person is in their ability to make complex ideas simple ones, then, as the dicsussion grows, so can the level of the debate. The sign of someone fudging it is trying to confuse and hide behind language from the start...:D

It matters not whether I know of these areas or not, why dont you tell us all, what YOU mean by your own statements and try to help your audience understand you? Is it not important we all understand what you say before entering a discussion? All I have asked for (more than once) is clarity on your position - no more no less.

I have plenty of colleagues working in all areas of science (including chemistry / biology / psychology / physics / brain science, etc) who would help me with your claims if you are unclear to me.

However, assume your audience can understand you in a rudimentary way - and if you feel you need to get complicated - do so, but try to be clear with the concepts and a reference or two might also help if your ideas are soooooo clever for the rest of us.

I could be totally misunderstanding you, I may agree with you once i get a grasp on what you are saying, I may not. The point is I am trying...

hammegk

30th June 2006, 11:24 AM

The sign of a truly clever person is in their ability to make complex ideas simple ones, then, as the dicsussion grows, so can the level of the debate. The sign of someone fudging it is trying to confuse and hide behind language from the start...:D
I have given you a real starting point -- DCQE, Bell-Aspect. Your turn.

It matters not whether I know of these areas or not, why dont you tell us all, what YOU mean by your own statements and try to help your audience understand you? Is it not important we all understand what you say before entering a discussion? All I have asked for (more than once) is clarity on your position - no more no less.
And your problem is that I clearly do understand your position, and remain skeptical.

I have plenty of colleagues working in all areas of science (including chemistry / biology / psychology / physics / brain science, etc) who would help me with your claims if you are unclear to me.
That's clever of you. I claim no particular expertise in any area. Recently the good Drk was able to fill in a particularly glaring gap in my understanding of 'operational dna' vs 'almost, but not quite right, dna'.

However, assume your audience can understand you in a rudimentary way - and if you feel you need to get complicated - do so, but try to be clear with the concepts and a reference or two might also help if your ideas are soooooo clever for the rest of us.
You may choose to engage intellectually, or not. I have no doubt you have knowledge in many areas that far exceeds mine. Why not trot out some of it?

I could be totally misunderstanding you, I may agree with you once i get a grasp on what you are saying, I may not. The point is I am trying...
Good. Ask a question.

Dr B

30th June 2006, 11:32 AM

hammegk

30th June 2006, 11:45 AM

Go poke someone else with a stick. I'm not Ian. ;)

articulett

30th June 2006, 12:01 PM

Ok, so your not going to answer anything and you want to pretend your intelligent. I dont have the time or inclination for this nonsense. :D

I asked you to clear something up, your have not, and refuse to. Not the most elegant responses or conversation I have ever had.

Maybe you cant because you do not understand it...there is no evidence to the contrary here...

How can you understand my position - when i have provided none? Now that really is a skill!!!!! All I have done is ask you to be clear and explain some things to me in the interests of me being able to understand you. You failed to do so.

I was not trying to be clever, in fact i am asking for information - but obviously your knowledge is not worth sharring.....

Nuff said me thinks....

Many have travelled this path to nowhere. And, it never changes--Ian swings towards new age woo--hammy is "intelligent design" with a tad of philosophy and injerjections peppered mainly with conjecture, insults, and oblique questions. In my short time on this forum, I have seen no evolution of thought on their behalf--nor anyone who seems to agree with what they are saying--they present no evidence and then insult when someone tries to pin them down to what they believe. Hammy likes terms like materialist and darwinist--I think realist is better.

Dr B

30th June 2006, 02:21 PM

Go poke someone else with a stick. I'm not Ian. ;)

Your whimsical relationship with reason suggests you are related.....:D

hammegk

30th June 2006, 02:22 PM

Many have travelled this path to nowhere. And, it never changes--Ian swings towards new age woo--hammy is "intelligent design" with a tad of philosophy and injerjections peppered mainly with conjecture, insults, and oblique questions.
In this thread, the insults have not been my doing.

Also, Originally Posted by hammegk :
Dennett trods the same circular path destined for all materialists.

Articulett: "Your crybaby way of associating the truth that there is no such thing as consciousness outside of a brain--with materialistc (wallet biased) thinking.

It fails. As always. No matter how much you want to believe something; it still doesn't make it true. And no matter how you decry the facts--they are still the facts. Sorry."

An actual comment, by me, followed by an attack on me, by you. Or do you have a Fact you'd care to discuss?

I presented other comments in reponse to your attack:

That depends on the consciousness being discussed. Lifeforms with neural systems demonstrate a particular class of consciousness. Life as such also demonstrates consciousness. You state all consciousness disappears when life disappears -- and at 100% certainty. I'm just not that sure.

It is a fact you have faith in that assumption. As an idealist, I have no difficulty accepting implications I see in "reality"; DCQE results, buckyball size molecules exhibiting the same behavior as photons when given a 2-slit experiment, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum effects. What is your solution as a (no, not Wallet, philosophical) materialist?
No Facts have been forthcoming, from you or your cohorts.

Rather, more thinly veiled, sophomoric at best, jibes have been launched at me. Can none of you do better?

In my short time on this forum, I have seen no evolution of thought on their behalf--nor anyone who seems to agree with what they are saying--they present no evidence and then insult when someone tries to pin them down to what they believe. Hammy likes terms like materialist and darwinist--I think realist is better.
Why would you expect my thought to evolve, since I and it been evolving -- with a fair of amount of thought -- for many years, and long before any of you were posting here? That would require rational input; if you feel naming me a dunce is rational input, that wouldn't surprise me, although I'd say you are badly mistaken. :)

supercorgi

30th June 2006, 02:25 PM

I'm not very observant - I thought Ian had gone quiet because he was engrossed the the Germany-Argentina game ... does anyone know how long does ban lasts for? - the place isn't the same without him ..
Ian has been permanently banned after repeated suspensions and warnings. It's too bad he couldn't keep his cool because even though many of his ideas were nonsense, and he was excessively obstinant, it was still good to have someone to argue with.

Dr B

30th June 2006, 02:29 PM

Many have travelled this path to nowhere. And, it never changes--Ian swings towards new age woo--hammy is "intelligent design" with a tad of philosophy and injerjections peppered mainly with conjecture, insults, and oblique questions. In my short time on this forum, I have seen no evolution of thought on their behalf--nor anyone who seems to agree with what they are saying--they present no evidence and then insult when someone tries to pin them down to what they believe. Hammy likes terms like materialist and darwinist--I think realist is better.

Articulett - many thanks for the warning ;)

All I did was ask for why he was not certain about something.....seems he has spat his dummy out. I must stop asking people to (i) be clear (ii) to discuss their ideas, (iii) to provide reasons for their opinions......:boggled:

Dr B

30th June 2006, 02:33 PM

Why do people with poor ideas hide out in philosophy? (no jibe at the clever Philosophers around here)....These people do not typify the field - but they are, at least a vocal delusioned minority (IMHO)

Jeff Corey

30th June 2006, 05:54 PM

They're harder to nail down than if they claim to be scientists. This is no way a put down of the real philosophers here, but rather my opinion that if someone starts talking about quantum entanglement, she'd better not be referring to macroscopic events, or a big tush whopping event will occur.
In fact, there ought to be a version of Godwin's Law.
The minute any pananormalist mentions QM, case closed, arguement over, and
"Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer comes down upon his head..."
Maxwell's Third Law.

Meffy

30th June 2006, 06:10 PM

Someone, I forget who, has a sig to that effect. "You'd better be prepared to show your Hamiltonian..." :-D

hammegk

30th June 2006, 06:30 PM

I always did enjoy watching a barrel of monkeys at play. :)

articulett

30th June 2006, 11:02 PM

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?

nope

And if we destroy your hippocampus you will lose the ability to make new memories and be in an everlasting twilight zone where you just "woke up". There is a man in the UK (Clive Wearing) with a severe case of this amnesia. Everytime he sees his kids, he cries because he missed their growing up. Except he didn't. He's in a twilight zone that can never be understood by him due to brain damage. One presumes that you still have a chance.

ChaoticLimbs

30th June 2006, 11:14 PM

I think the main difference between Philosophy and Science is that Philosophy can be done better with marijuana and Science cannot.

articulett

30th June 2006, 11:16 PM

The sign of a truly clever person is in their ability to make complex ideas simple ones, then, as the dicsussion grows, so can the level of the debate. The sign of someone fudging it is trying to confuse and hide behind language from the start...:D

It matters not whether I know of these areas or not, why dont you tell us all, what YOU mean by your own statements and try to help your audience understand you? Is it not important we all understand what you say before entering a discussion? All I have asked for (more than once) is clarity on your position - no more no less.

I have plenty of colleagues working in all areas of science (including chemistry / biology / psychology / physics / brain science, etc) who would help me with your claims if you are unclear to me.

However, assume your audience can understand you in a rudimentary way - and if you feel you need to get complicated - do so, but try to be clear with the concepts and a reference or two might also help if your ideas are soooooo clever for the rest of us.

I could be totally misunderstanding you, I may agree with you once i get a grasp on what you are saying, I may not. The point is I am trying...

Did you ever notice how easy and simple truth is--for the logical, I mean. No fancy words are needed--no divine interpretations or spin propped upped by uppity defensiveness. It's freely available to all. And yet some prefer the pretty but much less filling cotton candy for their mental entree--go figure.

And lets let them in on the conspiracy. I paid my dues to the disparage Ian and Hammy club at our secret mind meld meeting just last month--remember? We canonized Dennet after actually reading him--and plotted nefarious goals because we are so frightened that Ian will enlighten the world to THE TRUTH which must never get out lest...lest...bad stuff happen.

How to spot a woo: when you see facts associated with "faith" and science is referred to as dogma.

"Materialist and darwinist and "church of science" and "philosphical truth" are clue phrases too.

Ian--In science, truth is axiomatic--one fact upon another-- FACTS --that which would be absurd to deny--like the internet or your birthday or 2+2 is 4. If any piece of the puzzle is wrong then everything relying on that piece immediately disappears too. If we are missing pieces then our puzzle has blanks--so be it. We cannot shove in pieces from the puzzle we want to be doing and tell everyone what it's supposed to be.

That is religion or an ideology (not to be confused with truth).

Understand now? I thought not.

hammegk

1st July 2006, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dr B :
The sign of a truly clever person is in their ability to make complex ideas simple ones, then, as the dicsussion grows, so can the level of the debate. The sign of someone fudging it is trying to confuse and hide behind language from the start...

It matters not whether I know of these areas or not, why dont you tell us all, what YOU mean by your own statements and try to help your audience understand you? Is it not important we all understand what you say before entering a discussion? All I have asked for (more than once) is clarity on your position - no more no less.

I have plenty of colleagues working in all areas of science (including chemistry / biology / psychology / physics / brain science, etc) who would help me with your claims if you are unclear to me.

However, assume your audience can understand you in a rudimentary way - and if you feel you need to get complicated - do so, but try to be clear with the concepts and a reference or two might also help if your ideas are soooooo clever for the rest of us.

I could be totally misunderstanding you, I may agree with you once i get a grasp on what you are saying, I may not. The point is I am trying...

Did you ever notice how easy and simple truth is--for the logical, I mean. No fancy words are needed--no divine interpretations or spin propped upped by uppity defensiveness. It's freely available to all. And yet some prefer the pretty but much less filling cotton candy for their mental entree--go figure.

And lets let them in on the conspiracy. I paid my dues to the disparage Ian and Hammy club at our secret mind meld meeting just last month--remember? We canonized Dennet after actually reading him--and plotted nefarious goals because we are so frightened that Ian will enlighten the world to THE TRUTH which must never get out lest...lest...bad stuff happen.

How to spot a woo: when you see facts associated with "faith" and science is referred to as dogma.

"Materialist and darwinist and "church of science" and "philosphical truth" are clue phrases too.

Ian--In science, truth is axiomatic--one fact upon another-- FACTS --that which would be absurd to deny--like the internet or your birthday or 2+2 is 4. If any piece of the puzzle is wrong then everything relying on that piece immediately disappears too. If we are missing pieces then our puzzle has blanks--so be it. We cannot shove in pieces from the puzzle we want to be doing and tell everyone what it's supposed to be.

That is religion or an ideology (not to be confused with truth).

Understand now? I thought not.
You seem to believe everyone wants to gather his sheep as a preacher, prophet, guru, wise-man, or the like.

Some have nothing to offer more than an infinitesimal grain of grit for your oyster. Accept, reject, ignore, deride, as you choose.

I'm glad you have found your "easy and simple truth". Some are still searching.

Dr B

1st July 2006, 08:13 AM

The only assumption I have made is that you might be able to explain your comments - clearly I have set the bar to high and my initial assumption is unfounded....cue the waffle....

hammegk

1st July 2006, 08:36 AM

I see. Perhaps you don't agree you have found your "easy and simple truth".

Sorry that I can't help. You may need to search elsewhere.

articulett

1st July 2006, 12:22 PM

I think the main difference between Philosophy and Science is that Philosophy can be done better with marijuana and Science cannot.

Well, Cliff Pickover's articles on DMT show that DMT might also be useful in the philosophy department--without the dry mouth or muchies.

articulett

1st July 2006, 12:25 PM

I see. Perhaps you don't agree you have found your "easy and simple truth".

Sorry that I can't help. You may need to search elsewhere.

It seems to me you will search until you get the truth you want because you don't like the truth that is. But I'm glad you see this as "deep". Personally, I find it amusing. But then I have found the "easy and simple truth".

hammegk

1st July 2006, 01:14 PM

When will your book be published? Or do you prefer to keep the truth a secret for you and like-minded Brights?

articulett

1st July 2006, 02:29 PM

The only assumption I have made is that you might be able to explain your comments - clearly I have set the bar to high and my initial assumption is unfounded....cue the waffle....

you are psychic!

articulett

1st July 2006, 02:38 PM

When will your book be published? Or do you prefer to keep the truth a secret for you and like-minded Brights?

It's already published all over the place--it's even written in our DNA--always has been, it turns out. Say, did you know you can have a genetic mutation that makes it impossible to feel pain--it's dangerous, of course--you don't know if you have appenicitis and you don't move your hand off of hot things...

--on the other hand--no eternal danmantion either. But wait...if pain is genetic...and one feels it in the brain...and memory is in the brain (Clive Wearing)...and thinking is in the brain...

See? --Evidence of perception being in the brain--no supernatural stuff needed. That doesn't mean that it can't exist outside the brain--but it is the burden of the one making the specious claim to provide evidence--otherwise, it's just like saying--"I'm magic; prove me wrong." It might be fun to toss around in your head--but not worth $1,000,000 prize money--and maybe not good for anything at all (unless you count convincing yourself). I wish I could copyright "the truth" but no can do. Yet I am amused at your never-ending tenacity and conviction without a scintilla of evidence. In fact, I wish to congratulate you on that. Congratz! Really.

articulett

1st July 2006, 02:41 PM

And in answer to the question that started this thread--I think we have a resounding YES!

articulett

1st July 2006, 02:42 PM

hammegk

1st July 2006, 03:19 PM

And in answer to the question that started this thread--I think we have a resounding YES!
Agreed, yet others maintain ignorance through study without regard to philosophy.

Of course you idolize Dennett; under your worldview, he, or an approach similar to his, must hold one key to your truth.

UndercoverElephant

1st July 2006, 03:30 PM

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

No. There is no reason why philosophy cannot co-exist with science.

There is obviously a tension between science and some around here who think themselves philosophers having profound thoughts.

That's only because you still don't know how to tell the difference between science and metaphysics, Dr. B. You are making the same mistake as lifegazer. He thinks there is tension between science and philosophy, and that science needs to be reformed. You think there is tension between science and philosophy and philosophy should just go away. Both of you are wrong because both of you are mixing up empirical science with metaphysics. He thinks science can answer metaphysical questions and you don't know how to tell the difference between empirical science and metaphysical materialism.

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 ).

Of course. You can no more be a decent philosopher of science with no knowledge of science than you can be a decent philosopher of maths with no knowledge of maths.

articulett

1st July 2006, 06:05 PM

Agreed, yet others maintain ignorance through study without regard to philosophy.

Of course you idolize Dennett; under your worldview, he, or an approach similar to his, must hold one key to your truth.

I don't idolize him...I just read him. Have you? And I also noted that he understands science very well. I'm not sure I idolize anyone, frankly--but I only criticize that which I read (such as what you write--you seem to be condemning him without knowing what he's written because he is an atheist--so I think you are the one maintaining your ignorance per your comment above.) Have you ever once considered that you might be wrong about this disembodied consciousness thing? Ever? Or are you forever standing firm in your notion that it must exist in some manner?

articulett

1st July 2006, 06:09 PM

No. There is no reason why philosophy cannot co-exist with science.
That's only because you still don't know how to tell the difference between science and metaphysics, Dr. B. Y

I don't think has a problem telling the difference--he just finds scientific method better at finding THE TRUTH (that which exists even when no one is thinking about it) than the metaphysic method (which seems to boil down to, "I create my own reality--now respect it, dagnabbit"). Or did I miss a key difference between the two?

UndercoverElephant

1st July 2006, 06:35 PM

I don't think has a problem telling the difference--he just finds scientific method better at finding THE TRUTH (that which exists even when no one is thinking about it) than the metaphysic method (which seems to boil down to, "I create my own reality--now respect it, dagnabbit"). Or did I miss a key difference between the two?

Yes, you missed a key difference between the two. There is no metaphysical method. Kant tried that back in 1781 in order to resolve the endless disputes between two different branches of pre-Kantian metaphysics - the empiricists and the rationalists. Post-Kantian metaphysics, even when it disagrees with Kant, has never again tried to define an overall structure for all future metaphysical enquiry.

Science and metaphysics cannot be compared in the way you are trying to compare them. They are not competing methods of answering the same sorts of questions. Instead, they ask different sorts of questions, in different domains. Yes, I know that your average woo-woo-in-the-street invokes metaphysical explanations for things which have perfectly good empirical explanatins. I'm not talking about them. I am talking about philosophers, and about scientists who have written about philosophy. None of these people could have been unaware of the history of metaphysics to the extent that they made the elementary mistake of confusing empirical investigation with metaphysics or thinking that you could use one of them to answer questions which rightfully belong to the other.

Your characterisation of metaphysics is something along the level of David Icke. "I'll believe whatever I want to believe, for whatever reasons I want to believe them." That isn't what metaphysics is like. For the record, metaphysics isn't about synchronicity either - that's mysticism and phenomenology (I am offering descriptions of mystical experiences).

My point is this: All modern philosophical metaphysics takes it for granted that empirical science and its method is the best way to find out the answers to empirical questions. In other words, any question which can clearly be tackled by assuming realism/materialism is true and applying the scientific method will be left for science to answer. The problems start when science unwittingly intrudes into metaphysical territory. When this happens, scientists start running up against weird paradoxes they can't seem to account for, or questions they can't even formulate and entities which seem to exist but which they cannot coherently define. The reasons for these problems are that somebody is trying to use science as a tool for a job for which it was not designed. When faced with those metaphysical jobs you have two valid choices. You can either admit defeat and simply declare the question to be eternally unanswerable (like Rorty or the neo-mysterians), or you can venture into the murky world of metaphysics in search of an answer. What you cannot do is attempt to solve the problem with the scientific method. It simply doesn't work.

articulett

1st July 2006, 07:28 PM

Well, I once was into "metaphysical thinking"--I consider myself to have evolved...I blame the fact that I was raised with religion where truth comes from faith and feeling for my naivte. I have not bumped into the entities and paradoxes you allude to. And I've never felt the need to make up an answer either...when I hypothesize, I find the real world has plenty of tools for the job. I don' want to be fooling myself, and it sounds to me like you are fooling yourself and angry that others don't agree--and I think it was Dennett who said that Philophy tends to have questions but no answers while Religion has answers that can't be questioned. I guess I don't find either of these notions useful personally; but I find Dennett an immensely pleasurable read due to his scientific understanding coupled with his philosophical bent.

Kevin_Lowe

1st July 2006, 07:46 PM

The problems start when science unwittingly intrudes into metaphysical territory. When this happens, scientists start running up against weird paradoxes they can't seem to account for, or questions they can't even formulate and entities which seem to exist but which they cannot coherently define.

Someone ask him for evidence. (He has me on ignore because I kept asking awkward questions). We can always use more evidence that philosophy can be used to dress up ignorance.

You can either admit defeat and simply declare the question to be eternally unanswerable (like Rorty or the neo-mysterians), or you can venture into the murky world of metaphysics in search of an answer. What you cannot do is attempt to solve the problem with the scientific method. It simply doesn't work.

The problem with the "murky world of metaphysics" is that, historically, it has never once produced a useful answer to anything, and in fact it seems certain that it never will. The idea that we could bootstrap ourselves into truth from our armchairs using nothing but logic was a nice one but it turned out not to work.

Some stupid questions are eternally unanswerable, but that isn't a problem. Is there a little man that only I can see hiding behind me, who runs around to the other side of me every time I turn my head? It's eternally unanswerable, which is another way of saying that it's a meaningless question.

Geoff's game is to pretend that he has found meaningful answers to meaningless questions, and that the problem is on our end if we don't take him and his "answers" seriously.

UndercoverElephant

1st July 2006, 07:46 PM

Well, I once was into "metaphysical thinking"--I consider myself to have evolved...I blame the fact that I was raised with religion where truth comes from faith and feeling for my naivte.

Sometimes when we reject something like that we can go too far in the other direction. My mother tried to force me to go to church, but by the time I was ten, and very much into science, I refused to go and thoroughly rejected it. I went too far in the other direction. Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I have not bumped into the entities and paradoxes you allude to.

Sure you have. It happens every time a materialist tries to define what the word "mind" means. It is these paradoxes which lead people to deny that minds exist.

And I've never felt the need to make up an answer either...when I hypothesize, I find the real world has plenty of tools for the job. I don' want to be fooling myself, and it sounds to me like you are fooling yourself and angry that others don't agree--

I am not angry. I get angry if people accuse me of having a poor knowledge of science, because it's completely untrue. But I don't get angry about people not sharing my metaphysical views. I am a philosophy student, for christ's sake. Philosophers aren't generally known for agreeing with each other easily, but we like to avoid punch-ups after the final whistle.

and I think it was Dennett who said that Philophy tends to have questions but no answers while Religion has answers that can't be questioned.

I am afraid that Dennetts views on religion are a classic example of blinkered scientific thought intruding where it doesn't belong. Dawkins is even worse. I idolised Dawkins when I was a child. I still like him, but I am very much aware of the limitations of his one-dimensional way of interpreting the world.

I guess I don't find either of these notions useful personally; but I find Dennett an immensely pleasurable read due to his scientific understanding coupled with his philosophical bent.

He drives me up the wall. He is an interesting case, though. Not least because half the time, nobody seems to know what he actually believes or is trying to say. Is Dennett a realist about mental states? Beats me.

Jeff Corey

1st July 2006, 09:34 PM

...Sure you have. It happens every time a materialist tries to define what the word "mind" means. It is these paradoxes which lead people to deny that minds exist...
As a materialist, I deny the concept of the "mind". If it ain't matter, it don't matter.

articulett

2nd July 2006, 01:55 AM

As a materialist, I deny the concept of the "mind". If it ain't matter, it don't matter.

Unless it's a force, of course.

I, like you, have no problems with the seat of consciousness being the brain. And when people dis Dawkins and Dennett, I find it's because they're not reading them--they can't let themselves--they've labeled the men "atheists" and so nothing they say will compute. There really is no middle ground between truth and faith--truth is just truth--no matter who is observing it or not.

Justgeoff, do you ever have any evidence...or is it just specualtion--

I think Science shouldn't have to worry about "intruding where it doesn't belong"--the Catholic church wants to deny science the opportunity to suggest options about life itself, sans god--I can't imagine anyone calling Dennett intrusive except those who need to believe a certain way--I think he bends over backwards to be respectful--And, as a "genetics" person, I find Dawkins brilliant--I don't doubt that he's tired of dishonest creationists and all the people with crybaby defenses because he dares voice the truth. Do we have to cater to everyone's favorite delusions forever? And isn't it the truth tellers that should be venerated and not those who misabuse faith or pseudo science to preach truths not amenable to logic? I don't think you've read either of these men...you just have that, "I used to be a skeptic..." dishonest tone that is so evident in creationist and alls sorts of believers of woo (who never ever provide a scintilla of evidence for their inane claims.)

I suspect that it's religion or perhaps religious philosphy responsible for Justgeoff's ignorance...and hammegk too. Impenetrable.

Dr B

2nd July 2006, 04:47 AM

I see. Perhaps you don't agree you have found your "easy and simple truth".

Sorry that I can't help. You may need to search elsewhere.

What makes you think that I deal with simple truths? There is nothing inherently simple about provisional truth. Your mistake here is to attribute something to science (that it is not as complex as philosophy) and then use this to undermine it. I take it your not a scientist then?

Science can be simplified for reasons of communication, but thinking scientifically, thinking critically, coming up with novel ways to view my data - these are not simple things - at least to me. Obviously you are super human - why not grance us with your great insights???:boggled:

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 05:18 AM

As a materialist, I deny the concept of the "mind". If it ain't matter, it don't matter.

I take you do at least realise that this is in itself a metaphysical claim, and not an empirical one?

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 05:44 AM

Unless it's a force, of course.

I, like you, have no problems with the seat of consciousness being the brain.

"seat of consciouness" means what, exactly?

Materialists use all manner of words to cover over the paradox and hide the explanatory impotence of physicalism when it comes to minds. Examples:

Minds are brain processes. ("are"/"is" has no meaning)
Minds arise from brain processes. ("arise" has no meaning)
Minds are caused by brain processes. ("caused by" has no meaning, because it isn't empirical causation and because minds and brains occur simultaneously, unlike when one event empirically causes another)

There are a long list of other words invoked by materialists to explain what minds are. If you press the materialist on this, he will sooner or later realise that none of these meaningless connecting words can be nailed down and turns to the only truly logical position for a materialist to hold - he denies that the word "mind" refers to anything real at all. Unfortunately, at this point anyone who is not as committed to the materialists metaphysics will have jumped ship, because they will view the claim that minds do not exists as prima facie absurd, with good reason.

And when people dis Dawkins and Dennett, I find it's because they're not reading them......

I just finished a university course on them. I had to answer exam questions on them. So, yes, I had to read them. I also had to discuss them with other students. I was particularly lucky in this module of my degree because only three other students took the philosophical foundations of COGS courses. That makes for very interesting and productive seminars. It was also interesting because the three other students were all science majors (taking things like cognitive psychology or A.I.) who started the course with little or no knowledge of philosophy. My background is science and A.I., but I am a philosophy major.

Justgeoff, do you ever have any evidence...or is it just specualtion--

For metaphysical theories? Nobody ever provides positive evidence for metaphysical theories. The best you can do is demonstrate that there is no clash between the relevant empirical evidence (if there is any) and the metaphysical claims being made. In other words, some metaphysical theories, such as those made by young-earth creationists and Sylvia Browne, are very hard or impossible to make compatible with empirical science. This is because they are metaphysical claims which intrude over the border into scientific territory. It is the result of having an inadequate understanding of basic science (geology and neuroscience in those two cases, the earth cannot be young, there can be no cognitive mind without a brain).

I think Science shouldn't have to worry about "intruding where it doesn't belong"--

Then you are as guilty as a person claiming that metaphysics and religion shouldn't have to do so either.

the Catholic church wants to deny science the opportunity to suggest options about life itself, sans god--I can't imagine anyone calling Dennett intrusive except those who need to believe a certain way--I think he bends over backwards to be respectful--And, as a "genetics" person, I find Dawkins brilliant--I don't doubt that he's tired of dishonest creationists and all the people with crybaby defenses because he dares voice the truth.

Science really doesn't do metaphysics. I am not saying that because I want to restrict science in case it contradicts my own personal metaphysics, as in the case of catholicism. Science doesn't contradict my metaphysics, and if it restricts itself to answering empirical questions, it never will do. The real problem is that when people try to apply science to, say, the mind-body problem, then they run up against a brick wall. In order to provide an answer to the question about how minds relate to matter, Dennett and the Churchlands are simply assuming that materialism is true and then making up a story which seems to support this. There is no actual empirical content to their claims whatsoever. So it isn't actually science at all - it's metaphysics dressed up as science. This is bad, bad, bad. Leave metaphysics to the philosophers. There are plenty of empirical problems for science to address.

When science oversteps the mark and scientists start making metaphysical claims in the name of science then it simply re-ignites the war between science and religion. Science didn't start that war, catholicism did. But some scientists, such as Dennett and Dawkins, are guilty of exacerbating the situation rather than helping to improve it.

Do we have to cater to everyone's favorite delusions forever?

No. But you mustn't expect other people to cater for your delusions either. Science cannot impose materialism on everyone in the way it imposes darwinism and plate tectonics. If it tries to do so, then it has started taking on the role of an ersatz religion.

I don't think you've read either of these men...you just have that, "I used to be a skeptic..." dishonest tone that is so evident in creationist and alls sorts of believers of woo (who never ever provide a scintilla of evidence for their inane claims.)

No, really I have read Dennett. Really I idolised Dawkins as a child. And really I was a skeptic - an arch-skeptic to be accurate. I was part of the admin team at www.infidels.org. I was the first ever science and skepticism moderator on their board. So please don't tell me you don't believe I was a skeptic. You don't get much more skeptical than that.

Jeff Corey

2nd July 2006, 07:21 AM

[QUOTE=JustGeoff;1741455]...Materialists use all manner of words to cover over the paradox and hide the explanatory impotence of physicalism when it comes to minds. Examples:

Minds are brain processes. ("are"/"is" has no meaning)
Minds arise from brain processes. ("arise" has no meaning)
Minds are caused by brain processes. ("caused by" has no meaning, because it isn't empirical causation and because minds and brains occur simultaneously, unlike when one event empirically causes another)

There are a long list of other words invoked by materialists to explain what minds are. If you press the materialist on this, he will sooner or later realise that none of these meaningless connecting words can be nailed down and turns to the only truly logical position for a materialist to hold - he denies that the word "mind" refers to anything real at all. Unfortunately, at this point anyone who is not as committed to the materialists metaphysics will have jumped ship, because they will view the claim that minds do not exists as prima facie absurd, with good reason...[QUOTE]
Fine, up to the last sentence. What good reason are you talking about?

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 07:32 AM

Fine, up to the last sentence. What good reason are you talking about?

Denying the existence of ones own mind is about as absurd as it gets. The only people who do so are doing so because they have been forced down a logical path which starts with a belief in materialism and ends up with the realisation that it is logically impossible to coherently define "mind" if you believe in materialism. Most people who do not have an ideaological axe to grind are quite happy to jump ship once people start denying that minds exist, because they aren't committed to materialism and therefore aren't compelled by the logic to deny that minds exists. The materialists, on the other hand, value the defence of materialism even more highly than avoiding making statements that prima facie absurd so they choose to deny their minds exist rather than admitting there is a problem with materialism.

Either minds don't exist, or materialism is false. Materialists choose to claim that minds don't exist. Everybody else would sooner accept that materialism is false. My underlying point is that this debate is inescapably metaphysical, regardless of which side of it you are on. The one position which is completely indefensible is the one which claims that this is not a problem for metaphysics.

Jeff Corey

2nd July 2006, 07:38 AM

I still don't see any good reason. Merely stating something is absurd is reminiscent of a certain ex-poster I won't name.

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 07:47 AM

I still don't see any good reason. Merely stating something is absurd is reminiscent of a certain ex-poster I won't name.

You don't understand why non-materialists think it is absurd to deny the existence of minds? Really? I don't know how better the point I am making could be demonstrated. If you don't understand why they think it is absurd, there's nothing I can do or say to make you understand. It just demonstrates that you aren't very good at putting yourself in other peoples shoes or thinking outside your own belief-box. Not accepting the position of people who are realists about minds I can accept (because I understand the force of the logic leading to this position if you start by assuming materialism is true.) Not being able to understand why people who are realist about minds think the denial of the existence of minds is absurd is just plain bizarre (because everybody knows what is meant by "mind" in terms of normal language).

DreadNiK

2nd July 2006, 07:51 AM

Either minds don't exist, or materialism is false. Materialists choose to claim that minds don't exist. Everybody else would sooner accept that materialism is false. My underlying point is that this debate is inescapably metaphysical, regardless of which side of it you are on. The one position which is completely indefensible is the one which claims that this is not a problem for metaphysics.

Newsflash: Metaphysics can't DO anything. It is words and NOTHING more.

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 07:53 AM

Newsflash: Metaphysics can't DO anything. It is words and NOTHING more.

If science can't do it and metaphysics can't do it, then it cannot be done. This position is now defended by Richard Rorty, who started out as a staunch defender of eliminative materialism.

Jeff Corey

2nd July 2006, 07:54 AM

So what everybody believes about minds is the reason to believe in minds? Not a very satisfactory or philosophically sophisticated reason.

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 08:05 AM

So what everybody believes about minds is the reason to believe in minds?

No, but you cannot merely deny the commonsense understanding of what a mind is and expect people with no commitment to materialism to think you are making any sense.

This has an impact on science also. In psychology, the desire to become "truly scientific" has led some people to try to eliminate what they call "folk psychology." But this is absurd, not just for the man on the street but for academic psychologists. If you try to eliminate folk psychology, their discipline collapses into a steaming mess on the floor. As a result, most pyschologists will be as dismissive of the attempt to eliminate folk psychology as would be a completely uneducated grunt. The only people trying to eliminate it are people who followed the logic after starting with a metaphysical assumption of materialism. So this is not just defying common sense - it is metaphysics pulling the strings of science. Bad, bad, bad.

Darat

2nd July 2006, 08:28 AM

No, but you cannot merely deny the commonsense understanding of what a mind is and expect people with no commitment to materialism to think you are making any sense.

...snip...[/i]

Yet "common sense" ideas about how the world is have been shown time and time again to be wrong.

Jeff Corey

2nd July 2006, 08:32 AM

No, but you cannot merely deny the commonsense understanding of what a mind is and expect people with no commitment to materialism to think you are making any sense.

This has an impact on science also. In psychology, the desire to become "truly scientific" has led some people to try to eliminate what they call "folk psychology." But this is absurd, not just for the man on the street but for academic psychologists. If you try to eliminate folk psychology, their discipline collapses into a steaming mess on the floor. As a result, most pyschologists will be as dismissive of the attempt to eliminate folk psychology as would be a completely uneducated grunt. The only people trying to eliminate it are people who followed the logic after starting with a metaphysical assumption of materialism. So this is not just defying common sense - it is metaphysics pulling the strings of science. Bad, bad, bad.
As a psychologist, I have no idea of what you mean by "folk psychology" unless you mean the mass of contradictory generalizations ("Absence makes the heart grow fonder" "Out of sight, out of mind") held by some folk.
If so, I would be positive that a poll of my department would find few if any psychologists who weren't dismissive of such.
As to your first statement, it could have just as easily read "commonsense understanding of what a soul is."

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 08:41 AM

As a psychologist, I have no idea of what you mean by "folk psychology" unless you mean the mass of contradictory generalizations ("Absence makes the heart grow fonder" "Out of sight, out of mind") held by some folk.

No, it's a technical term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_psychology

As to your first statement, it could have just as easily read "commonsense understanding of what a soul is."

Not true. There is no such thing. Everybody knows what "mind" refers to, in common usage. The same does not apply to "soul". Even among believers in souls, there is little agreement as to what a soul is.

nescafe

2nd July 2006, 09:00 AM

For metaphysical theories? Nobody ever provides positive evidence for metaphysical theories. The best you can do is demonstrate that there is no clash between the relevant empirical evidence (if there is any) and the metaphysical claims being made.

Well, if no-one ever provides positive evidence for metaphysical theories (i.e, the only thing you can say about them is that they are logically consistent and consistent with the relavent empirical evidence), then what use do they have (other than to have provided some warm and fuzzy pseudo-explanation for scientifically unexplained and unexplainable phenomena) beyond an equivalent scientific theory?

nescafe

2nd July 2006, 09:10 AM

You don't understand why non-materialists think it is absurd to deny the existence of minds?

Perhaps because the only sense in which materialists deny the existence of minds is as a seperate entitiy that cannot be explained or grounded in terms of matter. Most materialists that I am aware of do not deny the existence of minds, they just thnk that minds are grounded in brains in the same sense that the biosphere is grounded in the Earth's present atmospheric/oceanic chemical regime.

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 09:18 AM

Well, if no-one ever provides positive evidence for metaphysical theories (i.e, the only thing you can say about them is that they are logically consistent and consistent with the relavent empirical evidence), then what use do they have (other than to have provided some warm and fuzzy pseudo-explanation for scientifically unexplained and unexplainable phenomena) beyond an equivalent scientific theory?

On their own, they aren't much use. But they can form part of a more extensive system including all sorts of things from physics to ethics to theories of the development of religion and the course of history. They are an integral part of any comprehensive philosophical position.

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 09:22 AM

double

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 09:23 AM

Perhaps because the only sense in which materialists deny the existence of minds is as a seperate entitiy that cannot be explained or grounded in terms of matter.

This is the position that materialists would like to defend, for exactly the reasons you imply: it avoids accusations of absurdity. Unfortunately, it's not defendable. As soon as you allow any definition of mind which is not a redundant definition, the position becomes illogical. In other words, you can only define "minds" in terms of things which already have a perfectly good physical description, making the definition of "mind" in question completely redundant. Hence, the need to eliminate it.

Most materialists that I am aware of do not deny the existence of minds, they just thnk that minds are grounded in brains in the same sense that the biosphere is grounded in the Earth's present atmospheric/oceanic chemical regime.

That's because most materialists haven't examined the logic as closely as the eliminativists have. Nobody outright denies minds exist unless they felt they had been forced into the position. In this case the extremists (the eliminativists) are the only ones defending a logically defensible position. As soon as you allow a non-redundant definition of "mind", I can provide a proof against materialism which uses that non-redundant definition.

nescafe

2nd July 2006, 09:54 AM

This is the position that materialists would like to defend, for exactly the reasons you imply: it avoids accusations of absurdity. Unfortunately, it's not defendable. As soon as you allow any definition of mind which is not a redundant definition, the position becomes illogical. In other words, you can only define "minds" in terms of things which already have a perfectly good physical description, making the definition of "mind" in question completely redundant. Hence, the need to eliminate it.

Eliminate the term "mind", you mean? More like define it more clearly, like we have done with "life" (we no longer think in terms of elan vital, for example, because modern biochemistry does a much better job).

That's because most materialists haven't examined the logic as closely as the eliminativists have. Nobody outright denies minds exist unless they felt they had been forced into the position. In this case the extremists (the eliminativists) are the only ones defending a logically defensible position. As soon as you allow a non-redundant definition of "mind", I can provide a proof against materialism which uses that non-redundant definition.

Well, you can argue rightly that, in the end, "life" does not exist, but this does not stop "life" from being a useful abstraction.

nescafe

2nd July 2006, 10:16 AM

On their own, they aren't much use. But they can form part of a more extensive system including all sorts of things from physics to ethics to theories of the development of religion and the course of history. They are an integral part of any comprehensive philosophical position.

So there is no reliable method of knowing which one is right, yes? After all, they are all either logically inconsistent (these can be discarded out of hand for obvious reasons), logically consistent and complete (these are likely to be too simple to be useful for any non-trivial problem), or logically consistent and incomplete (these will not explain everything, but are likely to be the only ones with enough explanatory power to be useful).

So, while they may be intergral to any comprehensive philosophical position, there is no reason to prefer one over another so long as it has sufficent explanatory power and is consistent with what we know emperically. Is that a fair summary?

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 10:36 AM

Eliminate the term "mind", you mean? More like define it more clearly, like we have done with "life" (we no longer think in terms of elan vital, for example, because modern biochemistry does a much better job).

Again, that's the position most materialists would like to defend, but its not logically defendable. The more clearly the materialists try to coherently define what they mean by "mind", the more obvious it becomes they cannot do so. That is why there is a plethora of equally meaningless words used to connect "brain process" and "mind", and never any actual explanation as to what the relationship actually is. This is not accidental. It is a direct consequence of the fact that there is a metaphysical/conceptual misunderstanding in the context in which the explanation is being attempted. The relationship they are trying to explain is the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, and it is this relationship which has been the central theme of all metaphysics. The reason they cannot do it is that they are trying to explain the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity from within a paradigm (scientific materialism) which has already been designed to eliminate subjectivity. In other words, science can't explain the relationship because science is committed to providing the objective answers to objective questions, not questions about the nature of the objectivity/subjectivity relationship itself.

UndercoverElephant

2nd July 2006, 10:43 AM

So there is no reliable method of knowing which one is right, yes?

No absolute method. But this does not mean there is no hope of ever distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong. At the very least you can make sure that whatever metaphysical system you adopt, it doesn't contradict other knowledge you hold, be it scientific or otherwise.

In the end, the only possible way to get confirmation of anything metaphysical is by direct, mystical experience - if such a thing should exist. If it doesn't, then there is nothing but pure reason, which is why anybody talking about metaphysics needs to have at least a rudimentary understanding of Kant's masterpiece. Kant is said to have proffesionallised philosophy by writing that book, because after that point nobody could call themselves a philosopher without having first understood and digested "A Critique of Pure Reason."

After all, they are all either logically inconsistent (these can be discarded out of hand for obvious reasons), logically consistent and complete (these are likely to be too simple to be useful for any non-trivial problem), or logically consistent and incomplete (these will not explain everything, but are likely to be the only ones with enough explanatory power to be useful).

They are also either integratable or non-integratable to other parts of your system of understanding the world.

So, while they may be intergral to any comprehensive philosophical position, there is no reason to prefer one over another so long as it has sufficent explanatory power and is consistent with what we know emperically. Is that a fair summary?

Almost. When I have had this conversation before, people have tended to assume that there are an infinite amount of logically coherent metaphysical systems. This is a long way from being the case. There are in fact very few, and it is very difficult to assemble a complete, coherent, comprehensive philosophy. So it is not so much a case of having to decide between lots of different positions as a case of having to spend a very long time even finding one which doesn't contain inconsistencies somewhere or other.